Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0306 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 6, 2001 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER ,,,r, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � * � .� .� .� ,� .� * � �- .� .� .� * .� * � � �. .� * � �. * * ,� � � .� .� � �. * * .� �. * * * � * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to orde� at 7:00 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp �,.,, Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 20, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the February 20, 2001 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Lopez stated that before continuing any further, Sheila Gilligan and Pat Scully were at the meeting to present an award. Mrs. Gilligan began by saying that Mayor Ferguson was sorry he couldn't be present. The City Council wanted to thank Commissioner Tschopp with a gift �`" of a clock for his service on the Public Safety Commission. She stated that MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 � prior to being appointed as a Planning Commissioner, Commissioner Tschopp served as a Public Safety Commissioner with the City since that commission's inception and he did a great job. He was the Chair of the commission, he got everyone organized, pointed out critical issues to the commission, and provided great input. She indicated there were great programs that came out of that commission as a result of his service and that he would be greatly missed. Commissioner Tschopp went forward and accepted his award. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 22, 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. � VII. CONSENT CALENDAR � , A. Case No. PMW 01-04 - NORMAN KARRO, Applicant � Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lot 1 and Common Lot K of Tract 14082-1, 73-131 Carrizo Circle in Ironwood. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-O. VIII. 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. r � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 r.. A. Case No. CUP 01-02 - KJ HOME CHEF - THE GOOD FOOD ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the on and off sale of beer and wine in association with the KJ Home Chef - The Good Food Architects located at 73-891 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell informed commission that this was a very small catering service. Most of their business was from people coming in and picking up prepared food. They also wanted to do delivery but they wanted to be able to sell wine with their meals. They also wanted to have some incidental serving of beer and wine while people were waiting for their pick up items (they only had four seats). Staff had no problem with the request and recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell noted that the staff report said that seating was limited to four, but the conditions of approval would allow two tables or a � maximum of eight seats. Mr. Drell explained that the condition was for the maximum permitted incidental seating for this kind of use without it being �"' deemed a sit-down restaurant. He said that was what the ordinance provided. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no one present on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew why the applicant wasn't present. Mr. Drell said no, but said that unless there were questions the commission had that the applicant needed to answer, he would recommend that they continue with the hearing. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2047, approving CUP 01-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. +r..► 3 MiNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 � � � The following three public hearings were conducted simultaneously. B. Case No. TT 30087 - COLLEGE VIEW ESTATES II, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 9.71 acres into 32 single family (8,000 square foot minimum) lots located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 330 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive. C. Case No. TT 30025 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 9.7 acres into 32 single family (8,000 square foot minimum) lots located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 1 ,650 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. D. Case No. TT 30030 - SOUND MANAGEMENT LLC, Applicant � Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide five acres into 16 single family lots (8,000 square foot minimum) located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 330 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Alvarez showed commission a land use map with the locations of the three proposed tract maps. He said that generally they were bounded by Gerald Ford Drive to the north, Frank Sinatra Drive on the south and the eastern border would be Portola Avenue. There were three tract maps. The first was TT 30087, which has two parcels totaling 9.7 acres and 32 lots. TT 30025 was a very similar tract map with 32 lots on 9.7 acres. The third proposal was a five-acre piece, TT 30030, with 16 tots. Mr. Alvarez noted that the applicant for TT 30087 (College View Estates) is the same applicant that has a project currently under construction for 32 lots, TT 29444, which was approved in December of 1999. The map would have lots a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet, the maximum lot size would be 15,354 and the average tot size would be 10,000. The subdivision would have access from Gerald ; Ford Drive which would create a new access road which is being called � � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 �.. Shepherd Lane. Eventually Shepherd Lane would run between Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Two cul-de-sac streets would be created running east and west. Those cul-de-sac