Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1118 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 1974 MIDDLE SCHOOL - 7 : 00 P .M. I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion was called to order by the Chairman at 7 : 00 P.M. on November 18, 1974, at the Palm Desert Middle School. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners : ED MULLINS , WILLIAM SEIDLER, S . ROY WILSON, MARY K. VAN DE MARK, C . ROBERT HUBBARD Absent : Commissioners : NONE Others Present : Director of Environmental Services - Paul A. Williams City Attorney - Dave Erwin Associate Planner - Freeman Rader Assistant Planner - Sam Freed IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1974, were approved as submitted. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams stated that the letters received should be discussed with the items to which they refer. Chairman Hubbard asked if there was any objection to dis- cussing New Business before the public hearings since there was such a large audience, and he did not wish to hold any people up. He asked the representative of Case No . ICAP AMENDMENT 03-74 and Mr. C . E. Miller of Case No . ICAP AMENDMENT 04-74 if this was agreeable, and they replied it was . VI . OLD BUSINESS - None VII . NEW BUSINESS A. Case No . 14MF - H. SCHMITZ FOR DESERT MART - Considera- tion of plot plan approval to permit construction of a department store, a supermarket , and several retail shops on a 12 . 5 acre site located at the northwest intersection of State Highway 111 and Monterey (C-P-S) . Chairman Hubbard stated that this was not a public hearing, but since so many people were in attendance on this matter , the public hearing procedure would be followed. He then gave the procedure which would be followed, and asked the .. City Attorney, Dave Erwin, to give a brief summary of the position of the Planning Commission as to possible actions . Mr. Erwin stated that this is a review by the Planning Commission as is required by the City' s Ordinance dealing with architectural review of the development . The pro- cedure was submitted to the Architectural Review Board and after several meetings , arrived at a point to go to Planning Commission Meeting -2- November 18, 1974 the Planning Commission for review and approval . He stated the action that the Planning Commission could take tonight would be as follows : 1) after a review of the matter determine to approve the request in ac- cordance with the Architectural Review Board' s condi- tions ; 2) if the Planning Commission wishes , they may approve the matter with any additional conditions they wish to impose on it (in addition to those by the Archi- tectural Review Board) ; finally, if the Planning Commis- sion feels the project is such that it needs to be re- worked or redrawn, they may refer the matter back to the developer to be redrawn and resubmitted. Those are the only alternatives the Planning Commission has . Mr. Williams gave a brief picture of the case being re- viewed. He stated that the Commission was considering only the actual plot plan and building elevations of this complex. Mr. Williams stated that he would like to indicate the changes that were required and the differ- ences that the Architectural Review Board had with the applicant. He stated the Architectural Review Board approved the request subject to some 38 conditions , and a number of them are standard. He then went on to ex- plain the conditions . He stated that the applicant ob- jected to a number of them, those being numbers 12 , 13 , 18, 20, 24, 30, 33 , and 38. He stated that the recom- mendation of the Architectural Review Board is to approve the project subject to these 38 conditions . Mr. Williams then read a letter from the Palm Desert Property Owners Association giving their reasons for objecting to this project. Chairman Hubbard then asked if there were any questions of the professional staff. There being none, he asked if there were any proponents to be heard, and to only discuss the conditions that they are not in agreement with. Mr. Harry Schmitz, 43-900 Primrose Drive, Planning Con- sultant in Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of Stotter-Caplow. He stated that they concur with 90% of the conditions outlined. He then briefly spoke of those conditions which they did not agree on: Condition No . 12 , utility under- grounding; Conditions 18 and 22 , landscaping along Highway 111; Condition No . 30, the sign location; and Condition No. 38, building the driveway at County Road Standards . Mr. Elliott Caplow, 9538 Brighton Way, Beverly Hills , stated that they object to building a road in the interior of this property. He stated Ahmanson Company objected to splitting this property in half. A representative of Ahmanson Company, 3731 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles , stated that he felt that the road does not conform to the master plan, and there will be additional shops , etc . , at any rate, the road should be a future con- sideration and not at this time since the road is not a 122 acre piece of land. r Chairman Hubbard asked if Ahmanson Company owned the prop- erty to the rear and west . The representative of Ahmanson Company replied yes . Ah- manson Company owns approximately 100 acres of land. Commissioner Van de Mark asked if he was satisfied that this development would not hurt the balance of the property. Planning Commission Meeting -3- November 18 , 1974 The representative of Ahmanson Company replied yes , and that they were very proud of it, and considered it an improvement . Chairman Hubbard opened the hearing to opponents . Mr. Cliff Henderson, 73-597 Pinyon Street , stated that bringing K-Mart into Palm Desert would mean that we would be closing the doors to stores such as Bullock' s , I . Mag- nin' s and Sak' s . He stated that K-Mart is an ugly build- ing, and contains cheap merchandise. He stated he believed the character of the community would change if this pro- ject were approved. Mr. Tiger Berne, Palm Desert , read from letters protest- ing the approval of this project . He stated there were 10 Palm Springs department stores ready to go into this shopping center, but would not if K-Mart were approved. Chairman Hubbard asked if there were any other opponents . There being none, he asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for the project . The following Palm Desert residents spoke in favor of K-Mart stating it was a necessary addition to Palm Des- ert : Mr . & Mrs . Ted Pearson, Roger Schumeck, Ray Roll- man, Mr. & Mrs . Robert Lawman. Mr. Cliff Henderson stated that the K-Mart location should be moved near the "poor" people . Chairman Hubbard pointed out that if a business comes into Palm Desert, and the area is zoned properly for that type of business , we cannot turn it down if they conform to what is required by Architectural Review. Chairman Hubbard then asked if the commissioners had any- thing to say. Commissioner Wilson moved that Condition No . 