Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0127 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 27 , 1975 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 : 05 P .M, on January 27 , 1975 , at the Palm Desert Middle School . � II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissianers : ED MULLINS , WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY K. VA'.V DE MARK, S . ROY WILSON Others Present : Director of Environmental Services - Paul A. Williams City Attorney - Dave Erwin Associate Planner - Freeman Rader Assistant Planner - Sam Freed City Clerk, Mr. Harvey Hurlburt swore in Mr . George Berkey as the new Planning Com�-nission member filling the vacancy made by Mr . Robert Hubbard' s resignation. After Comriissioner Berkey was sworn in, Chairman Seidler remarked that he thought Commissioner Berkey would be a great asset to the Commission. Cammissioner Berkey took his place along with the other Commissioners . � IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. There was one correction of the previous minutes , that being on page 4, paragraph 6 to add the word "at" after the word "was" in the third line of that parag.raph. With that one correction noted Commissioner Van de ��ar?,� moved and Commissioner Wilson seconded that the minutes be approved. The motion was unanimously carried. V. GJRITT�N CONIl�NNICATIOLIS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARING A. Continued Case No. ICAP A.NIENDMENT - 02-74 - H. McCORMIC�: Consideration of a request to amend the Palm Desert Interim Core Area plan by deleting an indicated auto- mobile driveway connection from El Paseo to the rear parking area in the general vicinity of Lot 29 , Block S, Palm Desert subdivision. Said parcel is located northly of and adjacent to E1 Paseo , approximately 400 feet easterly of the intersection of El Paseo and San Luis Rey - (C-P-S) . (Continued from January 13 , 1975) . Staff' s recommendation was that the Planning Commission approve the applicant'=s withdrawal of application. rr.. There were no comments from the audience or the Plannin� Commission. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Planning Commis- sion approve withdrawal of application. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried with a vote of 5-0 . Planning Commission Meeting 2 . . January 27 , 1975 VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. 5C - ROY CARVER - Consideration of Archi- techtural Review Board decision on Tie-Breaker restaurant located in the El Paseo Square Shopping center, southerly of and adj acerit to State High�naay 111 and approximately 120 feet east of Lupine Lane - (C-P-S) . Freeman Rader gave the Architectural Review Boards ' opinion. He explained that since February 2 , 1974 '�"' when the Planning Commission approved the Plot Plan for the E1 Paseo Square Shopping Center , the devel- oper had made some modifications to the plot plan which affected Building D and E. These modifica- tions had not been approved by the �i.ty. Building D was allowed to develop as modified. However , the Staff was under the impression that further review and approval was required for Building E . The ARB felt that the plan which was initially approved was most desirable , but that in consider- ation of the work that had already taken place to advance the modified plan, the proposed plan, if further modified, would be acceptable. Mr. Rader added that the access road between Buildings C and E was required to be "two-way" rather than "one-way" . Also , in lieu of parking stalls , an attractively landscaped area to the east of the restaurant would make for a more attractive entrance to the Center , and would eliminate potentially dangerous parking and traffic problems . Since the building is architecturally quite well done and much effort has gone into advancing its develop- ment , the ARB felt that the changes and the pro- ject should be approved as modified. He added �"' that there were 19 conditions of approval to this case and summarized them. The applicant has prepared an alternative plan, but the Staff was of the opinion that this was not as acceptable as the one approved by the Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Mullins requested that he abstain from any discussion or vote since he had a business in the shopping center. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Seidler. Mr. Roy Carver , 9620 Lared Drive, El Monte, addressed the Commission. He said that he had met with his fellow tenants about his plan. He said that he had understood the ARB' s recommendation and had tried to come up with a compromise. He mentioned three things he considered important : visability, conven- ient parking and ingress and egress that would make the shops viable businesses . He said that he thought they could reduce building E to make for a � two-way drive between Building E and C . He said � that by reducing the building, they could. make the driveway 22 feet . He also proposed that the build- ing be moved further to the east and that a drive- way and five additional parkin; stalls be placed between buildin�s D and E . Commissioner Van de Mark asked the size of these buildings? P�Ir. Carver answered that the building would be 71 ' x 96 ' instead of 74' x 96 ' . Planning Commission Meeting 3 • . January 27 , 1975 T�rs . Florence Lowell , 1775 South Palm Canyon Drive, who owns a franchise on an ice cream parlor in the center , addressed the Commission. She spoke about people shopping in her business and only wanting to go to her business if there were a two-way drive. She requested improved accessibility. Ms . Ruth Hinkley, 74-351 Gary Ave . addressed the Commis- sion regarding the laundromat s�e operates that is in that shopping center. 