Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1104 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 4, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. 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 Tonya Monroe Bob Hargreaves ,l"' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 21 , 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the October 21 , 1997 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 23, 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mai A. Case No. TPM 28567 - WDC CORP., Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two existing parcels into four parcels, each a minimum of 20,000 square feet. Property is located on the north side of Crosby Lane, 325 feet west of Sunrose Lane. Mr. Drell stated that the property is zoned R-1 20,000 which requires a lot size of 20,000 square foot minimum. The map proposed four lots all significantly over the 20,000 square foot minimum requirement and ranged from 23,560 to 28,060 and would have access from a common driveway that goes to Crosby Lane. He indicated that the map was in conformance with all of the City's zoning regulations and map requirements and recommended approval. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any easement issues like the last parcel that came before the commission that was appurtenant to Crosby Lane. Mr. Drell replied no, all four parcels had access to Crosby Lane by one driveway. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell knew the history of this property and why it was behind the gates but not part of the association. Mr. Drell stated that per his recollection, and it happened before he started working here, was that when Ironwood came in it cut off Portola. Portola used to swing over to Monterey/Highway 74. Part of the agreement with the owners of Ironwood r„�► when they cut off Portola was that those property owners that were in essence not part of Ironwood Country Club but were still accessible to that, still had access through the gate. Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the commission, and then anyone else wishing to address this hearing item. There was no response. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant was present. MR. RON FEIRO, 29-825 Sunny Slope Road in Desert Hot Springs, stated that he was the civil engineer for this project and he worked for James Feiro Civil Engineering and Land Surveying in Palm Desert. He pointed out that each property had its own access and own driveway, it was not a common access. It was the intent of the developer to let each property have their own access. They didn't want to concentrate vehicles into one driveway, so everyone had their own access to the project. It was also the intent of the developer to keep the pad heights as low as they could get them and they designed the earthwork to balance, which it did. . It had been graded and balanced. They didn't bring in any dirt or take any off. The two pads adjacent to Crosby Lane were well below the street and the two back pads were higher than the properties to the north, but they were high enough to be able to sewer the property to Crosby Lane. They had just about the minimum slope from the two pads in the back and were still able to sewer F 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 ,`W to Crosby Lane, which was one way they established those two pad heights. He said he would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Parcels 1 and 4 shared a common driveway from Crosby and then separated. Mr. Feiro replied no. He explained that the access would be on the west side. The two back lots were actually flag lots and the property on the northwest corner had access to Crosby along the west side of the property. Commissioner Campbell noted that the staff report said that Parcels 1 and 4 would each gain access via a 20-foot wide by 146 foot long driveway extending off of Crosby Lane. Mr. Drell showed on the map the location of the driveway on the west side for Parcel 1 and the location for Parcel 4 which had a driveway down the center. Mr. Feiro concurred and stated that Parcels 1 and 4 each had their own access via a 20 foot by 146 foot long driveway. Mr. Drell indicated that would result in four driveways onto Crosby. Mr. Feiro said that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. WYMAN STACKHOUSE, 73-080 Crosby Lane, stated that he is the owner of the property just directly west of the lots under discussion. He said he lives right next door to this development and never received any correspondence or notification that others in the neighborhood received. He lives right next door and was left out. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he received a mailed notice. Mr. Stackhouse said he received nothing. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Drell was checking the file to see where the notice for him was mailed. Mr. Stackhouse said it seemed like everyone else received a notice and he lived right next door and didn't. The other issue he wanted to address was the driveway adjacent to his property that goes to the flag lot. He said that they were talking about a 20-foot driveway, but it was a 16-foot driveway with the curb two feet from his property wall and two feet from the neighbors' wall. He said that he wrote a letter to Public Works inquiring about that driveway and requesting that it be moved a little bit farther away from his property line because two feet didn't seem like very far with traffic rr.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 i a going back and forth right next to them. Either that option or to lower it so „d that wasn't parallel with their back yard. He got a letter in response essentially saying that was the way things are. He said he would like to see the road moved farther away from his wall/property line or to at least lower it somewhat. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was the sight of vehicles and the noise associated with them that he was troubled about. Mr. Stackhouse said their patio and pool were located right there and cars would be whizzing by right next to them and even though it isn't a through street, he didn't know what kind of traffic would be evolving back and forth to that flag lot. Chairperson Ferguson asked how much lower and how much farther away from the wall he would support. Mr. Stackhouse said he really couldn't say since there were civil engineers that designed this thing but he would like to see it moved a little bit away from them or lowered. Chairperson Ferguson asked about the height of Mr. Stackhouse's side wall. Mr. Stackhouse said it was about five feet high. ..ri Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was the sight of cars or the noise from the cars that bothered Mr. Stackhouse. Mr. Stackhouse said both. He didn't want people driving by and looking in while he was having dinner. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Stackhouse would be in favor of raising the height of his wall. Mr. Stackhouse said yes, that he could knock the top of his wall off and start adding to it. Chairperson Ferguson said that he wasn't talking about who would have to do it, but if it could be raised. He noted that some people in the audience were shaking their heads no. Mr. Stackhouse said he might as well put himself in prison. He suggested that the road be moved farther to the east and/or lowered. Those were the only options that he had to suggest. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he had any opportunity to speak with the applicant or Mr. Feiro about his concerns. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Mr. Stackhouse replied no. They lived next door, but didn't exist. Mr. Drell asked for and received clarification that Mr. Stackhouse lived directly to the west of the proposal. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. RITTENHOUSE, 73-105 Crosby Lane, informed commission that he is the President of the Crosby Lane Property Owners Association and he wanted to review a little bit of the background of the development of this project. On October 1 they started clearing the land. Corner stakes were already out for the survey. On October 9 tentative grading plans were approved. The land has now been graded, has been divided, utilities were in, walls were being built, foundation plans were being laid out and on November 4 there was now a hearing to approve the development. He felt something was wrong here. He asked what was wrong with the scheduling. He asked if there was no consideration of the nearby residents to voice their opinion on these properties before they were developed. He said that they have no objection to this property being developed and it looked like a fine laid out plan if it was done with some good housekeeping in their consideration. It would be developed anyway, but they objected to the fact that all of this had happened before they even had the hearing to approve it. That seemed like no consideration at all for the neighboring properties. He asked for an answer to that. Chairperson Ferguson said as far as he could see what the applicant was proposing to do fit within all existing law at the City of Palm Desert. The commission was being asked to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide the lots and the commission didn't have any building plans in front of them because he didn't think they were required. Mr. Drell felt what he was referring to was that as an existing lot it was entitled to build one house on it and it was his understanding that they have processed at one of these locations the one house they are entitled to and have gone through the normal process to do that. They have not done any of the divisions. They could grade their property and do those sorts of things without dividing it. The parcel map only allowed them to sell separate parcels. Those separate parcels were what the commission was considering tonight. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if two properties were going to be developed at the present time. Mr. Drell said that right now there were two parcels that were being divided into four parcels, total. Right now without coming to the commission both of those parcels could have been graded and both of those parcels could have had a single family home built on them without any process of the Planning Commission. What they were doing was resubdividing that area into four and that is what the Planning Commission consideration was about. Building a single family home on a lot didn't require an action by Planning Commission. `09 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Mr. Rittenhouse said that this was a development of four lots and utilities were now in. They were put in for the four lots. Mr. Drell said that this request was for the subdivision into four lots. The setting of meters on four individual lots should not occur and assumed had not occurred and couldn't occur unless the map was approved. They could have two meters since they have two legal lots today. Mr. Rittenhouse said he couldn't fault the developer. The developer was coming in and getting things going but couldn't understand the chain of events and have gone this far without having a hearing on the approval of the development. He also stated that he didn't receive a notice until he called Planning and asked why there hadn't been a hearing on this matter. After he called Planning, strangely enough, he did receive a notice that there would be a hearing. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't believe the developer was doing anything illegal. Mr. Rittenhouse said he didn't either. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't know why Mr. Rittenhouse didn't receive the notice, but if he didn't, he apologized. If the applicants had done anything that exceeded their authority, they did so at their own peril. moo Mr. Rittenhouse thought they hadn't. Chairperson Ferguson said that if the commission turned them down, then they would have wasted a lot of time and money. He said he would like to talk about the issues that most concerned Mr. Rittenhouse regarding the development of the parcels. He asked if Mr. Rittenhouse had concerns about what they were proposing to do. Mr. Rittenhouse said no, his complaint was the fact that no consideration had been given to the neighboring properties, just to the planning of the development. He said there would also be ten acres to the west of them developed in the near future and he hoped they would have a little input into that project. Chairperson Ferguson said he hoped so also and noted that he used to live in Ironwood Homeowners Association No. 12 and he knew the area very well. He indicated there were some prime parcels up there yet to be developed and he couldn't explain the notice, but Mr. Drell was looking up that information. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Rittenhouse did receive a notice. Mr. Rittenhouse said he received one about a week ago after he called City Planning. 9 1 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Mr. Drell explained that Mr. Rittenhouse was on the list to receive a notice and notices were mailed ten days before the hearing. That was the law and that was when this notice was mailed. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Stackhouse recently bought this property. Mr. Rittenhouse concurred. Mr. Drell stated that the owner of that property was listed as Gangi Development. Mr. Rittenhouse said they were the developers. Mr. Drell explained that the assessor's roll that the City received relative to property owners still listed them as the property owner, so they were mailed the notice. Chairperson Ferguson informed him that the City required the developer to go to the County Assessor's Office to get a 300-foot perimeter around the subject property and get every address that is on the County's tax rolls and they provide the City with labels and the City mails them. It is a certified list from the County. Mr. Drell said that the address on the label was 1540 West Glen Oaks Boulevard in Glen Oaks, California, and that was where the notice was mailed. Mr. Stackhouse spoke from the audience and said that Gangi Development �., told them that they never received the notice. Mr. Drell said that Mr. Stackhouse was here and the City's goal was to make a good faith effort to make people aware of the meeting. Mr. Rittenhouse said he wanted to back up Mr. Stackhouse on the driveway issue. That property adjacent to him was wide enough to allow the driveway to be moved over. He wouldn't want that two feet next to his property and wouldn't want his wall raised up because it would cut off his own view. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant would care to or had the authority to address the issues with respect to the driveway. Mr. Feiro said he kind of had authority. He stated that at one point in time they had laid the project out so that the two back properties had driveways side by side. The owner felt that aesthetically it looked more like a freeway going to the back of the two lots and felt it would look a little more intimate to have the driveways separated. As far as the height of the driveway, if they lowered it they would create a retaining wall situation and they didn't like retaining walls. They already had a pretty good retaining wall between the southwest parcel and the northeast parcel and that was obviously one 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 of the things that the developer asked him to minimize on, and that was the walls. That was why the driveway was near the same grade as Mr. Stackhouse's property. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the owner would give a second thought to combining the two driveways for the north parcels. Mr. Feiro replied that at this point he would have to say no because the project was graded and it would be an additional expense to re-grade it and for them to redo the map. He would have to say no. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Stackhouse spoke from the audience and asked Mr. Feiro if they would consider moving the road a little farther away from his wall. CHAIRPERSON FERGUSON CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS AT 7:24 P.M. TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO TALK WITH THE RESIDENTS. CHAIRPERSON FERGUSON RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 7:27 P.M. Mr. Stackhouse said that he didn't think they could negotiate anything. a Mr. Drell asked Mr. Stackhouse what distance would be satisfactory to him. ..r Mr. Stackhouse said they talked about some landscaping that would block part of the view. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said that they were now talking about the driveway being 20 feet wide. Mr. Drell explained that the lot shows a width of 20 feet wide and he didn't know if the applicant intended to pave the entire 20-foot width. The typical driveway width is 16 feet. Commissioner Campbell noted that would leave four feet, not two. Mr. Drell agreed that it could be pushed up to one side, or the area could be made four feet, or six feet, or whatever the commission decided. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Stackhouse would be comfortable with having four feet on his side next to the wall. MR. PAUL DEWEY of Sunlite Development spoke from the audience and recommended a one foot planter on each side. Mr. Drell explained that there was no such thing as a one foot planter. There would be a wall for the other lot and that wall would have a footing which would consume the one foot. Basically the minimum planter size to get anything to grow successfully was probably a minimum of three feet for a shrub and the City 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 was now requiring six feet for trees, especially when being confined by a wall and a paved surface. Mr. Dewey was not in favor of cutting into the driveway and anything less than six feet would not allow for trees. Mr. Drell explained that they were talking about amending the map so that the 20 feet become 22 feet. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission had a parcel map in front of them. He agreed with Mr. Stackhouse and Mr. Rittenhouse in that the parcels that are up there are very large parcels and they were not talking about 10,000 or 8,000 square foot lots. The atmosphere up there was very quiet, isolated and somewhat serene and with a 20,000 square foot lot with frontage of 142 feet he didn't think asking them to move the driveway six feet away from the west wall was asking too much. Alternatively, he would favor the applicant putting a common driveway down the middle. When looking on the west side of Sunrose, all homes share common drives because they are front and back homes and he didn't think it was aesthetically burdening. He was inclined to do one or the other, either push it six feet away or put the driveway back in the middle. He didn't think four feet was enough and with six feet a vehicle would have to be pretty tall to look into the adjacent backyards. He also felt it gave enough room for landscaping vehicular traffic which would help minimize any noise that might be associated with the wall. If that altered the grading plan, he was sorry, but as he stated earlier, they graded at their own risk prior to obtaining approval. Mr. Dewey added that with a 20,000 square foot lot with setbacks of 15 feet per side, they were losing about 30 feet on each lot. Chairperson Ferguson noted that they still had 115 feet of frontage. Mr. Dewey stated that they do have in a half acre lot over 15,000 square feet in Ironwood. The setbacks were 15 feet per side and on these particular lots they have onsite retention basins so it cut the lots further in terms of retainage of water. On a 20,000 square foot lot they have a 30- foot setback for the pad and then they have onsite retention which also cuts the pad, so in essence a 20,000 square foot lot or 22,000 sounded big, but when they take out the setbacks and retention, that cut the lot considerably and they are expensive lots, so he felt that going in another two feet was a detriment to the lot. Chairperson Ferguson said he didn't doubt that, but not going the extra two feet was a detriment to Mr. Stackhouse. Mr. Dewey stated that they were 50 feet away from each house and Mr. Stackhouse's particular situation. That was 15 plus 20 plus his 50. +r.r 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson indicated that Mr. Stackhouse wasn't worried about people .. from the house looking into his backyard. Mr. Dewey said that they could have placed the house 15 feet from Mr. Stackhouse's property line with the driveway right next to his property line and cars could have parked right along his house. Chairperson Ferguson informed Mr. Dewey that the commission was there to strike balances between adjoining property owners and he felt it was apparent that no one talked to the adjoining property owners, which given the value of those lots, that would have been the best thing to do. His opinion was that they could either combine the lots and create the burden for the people that would buy there and not on the people that live there, or they should have another two feet on their map. Mr. Dewey asked if the commission would make the driveway 13 feet. Mr. Drell said that would have to be cleared by the Fire Marshal. He didn't know why it was such an obstacle to go those two extra feet. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Dewey would prefer the six-foot planter setback or the road in the middle. Mr. Dewey stated that he would rather have it as is, or have a four-foot planter buffer between these properties. .ter Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with the Chairperson that there had to be at least six feet. The commission had to consider the existing residents and while he understood where the developer was coming from, when considering the overall picture, he agreed that at least six feet was necessary and concurred with the Chair. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was any possibility on the development that the curbs and the street could be put in immediately. He noted that when they developed Crosby Lane, they had to have their curbs, streets, utilities and sewers in before they could sell a lot. If they didn't get them in, they would have to live with the dust for a year. He said it was a simple request of the developer. Chairperson Ferguson said he was sure the developer heard that request. He stated that he would like to make a motion to approve the parcel map, subject to a six-foot minimum setback from the side to the west of Parcel 2 and the driveway and that there be landscaping between the driveway and wall to mitigate sound. They would also be given the option of moving the driveway back to the center. Mr. Drell said the parcel map would be amended to reflect either of those options, at the developer's discretion. Commissioner Beaty stated 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 �... that he would second the motion. Mr. Hargreaves asked if it was clear how wide the total driveway would be, if it would be 16 feet plus six. Mr. Drell said that in essence they could do it in 22 feet instead of 20 feet. It would be right up against the property line that they would be creating and it was their choice. If the developer didn't want that, they could increase it to 24 feet to get two feet on the other side as well. As long as they stayed within the 20,000 square foot lot requirements on the other side, it would be okay. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he assumed the width of the driveway would be subject to whatever the Fire Marshal would approve. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the landscaping requirement would be subject to staff approval. Mr. Drell concurred and suggested that commission direct staff to consult with Mr. Stackhouse relative to that plan. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that it would be staff approval, but the neighbors would be consulted prior to staff granting approval. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1837, approving TPM 28567, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). ar. Commissioner Jonathan said that he knew the developer and if some of the comments sounded a little curt or a little glib, he wanted to assure the applicant or the -developer that that wasn't the intent of the commission, he was sure, because he is a member of the community and has been for a long time and has a good reputation and Commissioner Jonathan felt the final product would be a good one. He hoped no offense was taken and apologized if any was. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1997 b E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (October 29, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson indicated that there wasn't a quorum to hold the meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commission Beaty, adjourning the meeting to November 18, 1997, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, cretary r A TES . JA ES C F GUSON, Chairperson Pal Desert la ing Commission /tm 12