38 should be stricken from the Conditions . He also stated that he would like to move that Condition No. 30 be changed to read that the location and size of the sign be determined by the Ar- chitectural Review Board. Neither motion was seconded. Commissioner Van de Mark stated she believed that the sign should definitely not be 8 feet in size . Commissioner Seidler stated that before making any motion, the entire commission should discuss two of the conditions , one being the sign and the other the street condition. Re- garding the sign, he stated that it might be possible to work out something other than the flush mounting on the wall . He stated he believed the size of the sign was some- thing the Architectural Review Board should study in depth. Regarding the street improvement to road standards , we would be doing it for the benefit of the applicant . He stated he would like to add Condition No . 24 to the list to be discussed, indicating the purpose of the wall is to shield the Monterey Avenue traffic and property owners from the activity in the auto center. He suggested the height of the wall be 6 feet instead of 4 feet . Commissioner Mullins agreed the Architectural Review Board went through the project quite thoroughly, but he is concerned about a project of this nature going in at this critical time in our planning. He believed it was important that we have a street in there so that we Planning Commission Meeting -4- November 18, 1974 will have access back into the northern side of this property. Regarding the sign, he thought we would have to give a little on signs as we move along, but felt the major areas were covered pretty well in the condi- tions . Commissioner Mullins questioned the representa- tive of the Ahmanson Company about their feeling of this development . Is it the best use of this prime property as to the location of the proposed K-Mart development? The representative answered that he believed they did feel this to be true . Commissioner Mullins again asked the representative what plans the Ahmanson Company had for the property directly north of the K-Mart site . The representative stated they had no plans but felt several things could be built to fit in with development of the rest of the property (as a professional building) . Com- missioner Mullins then stated he felt that the placing of the K-Mart would make development of the site directly north very difficult . Chairman Hubbard felt the landscaping along Highway 111 is not a serious problem and that property maintenance would be nothing more than a good irrigation system and trimming. He felt that the wall in Condition No . 24 should be 6 feet in height . Chairman Hubbard asked for a motion to delete Condition No. 38 entirely. He moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion that Condition No . 38 be deleted entirely. Commissioner Mullins opposed the motion. Mr. Williams then stated that he would like to discuss Condition No. 33 . He recommended that it be revised to read: regarding the proposed tramway route along and adjacent to the area, the applicant shall submit an al- ternative as a part of construction plans for Architec- tural Review Board approval . He then said that at that time determination would be made as to whether an ease- ment would be necessary or an alternative be provided. Mr. Caplow asked if an easement is going to be required. Chairman Hubbard then asked if he was in accordance with this suggestion, to which Mr . Caplow replied yes . Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion that Condition No . 33 be revised as proposed by Staff. The motion was unanimously carried. Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Seidler seconded that Condition No . 24 be revised to read: 6 feet instead of 4 feet wall height . The motion was unanimously car- ried. Mr. Williams then went on to the sign problem stating that serious consideration should be given to redesign of the roof line and should be sent back to the Architec- tural Review Board for consideration and approval (Condi- tion No . 30) . Commissioner Mullins moved, -Commissioner Van de Mark sec- onded the motion to accept the compromise on Condition No. 30 as proposed by Staff. The motion was unanimously carried. Chairman Hubbard stated he would like to entertain a motion that recommendation of the Staff be accepted and Commission move by Resolution No . 18 with the changes made this evening, be approved. Planning Commission Meeting -5- November 18, 1974 Commissioner Seidler moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded that Resolution No . 18, with the attached conditions as amended with the addition of Item 7 which required trash enclosures , be approved. The motion was unanimously carried. Chairman Hubbard then called for a recess at 8 : 45 P .M. The meeting was called to order at 8 : 50 P .M. too* The Chairman returned to the Public Hearing items . VIII . PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No . ICAP AMENDMENT - 03-74 - H. A. McCORMICK - Consideration of a request to amend the Palm Desert Interim Core Area Plan to delete an indicated auto- mobile driveway connection from E1 Paseo to the rear parking area, thus permitting the applicant to con- struct commercial stores along the full frontage of Lot 29 , Block S , Palm Desert subdivision. Said prop- erty is located northerly of and adjacent to El Paseo, approximately 400 feet easterly of the intersection of San Luis Rey and E1 Paseo (C-P-S) . (Continued from October 14. ) Mr. Williams read the Staff Report. He stated the Staff recommends deletion of the driveway by Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 19 . Chairman Hubbard asked if there were any questions regard- ing the presentation by the planning director. The appli- cant did not care to say anything. Chairman Hubbard then closed the public hearing. He then asked if the Commis- sion had any feeling on this matter . There being none, Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No . 