5he ie?t that it ���as very ic�nort«nt t11at her si�n be seen and that parkin; �a� nrovided. She wanted to see a lot o�` �arl.in; in �ront of the laundro�at to inake it easier ror �aublic to �et in and out of t�ne � laundro�nat. Chairman Seidler asked her how she felt about the proposed building . Ms . Hinkley answered that if there were no other alterna- tive, she felt it was O.K. , but to give her as much park- ing space as close to the laundromat as possible. Mr. Robert Ricciardi , 73-700 Hwy 111 addressed the Commission. He was affiliated with the applicant by being the architect for the proposed project . He spoke about the dimensions of the building, stating that some adjustments could be made . He thought that the width of thP aisles v�as inz�ortant and that two- way traffic would be desirable. Chairman Seidler responded that there raas no spec- ific size related to the buil�ling by the ARB . Hz co��tinued by saying that it appears that a 22 foot tra��ic ai�1� b� nrov�de� d• -kllat there be no pa�ck.i�.� between building D and E and that the size of the building be reduced. � Commissioner Van de Mark felt that it was unfortunate that the major leasee did not feel like everyone on the ARB that the building should be moved because it was a dead-end area.She felt that it was creatin� a big traffic problem. She spoke about traffic �being tied up and problems with exits . She really felt th.at the plan was terrible. Mr. Rader stated that it seems that if the applicant was concerned about serving his tenants , that the original plot plan was most suitable. Chairman Seidler said that he primarily felt that the applicant was trying to make a compromise that best serves his tenants , the shopping center and the City. He stated that they did, of course , have the option of approving the plot plan of February 2 . Commissioner Berkey stated that �e felt that the west bound traffic could not move anywhere but out . He also added that if Mr. Carver could get back to the original plan (Exhibit B) it would certainly be highly desirable. Robert Ricciardi, 73-700 Hwy 111 , addressed the Commis- sion. He stated that at the time the original building � was done nobody knew the occupancy. A prototype building was given. He thought that the long range plans are for making the buildin� work for the tenant . He also stated that tY�ere was a problem of making a two-way drive. h�e thought that the tenant izad come u� with a ;ood co�- proinise and that this new request ��as a tine one and �aould not cre�.te a traffic problern. Commissioner ti�lilson stated tizatc he was not sure that it was a �ood com�romise. ��e asked if it wouldn' t be in Planning Commission Meeting 4 • . Januar� 27 , 1975 order to send the project back to th� ARB to study the latest proposal . Chairman Seidler asked Mr. Carver , if based on Mr. Wilson' s comments , if he would like the pro- ject sent back to the ARB for study or if he would like a decision tonight . Mr . Carver felt that he would leave it up to the Commission to make the best decision. TZr. Williams stated that it appeared to him that the key to the situation is to provide a compromise � that is good for the tenants of the building and to the City and the developer . He said that it was not possible to relocate this building according to Mr . Carver . He spoke ab�ut the various condi- tions of staff' s and the ARB ' s recommendation. He said that these conditions are met by the plan pro- posed by the ARB. He discussed the width of the two-way drive. He said that if the applicant was willing to reduce the size of the buildin� , he could create a larger two-way drive . He stated that the resolution as written with the exception of number 19 contained all of these conditions and that number 19 be changed to read the drive way be 24 feet . Commissioner Berkey felt that Building E was too big for the space available. Chairman Seidler stated that Mr . Carver needs space for Building E and F. He suggested that the Commission come to some conclusion on the item. T�e then moved that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No . 30 as do�umented with the 19 conditions with the revision to condi- tion number 19 changing the width from 22 to 24 feet . � Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Before the vote ensued, Commissioner Van de Mark stated that she felt that this is a beautiful development thafi was being ruined by allowing a building in this spec- ific spot. She then abstained from voting . The motion was carried by the vote 3-0 in approval of the motion with Commissioners Mullins and Van de Mark abstaining. Chairman Seidler stated that there was an appeal process . B, p.equest from FRED RICE for an interpretation and clarification of the types of uses permitted in the C-P-S zone and the appropriate off-street parking requirements . Mr . Rader addressed the Commission and stated that Staff had reviewed both the zoning ordinance and the parking ordinance and indicated the following factors upon which th�ir decision was based: Permitted uses , as they relate to this case, include �, "paint and wallpaper s�ores" , and "wnolesale bus- iness with samples on the premises but not to include stora�e" . The off street parking require- ment for general retail stores is 1 stall for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The off street parking requirement for wholesale establishments and warehouses not used exclusively for storage is 1 stall for each 3000 square feet of gross floor area. Planning Commission Meeting 5 � _ January 27 , 1975 He stated that structures built for lease purposes should be classified as a "general commercial use" rather than a specific use because tenants may come and go and uses will likely vary throu�hout the per- iod of existence for the structure. It should there- fore be interpreted that 1 stall for every 25C square feet of gross floor area be provided on the property. He stated that the Planning Commission should provide a like interpretation so the party �aill know how to proceed with the building . Chairman Seidler sug�ested that the Planning Commission review the proposed Palm Desert Zonin� �rdinance in the next six months and that it be made so people can sit I� down and read it and mull over on how to proceed with their projects . The public hearing was opened by Chairman Seidler . Chet Anderson, 47550 Silver Spur , spoke about how wall paper stores have no storage on hand and that