Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0204 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 4, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE `.r ,� � * * * ,� * * � � * ,► * � * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * � * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Sandy Jacobson '""' Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 21, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the January 21 , 1997 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 23, 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. V11. CONSENT CALENDAR None. �.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 � VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28448 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), Master Plan of Development and Tentative Parcel Map for 270 +/- acres generally tocated south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. Mr. Drell explained that another continuance was being requested. The applicant was preparing a more detailed master plan of the site directly east of the interchange and hopefully staff would have all that information available for the next meeting. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing was stilt open and asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this matter. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson left ihe public hearing open and asked for a motion. Actian: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing ' C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28448 to February 18, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. .,,r B. Case No. RV 97-1 - DWAINE HOWARD, Applicant Request for approval of a permit to allow the parking and storage of a 12 foot high by 40 foot long recreational vehicle in the front yard of the property located at 73-493 Joshua Tree Street. Mr. Drell stated that this was a request pursuant to the city ordinance regarding the storage of recreational vehicles in front yards. He distributed some pictures of the vehicle. He explained that the goal of the ordinance is to allow storage if it can be adequately/appropriately screened. Screening in the ordinance is defined as at leasi a wall or hedge at least six feet in height and allows vehicles up to 12 feet high and 40 feet long. He noted that in the pictures all the screening is in place except for a proposed gate which would be in the front which would provide screening from the street, Joshua Tree. The staff report indicated that this application meets all the requirements of the ordinance and practically speaking, for a vehicle this large they would probably never see more extensive screening. In the comments from the Palm Desert Homeowners Association the only issue was the height of the hedge. He noted that this hearing was pursuant to an objection from an adjacent property owner and his objection seemed to be � that the size of the vehicle made any screening inadequate. The options open to � the Planning Commission were to either approve the request pursuant to the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 r.. requirements of the ordinance and if they didn't like this application, then what the Planning Commission was really saying was that they don't like the ordinance and that the standards should be changed. The alternative recommendation was a continuance to reexamine the standards. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be a gate installed across the front. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked how high it would be; Mr. Drell replied that it would be six feet high, but theoretically they could require it to be higher. The ordinance defined screening as six feet high mainly because that is the fence height standard. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were cities that prohibit RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Drell thought there were but didn't know which specific ones. He said that in the past Palm Desert prohibited them in the front yard and this ordinance has gone through a couple of generations and at one time they had to be in the back yard. Since the majority of homes don't have enough of a side yard to get them in the back yard, and since there was an inadequate provision of storage facilities in the city, this ordinance was arrived at to allow them in the front yard. They have been wrestling with this issue for ten years. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would be recusing himself from this matter. He didn't believe that he had a direct conflict, but he did represent a client (not „�,� in Palm Desert) that was considering developing a RV park and depending on the resolution of this case, it might increase or decrease the demand for offsite storage facilities and he felt it would be better if he didn't participate. Chairperson Ferguson o,�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DWAINE HOWARD, the applicant, 73-493 Joshua Tree, felt it might be in order for the residents who wanted to complain to speak first. Chairperson Ferguson explained that the applicant should state his case first, anyone in favor or opposition would have the opportunity to make their statements and then the applicant would be given the opportunity to reply to those statements. Mr. Howard stated that he has tried hard to comply with any rules that are in force in the city. He said he spent a great deal of time at City Hall, before the property owners association, and talking to contractors regarding this before he ever spent a dime. He started with Tidwell Construction Company who he thought has done a lot of work for the city and they told him that other than a curb cut permit, which they got for him, that nothing else was required. In addition to that, he came down to the building and talked to Jeff Winklepleck at some length one day � regarding the proposed RV permit. He was told that there was no such 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 S � � thing as long as three conditions were met: 1} that the RV was entirely on private property, 2) that the RV is in good working