The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0701 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 1 , 1974 MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7 : 00 P.M. I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7 :04 P.M. on July 1 , 1974 at the Palm Desert Middle School. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners : CHUCK ASTON, JEAN BENSON , NOEL BRUSH, HENRY CLARK, JII-I McPHERSON Absent : Commissioners : NONE Others Present : City Manager - Harvey L. Hurlburt Director of Environmental Services - Paul A. Williams City Attorney - Dave Erwin Planning Assistant - Sam Freed IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1974 were approved as submitted. ow V. ','JRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARING - Introduction of Recording Secretary. VII . OLD BUSINESS A. Case No. CUP-12-74 - Summerfield Development Corp. - Request for a permit to establish a planned residential development on property located on the south side of Highway 111 , adjacent to the westerly city limits of Indian Wells. (Continued from June 10, 1974) Mr. Williams read a letter from Grant Hornbeak which requested continuance to July 29 , 1974. After some discussion the staff recommended that there should be continuance because of only minor changes. Commissioner McPherson moved, Commissioner Brush seconded, that Conditional Use Permit No . 12-74 PD be continued until the July 29th meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. f VIII . NEW BUSINESS • A. Case No. TR 4442 - E .D.C.O. - 310 unit condominium development on 20 acres west of Highway 74 and north of Homestead Road. Mr. Williams recommended the request for the extension be denied. There density was in excess of the zoning of R-2-7000. Applicant Scott Biddle , representing the Mountain Back Project , said that the zoning of the R-2-7000 was confusing to - 1 Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1974 them because they claimed that they did not know about it until after they had started their project . They said that the approval of their map was under a conventional R-3 zoning and that they did not know when the R-2-7000 zoning had gone into effect . Mr. Biddle stated that it is there intention to resubmit a new plan of lower density . They had lowered their density from approximately a 9.2 density to a 7. 0 density of units per acre . However, a R-2-7000 would mean a 6. 22 units an acre , thus making their new plan not in compliance. Mr. Biddle asked when the R-2-7000 had been adopted. Mr. Williams stated that originally R-3 zoning was under county jurisdiction, but the R-2-7000 had been adopted by the city upon incorporation. Mr. Biddle again requested an extension on the basis that it would give them an opportunity to process a tract map which would be at a reduced density to comply to the existing zoning. Mr. Williams said if the map is substantially revised, there should be a new review. They should, therefore , file a new application. Chairman Clark asked what was the purpose of the denial . City Attorney Erwin stated that one major reason would be that they would have to start from scratch. If they were granted more time they would not have to pay filing fees. w" Mr. Biddle commented that they would appreciate that type of action to be able to conform to make existing standards without denying their application. The project engineer of the project , 3474 loth Street , Riverside , CA, commented that to start from scratch would be very time consuming. He said a tentative map could be resubmitted with a modification . Thus resubmitting would enable them not to have to go back through flood control and all the things that are time consuming according to them. He stated that there had been fees close to two thousand dollars ($2 ,000) and they hoped that they would not have to pay these again. Mr. Williams recommended a motion to refer the matter back to staff and direct the applicant to submit for major changes with the stipulation that the map is extended for an additional ninety (90) days. Commissioner McPherson moved and Commissioner Benson seconded and the motion was carried unanimously. B. Tentative Tract No. 5795 - PD - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - 84 unit condominium development on the west side of Mariposa Drive and north of Irontree Drive. The proposal originally had staff concern because of the number of units per building, Mr. Williams stated. He has subsequently reviewed this concept with the architect and the engineer. Because of the design it conceals the mass of buildings , thus the buildings look smaller than what they actually are. It was the staff ' s recom- mendation to approve the request subject to conditions number 1 - 13 as shown in the staff report . } i t 4 gi 1 f Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1974 The motion was made by Commissioner Brush that it be approved according to the conditions enumerated, seconded by Commissioner Benson, and carried unanimously. C. Case No. P.P . 1092 - COBLE & BRAMBLETT - Request for Plot Plan Approval to construct a restaurant , a gift shop , and a laundry on lots 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 , Block F, Palm Desert Tract Unit #1 , south of State Highway lll . Mr. Williams stated that the request is in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Infact , there were six (6) more parking spaces than required. The only modification recommended was that the sidewalk should be ten ( 10) feet , instead of six (6) feet . Mr. Carl Cox , 73127 Shadow Mountain Drive , Palm Desert stated many of the facts about the plan . The trash facilities would be easy to get to and would be hidden by a high fence surround- ing them. The parking facilities were also in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The electrical wires on the property would be underground. It was brought out by Mr . 1illiams that the request was originally submitted to the city in February and staff requested that Palm Desert Property Owners ' approval be obtained prior to the formal submittal to the city . This approval took three months and in the meantime the city had established its moratorium on construction in the commerical areas . It was the opinion of the City Attorney that this request had been filed before the establishment .. of the moratorium on construction and should, therefore , be acted upon tonight. Warren Hobble , 6841 Highway 111 , Cathedral City , stated that they would take any matters not taken to the Property Owners to them for their approval . The motion was made to approve the Plot Plan No . 1092 by Commissioner Brush , and seconded by Commissioner ncPherson. The motion was carried unanimously. D. Consideration and approval of planning application forms. Mr. Williams explained the application forms and that there t would be instruction sheets with each one. The applications would a onday of the month. Use Permits and Variances be accepted the first r.7 page two (2) under Public Hearings , instead of the decision becoming final in 70 days it would take only 7 days . � It was moved by minute motion by Commissioner Aston that these planning application forms be approved, it was seconded by Commissioner Benson and the motion was carried unanimously. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None g. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioner - Commissioner McPherson asked why should the staff make e.( Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1974 people go to the Property Owners before coming to the city. He felt that the planning commission should give permits according to the rules they have established, rather than waiting until the Property UAW Owners approve the request. After much discussion the comment was tabled for further discussion . XI . ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7: 56 p.m. Jacqu'le Long, S6cretary • G ATTEST: i_ INH Y 11IAY 0R i { i I