Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1216 PLANNING C0121ISSION MEETING December 16 , 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 Vice Chairman in the ab- sence of the Chairman, at 7 : 00 P .M. on December 16 , 1974, at the Palm Desert Middle School . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners : ED MULLINS , WILLIAM SEIDLER, S . ROY WILSON, MARK K. VAN DE MARK Absent : Chairman: C . ROBERT HUBBARD 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. Corrections and additions to the minutes of the Plan- ning Commission meeting of December 9 were as follows : Page 7 , paragraph 4, after the word residential, add: Commissioner Wilson made such a motion, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded and the motion was lost by a tie vote. err On page 7 , next to the last paragraph, delete the words "did not seem to be true" to read, "question whether such statements existed in the General Plan" . On page 8 , under comments (C) , the following statement be added; "Commissioner Wilson urged that during the development of the zoning map , careful analysis should be given as to low density on the north side of High- way 111 . Commissioner Wilson approved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the minutes be approved with these corrections and additions . Vice Chairman Seidler asked the Secretary if the minutes of tonight' s meeting were being recorded, to which he re- plied they were, and that the Assistant Planner would take the motions . V. WRITTEN CO11MUNICATIONS Mr. Williams indicated there were some late items he would like to reference at this time and went on to identify them. A letter from Enos Reid, of Reid, Babbage and Coil to the Chairman; a letter to the Planning Commission from the Chairman of the Sands & Shadows Board of Governors re- garding a resolution by the Property Owners Association; a resolution from the Concerned Citizens dated December 6 ; and a letter to the Planning Commission from Mona Le Mottee, 72-759 Sierra Vista regarding issues in the Gen- eral Plan. Planning Commission Meeting -2- December 16, 1974 VI . PUBLIC HEAPING The Vice Chairman explained the public hearing procedure. A. Continued 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 proposed re- alignment of the north frontage road through Lots 149 , 150 , and 151 , located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Monterey Avenue and State Highway 111 (C-P-S) (Continued from December 2) Mr. Rader presented the Staff Report , and provided a brief background on the case. He stated that the Staff recom- mended approval of the amendment since suitable alterna- tives of handling the traffic problems in that area and along the frontage road could be devised without a need for the road thru Mr. Miller ' s property. Alternatives A & B were presented as documentation. Vice Chairman asked if the applicant , C. E . Miller , 73-512 Little Bend Trail concurred, to which he replied he did. No other persons speaking , the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mullins moved, Vice-Chairman Seidler seconded that Planning Commission Resolution No. 24 be approved as written. The motion was unanimously carried. B. Continued Case No. ICAP AMENDMENT - 06-74 - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - Consideration of a request to amend the Palm Desert Interim Core Area Plan by chang- ing the land-use designation from Service Commercial to Restaurant/Theatre/ Hotel/Motel/Convenience Commer- cial on a site located east of State Highway 111 , north of Avenue 44, and south of Park View Drive (R-2 , R-3-4000, and C-P-S) (Continued from December 2) Mr_ . Rader presented the Staff Report and explained the rea- sons for why a change of land-use classification from the existing use to the proposed use was desirable and appro- priate . He noted that proposed amendment was initiated by the City at the Council request. The Vice-Chairman asked if there were any questions of the Staff by the Commissioners , there being none, he asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded approval of Plan- ning Commission Resolution No. 25 as prepared by Staff. The motion was unanimously carried. C. Continued Case No . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 15-74 - T. O'MALLEY - Consideration of a request for a CUP to allow a 27-space parking lot to be built on a por- tion of Lot 40, Palm Village Plaza Tract, located on the east side of Las Palmas Avenue, approximately 150 feet north of State Highway 111 (R-3) (Continued from December 2) Mr. Rader presented the Staff Report and pointed out that the request and revised proposal conformed to ordinances and the Core Area Plan and therefore , recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions attached to the resolution. Planning Commission Meeting December 16 , 1974 -3- Vice-Chairman Seidler asked if there were any questions of the Staff by the Commissioners , there being none , he asked if the applicant was present . Mr. Stanley Phillips , 67-995 Foothill Road, Cathedral City, representing the applicant, concurred with the Staff Report and conditions of approval . The Vice-Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the project, there being none, the public hearing tom was closed. He then asked if any commissioner wished to make a comment , there being none, Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded that Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 26 be adopted with the attached con- ditions . The motion was unanimously carried. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A . Case No . P . P . 14MF/4C - K-MART - STOTTER & CAPLOW - Consideration of signs , building materials , and drive- way location for future tram for the K-MART project located on 12 . 