conditions, and 3) that no one lives in it. Other than that Mr. Winklepleck told him there would probably be a review of the screening, which he had an adequate amount of. Mr. Howard said he went ahead based on that and committed a substantial number of dollars to do this job and then when his neighbor complained, Mr. Bedrosian (a compliance officer) dropped by and said he should get a permit, so they started all over again. That is what precipitated this application. He said he was not trying to cause any problems for neighbors or anything else as far as the use of their property. He didn't believe that any of his neighbors could see the vehicle from their property. It could be seen right now when looking directly from the street looking into the drive, but that was because he hasn't installed the gate yet. He was waiting for the results of this hearing. He ordered the parts and as far as the height of the gate, he would make it as high as the commission wanted. He said that if he understood his neighbor's comments, the first one was that the view was being destroyed. Mr. Howard said that his property was directly adjoining Mr. Rethorst's property to the east and there is a 14 or 15 foot hedge of oleanders on Mr. Howard's property between the two properties. Mr. Rethorst says that he < wants the hedge cut down to 8 feet, which would be fine, but that would y only give him a view of his house and now his motor home. The last three �.r� years the neighbors asked him to prune their side of the oleander hedge. The hedge is well on his side of the property and he agreed to do that and he felt he did it in a way that made Mr. Rethorst's comments strange because he loaned his gardener to him on three different occasions over a three year period to work under his supervision at Mr. Howard's cost to prune the oleander hedge in any manner that Mr. Rethorst wanted it done. It made no difference to Mr. Howard and still didn't, but to complain about the height of that hedge is to complain about their supervision of the gardener, who he paid. Mr. Howard stated that to the east of their property the only view the Rethorsts would have if they removed the hedge and the RV was the back side of his house. He said that it seemed to him that they were getting confused on two things and he felt there were two points that needed to be addressed: 1) whether he has complied with all of the regulations and he believed he has tried to and was told that he has and if he hasn't he will, and 2) he felt that some people felt there should be no recreational vehicles at all in Palm Desert and if that was the case, he should be treated the same as everyone else because there were hundreds of them and a lot right in his neighborhood. In summary he said that he believed he has complied with all the regulations and tried and if he hasn't, he would. ; MR. HENRY RETHORST, 73-445 Joshua Tree Street in Palm Desert, stated � that he and his wife were present in opposition of this proposal and they 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 a..� are the property owners and have lived on the property adjacent to the applicant's property for the last 1 1 years. They built their homes there 1 1 years ago when they retired. He asked if the commission received their written statement since he was assured that each member of the commission would receive it. Commission concurred that they each received it. Mr. Rethorst stated that beyond the written statement he had a couple of comments. He said they have been frustrated by the lack of really clear and precise documentation on the subject of recreational vehicle parking in the city of Palm Desert. He said that one frustration was the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, which operates from a very ancient out-of-date set of documentation and no mention is even made in that documentation of the subject they were discussing here. Other then that, the Property Owners Association is in a state of flux right now and which he characterized as having a very limited agenda and if nothing more, the agenda was focused more on the early dissolution of the Association. With that understanding and belief, the property owners in the area, particularly in his area, were very much dependent upon the City of Palm Desert and the ordinances of the City to protect their property values and to assure that they continue to have the quality of life that they enjoy here in the city of Palm Desert. They felt, and they have talked to a number of staff inembers in the city government, that perhaps the city r„� ordinance as now constituted should be "pumped up" and made a lot more comprehensive, detailing criteria such as size of vehicle and other important factors which are involved in the subject they are talking about. As it is written now, he felt the ordinance left something to be desired. They have heard from various sources and he would certainly agree after having examined the latest version of that ordinance that there are a number of city staff people that have been considering revising and amending the ordinance for some time and the Rethorsts agreed it is time that happened. Any amendments or modifications of the ordinance should provide balance and fairness to all people concerned. He said this would be a tough job, but it had to be done. He said their hope was that the least that might come out of this exercise is that there is acknowledgment that there is an amended, approved, much more comprehensive ordinance to be developed now. With that thought in mind, they recommended that be done and that this matter be continued until such an ordinance is available. Chairperson Ferguson close the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the application seemed to be in conformity with the City's present Zoning Ordinance. He said that he didn't mind reviewing the ordinance as they have done several times before, but there is an existing in ''� force ordinance and whether the guidance is adequate or inadequate it is there 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 � and there is an application before the commission that is in compliance. He hadn't heard or seen anything to indicate that the application is not in compliance in any way. Therefore, he felt it would be unfair to postpone the application pending review of the ordinance. Following that to the logical conclusion, what happened if they changed the ordinance. He asked if they would place those revised restrictions on an application that came before them prior to the changes and felt that would also be unfair. It was his opinion that the commission needed to move forward with the application and separately, in deference to Mr. Rethorst's comments, perhaps review the possibility of amending the ordinance. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She felt that the ordinance has been in place and when looking at the property today, she actually had to look for the RV. She didn't see the RV and then turned around and had to look into the driveway to see it. As far as the oleander hedge is concerned, she didn't know how long it takes for oleanders to grow, but she felt that the neighbors to the west should be very happy to have something like that to have their privacy. She was in favor of approving the request. Commissioner Fernandez also agreed with Commissioners Campbell and Jonathan as far as the City's ordinance was concerned. He felt there is privacy and said that as neighbors he felt there was a lack of communication and wished they � could work as a team to benefit everyone since they live in the same community. �.�r He was in favor of the project also. Commissioner Beaty asked Mr. Rethorst if it was true, as stated by Mr. Howard, that he allowed Mr. Rethorst to use his gardener to trim the hedges to however he wanted them. Mr. Rethorst said that he uses Mr. Howard's gardener from time to time and they pay that gardener for his time. Mr. Rethorst referred the question to his wife. Mrs. Rethorst said that the oleanders were growing through their cyclone fence and their droppings were falling in their yard and two years ago they had the gardener clean them up. Commissioner Beaty said that if he had a neighbor with a problem he would try and work it out, but the requested proposal was in compliance with the ordinance and he felt they had no choice but to approve it. Mr. Rethorst asked if he could make a comment. Chairperson Ferguson noted for the record that the public hearing was closed, but gave Mr. Rethorst the opportunity to speak. Mr. Rethorst stated that he wanted to correct a statement that he heard earlier. The statement was that if the oleanders did not exist on the front yard, they would have a view only of the back of Mr. Howard's house. He said that was patently false. They would have a view down the street and down along the front of Mr. Howard's property, as well as the entire street and the neighborhood in that easterly direction. From security points of view, they believed that is a consideration and have heard others express a similar point � of view. He also questioned the point his wife discussed with the commission. � He felt she was correct that the oleanders were hanging over into their yard � through their fence, which is on the property line. The oleanders were causing 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 ... residue and rubbish in his yard and they felt it was reasonable that his gardener should remove that problem which he was causing on their property. He believed that was done. Any other use of the gardener was at their own expense. Chairperson Ferguson asked for other commission comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for approval of the project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1781 , approving RV 97-1 , subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES �. A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE Commissioner Beaty noted that the Civic Center Steering Committee met two times last year and he attended one of those meetings. There hadn't been a meeting for several months and there is no activity right now. He explained that the committee deals with activities in the Civic Center Park and the one meeting he attended dealt with a proposed aquatic park from the YMCA. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE Chairperson Ferguson stated that the Desert Willow project is an S81 million development between Cook Street, Portola, Country Club and Frank Sinatra. To his knowledge it represents the largest dollar budget project in the history of the city. The design of the project was to use Redevelopment Agency money to build two golf courses, carve out a number of hotel pads and sites, and to attract commercial developments to the area. The golf course was approved and is due to have its operational opening February 15 and its grand opening February 26. The golf course rates were published in the newspaper. This afternoon the Desert Willow Committee approved the IROC (Intrawest Resort Ownership � Corporation) timeshare portion and recommended approval of the financing 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 � � � package to the City Council. The last he heard there were three hoteis interested in locating in the facility, two of which were unknown and one which might be an Intrawest hotel. They also received an update on the progress of the south golf course. He explained that the north course is primarily dedicated to public play and the south golf course is also dedicated to public play but with a resort preference to enhance the package. The financial proforma on the overall project was a lot more than the city's investment. The Redevelopment money used to develop this were "use it or lose it" dollars that came from the County and unless they were used, they would be returned back to the County. He thought they would continue to entertain proposals from different hotels. The previous sports park location is a prime parcel still left open and there were several other sites vacant. Progress seemed to be proceeding. Council would take up the financial aspects of the IROC package at its meeting on February 13. Mr. Drell noted that they would also review all the planning aspects of the development. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Commissioner Jonathan deferred to Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell stated that on January 30, 1997 EDAC also received the update on Desert Willow and � the financial arrangement. That was the primary presentation and they also endorsed the project. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Campbell explained that the Project Area 4 Specific Plan was a plan initiated by the City and Redevelopment Agency to identify needs for public improvement and services, set funding priorities, and reexamine zoning and land use policies. She noted that Project Area 4 covers about 2200 square acres which included Palm Desert Country Club, Desert Breezes, Avenue 42 and what they were planning to do was clean up the area and on Avenue 42 they would like to install sidewalks and fencing with RDA help. They were discussing a park on Warner Trail at Fred Waring Drive. They were also trying to clean up the neighborhood as far as parked cars and storage of old cars was concerned. They were also looking into allowing horses and other animals not normally allowed in the city limits. Mr. Drell stated that the specific plan would come to the Planning Commission for hearing. E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Chairperson Ferguson noted that this committee was established last spring. Originally it was tasked with taking a review of all of the zoning ordinances in the city and updating them and providing some common 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 ... sense to them and to the extent that they were changed, would provide some sort of a legislative history so that people in the future could go back and read what the thinking was of the committee behind enacting the ordinance at the time and see if those variables still applied. They got about half way through the definitions code when they got detoured taking a look at the Freeway Overlay, which he believed would be before the Planning Commission February 18. Mr. Drell indicated that first the committee looked at the telecommunications ordinance. Chairperson Ferguson noted that they also looked at the EI Paseo Pedestrian Overlay. They were doing a project-based review right now. Mr. Drell said that at the next meeting they would be reviewing the residential zone. Chairperson Ferguson said that the Freeway Overlay would be in the Planning Commission packets. He personally felt it would be very beneficial to the city and would provide a magnet for the major off ramps into Palm Desert (Washington, Cook Street, and Monterey) and it would allow drive through restaurants within a certain number of feet of the freeway, which has never been allowed in Palm Desert before, and gives the developer some flexibility in exchange for open space dedication. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNtNG WORK GROUP ..� Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission just appointed Commissioner Campbell to the committee at the last meeting and they haven't had any meetings yet. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Campbell suggested that someone should be appointed to the Project Area 4 meeting since Commissioner Fernandez wasn't able to attend. She noted the next meeting was Monday. Chairperson Ferguson asked if both Commissioner Jonathan and Commissioner Fernandez were appointed. Commissioner Fernandez concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that for the next two months it would be difficult for him to attend. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he would be at the next meeting. Mr. Drell noted that he might be on jury duty, so might not be there. Chairperson Ferguson suggested going on an ad hoc basis until after tax day and then see what Commissioner Jonathan's schedule was like. 2. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the RV ordinance was something that staff wanted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to look at. Commissioner Jonathan felt the ordinance was fine and noted there was very little activity of this type. He personally didn't feel a need for a change, but would not have any objection. Mr. Drell felt that it was at the '� point of almost saying whether they will allow them or not. Commissioner 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1997 .nr Jonathan noted that the current ordinance tells how to screen recreational vehicles. The only other option was to draw a picture showing how it had to be screened. Mr. Drell said the other alternative was to do that and eliminate the hearing process and have it more like a building permit. If they meet the requirements, they could get a permit. The way its set up now is to first notice it, then if anyone objects it's again noticed before Planning Commission, and then it could be appealed again and would go to City Council. He noted that at one time the Planning Commission didn't want to review these. Mr. Drell also felt there were other issues involved in the last case. He felt the current ordinance was good. Commissioner Jonathan said that other than saying there would be no recreational vehicles allowed in residential areas, there would be an ordinance like this that says what they need to do. He didn't see how it could be improved. 3. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he and Commissioner Campbell went to the planning conference in Riverside. He found the information on Proposition 218 very informative and there was some really good information on the Brown Act, conflicts and other types of issues that the City Attorney for Riverside gave an excellent presentation on. He also felt that the presentation on CEQA was outstanding-when it is needed, when it isn't, and what it won't do. He noted that the Monterey Planners Conference was coming up and if anyone wanted to attend--it was March � 12-14, 1997. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. t--�`'`- . /� PHILIP DRELL, S cretary AT ES • � � � � JA ES CA E US N, Chairperson Pa m Desert P nni g C mmission /t ; 9 � 10