Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1202 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 2, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Acting Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan One Vacancy Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 18, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Acting Chairperson Campbell, approving the November 18, 1997 minutes as submitted. Carried 2-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CASE NO. PMW 97-29 - ANTHONY C. CORONA, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lot 6 of Tract 4018 and Lot 116 of Tract 6685-1 within Avondale Country Club. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 B. CASE NO. PMW 97-30 - DR. SURESH SHAH, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to combine three parcels into one at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Pascual. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 09-78 Amendment No. 2B - THE STANLEY B. ROSE COMPANY AND RESTAURANTS UNLIMITED, INC., Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow enclosure of a 538 square foot patio at 73-101 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that the applicant is now known as RUI One Corp. Mr. Smith ••� stated that the restaurant in question is Palomino and they have an existing patio area to the left of their entrance that was approved as part of an amendment in 1993. They were seeking approval to enclose that patio area at some point in the future. The area is 538 square feet and an area this size created a parking demand of eight spaces. Palomino was participating in the creation of the new parking lot adjacent to Highway 74 behind the Shell gas station. The applicant indicated they would be participating to a level of ten spaces. They needed eight and as a result of their participation there would be adequate parking to allow the future enclosure. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He noted that the commission received a letter from the applicant's attorney, Mr. DeLateur. Staff concurred with Mr. DeLateur's request and suggested that at the end of condition number three that the sentence be added: Should the applicant participate in the construction of the public parking lot in excess of eight parking spaces, the excess space(s) shall be available to any future conditional use permit amendment application of The Stanley B. Rose Company or RUI One Corp. Acting Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVEN DELATEUR, the attorney for the applicants, stated that staff gave a good report and he was present to answer any questions. He just wanted to make sure that the commission understood the amendment to the condition since the enclosure might not be done right away and there was a 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 �. sentence in one of the conditions of approval that said the condition to go forward would be satisfied by his client's participation in this parking lot so they didn't have to come back every year to get the conditional use permit renewed. That was the primary concern. He understood that has been taken care of in the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. DeLateur was satisfied that the concern as stated in his letter of November 25 had been adequately addressed in the conditions as presented. Mr. DeLateur said it was satisfactory with the amendment as stated orally by staff. They wanted to make sure that if they want to enclose another patio, perhaps outside where the bar area is, that those two spaces could be used for that project as well. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was perfectly satisfied and that it was nice to see the parking requirement satisfied and planned for the future and he would move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1840, approving CUP 09-78 Amendment No. 29, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. DA 97-3 - PACIFIC ASSISTED LIVING, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Development Agreement for a one story 20- unit senior assisted living complex on property located in the R-2 Senior Overlay zone at the southeast corner of San Carlos Avenue and Catalina Way. Mr. Smith noted that commission dealt with this property at San Carlos and Catalina about a year ago with Precise Plan 96-1 1 and it was approved. A couple of weeks later the commission considered Development Agreement 97-1 for this property. It went through the full process naming the applicant and owner as General Construction Management Corp. In actual fact midway through the city processing the property changed ownership to Pacific Assisted Living, Inc.,and the City Attorney advised staff that in order to execute the development agreement it had to reflect the current ownership. Hence, the development agreement was before the commission with the only change being the name of the property r.► 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 i owner. Everything else remained identical. He said this did not effect or impact or change the precise plan itself, only the development agreement. Staff recommended approval of this new development agreement. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the development agreement as proposed was simply a substitution of names and it was identical in every other respect, including the three possible ways to satisfy the lower/moderate unit requirements. Mr. Smith concurred. Acting Chairperson Campbell oogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY COVEL, General Construction Management, stated that he was responsible for this glitch in the process and he wasn't sure how he was responsible for it but he was. He represents Pacific Assisted Living and somehow their names got on it as owners instead of as representatives. He said he was present to answer any questions. Everything remained exactly the same. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments or action. i Commissioner Jonathan stated that it looked good and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1841 , recommending to City Council approval of DA 97-3. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. RV 97-2 - MR. AND MRS. THOMAS BORISKI, Applicants Request for approval of a permit to allow the parking and storage of a 10-foot high by 23 foot long camper trailer in the side yard of the property located at 44-251 San Jose Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that the current configuration of the property was on display and indicated that the property is located at the end of San Jose Avenue, which is a cul-de-sac street just west of Portola. He explained that the applicant was requesting approval to park a RV in front/side yard of their property since the siting of their residence prevents the applicants from placing the RV in the rear yard. The ordinance allowed the RV to be placed in the front yard when it was not possible to park it in the rear and if it is screened adequately from the adjacent neighbors and the public streets. The ordinance states that adequate screening is six foot 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 high solid wall, fence or landscaping in accordance with city code. This matter was before ARC on November 25 and the minutes were before the commission. At that meeting the applicants proposed to screen the RV with two six foot high eight foot long removable solid wood panels which would screen the front and connect back into the carport. He stated that Exhibit B showed that and the panels. The panels would be mounted on three and a half inch solid metal posts and would be placed in front of the RV to be easily removable when it needed to be moved. Exhibit B also showed where those panels were proposed to be placed. ARC felt the wood panels were unacceptable to screen the RV and were not in accordance with city codes. Wood fencing is prohibited as an approved material in the front yard and the commission suggested parking the RV diagonally in the side yard as noted on Exhibit B and screening the cul-de-sac street with landscaping. At that point the applicant felt that solution was not feasible and the matter was continued to a later date until the applicant could propose something that was acceptable. Staff noticed property owners within 300 feet and received two letters of opposition. One letter with no comment and basically no problem. Those letters came from property owners directly to the north and one to the west. At this point staff recommended that Planning Commission approve the Architectural Review Commission's suggestion to allow the applicant to park the recreational vehicle in the side yard diagonally and go back to ARC and have the landscaping approved by the commission. He demonstrated the diagonal parking and landscape area (see Exhibit A attached hereto). Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the Architectural Review Commission looked at the proposed solution that Mr. Alvarez was presenting to Planning Commission and rejected it. Mr. Alvarez said no, ARC reviewed the proposal by the applicant for six foot high wood panels in front of the RV and on the sides. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the difference was between the two proposals. Mr. Alvarez clarified that the ARC's recommendation was to place the RV diagonally. Mr. Drell said they would be putting the RV in the corner, Lien landscaping it. Witti the applicant's request they couldn't landscape in front of the RV because that was how the applicant would get the RV out of that spot. In this case, by pushing it into the corner they could landscape in front of it and still have access to the driveway. The principal screening would ultimately be a hedge or plant material. Commissioner Jonathan said that the staff report indicated that ARC found the proposed six foot high wood panel to be unacceptable and asked how a six-foot wood panel differed from what staff was presenting to the commission. Mr. Drell clarified that the picture with the wood panels was the applicant's proposal. That was what ARC rejected. The diagonal proposal was one of the ARC commissioner's suggestions as to a solution to allow landscaping to screen the RV and still allow it to be accessible to the driveway. The applicant felt it was not acceptable, so ARC said if that was not acceptable, the applicant should come up with another solution and it was continued. Commissioner Beaty asked if the screening would be a hedge or a six-foot block wall at the front and that was what staff was recommending. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that ARC continued the matter and asked why the commission was getting it before a decision was made. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the matter had already been noticed for hearing. Commissioner Jonathan asked if ARC wanted to see it back to work on it. Mr. Drell said that staff was recommending `NW 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 a that it go back to ARC in either case. If Planning Commission wanted to continue it pending ARC final resolution that was something they could do as well. Commissioner Jonathan said that if the commission didn't say just let ARC deal with it, he was suggesting that Planning Commission resolve it at Planning Commission level with a recommendation ARC. Mr. Drell said that the Planning Commission recommendation was to say yes, the diagonal solution in concept is acceptable and leave it up to ARC to work out the final details. If Planning Commission wanted to see it back, they could, or they could just let ARC work out the final design. Acting Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MRS. MARGARET BORISKI, the applicant, stated that the location on the side of the carport where their trailer presently exists was on a concrete pad with a little block wall/retaining wall around it. Where