Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0616 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 16, 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 June 16, 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 Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After the addition of one sentence to page 3, paragraph 6 of the minutes of June 2, 1975, Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. PUP-01-75 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: Consideration of a public use permit to allow the applicant to operate a develop- ment center for mentally retarded children, to be located in an existing structure at 74-109 Larrea. (R-3-4000) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. After a detailed description of the background and discussion of the public use, Mr. Williams recom- mended approval by Resolution No. 58, subject to the attached conditions and based upon justification as outlined in his report. In summary, he indicated to the Commission that the public use permit would have an expiration date of two years from the date of approval . Regarding the EIR finding, the project was evaluated by staff, resulting in a finding of a Negative Declaration. He also wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that notices were published in the newspaper and sent to property owners within 300' of the project giving prior notification of this public hearing. 01 Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. Mr. Mort Saske Superintendent of Schools Riverside County Mr. Saske spoke in favor of this project. He explained the operation, time schedule, and benefits derived by an existing development center presently operated by Riverside County; and concluded that by granting this public use permit, Palm Desert would benefit by this service. Mr. Fred Rice 73120 Fiddleneck Lane Palm Desert, California Mr. Rice spoke in favor of this project. He explained he was working on behalf of Riverside County to upgrade the building and assurred the Commission that Staff's conditions and recommendations would be abided by. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 1975 2. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 58 with attached conditions. Motion carried unanimously. VII . OLD BUSINESS A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHANGE OF ZONE, Case No. 1892, R-1-1 to W-2 and R-2-14,000 on 10 acres on the south side of Country Club between Monterey and Portola extended. Paul Williams stated this matter had been brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting and Staff was, at that time, directed to obtain addi- tional information. He then proceeded to communicate information received by the County to the Commission. During his report, Mr. Williams indicated it was the W-2 zone that did not appear suitable for this location. He then listed the many uses permitted as a right in this area and the uses permitted with an approved conditional use permit. Taking into considera- tion, this broad range of uses, staff felt it would be inappropriate to approve the requested W-2 zone change at this time without also reviewing a preliminary site plan. In general , most W-2 uses would not be desirable in this area. Except for Palm Desert Greens, all the surrounding property was R-1-1 . Any- thing other than a low or medium density residential use, such as the proposed television broadcasting studio and station would be completely out of place. It was also apparent that Portola was not likely to be extended to Country Club in the forseeable future, which would create access problems for the site. The exposed position of the parcel would also entail expensive blowsand mitigation procedures for both the applicant and possibly the County. Should the County wish to proceed with the approval of the broadcasting studio and station, the Staff recommends that it be located further west near the intersection of Monterey & Country Club, where the Palm Desert General Plan already proposes commercial and institutional areas that would be compatible. A second alternative location would be the area along Cook Street, just north of the Whitewater Storm Channel . In summary, Mr. Williams recommended that the Commission direct staff to write a letter to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors ex- pressing concern over proposed zoning for the parcel . Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to direct staff to write subject letter. Motion carried unanimously. B. Continued Case No. C/Z 01-73 PD - GERALD MOSS PROPERTIES: Consideration of a request to change the zone from W- (Controlled Development) and R-2-5000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Com- mercial ) , R-3 (General Residential ) , and N-A (Natural Assets) on property located west of Painters Path and south of the westerly extension of Avenue 44. (W-2 and R-2-5000) Staff requested that an additional continuance of 90 days be granted, which would bring the matter up September 15, 1975. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to continue this case. Motion carried unanimously. fto. At this point in the meeting, Chairman Seidler changed the sequence of items on the Agenda; and deferred Item C (Proposed General Plan Amendments) until later in the meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 1975 3. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. 13C SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK: Request for approval of plot plan, landscaping, architecture, signage and construction drawings for a proposed 8100 square foot building at the southwest corner of Portola and El Paseo. (C-P-S) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. This case had been reviewed at the last Design Review Board meeting and was approved subject to 22 Now conditions of approval . Of those conditions, Staff had basically three concerns which were outlined as follows: (1 ) Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks - The Staff felt that the installation of curbs, gutters and all tie-in paving completely encircling the property was necessary to the orderly flow of traffic in this area. This development would generate high amounts of traffic on Prickly Pear & Larrea as well as El Paseo and Portola. This was a matter of public safety as well as a benefit to the Bank. Granted, the initial cash expenditure would be somewhat higher, but staff felt that the benefits far outweighed the costs. He then presented the Commission with pictures taken that morning of a water main break causing a flood on Portola. He felt these pictures indicated to a large degree the necessity of requiring proper drainage control through the installation of curbs and gutters. (2) Signs - The freestanding ground sign should be as per Security Pacific Bank's standard monument sign design. Each of the directional signs should be of similar design as the monument sign. The location of these identification signs should be as per Security Pacific Bank's plan. (3) Parkin - The applicant was deficient in his parking requirement. However, with credit given for the drive up window, Staff felt there would be more than ample parking for this project. The current Ordinance called for 41 parking spaces; and the current plot plan, as approved by the DRB, had 34 regular spaces. In order to approve this project, the Commission would have to find that the drive up window had a value of 8 parking spaces as requested by the applicant. Mr. Williams stated Staff recommended that if the Commission found this project acceptable, they should first accept the drive up window to count as 8 spaces towards the parking requirement by minute motion; and then by Resolution No. 59, approve the project with the attached conditions as revised. A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding Staff's basic concerns and continued on into the conditions of approval . Frank Gilbert Security Pacific Bank Riverside, California Mr. Gilbert commented in favor of some of the conditions presented, however, he took exception to conditions 8, 11 , and 13 as outlined in John Outcault's letter to the Commission of June 13, 1975. Mr. Gilbert explained each of his objections in great detail . John Outcault 74-133 El Paseo Palm Desert, California Mr. Outcault explained the landscaping concept for the project and spoke in opposition of condition #14, recommending alternatives. He was mainly concerned with installing landscaping on a permanent basis. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 1975 4. Neil Olsen Security Pacific Bank Marketing Division 4815 Caldera Covina, California Mr. Olsen explained the signage concept and suggested various alternatives to the recommendations of the DRB and Staff. Specifically, he recommended an increase in the height of the monument sign which he felt was inadequately described in the plan. In relationship to the building height, he requested an increase in height of this sign from 5' to 7' 11 2". After a brief discussion, by minute motion, Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to grant credit for 8 parking spaces for the driveup windows which would bring the project up to current ordinance requirement. Motion carried unanimously. The next topics discussed in detail were City Council Resolution 74-80 relating to curb and gutter and tie in paving installation as it related to this project; traffic circulation problems and ways of alleviating them; driveway width; setback; landscaping; and sign height. Mr. Gilbert then commented on the Commissioners ' recommendations. He remained in opposition of the requirement to install curb and gutter and tie in pavement and objected to the installation of risers along the median or Portola. Mr. Outcault reemphasized the need for a 33' driveway width versus re- stricting it to 24' . After further consideration of the applicant's requests, several of the conditions were amended by the Commission. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 59 subject to the attached conditions as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Case No. 67 SF - MIKE HOMME: Consideration of a plot plan approval for a single family residence located at 74-840 Borrego Drive. C. Case No. 68 SF - MIKE HOMME: Consideration of a plot plan approval for a single family residence located at 74-821 Borrego Drive. These cases had previously been reviewed by the DRB on two occassions with no agreement being reached between the DRB and the applicant, therefore the matter was now brought before the Commission for resolution. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion for the Planning Commission to assume jurisdiction of these cases. Motion carried unanimously. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report concerning these two cases. It was Staff's recommendation that these models be approved, subject to the conditions of approval by Resolution No. 60. John Sprayberry 39535 Kenan Rancho Mirage, California Mr. Sprayberry spoke in favor of this project and recommended approval by the Commission of these cases. Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 60, subject to the attached conditions of approval . Motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Berkey abstaining. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 1975 5. The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. for a 10 minute break and again resumed at 9:30 p.m. XI. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS The Commission reviewed the list of items approved or denied by the Design Review Board at its last meeting of June 10, 1975 and had no comments on those items. The Commission then reviewed Item C under Old Business. VII . OLD BUSINESS C. Proposed General Plan Amendments Chairman Seidler explained that the Commissioners had reviewed the list of proposed General Plan Amendments as submitted by Staff; and felt this was only the beginning of a list of General Plan Amendments to be reviewed prior to the public hearings. Rather than vote on the General Plan Amendments at each subsequent meeting, Chairman Seidler proposed that a master list be updated on a continuous basis including amendment items after tentative approva; and approving the final list of General Plan Amendments, just prior to the public hearings. Modifications to the proposed list of General Plan Amendments were proposed as follows by the Commission: (1 ) Land Use Map - Item B was revised to read as follows: Create a designation of Resort Commercial and designate that area west of the Palm Valley Channel for that use. (2) Land Use Element - Should be revised to read as follows: Add an objective of providing a buffer between residential and commercial areas. (3) Housing Element - The Commission strongly disagreed with any change to the present wording regarding Federal Housing Programs in the General Plan. The Commission felt `_hat the term "subsidized housing" included VA and FHA financing; and by removing reference to this would severely limit financing and would not be appropriate. Therefore, "subsidized housing" should definitely remain in the General Plan. The Commission concurred with regards to removing any reference to "row housing" from the General Plan, however they were uncertain as to whether or not the General Plan had made reference to "row housing". (4) Circulation Element - Should be revised to read as follows: Change the designation of Monterey Avenue to a major road status. (5) Urban Design Element - Should be revised to read as follows: Add objectives and standards which establish the use of sight planes for controlling and restricting height in the City of Palm Desert. The Commission unanimously approved the tentative list of General Plan Amendments to be scheduled for public hearing; and reiterated that the existing reference to subsidized housing should remain in the General Plan. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. June 16, 1975 X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - Paul Williams wanted to indicate that this was the last meeting to be held at the Palm Desert Middle School . The next Planning Commission meeting would be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall . B. City Attorney - None err C. Planning Commissioners - Commissioner Berkey discussed the minutes of the Palm Springs Planning Commission of May 28, 1975, specifically referencing their discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance whereby a recommendation for denial of a zone change by the Planning Commission was final unless appealed to the City Counci . Mr. Williams commented that this same procedure was incorporated in the proposed Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Van de Mark suggested a joint meeting with the City Council was in order to discuss the Design Review Board. -Chairman Seidler discussed his experience at the last DRB meeting. He felt it was unfair that the applicant was not included in the discussion when the DRB reviewed and approved/disapproved their projects. He felt the applicant should be present to give his input and gain a better understanding of the reasons for approval or disapproval . He also stated that the procedures lacked organization. Chairman Seidler suggested that the Commission should take another look at the Single- Family residential cases of those being presently reviewed by the DRB and secondly, take another look at the DRB and how it operates. Chairman Seidler agreed with Commissioner Van de Mark that a joint meeting be scheduled with the City Council . The Commission then directed Staff to set up subject meeting and also outlined the specific items to be discussed at this joint meeting including the following: discussion of the Design Review Board process including organization, review of single family residence and development standards; discussion of the pros and cons of the previous Planning Commission actions; Community Relations including the time in processing applications , cost of the processing procedure and philosophy of requiring developers to pay for public improvements; and discussion of potential for feedback between the two bodies. Staff concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. 1 " Paul Williams, Secretary AT S WILL AM CHAIRMAN