Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0512 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 12, 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 7:03 p.m. on May 12, 1975 at the Palm � Desert Middle School. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY K. VAN DE MARK, S. ROY WILSON Others Present: Dave Erwin - City Attorney Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Freeman Rader - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 14, 1975: After a minor wording change suggested by Chairman Seidler on page 7, Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of April 28, 1975: Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. tir.r V. WRITTEN COMMTJNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. CUP-03-75 LURIA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for development of a 100 unit planned residential development located on 20 acres of land, east of Portola Avenue on either side of Catalina Way. Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. He stated that the City Council, at their public hearing on May 8, 1975, had not made a decision as to whether or not an Environmental Impact Report was required for this project. The staff recommended that the case be tabled until Environmental Impact considerations were completed, which would continue the case until June 2, 1975. Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to table this consideration until June 2, 1975. Motion carried unani- mously. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS �rr.r A. Case No. Tract 5357 (Time Extension) HOME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORP,TION: Request for a one year extension of the period of approval previously granted to Tract 5357, which involves the conversion of Whispering Sands Apartment complex to condominiums located southwest of the intersection of Deep Canyon and Abronia Trail. z. Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. He stated that the project, as approved by the Planning Commission one year ago, still met all ordinances and requirements; and was compatible to the newly adopted General Plan. Therefore, nothing had occurred which would justify a denial of the extension being sought. On that basis, Mr. Williams recommended that a one year extension be granted on Tract 5357 by Resolution No. 51. Staff indicated that the final conversion plans, including provisions for lighting, landscaping, etc. would be submitted to the Design Review Board. wrrr Chairman Seidler then asked if the applicant was present to give additional input. The applicant was not present, nor were there any questions or comments from the audience or the Commission. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve Plan- ning Commission Resolution No. 51. Motion carried unanimously. B. Case No. 11C - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION CO. : Request for approval of plot plan and architecture on proposed commercial buildings located along the North Frontage Road near the intersection with Panorama Drive. Freeman Rader presented the Staff Report. He explained that the pro- ject was previously submitted to the ARB and was found to be unacceptable. A notice was given to the applicant stipulating areas in which improve- ment was needed. The applicant partially corrected a couple of the problem areas, but refused to make further changes. As a result, the Architectural Review Board technically approved the project merely as a means of forwarding the matter to the Planning Commission for its decision. This approval was not to be interpreted as an endorse- ment of the project by the Architectural Review Board. Since a transition from the "old" Architectural Review Board to the "new" Design Review Board was in progress, the old board members asked � the new board members to further review the project and forward its recommendations to the Planning Commission for consideration, Results of the actions of both boards were outlined in Attachments A, B, and C. Mr. Rader then outlined many problem areas which still existed with the project in its current state as outlined in Exhibit D. In summary, Mr. Rader stated that regardless of the location of this project, the previously discussed problems should be corrected. The mere fact that the project was proposed for the north side in a relatively undeveloped area, was no reason to lessen standards. In fact, that was precisely when and where standards should be upgraded. To correct the problems associated with this project, Staff felt some redesign and revision was necessary, which would include incorporating those items as recommended by the Design Review Board. Mr. Rader concluded by outlining options Staff felt were available to the Commission and recommended the latter two options as the most appropriate. Commissioner Berkey questioned Mr. Rader regarding his statement with regards to standards of the north side versus the south side. Mr. Rader then elaborated by stating that elsewhere in the City, greater setbacks were utilized along with greater varieties of store fronts. Greater landscaping was used and signage was more tasteful. Also �,,, more progressive development patterns were employed, as was exhibited by some shopping center complexes. Chairman Seidler asked if the applicant was present to give additional input. The applicant was present and addressed the Commission. 