19 as written. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Van de Mark stated she felt that lots that are 200 feet plus would be ample and that any bank would want a circulation around the entire banking area and could see no reason to penalize this property. Commissioner Mullins stated he thought it essential that we have some access to get from El Paseo to the back area and wondered if it would not be better to continue this when we get input from the committee that will be study- ing that prototype block. Commissioner Seidler also suggested that no decision on this be made until the committee sees just how this is to be developed. Chairman Hubbard asked if the proponent wished to make any remarks . Mr . McCormick, 45-800 Cholane, Indian Wells , asked how long the study would take. Mr . Williams replied it would take until the middle of January. Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to continue this to the January 13 meeting. Planning Commission Meeting -6- November 18, 1974 B. Case No. ICAP AMENDMENT - 04-74 - C . E . MILLER - Consideration of a request to amend the Palm Desert Interim Core Area Plan by deleting the roadway con- necting the north frontage road of State Highway 111 with Monterey Avenue , at the northeast corner of the intersection - C-P-S . Mr. Williams read the Staff Report and explained the maps . He recommended the Commission recommend to the City Coun- cil the deletion of the roadway subject to condition that no commercial establishment be developed within this area that would channel intensive auto traffic and create fur- ther problems of congestion. He stated a solution could be found without affecting Mr. Miller' s property and for that reason Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No . 19 which would forward the request to the City Council for the deletion of this roadway. This recommendation is subject to conditions outlined. Chairman Hubbard stated that if this could be approved tonight , it still wouldn' t put the applicant in a posi- tion to do anything . He stated nothing could be done until the Core Area Plan is studied and how we are going to handle traffic in that area. Also, further study has to be made regarding traffic. Mr . Williams stated that he and the applicant discussed this and he feels there are other ways to solve this . He feels it is the obligation of the developer , and the condition as written could resolve that problem. He stated Mr. Miller wants the resolution as written with the deletion of the proposed condition. Chairman Hubbard asked if the commissioners wished to woo ask anv Questions . Commissioner Wilson asked if Mr. Miller would be willinq- to sit down with the Staff to see if some circulation pattern could be worked out, to which Mr . Miller replied certainly. Chairman Hubbard asked if there was anyone in the audience for or against the proposal. There being none, the pub- lic hearing was closed. Commissioner Seidler stated that the City had adopted the ICAP which included improvements to the circulation prob- lem and that we have to be aware of the property owners situation, but it seems that the ICAP was to improve the Core Area and until an alternative is found we should not be granting acceptance or changes . He suggested it be studied so that Mr . Miller would not be delayed unduly. Commissioner Mullins agreed with Commissioner Seidler' s remarks . Commissioner Seidler stated that before motion was made, we defer any action on the deletion of this road until an alternative can be reached that improves the traffic circulation. Commissioner Seidler moved and Commissioner Mullins sec- onded that action be deferred until an alternative can be reached, and that this matter be continued to December 2 . The motion was unanimously carried. Planning Commission Meeting -7- November 18 , 1974 NEW BUSINESS B. Case No . 2C BLUMENFELD for SANDPIPER SQUARE - Request for plot plan approval of a neighborhood shopping center on an 8 . 98 acre site , located east of State Highway 111 , south of Avenue 44 and north of the Palm Valley Storm Channel - C-P-S . Mr. Williams briefly read conditions and said applicant r .. is in agreement with them. Conditions were pretty stand- ard, such as complete undergrounding of all existing and proposed utilities , but he recommended some minor changes , the deletion of Condition No . 2 . He recommended approval of Resolution No . 19 subject to conditions of approval . Mr. Robert Ricciardi , 73-700 Highway 111, speaking for Mr. Blumenfeld, said the applicant agrees to most of the conditions . After some clarification the applicant agreed to all conditions as amended. Chairman Hubbard asked if the Commissioners wished to ask anything. Commissioner Seidler asked what the uses are of the other buildings , to which Mr . Ricciardi replied, a market cen- ter, drug store, theatre , and a variety of retail shops , and that the whole idea was to develop a mall . Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark sec- onded to approve Resolution No. 19 as amended. The motion was unanimously carried. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None rr X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Van de Mark asked Mr . Williams about the grass in front of K-Mart. Mr . Williams replied there are no landscaping plans as yet , the Architectural Review Board gets it first . Commissioner Seidler asked if there were any changes on membership of the Architectural Review Board and when does it take place . Mr . Williams stated it was effective immediately, and that the changes were : Commissioner Mullins ' term was extended to January 3 , 1975 , and that Commissioner Seidler was appointed to the Architectural Review Board until March 3 , 1975 . two XI . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wilson moved and Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the meeting be adjourned. The motion was unani- mously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting -8- November 18 , 1974 AUL A. WILLIAMS , Secretary *NW ATTEST: WYLtIAM R. ce Chairman to w..