streets would give access to each of the lots. I� the staff report he described the dimensions of the streets. The cul-de-sac streets would provide 50 feet of right-of-way with 36 feet of width curb to curb. He showed the commission the proposed tract map's configuration with the cul-de-sac streets off of the main street, Shephe�d Lane, which would have an 88-foot right-of-way. He indicated the lots were consistent with the zoning which required a minimum of 8,000 square foot lots. The density was 3.3 which was below the maximum allowable units per acre. The subdivision would be required to build six foot perimeter walls along all sides. An emergency access would be provided on Portola as required by the Fire Marshal, which was similar to requirements of TT 29444 at the southern end of this area. He said this map was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance and California Map Act. For CEQA purposes, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared and staff was recommending approval. This was very similar if not identical to the second map, TT 30025, with 32 lots in the exact same configuration and the exact same configuration of streets and cul-de-sacs. This applicant, World �"' Development, would build single family homes. He said this tract was a little bit different because Shepherd Lane would be extended from the northern terminus of this tract map out to the site. There would be a 28-foot wide roadway constructed and when adjacent parcels developed a full 88-foot right- of-way would be provided. The same would be done for the other project. The third proposal was from Sound Management. The project would be 16 lots on five acres. It would have the same configuration with the cul-de-sac off of Shepherd Lane with the roadway connecting from Frank Sinatra out to the site and improvements on one side until the other side developed. All three maps were consistent with the ordinance, met the minimum 8,000 square foot requirement for lot sizes and were below the density requirements for this area. Negative Dec{arations of Enviranmental Impact were prepared for all three projects and staff recommended approval. Commissioner Finerty complimented staff on the map that was provided with the staff report. Mr. Alvarez thanked her and said he would pass those compliments along to all involved parties. Commissioner Campbell noted that on the conditions of approval on item six, it said that all on-site utilities would have to undergrounded. She asked about the existing poles on Portola. Mr. Alvarez said that those would eventually be undergrounded as part of the master underground plan and these projects would contribute to the funding of that �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 undergrounding. Mr. Drell said that basically he thought these large lines on arterials were being funded by the City as part of a master plan. He confirmed that the goal was to remove them eventually, but the cost of undergrounding those lines was far beyond the financial capabilities of a small residential subdivision. Commissioner Campbell asked if the comments from Mr. Conley from the Sheriff's Department would apply also to World Development. Mr. Aivarez said that was correct. He indicated that Mr. Conley said he wanted to have exposure of front doors, especially on cul-de-sac streets so that they were visible. Through the architectural review process that would be addressed for all three projects. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the World Development project was very similar to the College View Estates project with 9.7 acres being subdivided into 32 lots, yet College View managed to get over 10,000 square foot average lot sizes, while World Development was about 9,700 and he wondered why there was a difference. Mr. Alvarez said that World Development created two retention lots (lots D & E) which were in addition to the 32 lots. They were basically going to retain the drainage on those two lots. If they were to remove these lots, they could have created larger lots. Mr. Drell said that the other two projects were � retaining their drainage on each lot individually. Mr. Alvarez concurred. � Commissioner Jonathan noted that Shepherd Lane was going to be partially developed on one end and partially developed on the other end with a temporary extension narrower and as the other subsequent properties developed then it would be expanded, but it would be the same situation over and over again. He asked if it was possible to build out the entire street, al) of Shepherd Lane from Gerald Ford to Frank Sinatra, at one time. He recalled thai the Kelly Ordinance was a way to finance it. He asked if staff had considered that. Mr. Greenwood said it hadn't been checked into, but he did like the idea and would like to avoid a situation like Hovley Lane West. Commissioner Jonathan noted that construction in that area could be occurring over the next 20 years on that street. Unless there was an objection by the traffic engineer or other staff, he thought it made sense and would improve the quality of life to have the road completed. Mr. Drell said ihat a little problem in those areas where there wasn't development was keeping the sand off of the road. Where the road ends at the north and south point, Chairperson Lopez asked if there was something that stopped people from going through. Mr. Drell confirmed that at the end of World Development's project the road stopped. He also explained that basically the Kelly Ordinance was a voluntary program by which they get an agreement from the adjacent � property owners to agree to reimburse the City for cost of development when 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 �r.. they develop. They couldn't be forced to participate. They could at least discuss it with them and there was obviously an economy of scale if all the work was done at once, which was sometimes a benefit to property owners. Commissioner Campbell said that if they constructed the street all the way, there could be a lot of transients going in there to park and party and there might be more problems then just closing the street off at the end of the developments. Mr. Alvarez asked if she meant the area between the developments. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would like to see staff explore the Kelly Ordinance with the property owners. He knew there were potential problems, but once they started seeing homes out there, the rest of the lots could follow fairly rapidly, economy permitting. He thought they could avoid an unpleasant situation than if there was constant construction on the street. He felt the Kelly Ordinance was worth exploring. Mr. Greenwood said he would check into it. Chairperson Lopez noted that on two of the three reports there was reference to a meandering sidewalk along Portola Avenue and Shepherd Lane, but on the College Estates report there was no reference to a meandering sidewalk. Mr. Alvarez said it was just an oversight, that all along Portola the frontages would � have meandering sidewalks with 20 feet of setback from curb to wall face. Along Shepherd Lane they would have the same situation, 20 feet of setback from face of curb to curb with sidewalks. He wasn't sure they would be meandering the sidewalks on Shepherd Lane, although he thought they probably could with that setback. Mr. Greenwood concurred. He said they were working on a typical standard plan for meandering sidewalks so that each block looked similar and it would apply to all three. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a question about the anticipated projects in the future that would fill out the development along Shepherd Lane. He noted that it looked like Shepherd Lane would be a fairly straight road and given the possibility in the future of the amount of traffic going through there, he asked if it was anticipated that access would be given to Portola at some later date. Second, Shepherd Lane looked like it would be a major thoroughfare when all the residents use it to get access to the north and south streets. He asked if they were going to create problems by having a straight road similar to other roads in the city which became major thoroughfares in a relatively small development. He asked if they have looked at the volume of traffic and the need in the future for signalization at those corners and how close they were to the corners of Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. Mr. Greenwood said that Shepherd Lane would be like Hovley Lane West between Monterey and Portola. There was a speed limit of 50 mph, which was bound by state law �.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 so he would expect Shepherd Lane to have the same situation. Access to Portola was not envisioned, but the�e were emergency access points at the ends of the cul-de-sacs, but that was for Fire Department access only. He didn't anticipate signalization at Gerald Ford or Frank Sinatra. Commissioner Tschopp asked how close they would be to intersections of Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. Mr. Alvarez said 1 ,200 feet. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the minimum distance to an existing signal could be. Mr. Greenwood said that generally they would allow no less than 1 ,000 feet, but preferred a quarter mile. It was in the range of possibility. He noted that every intersection in the city couldn't be signalized and sometimes they had to make do. Mr. Drell said that hopefully ultimately Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra would not have the same traffic as a street like Monterey relative to Hovley Lane West. Also, Hovley Lane West was unique in that it was one of the few east-west connectors between Monterey and Portola so people use it for other reasons than accessing residential projects on Hovley Lane West. The way this was situated he didn't think people who weren't residents would use it. It didn't provide the same function as Hovley Lane West. He asked Mr. Greenwood if there was some discussion of providing an access from Shepherd Lane to Portola mid block. Mr. Greenwood said he hadn't heard any discussion of that, but it was possible. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was a street called Sweet Drive that was about half way between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. She wondered if that might go through some day. Mr. Drell said there was an approved tentative map there. Mr. Alvarez said he didn't believe there was access through there. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with Mr. Greenwood's preference for keeping access off of Portola. He understood that there would be a potential traffic impact on Shepherd Lane, but it was preferable to have that traffic there than on Portola. The planned residential area with five-acre {ots to the west of Portola would serve that area nicely. There wasn't a perfect solution and it was a matter of which would have the lesser impact. Mr. Greenwood said he reviewed TT 30025 and the distance between Shepherd Lane and Portola would be about 600-660 feet, not 1,000 or 1,200. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that traffic seemed to take the least resistance and if Portola got as busy as it was projected to become, people driving Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra would have a tendency to look for a way to get to the other side as quickly as they could and he would hate to see them make a mistake that in the future would have the same problems as in other areas such as on California, Hovley, etc., where people go through residential areas which causes the city to then adjust those speeds up beyond what the residents want and they've created a problem. He 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 r.. didn't think that was a problem with these developments, but he wanted them to look at 20 years down the road when the whole thing developed out and said they should try to mitigate what would probably be traffic concerns at some point in time given the amount that traffic has increased in the city. Chairperson Lopez said that at this point they wanted to incorporate at least staff reviewing the Kelty Ordinance and long term planning as far as traffic flow on Shepherd Lane. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be helpful to get input from the Sheriff's Department regarding Commissioner Campbell's concern of transients. Commissioner Jonathan felt they could trust staff to look into those issues. Chairperson Lopez opened the three public hearings and asked the applicant for College View Estates to address the commission. MR. TOM HALLACK, the owner of College View Estates and Six Kids Development, addressed the commission. He said they have the first project underway in that area, TT 29444. He was present to answer any questions. �.. Chairperson Lopez asked the applicant for World Development to address the commission. MR. JOE SONEJI addressed the commission. He said he was the Civil Engineer for Dudek & Associates, the principle engineers for World Development. He thanked the Planning and Engineering staffs for their support and input during the preparation of the tentative map. They agreed with all of the conditions and looked forward to finishing this project. He noted that the client was present and they were both ready to answer any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked the applicant from Sound Management to address the commission. MR. DAVID HACKER, Hacker Engineering, stated that he was present representing Sound Management. They agreed with the conditions and looked forward to moving ahead with the project. He was present to answer any questions. �r. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 ; � .rll Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Hacker was planning to just sell these lots for custom homes, but everyone else would be constructing their homes. Mr. Hacker said that was correct. � Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearings were closed. He requested commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that she would move for approval subject to previous comments made earlier that staff look into development of Shepherd Lane, etc. Chairperson Lopez said that they also wanted to make sure that College Estates was part of the meandering sidewalk program. Staff . concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. a It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, "'� adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2048, approving TT 30087, subject to conditions; adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2049 approving TT 30025, subject to conditions; and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050 approving TT 30030, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan complimented staff on the presentation and planning of these projects. Chairperson Lopez asked what was going to go on the large city-owned parcel. Mr. Drell said it was bought with the ultimate intent to build Desert Willow Course Number 3 for when most of the prime time rounds were contracted out as part of the hotel development. The goal would be to have public play on all three golf courses and to do that there would need to be three courses. With the other small pieces, they were buying whatever was on the market with the goal of having a location for the clubhouse or starter shack and where they could create a little more diversity in the design of the golf course. Chairperson Lopez asked when that would be started. Mr. Drell said that activity would begin in ernest when there was a luxury hotel site. The time line would be set for when it was really needed and hopefully they would be getting the luxury hotel site in the next six months. � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 �.. Commissioner Campbell asked if this golf course would have a clubhouse. Mr. Drell said it would be a very small snack bar or starter shack. Not like the one we already have. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (February 21 , 2001) Commissioner Campbel! said they were only i�-house informational items. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (March 1 , 2001 ) Commissioner Finerty stated that they discussed the Housing Element and the bottom line was that they would need approximately 200 plus very low, low and moderate income housing. The numbers came in at 444, but part of that was for high income, so the city had a great number to shoot for. Generafly they needed over 1,000 and this would be very simple to do and there was already an area selected by the soccer field where they were contemplating putting in this type of housing. It would be apartments for large families and possibly some single family units. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (March 6, 2001) Commissioner Finerty said that basically the meeting was informational. They were looking at putting through a new ordinance with regard to water efficiency. �. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2001 + � � F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (February 26, 2001) Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. Xlf. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissione� Finerty, � adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting � adjourned at 7:46 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary T: JI PEZ, C ir on P Desert Plan in Commission /tm i 12