5 acres at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue - C-P-S . Mr. Rader, Associate Planner , explained the Architectural Review Board' s recommendations regarding Conditions 3 , 30 and 33 . He stated that the Architectural Review Board, on December 9 , did consider this matter again and has made recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commis- sion. Regarding si na e : The applicant wishes to have the K-MART signlocate - on the roof above the main entrance and have the building remodified architecturally so that it fits the sign and provides a backdrop for it. Mr . Rader stated this approach would not be acceptable and that the Architectural Review Board would prefer that the sign be positioned on the brick storefront wall. The rationale for this being, (1) K-MART sign positioned in a high alti- tude would be visible from a large area of the residential community of Palm Desert. It would be objectionable in that regard, (2) because of landscaping required in park- ing lots , a canopy will be formed that will obscure visi- bility to the sign at that same elevation. It would be appropriate to be positioned lower, (3) because of the dif- ference in grade levels , the Architectural Review Board feels further maximum exposure would be accorded to the sign because the line of sight would be below the canopy of the trees , but above the car tops which would provide for maximum visibility. For those three reasons , the Architectural Review Board feels that the best solution would be to have the major marquee positioned down on the brick store front . The Architectural Review Board recom- mended that the other signage be modified as follows : Traffic control signs in the parking area shall, whenever possible, be earthen colors and that they be positioned on the columns of the store front to avoid any further clutter. The garden center sign and the auto center sign are appropriate as shown. There is no need to modify the roof design to accommodate any type of sign. No other signage shall be permitted on the structure. The Archi- tectural Review Board feels it is appropriate if the sign is moved down to the lowered position and that the drive- way be so aligned so that it centers on that sign to af- ford maximum exposure. Planning Commission Meeting -4- December 16, 1974 Regarding the tramway/pathway access into the comlex: Some question was involved as to how it would be acil- itated into the complex with minimum adverse affects of too much distance between the parking lot and the store itself. The applicant was required to present an alter- native plan to the Staff and Architectural Reivew Board for consideration. They did. The Architectural Review Board felt that it would be wise to plan for "both" and to allow for as many options as possible. They recom- mend that the existing 132 feet wide sidewalk be extended to 16 feet which would allow for utilization as a path- way system were that option selected, and also to allow for a turn out in front of the plaza so that were wheel/ bus type vehicles utilized there would be facilities to accommodate it . In line with this suggestion, it was determined that it may be wise to delete the tree wells along the sidewalk in front of the K-MART. The revised plans submitted by the applicant were revised by the Ar- chitectural Review Board. Vice-Chairman Seidler asked if there were any comments of Staff on the last items . Mr. Williams stated that on the resolution on the first page, Staff recommends changing the word "Conditions" to "Changes" so that it conforms to a recommedation that the words "Conditions of Approval" on the last page of the resoltuion be changed to "Changes" . This change of wording will not alter the content of the resolution but will make the resolution administratively correct. Vice-Chairman Seidler asked if he was correct in noting that 2 b . has been changed to reflect "tree wells within sidewalk area be deleted"? , to which Mr . Rader replied in the affirmative . The Vice Chairman then asked if the applicant received a copy of these changes , to which Mr. Rader stated that they were sent. The Vice Chairman then asked if all of these items were discussed with the applicant at the Architectural Review Board and were any changes made since that time. Mr. Rader said there had not been any changes . Mr. Williams stated that with the exception of illustra- ting the proper marquee on the location on the elevation with the actual size of the sign as approved by the ARB, he did not believe that any other changes had been made. The Vice Chairman asked. if the proper size was shown? Mr. Williams replied yes . The Chairman then asked if the applicant wished to comment on any of these points . Mr. Morrie Resnick, 250 Toro Circle, Palm Springs , asso- ciated with Stotter & Caplow, responded. Of all the items that were discussed, the only thing that we argue about is the sign and the location of the sign. Kresge is opposed to their sign being in any other place than in the center of the building, which is their custom, and they have no other store in the country that does not have the sign in the center on the roof. The mansard comes down about three or four feet. The sign will be obscured hanging down to a certain extent . You would be taking away these Planning Commission Meeting -5- December 16, 1974 beautiful trees from the front of the building and putting signs here, whereas one sign, just one that the company wants and prefers , is denied. He said he had come up and down the boulevard and there is not a single store that does not have a sign on the front and in many cases , two. He stated they are disturbed by this and it can affect the whole project. The sign should be in the center of the building and that is where it belongs . The Vice Chairman asked if the Commission wished to ask the applicant any questions . Mr. Williams stated he would like to know if the Architec- tural Review Board discussed whether the applicant would provide some additional line of sights from Monterey re- garding the automobile repair area. Vice Chairman Seidler asked Mr . Resnick if he had anything he wished the commission to review. Mr. Resnick