Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1230 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 30, 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 December 30, 1974, at the Palm Desert Middle School . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners : ED MULLINS , WILLIAM SEIDLER MARY K. VAN DE MARK, S . ROY WILSON Absent : Commissioner 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. It was recommended that the following corrections be made to the minutes of the December 16 meeting : tow Page 6 , paragraph 3 , line 2 , after "Resnick" add "would" ; page 7 , paragraph 3 , line 2 , add "that" before "the ARB" ; page 7 , paragraph 7 , line 8 , add "horizontal" before "element" , change "I" to "he" ; page 9, paragraph 2 , line 2 , change "ARB" to "Planning Commission" ; line 4, change "Tuesday" to "meeting" . In sub-point C, delete comment of Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Mary K. Van de Mark seconded that the minutes as corrected be approved. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District requesting a statement of compatibility of land use from the City of Palm Desert in regard to the District ' s proposed expansion of facilities at the Palm Desert Community Center . Commissioner Van de Mark moved. Chairman Seidler seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this is in conformance with both general plans as to being appropriate for recreation. Mr . Williams then stated there were two late items not on the agenda. One was received from an unnamed person regarding previous actions , historical articles , newspaper clipping, etc. The letter was directed to the Planning Commission and Mr. Williams recommended the Commission receive the letter for whatever purpose it was intended. The second late item was a letter from Elmer C. Rigby, M.D. , with regards to property he owns , speaking to the fact that the property had County zoning of CP , and now it has no designation on the General Plan and the applicant is Planning Commission Meeting -2- December 30, 1974 requesting that the commerical zoning be preserved on this property. Mr. Williams recommended that the Commissioners receive this and refer it to Staff for appropriate analysis for the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Seidler concurred with Mr . Williams recommenda- tions . VI . PUBLIC HEARING - None VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. 4SA - KAVANAUGH PROPERTIES - Consideration of an appeal filed by Kavanaugh Properties of a December 10 , 1974 decision of the Palm Desert Archi- tectural Review Board regarding a subdivision sign for the Corsican Villas condominium project , which is located south of Silver Spur Trail and west of Portola Avenue (R-2-8000) . Mr. Rader read the Staff report, and stated that upon reviewing this in full detail , the ARB felt that the sign should be modified. The ARB recommends that any exist- ing signage on the property be removed since the sign would be taking the place of those on the property at this time; that the 10' x 10 ' sign be reduced to 6 ' x b. base to 4' ; that the word "compare" be deleted and that both sides read "casual elegance" . This decision by the ARB was passed unanimously. The appelant has submitted an appeal stating ;that he would like consideration of this VMW decision because of hardship due to limited signing available in the Palm Desert area. Mr . Rader recom- mended that it be moved by Planning Commission Resolution No . 28 that the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB decision of December 10. The Chairman asked if a representative of Kavanaugh. Properties was present . Mr. Michael Smith, 570 North Archwood, .Brea; California, stated that there are three existing signs on the pro- ject. One is the 8 ' x 10' sign which is being replaced because of its shoddy appearance , the second is the permanent identification sign on the walls , and the kiosk sign that says "Models" on it . He stated that in driving by the project at 35 miles per hour, a sign of 6 ' x 6 ' , behind the vegetation planted on the wall , would make it impossible to read. He also stated that the color patterns - if offensive, can be changed. Also, he would like to move the 8' x 10 ' sign 125 feet closer to the model complex since it has to be rebuilt and repainted. Commissioner Van de Mark asked, "Are there two large signs or just one sign of 8 ' x 10' ?" Mr. Smith replied, that there was only one . Commissioner Van de Mark then asked if he would be will- ing to change the colors , to which Mr. Smith replied he would. Chairman Seidler stated he had a few comments concern- ing the sign and he thought a smaller sign would be appro- priate and would fit in better. He then asked if there were any other comments . Planning Commission Meeting -3- December 30, 1974 Commissioner Van de Mark again stated that for a resi- dential area, the bright colors of the sign are offen- sive and asked if some more subtle tones would not be better. Mr . Smith stated that whatever the commission directed him to do he would do. He also stated that he would like to have a larger sign with muted colors , and heavy wood supports so that it would look nice . He stated that if he loses his bright colors and his sign size, he' s in trouble, no one will notice it . Chairman Seidler then asked if there were any other comments from the commission regarding this sign. He stated that if there were no other comments , the Planning Commission