3. FRANK GOODMAN 77900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, California Mr. Goodman stated that according to Mr. Rader's report, his project obviously seemed no good. However, he wanted to express his point of view. Mr. Goodman then explained various construction and architectural features which he had tried to incorporate in his project and circulated a colored rendering for the Commission to review. He then explained several problem areas which the Staff and the ARB � had brought up; and explained how he had tried to solve them. He also explained several conditions which had been brought out in the report with which he took exception to. In summary, he wanted to stress two major items to the Commission: 1. He asked that the Commission accept the front of the building "as is", and 2. He stated he would reduce the size of the stores by one foot each in order to make room for a two-way driveway. DICK OLIPHANT 77900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, California Mr. Oliphant commented with regards to strip type com- mercial building in Palm Desert and explained the ramifications behind his project's construction. With the latitude that was available with the way the land was laid out, he felt this project was attractive and would be appreciated by members of the community. A lengthy discussion then ensued with the Commission members asking � questions of both the Staff and the applicant in regards to various aspects of the project including signage, roof lines, trash enclosure areas, access ways, etc. Chairman Seidler then asked the applicant if he agreed with the condi- tions of approval as attached. The applicant indicated he did not and took exception to conditions 16 through 20. He also stated that he didn't feel it was the perrogative of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to determine how the building should look. To refresh his memory, Chairman Seidler reviewed the sequence of events from the onset of the project. Chairman Seidler summarized by stating that usually the applicant was able to come to some sort of agreement with the conditions of approval; however, in this instance, it was not the case. Chairman Seidler asked the Commissioners to think over what they were being asked to do at this meeting, which was to act on the design of a project. He said that the City had a Design Review Board, specifically composed of professionals in the design field, to consider the design aspects of such projects. It was not the intent of the Commission to make a decision on the design and architecture of a building. Therefore, he felt that problems of this nature should be resolved by the applicant, the staff and the Design Review Board before being presented to the ,�,,, Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Wilson asked how much time the new DRB had to review the project, and asked if the applicant was present at the meeting when the new DRB reviewed this project. The applicant stated he was not present at this meeting; and it was established that the DRB members met only once with members of the ARB to review this project, and subsequently reviewed the matter again on their own. 4. Commissioner Wilson stated he felt this project was unique in that it was caught in a transition period from a layman ARB to a professional group of citizens representing the DRB. He was concerned about the fact that the applicant and DRB did not have enough time to discuss main interests and basic standards of the project to make it more acceptable to all parties concerned. Commissioner Van de Mark stated it was very unfortunate that the applicant had been involved in raising and lowering roof lines. She also felt it was unfortunate that because of the location and space � available, the applicant had to resort to strip type commercial building. If there was room to be more creative, she felt the applicant's archi- tect was the person to do it. Commissioner Mullins was concerned with the problems which could arise with the one-way access. He questioned whether the applicant would be able to take one foot off each of those buildings, or if the applicant could obtain an easement from next door. Commissioner Mullins hated to see the buildings redesigned, however, he would like to see the applicant come to some agreement with the new DRB. He summarized by stating that he didn't feel the DRB had enough input from the applicant on this project. Commissioner Berkey agreed with Commissioner Mullins. He too felt the one-way access was a major consideration. However, the applicant had indicated that this was something that he was willing to alter. After considerable discussion with regards to alternatives of approving, disapproving, or referring this case back to the DRB, Chairman Seidler asked the applicant which course of action he would like to pursue. The applicant requested that the Commission refer the case back to the DRB for further consideration before final approval by the Commission. Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission refer this case � back to the DRB to allow the applicant and the DRB to resolve problems which still existed before final approval at the next Planning Com- mission meeting which was scheduled for June 2, 1975. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion of Zoning Map Paul Williams stated that the staff had forwarded to the Commission, the preliminary draft of the zoning map. He then discussed the schedule for reviewing and conducting hearings on the zoning map. Since the zoning map encompassed the entire city, staff split up the zoning map for review purposes on a neighborhood basis. Each Commissioner was then assigned a particular neighborhood to study before the Commission would review the zoning map as a whole. In this way, the Commission would become more expert on all the ramifications of the zoning map. IX. ORAL COMNIUNICATIONS - None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None XI. ADJOURNMENT irr. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. � , ��,,:.,.',� `� •���� ,,.._.._.,. A ES : Paul A. Williams, Secretary �:.��. n S ' airman