replied, "just what we had at the last meeting" . Unless you want to discuss it again here . Mr. Williams stated he thought that perhaps the commission should know that the Architectural Review Board thought this matter was of some concern (where you measure the height of the wall) and he could not remember whether it was directed to bring it to the commission or - at this point Mr. Resnick interrupted Mr. Resnick stated he thought it was and said we would bring it to the commission. The Vice Chairman stated it was his understanding too, `ow and asked if he had that information for the commission. Mr. Resnick stated that he gave the information last time, and that it has not changed. This wall is in front of the automotive section which at the last meeting here at the Planning Commission, they asked for a 6 foot high wall. So again Kresge Company vehemently opposed this 6 foot high wall , so we came to a compromise and hoped it would satisfy everyone. The wall will be 4 feet if you are on the inside from the parking lot level but from the street level it will be a minimum of 6 feet , possibly 7 feet from the sidwealk. There is a slope from here of 20 feet . From the sidewalk to the top of the wall it will be higher than eye level. From the parking lot looking out to the street , it will be four feet high. The Vice Chairman stated he thought it was understandable . He asked the secretary what was the ARB' s discussion on this for the benefit of the commission. Mr. Williams said it was the feeling of the ARB that when the commission changed the condition from 4 feet to 6 feet from the automobile repair area there was no other way to construe it . The applicant took this acknowledgement and felt that he should perhaps give us more information as to what it would look like from Monterey. Perhaps thru a "line of sight" presentation, the concern for the addi- tional 2 feet of wall may not be necessary, and it was our hope that such presentation would be made tonight . If the commission wishes to see that kind of presentation, then perhaps the matter ought to be further analyzed by the Architectural Review Board. Planning Commission Meeting -6- December 16, 1974 Mr. Resnick stated that from the last meeting the Board was concerned about seeing the auto section here. The Board was concerned about people walking or riding along Monterey looking up . He stated they are giving you 6 feet or more from the area looking up to the auto repair which would be completely obscured, now what difference would it make how high the fence is from the parking lot looking out to the street? .. The Vice Chairman stated he thought the point was the commission suggested raising the height from 4 feet to 6 feet based on the information they had, and felt that the additional 2 feet would provide more shielding for the people riding or walking along Monterey, from look- ing into the bays . You feel that this is accomplished with the present fence as it ' s indicated? To which Mr . Resnick replied, yes . The Vice Chairman then stated it was his understanding that Mr. Resnick provide us with some information that the line of sight is not directly into the bays . Mr. Resnick stated he thought he made it plain that we would positively have it so that it would be line of sight or above so that people from the sidewalk or the street could not look. The Vice Chairman stated that we do not want to impose the additional 2 feet unless it is absolutely necessary. Mr. Resnick stated that he thought he had assured every- one that it would be done and said he wanted to do it that way so that the Boards would be satisfied and no one tow would be hurt by it . Commissioner Van de Mark stated it was not the street level we are concerned with but the lot across the street would have a direct view into the garage level. She stated that the 6 feet would be needed to protect those people and that should be determined before a decision was made. The Vice Chairman stated that the Commission was being asked to revise a. condition that was previously imposed. Mr. Williams then stated he thought in this instance, the question was from where do you measure the 6 feet, from the inside or the outside wall . The Vice Chairman stated that he believed it to be modi- fied to 6 feet from the inside of the wall . Commissioner Mullins also stated he was concerned about the property owners across the street . Mr. Rader stated that if interpretation was the issue at hand, Condition No. 24 states that the landscaped area around the service area should include a 6 foot high wall ,—. adjacent to it (in reference to the "service area") with berming or embanking therefrom. I think the interpreta- tion is clear, that it would be a 6 foot high wall . If the issue is that a change of one of the conditions is being requested, then I would think that whether or not the Planning Commission is in power to do that would be something that only the City Attorney could answer. Planning Commission Meeting -7- December 16, 1974 The Vice Chairman asked Mr . Dave Erwin if we were at liberty to make a change to one of those conditions as approved. Mr. Erwin stated he was of the mind that basically all we have here are items that have been sent back to the ARB from this Commission. He did not believe we should be in a process of changing any of the conditions , other than the ones that went back there and came back. .. Commissioner Wilson stated that it might be more appro- priate the ARB make a recommendation of this matter before the commission made a decision. The Vice Chairman suggested to the applicant that an en- gineering-type rendering of line of sight be submitted which would clear up a lot of the problems , since there seemed to be a misunderstanding on what we needed. He then asked Mr. Resnick when the rendering might be avail- able for review to which Mr . Resnick replied he would try to have it on Thursday. Since the next meeting would be the first Tuesday in Janu- ary, the