does understand that the ARB' s recommendation was that only the 6 ' x 6 ' sign on 4' support and no other signing will be allowed for this project . Mr . Smith has indicated that not only would he like a larger sign but would like to retain the sign that says "models" . If we are to accept the ARB' s recommendation, we 're really tak- ing two actions in Mrs . Smith' s request . Commissioner Van de Mark stated that regarding the "model" sign, it is necessary, but indicated she should rather see them continue to have that sign, but definitely would prefer the muted tones and a 6 ' x 6 ' sign as long as they have the model sign. Commissioner Mullins stated that he thought-that he. was inclined to agree with Commissioner Van de Mark that the sign pointing to the models certainly would be necessary. He would think that the 6 ' x 6 ' sign would be adequate in size. He agreed with the ARB on that. On the coloring , he thought there was a kind of logo and, however , it could be muted down a little using the same circle , may- be not quite so bright colors . After much discussion, Chairman Seidler stated that the thing that comes across is that the commission would like to see a smaller sign, and the color , at least the yellow toned down, and the commission feelsthat the model sign could remain. The ARB decision was that all existing sign- ing was not to remain. It appears the Planning; Commis- sioners are not going to uphold the ARB decision in its exact entirety. He entertained a motion to amend the ARB decision. Mr. Rader stated that the Planning Commission might want to consider an option, either a 6 ' x 6 ' or a 5 ' x 7 ' sign, and then leave it up to the applicant as to which he would select as a possible alternative . Chairman Seidler stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. Mullins moved that Planning Commission Resolution No . 28 be adopted with the following changes : That the option be left open on the size of the sign, either 6 ' x i 6' or 5 ' x 7 ' which ever would work out better for the applicant ' s use and that he be allowed to remove the wording "back to models" and "models ahead" from the sign, and the model sign on the entrance be retained, and that the structure height be 4 feet from ground level to the bottom of the sign, the yellow background color be changed to an off-white that would be compatible with the fencing and the painting of the physical buildings in the project. Planning Commission Meeting -4- December 30, 1974 The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Chairman Seidler asked if there was any discussion to the motion? Mr. Williams stated that in order to accomplish this , the Planning Commission must make revisions to the resolution. Since the resolution is for denial , he recommended some very minor changes in wording in the resolution. In the text of the heading, he recommended the replacement of "and deny" with "approving an appeal" and replacing the word "for" with "approving the development of the subdivision sign" . In the last "whereas" before the subpoints begin, change the word "deny" to "approve" , and after the word "appeal" add the words "and approve the requested sign subject to conditions" . Then on the last page, subpoint 2 , change the word "deny" to "approve" , and after appeal add "and approve the subdivision signs subject to the attached conditions" . Chairman Seidler noted regarding the word "compare" that the ARB suggested that the word "compare" be changed to "casual elegance" . He would like to amend the motion to include that. The amendment was passed. The chairman called for the motion and the vote was unanimous . Mr . Smith asked if he understood correctly that he did not have to landscape the base of the sign. Mr. Williams answered him affirmatively. Chairman Seidler stated that the decision of the Planning Commission tonight is subject to appeal if the applicant .. wished. The appeal should be filed within 15 days and made to the City Council . B. Study Session on Proposed Palm Desert Zoning Ordi- nance Chairman Seidler suggested the commission postpone any action on this item that evening and will take it up when its appropriate to do so. He made one comment concerning the Planning Commission member on the Core Area Plan Committee. Previously, this commission had appointed Commissioner Seidler to be on that committee . He stated he would like to suggest that the Planning Commission change that appointment to Commissioner Mullins and the reason for that change being that Commissioner Mullins will no longer be serving on the ARB Committee, and would be in a better position to serve that committee as a member of our Planning Commission. Commissioner Mullins has the respect of the business community and he believed that Commissioner Mullins would be able to work with them better than any other member of the commission at this time. He wanted the Planning Commission' s concurrence that the appoint- ment of Commissioner Mullins be made . Commission concurred. Chairman Seidler asked Mr . Williams to please note that there is a change in the committee membership . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None Planning Commission Meeting -5- December 30 , 1974 C. Planning Commissioners - None XI . ADJOURNMENT Chairman Seidler moved, Comissioner Van de Mark seconded the meeting be adjourned. The motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 55 P .M. PWUL A. WILLIAMS , Secretary ATTEST: 44ILEIAM R. SEI L irman �r.r