Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0630 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 30, 1975 City Hall Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. on June 30, 1975 in the City Hall Council Chambers. 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 - Dir. of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of June 16, 1975 were amended by the Commission with revisions made to pages 1 ,4, & 5 as follows: Page 1 , Public Hearing, Item A - A name correction was required changing the name of the first person to address the Commission to Mort Saske. Page 4, Paragraph 6 - After the first sentence, a list of the conditions amended by the Commission were to be noted in the minutes. Page 5, Item (3) Housing Element - The first sentence was reworded as follows: "The Commission strongly disagreed with any change to the present wording regarding Federal Housing Programs in the General Plan. " Page 5, Item (5) Urban Design Element - The last sentence was reworded as follows: "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. " Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing and explained the hearing procedures. -1- VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. VARIANCE 03-75 CASITAS INVESTMENT FUND: Request for variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.12 parking; and Section 18.11 , minimum dwelling unit size requirements to permit the construction of a 6-unit apartment with 8 parking spaces on a lot at the northwest corner of Panorama Drive and Candlewood Street. (R-3) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. In his report, Mr. Williams outlined the previous history of this case; and then emphasized two items of major concern to be considered by the Commission: (1 ) Apartment Unit Size: Casitas Investment was requesting that a variance be granted to reduce the required unit size from 750 square feet to 4 units at 630 square feet and 2 units at 619 square feet. (2) Carports & Parking: For the proposed 6 unit project, the current regulations require 12 covered spaces; and under the proposed Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would need 9 covered spaces. However, the applicant was requesting 8 covered spaces. The site plan submitted showed 8 substandard carports. The Ordinance requires each parking stall to be 10 x 20 covered with 24' back out space or 44' overall . The site plan showed 7 spaces at 9'6" x 19'6" with 18' for backup space and 1 space with a usable parking area of 16' x 9'6" with the same 18' backup space. Mr. Williams then reviewed the architectural renderings representing the design of the buildings. After the review of the renderings, Mr. Williams advised the Commission of the applicant's statements in his submittal for a variance with regards to existing development in the area. Paul Williams stated that in Staff's analysis of this proposed develop- ment, Staff agreed with the reduction of the minimum unit size, however, they felt that in the design of the proposed development, the substandard w parking area and back out space was not acceptable. Therefore, on that basis, Staff recommended denial of this project by Resolution No. 61 . He also indicated that Staff has proposed an alternative for the Commission to pursue which was if the Planning Commission desired to consider a reduction in the minimum size of one bedroom and studio apartments, they could ask the Design Review Board for guidance on the minimum size of such units and still achieve an adequate apartment. Staff would then support 5 units with 8 covered spaces, a better overall layout, and the unit size determined by the Design Review Board. If this was the Commission's decision, Staff would prepare an alternate resolution. Chairman Seidler recapped the history of this project and the circum- stances which lead up to this request for variance now before the Commission. Discussion then ensued with the Commissioners questioning Staff on the various aspects of this project for which the variance was requested. BEN BARNUM 74-105 Setting Sun Trail Palm Desert, California Mr. Barnum voiced a complaint to the Commission that he was totally unprepared due to the fact that he had not received a copy of the Staff Report until just before the meeting. He then explained in detail , justification for the applicant's request for this variance as previously highlighted by Mr. Williams. He stated it was not economically feasible to build less than 6 units on this property. In summary, he stated a redesign of the complex or elimination of a pool was not in the best interests of the applicant, as it was his intention to enhance and upgrade the surrounding area through his development, exactly as it was presently designed. -2- There being no further discussion, Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. A lengthy discussion then ensued by the Commission regarding comments from the Staff and Mr. Barnum. Dave Erwin, City Attorney, suggested that if the applicant would like additional time to consider the Commission's and Staff's recommendation, he should be given more time. Mr. Barnum indicated the applicant did not wish additional time. Chairman Seidler stated it appeared that what Mr. Barnum had to say was correct in that the appearance, parking and unit size of this particular project would more than likely upgrade the area along the north side of Candlewood. However, he did not feel the Commission should grant a .. variance primarily on the basis that a proposed project would upgrade the neighborhood. The City sets specific minimum standards which have to be abided by throughout the city; and the applicant was requesting a variance of several requests which would be well below the city's minimum standards presently in force. Each of the Commissioners then expressed their viewpoints regarding the substandard parking, inadequate backout space, 10' easement, unit size and the possible redesign of the project in accordance with the City's current and proposed Zoning Ordinance requirements. They proceeded to discuss the applicant' s alternatives if the Planning Commission were to deny this request. Specifically, the applicant could redesign and re- submit his project again, or he could appeal his case to the City Council . Paul Williams explained the appeal procedures and the time element involved. The Commission concluded that if the development were redesigned to pro- vide for the unit size as proposed and for parking spaces to City Standards on the basis of 1z spaces per unit; that a variance would be appropriate if resubmitted. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to deny the variance request by Resolution No. 61 . Motion carried unanimously. B. Case No. VARIANCE 04-75 TERRY HILL: Request that the Planning Commission approve a variance from Section 18.12 of the Zoning Ordinance (off-street parking standards) to permit a commercial building to be built on a lot south of State Highway 111 , between San Luis Rey and Portola. (C-P-S) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. In his report, he outlined the facts and background of the case. He noted that the applicant owned the adjacent lot and by using this lot could meet the parking requirements. The Staff's objections to the variance were not so much with the parking problem. Staff had previously recommended and the Commission had approved, similar parking variances on lots 21 and 29 of the same block (Variance 01-75) . What was critical was the result of this approval in terms of future develop- ment of this block as part of the Redevelopment Project. The preliminary engineering plan for this block indicated lots 6 and 7 as the approximate location for the access driveway into the interior parking area. In previous studies of this problem, it was determined that if only one 50' wide lot was available, the access driveway and adjacent landscaping would take up so much of the lot that any remaining buildable area could not be economically developed. Generally, the owner was left with a 15-20' wide strip along the length of the lot that was useful only to an adjacent property owner. In most cases , even this option was unrealistic since the costs of new construction and reconstruction of the .. existing building would not be paid for by the added leasing space. The net effect was that the City must purchase the entire lot, even though it may need only 50% or less. Therefore, the Staff recommendation was that both lots should be developed in an integrated manner, not on a piecemeal basis. -3- Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. ROBERT RICCIARDI 73700 Highway Ill Palm Desert, California Mr. Ricciardi , representing the applicant, stated that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the City. He felt that the City should make a definite commitment on the acquisition and/or use of lot 7. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing and questioned Staff and the City Attorney regarding possible alternatives. . Each of the Commissioners expressed a desire for some guidance from the Council on developments within the Prototype Block. On a motion by Commissioner Mullins and seconded by Commissioner Wilson, the Commission unanimously moved to continue this item until its meeting of August 4, 1974; and requested Staff to send a request to the City Council for guidance on this item. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. Tract 6753 LEAVITT & SKOURAS: Request that the Planning Commission approve a tentative tract map to allow the construction of a 5-unit planned residential development on a 1-acre site situated west of Burroweed Lane and north of Ryway Place. Associate Planner, Steve Fleshman presented the Staff Report recommending approval of the project based on the following finding: 1 . Conformance of the proposed development to all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed development did ensure the protection of the .. public health, safety, and general welfare. 3. Compatibility of the proposed project to the existing and proposed development in the area. Approval was also subject to 14 conditions. After further review of the project, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the project be approved by Resolution No. 62; and asked that the DRB review the turning radii and the building height. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 62 with attached conditions. Motion carried unanimously. B. Case No. 10C BILL CARVER: Request for review of construction drawings for Phase III of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center, west of Plaza Way and south of Highway 111 . (C-P-S) The Staff Report was presented by Paul Williams who received construction drawings for Phase III of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center. Plans were displayed for every building except "G". Detailed construction and sign plans were reviewed for the McDonalds restaurant. At the end of the presentation, Chairman Seidler asked if there was anyone in the audience representing the applicant. No one came forward to speak either in favor or against this request. The conditions of approval for Case No. IOC were then discussed. It was noted that of the 21 recommended conditions, numbers 1-10 had already been approved by the Planning Commission as part of the site plan review on the project. Condition number 11 regarding signage was changed to require that the McDonalds sign on the north elevation have large letters with a maximum of 12 inches, an overall maximum sign length of 12 feet, -4- and to utilize a color to match the window trim. All other signs on that elevation are to be removed. On the west elevation, the arch symbol was to be removed. The remaining sign was also to utilize a color matching the wood trim around the windows. Condition 21 was changed from "elevation plan" to "irrigation plan." Condition 22 was added and required that a 32 foot high raised planter be installed in front of the open eating area. Condition 23 was added which required that the flow of traffic adjacent to Highway 111 be reversed and that 900 parking be installed in the parking area in front of McDonalds and the other restaurant. ' Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded that the Planning Commission approve the construction drawings subject to the revised conditions. The vote was 3-2 to approve with Chairman Seidler and Commissioners Berkey and Van de Mark voting yes; and Commissioners Mullins and Wilson voting no. Both no votes were based on dissatisfaction with the location of the McDonalds sign. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Staff discussion of cases reviewed by Design Review Board at its meeting of June 24, 1975. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None XII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. r• PAUL A. WILLIAMS , SECRETARY ATTEST: . OY WI , V CE CHAIRMAN= S ow -5-