Vice Chairman said there would be sufficient time for Mr. Resnick to submit the rendering. The Vice Chairman than stated that the commission would now continue with the items that were listed as changes to Case No. 14MF. He then asked the commission if they had any comments as to any of the changes listed. Commissioner Mullins said he agreed with the applicant on the sign that it might be better to have the one sign and leave the palm trees . He thought that by leaving an option that if he only put the sign on one side of the building, then he wouldn' t remove those palm trees , which are nice, on the other side there. If you put a sign there the trees would have to come away. Commissioner Wilson agreed with Commissioner Mullins on the sign and trees . One of the strong points in the early stages of the Architectural Review Board deliberations on K-MART was that this was not a building like all the other K-MART stores throughout the country and therefore the same logic would hold true on the location of the sign. He did feel, however, that those palms located at the ends of the building add a great deal of element and I would be in favor of taking item 2 .b . and rewording it . Mr. Williams stated he would recommend that tree wells within the sidewalk area on the west side of the building in front of the K-MART store shall be deleted. The Vice Chairman asked if he would like to make a quali- fying comment in case the applicant wants to place two signs that the tree wells would then be deleted on the east side. I think we're leaving the option open here as it' s written. We may wish to change that . Right now it ' s written in such a way where it' s an option item. I just don' t want to lock into a proposal that says there must be trees there and find out that the applicant wishes to exercise his option and then he has a sign and trees in front of it also. Commissioner Wilson thought the wording should be along the lines of: "Tree wells in front of the K-Mart store be positioned to minimize conflict with sign location but retain the vertical palm effect shown on the render- ings . Planning Commission Meeting -8- December 16 , 1974 Commissioner Van de Mark stated they could be framed to the sign like a twin palm on one side or both sides to be an attractive framing of the sign and still give you a vertical effect . Mr. Resnick stated there would not be any room for fram- ing tree wells if there is a sign. You would obscure the sign. Vice Chairman Seidler stated that regarding the in and out ... signs that are on posts , he recommended that the posts be made of a collapsible material from a safety standpoint. Since this condition was not a standard one, he recommended that it be added to this project. He asked if there were any other comments from the commission, there being none, he recommended the changes as listed be attached to the Resolution with the addition of an additional change on Item 2 .b . - "tree wells in front of K-Mart store be posi- tioned to minimize conflict with the sign location but re- tain the vertical palm effect shown on the rendering" - and to add to that, "if possible" . Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark sec- onded the approval of Planning Commission Resolution No . 27 be approved as amended. The motion was unanimously carried. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Resnick asked what happens with the sign? Vice Chairman Seidler answered, "to place the sign on the front of the building and give you the option of plac- ing on both sides . " Mr. Williams stated he had the right of written appeal within 15 days of written notice. X. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams recommended the selection of a new Chairman due to the resignation of Mr . Hubbard. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded that Vice Chairman Seidler be selected as Chairman of the Planning Commission to serve until the expired term of the former Chairman, Mr . Hubbard. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Williams recommended the selection of a new Vice- Chairman. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded that Commissioner Wilson be selected as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams then stated the term of Mr. Mullins on the ARB would expire, and a new selection should be made tonight . Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded that Commissioner Van de Mark be se- lected to the ARB for the period starting the second Tuesday in January and continuing for a four-month period to the second Tuesday in May. The motion was unanimously carried. B. City Attorney There is some question about the December 11 appeal on K-Mart . There may be some question about whether Planning Commission Meeting -9- December 16, 1974 the people filing the appeal are owners of the prop- erty. They are not long-term land owners within 300 feet . There is the question about the times involved on it. He stated he had not come to a conclusion as to what he is going to recommend to the Council , but thought he would have something by Wednesday morning. Vice Chairman Seidler stated after the first of the year , the ARB meetings will be structured in such a way to save time by holding a formal meeting on the .. first Tuesday of the month and on that date review such things as public hearings , and CUP ' s , P .P. re- views , etc. On the second meeting of the month, the ARB would discuss zoning ordinances and the like, in an attempt to do long-range planning and establish policies . C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Wilson urged that during the development of the zoning map , careful analysis should be given as to low density on the north side of Highway 111 . XI . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark sec- onded the meeting be adjourned. The motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 15 P .M. it PAUL A. W LLIAMS , Secretary ATTEST: xtAll IL IAM R. SEI LER C airman