ARC and staff want them to put it is all landscaped with grass and has sprinklers. They would be digging out a lot of dirt and she felt the diagonal concept that the Architectural Review Committee came up with exposed more of the trailer to the street than being on the side of the carport. They would have to put in another pad, if they could just install gravel, and then pay for the re-sprinkling system. They would have to redo the sprinklers and haul out the dirt and put in hedges or something in front, but they felt that more of the trailer would show by being out in the front yard than on the side of the carport. She i asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Ms. Boriski was not enamored with staff's solution. Ms. Boriski said that they would do that if the Planning Commission told them to and if that was what they had to do, but as it is, the front side of the trailer shows and now the whole side and front, when driving down the street or turning into the cul-de-sac except for where there would be a hedge, so it didn't make that much sense to them. She felt they were hiding more of the trailer than by putting it out in front. Commissioner Jonathan said that Ms. Boriski preferred the trailer on the side with the two panels. Ms. Boriski concurred and said that if the commission wanted something on top of the six foot high panels, they would be happy to add some type of lattice work or something on top of the panels to get as high was ten feet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that part of the problem was that wood fencing in a front yard was in violation of the city codes. Ms. Boriski said that they thought that section was part of the side and didn't realize that and they have wood on the other side of the house. Behind the trailer was all wood so it was compatible with the existing wood fencing WJ 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 around their house now. They were trying to be compatible with the existing material. Mr. Drell added that the Architectural Commission could make an exception and if after all is said and done they keep coming back to the same solution, then there is a method to make an exception to allow wood fencing of some design if that turns out to be the best solution. Acting Chairperson Campbell said that if it was parked diagonally and there were oleanders in front, they would grow higher than six feet and if they got as high as ten or 12 feet, they would hide the trailer completely. Mr. Drell concurred. Ms. Boriski said they would be agreeable to planting oleanders if it were out in front instead of the side of the carport. Mr. Drell said that to a certain extent as they look at Exhibit B, planting oleanders in front in any case might to a certain degree at certain angles might also screen the RV where it is sitting. Ms. Boriski thanked the Planning Department for all their help. Acting Chairperson Campbell noted that Ms. Boriski stated that she has had this vehicle for one year and asked if that was correct. Ms. Boriski said this RV was purchased in April of this year. It was a brand new trailer. Acting Chairperson Campbell also noted that Ms. Boriski had another one for 15 years. Ms. Boriski clarified that she has owned the house for 15 years and they had a 27-year old trailer that they had for a couple of years. They had it parked in that spot. Acting Chairperson Campbell said they had it parked in that spot for all those years and only now there was a problem. Ms. Boriski said they were trying to comply with the ordinance and they called the city to find out about the ordinance and that was why they did the concrete pad and the fencing around it and they bought the wood to place in front of it, but they hadn't gotten around to the permit. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the pad was built prior to application. Ms. Boriski said it was a few years old. Acting Chairperson Campbell noted they did that without requesting a permit and in all of these years there had never been any complaints from the neighbors. %WW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 Ms. Boriski said they had asked all of their neighbors prior to bringing it down if there was any concern and everyone was supportive prior to them putting it there. Acting Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. EMMA HULL addressed the commission and informed them that she lives across the street from the applicants and she had no objection to the trailer whatsoever. It was a nice, neat appearing one and it was perfectly all right with her. She has lived there for 30 or so years and it was a middle class neighborhood that they live in. It was allowable to her and she was in favor. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, stated that she lives cater corner from the Boriskis. She had not been informed prior to the first trailer coming into the neighborhood and she thought that on the first day it did arrive she approached Maggie and Tom about being good neighbors and doing something to mask the trailer. It was a smaller trailer than the existing one there now. She has spoken to them on five occasions about doing something to shield it. Ms. Martin stated that she has lived in that house for 36 years and she was concerned about property values in the area. She noted that the north side of Highway 1 1 1 has an abundance of illegal trailers and three on San Jose alone. There weren't any on the south side of Highway 111 . She said that she would like to work with them in some way, but there were many trailer storage facilities in this area and it wasn't terribly expensive and to her the best scenario would be to have the trailer moved and put into a storage area and then there wouldn't be any problems for any of them, the Boriskis included. Her concern with the first plan they had was that the city ordinance stated that the trailer couldn't extend past the roof line. This was quite a few feet