it is all ordered. He felt that there should be some consideration for businesses that are both wholesale/retail . Chairman Seidler asked the size of the building . Mr. Anderson answered that it was 2900 square feet and the lot was 5000 square feet . He stated that in his plans they have made consideration for five parking spaces . They need eleven. Mr. Williams asked how many employees they had. Mr. Anderson answered that they had five . Mr. Fred, Rice, 73-210 Fiddleneck Ln. addressed the Com- mission. He stated that they are trying to get the eleven ,r,,, parking spaces even if they have to acquire them else- where. He stated tnat the business is noTa operating with only four parking stalls . Mr. Dick McNiven, 49305 Hwy 74 ��8 , addressed the Comm- ission. He stated that all paint and wall paper stores are wholesale and retail stores . It is 2/3 wholesale and 1/3 retail . Chairrnan Seidler mentioned that if five spaces were provided for employees , where would the custorners park? Mr. McNiven would not let his employees use those �ark- in� stalls . They should park elsewhere , since parking was available several blocks away. Mr. Williams stated that the Planning Commission could ask the City Council to pursue this clarification. Mr. Rader stated that whaL was being asked for was an interpretation of existing ordinances . It would not be appropriate to just arbitrarily revise policies . Commissioner Wilson asked if there wasn' t a wa3 out �i having parking stalls , i� the property didn' t allow �or � enou;h spaces . �Ir. ��lilliams sta�vd that in tlne ordinance there is a cla�isP PGtahZiGl�.in� � "'FPP_�� in lieu of parking. but those e:>act procedures ha3 not bee� set iorth. Mr. Frec� Rice s tated that Mr. z�IcNiven was in need of space almost i�ediately. The� nee�e� i*-r�.e��iate con- �i.d�xation. Mr. �IcNiven agreed that he must relocate as soon as possible. Planning Commission Meetin� 6 . _ January 27 , 1975 �ommissioner Berkey asked Mr . P�IcNiven how he defined retail and wholesale. Mr. McNiven stated that all the stock is either retail or wholesale. "Wholesale" is the purchase of materials to make a living. �-ie ;ave as an example of a painter and a builder . They buy their paint at a reduced cost . Mr . McNiven also said that the price is established because of quantity. Chairman 5eidler stated that in reviewing the ordinance, P�'Ir . 1"�cNiven' s store is classified as a retail store. He didn' t think that the Plannin� Commission could come up with somethin; between. He stated that the store does have """" s torage . He didn' t know how much traf f ic Mr , r�cNiven' s business had. Finally, he stated that Mr . Mc�Iiven' s business fits in the retail category and not in the wholesale. Commissioner ��ilson stated that he was thinkin� that the Plannin� Commission has to keep in mind the lon� term uses . He also thought that this request for an inter- pretation was interesting and that the Staff should plan sorne possible variations for the new Zoning Ordi- nance. Commissioner tiailson moved that we support the interpretation as handed down by Staff. Chairman Seidler asked if the Plannin� Commission could say the use was retail. He also stated that by havin� the request referred back to Council would not serve any purpose . Commissioner Wilson asked that the Staff give this matter high priority if it is going to be in the ordinance. Commissioner Berkey stated that the present ordinance does not cover a situation like this very well . He � stated that he would like to kicic it back to the Staff to study. Mr . Williams stated that the parkin; ordinance, under the category of "other uses" , established precise pro- cedures in which to have parking snaces . The ordinance says "the Planning Commission, by resolution, will establish the parking requirement" . He stated that the Staff was not free to make an arbitrary decision. Chairman Seidler restated Commissioner Wilson' s �re- vious motion that we support the interpretation handed down by Staff requirin; 1 parking stall for each 250 square feet of ;ross floor area. Commissioner Van De Mark seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 9 : 00 p .m. Meeting resumed at 9 : 10 p .m. C . Consideration of the establishment of the boundaries of the project area for the redevelopment pro;ram for the City of Palm Desert. P�Ir. Bill Garrett, representing the firm of [�lilsey & Ham ,�,,,� explained the boundaries of the project area. �,Then Chairman Seidler noted no one was in the audience, he asked if this item has been published in the newspapers . Mr . Williams stated that advance notice was provided, but that if the Planning Commission chose to continue it to next week, the Staff could �ive the public a better idea of what was proposed in the area, and also the property owners living within the boundaries of that area could be in attendance. Planning Comn:issi.on Meeting 7 . . _ January 27 , 1975 After much discussion about the fact of there being no audience for such an important matter, Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission continue this item until February 3 . Commissioner Mullins seconded. The vote was unanimously carried. D. Verbal presentation on schedule for review of zoning ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. Chairman Seidler felt that he would like time to review the schedule . It was decided that the schedule would be reviewed by the Planning Commission without going on with a """` verbal presentation. After adequate time for review, further discussion could be undertaken at upcoming meetings . IX. ORAL COr�ItJNICATIONS - None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - Chairman Seidler again welcomed Commissioner Berkey to the Commission along with the other Commissioners . XI . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by a motion made by Commission Mullins and seconded by Commissioner Berkey. The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 47 P .M. itii.r (f `, � \ ,�� , ��, �_ "�- �`�� �.`r.�`,,�.--��.. � :,:. � AUL A. �+TILLIAMS , Secretary ATTEST: � / � R. FS,.� L , airman �