beyond the roof line of the carport. The original plan by the Boriskis was for a six-foot wall and that meant there were four feet of trailer still exposed, a bright white trailer which to her was like "here I am" and it really made it stand out more. The diagonal position was perhaps the best solution as long as whatever is fencing it is higher than the trailer and that it isn't exposed at all. As long as it couldn't be seen from the street. She said she would really like to work with them on this, but that seemed to be impossible and she knew they were upset with her objection to their trailer, but she has lived there too long and has put too much money into this residence to have this get started. Acting Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty felt that this was unfortunate. He indicated that the people most effected would be the people across the street. He noted that one letter said it blocked the view from their kitchen. He liked the solution of moving the RV to a storage unit, but he would defer to sending it back to ARC for another solution or acceptance of the proposal. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 tow Commissioner Jonathan concurred with Commissioner Beaty. He had sympathy for both the applicant and the neighbors, but in its present form he would have to side with the neighbors. Unfortunately for the applicant, the ordinance was there specifically to guard against what is happening here and that was unfortunate because he felt the applicant was well intentioned. There is an ordinance and a lot of thought and years that went into the development of the ordinance and it was there for a reason and that reason was to guard against what is happening here. On the other hand he felt that the neighbors were willing to be reasonable so he felt that to send it back to ARC and give it one more try to come up with some kind of resolution that would be acceptable to everyone. There were residents that have lived there 30 and 36 years and he had faith in the citizens and given more opportunity with ARC they could find an amenable solution. He thought it was Ron Gregory's comment in the ARC minutes where he said there was a solution for this somewhere. He would be in favor of giving ARC, the applicants and the applicant's neighbors one more opportunity to work it out. Commissioner Fernandez also concurred. He would like to see this go back to ARC and let them make a decision. As neighbors he felt that an acceptable solution could be worked out. Acting Chairperson Campbell also concurred and asked if the Planning Commission wanted the item to return to the commission or if they just wanted to leave it up to ARC. Mr. Drell suggested that if it was clear that everyone involved is happy, then it didn't have to come back to Planning Commission. If there was still some dispute, it would come back. Commissioner Fernandez agreed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1842, approving RV 97-2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Beaty said that in the event that the applicant accepts the alternative, they have talked about oleanders in the past and there is a disease that will probably wipe them out, but for the applicant's information, they probably wouldn't want to plant oleanders. Mr. Drell said there were other substitutes available. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE Mr. Drell stated that Intrawest originally expressed interest in developing the hotel sites and backed away from that and they were now back and were probably the hot proposal on the table to develop. Commissioner Beaty asked if that was what was reported at the last meeting. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they discussed it in detail. Commissioner Beaty said it was in the minutes from two weeks ago. Mr. Drell said they talked about it some more and they have made a very good proposal to build 800 rooms over a five year period and a village complex associated with it. There was another offer that had been on the table for a 300-room hotel and this offer was not only for the whole property, but more per acre for the land. In essence they were committing to come up with plans to the city by February for the finishing out of the two other interior pads. Commissioner Beaty asked if that would leave only the 22-acre site. Mr. Drell concurred, as well as the ten acres on Country Club for which there were good offers. Commissioner Campbell asked when the sidewalk would be completed. Mr. Drell said they were working on it now and should be soon. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (November 19 and December 2, 1997) Mr. Drell said he only attended the December 2 meeting and they discussed the sign ordinance and probably in January there would be an amendment before the commission. Mr. Drell said that given the fact that the commission's representative to ZORC moved to the City Council, he asked if they wanted to appoint a new representative from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that if the appointment of a new commission was eminent that they could wait only because they were close to the time to vote to appoint Chair and Vice Chair. Acting Chairperson Campbell concurred and asked when the next ZORC meeting was scheduled. Mr. Drell said two weeks from tomorrow, December 17. Commissioner Jonathan hoped there would be a replacement before then. Acting Chairperson Campbell said that she would attend the next meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. MW 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1997 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Acting Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting to the next regular meeting on December 16, 1997 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. �"-as -, PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: ,ZDNIA M. CAMPBELL, Acting Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 11