Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0714 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 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 July 14, 1975 in the City ... Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, S. ROY WILSON Absent: Commissioner VAN DE MARK (Excused) Others Present: Paul Williams - Dir. of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the meeting of June 30, 1975 were not yet completed, therefore, they would be reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1975. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Staff forwarded to the Commission, the Study Session Agenda for the .. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting to be held July 16, 1975 for their review prior to the meeting. VI . PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. VARIANCE 03-75 CASITAS INVESTMENT FUND: Request for variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 1 .1 (parking) and Section 18.11 (minimum dwelling unit size) to permit the construction of a 6-unit apartment with 8 parking spaces on a parcel at the northwest corner of Panorama Drive and Candlewood. Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report. In his report he outlined the facts and history of the case. He noted that the Commission had reviewed this variance at their meeting of June 30, 1975, at which time the case was denied as presented. However, the Commission did indicate, at that time, that they would consider a reduction in the unit size and a parking requirement of 1 .5 spaces per unit, if properly designed. Subsequently, the applicants had redesigned the project with a number of changes being made. Mr. Williams then explained in detail , those changes as shown on the revised plot plan. He stated that it was Staff's recommendation, based upon this redesign, that a variance be granted based upon the justification as outlined in his report. In granting this variance, Staff recommended that a number of conditions be added which would require minor modifications to the development. Those conditions were as follows: Minutes -2- July 14, 1975 I . The entire parking area, including the 10' easement shall be 22" A.C. paving. 2. Curb and gutter is required along Candlewood and shall wrap around the corner. 3. The driveway exit shall be 20' wide and tie into the existing street paving. 4. The proposed 5' high fence along Panorama shall be cut back to .. allow greater visibility for traffic. 5. The size and shape of the laundry room shall be studied for possible redesign to provide for the best layout for the users. 6. Floors of the carport area shall be cement. 7. Overhead storage areas shall be provided in the carports. 8. A trash storage area shall be provided. He then advised that in review of the development, in order to provide for overhead storage in the carport area and allow greater accessibility in the project, it may be appropriate to relocate the 6 covered spaces and allow the carports to be walled. In summary, Mr. Williams stated that based upon the unique circum- stances that existed with the adjacent developments; and based upon the fact that the applicant was upgrading the existing development, it was Staff' s recommendation that the variance be granted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 63 subject to the conditions as outlined with an additional condition regarding the relocation of the carports to the west and the walling of the south and east elevation of the carports. After the Commission had discussed the conditions of approval , Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing and explained the hearing procedures. BEN BARNUM 74105 Setting Sun Trail , Palm Desert Mr. Barnum, a partner in the Casitas Fund, expressed his appreciation for the time that had been devoted to Staff's report; and especially the addition of condition #9 as suggested by Mr. Williams. However, Mr. Barnum took exception to condition #2 requiring curb and gutter along Candlewood. At this time, he could not see the feasibility of installing curb and gutter. Besides this one condition, everything was quite acceptable to the Casitas Fund. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing while the Commission discussed the City Council 's curb and gutter policy; and also the City's Master Drainage Plan in relation to Candlewood Street. Chairman Seidler reopened the public hearing. MRS. MALLORY Candlewood & Panorama, Palm Desert Mrs. Valerie was concerned with the size of the development in relationship to the existing Ordinance; and felt that the development would add to the parking congestion which currently existing in this neighborhood. Mr. Barnum, in response to Mrs. Mallory's statement, explained that the other apartments on that block hao only 1 parking space per dwelling unit, whereas the proposed project increased this amount to 1, Besides the increase in parking, the units were designed so that the parking would be to the rear of the facility, thus avoiding further congestion on the block. Minutes -3- July 14, 1975 The public hearing was then closed. The Commissioners discussed condition #2 further; and it was the general consensus that because of the unique circumstances, that condition #2 be deleted; and that condition #9 be added as recommended by Mr. Williams. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 63 subject to the attached conditions including the deletion of #2 and the addition of #9. Motion carried 3-1 with Commissioner Wilson voting no. Commissioner Wilson's no vote was based upon his dissatisfaction with the minimum requirements granted in the variance. With only a preliminary Zoning Ordinance, he felt it was placing the cart before the horse. However, he did express that he felt the development was an improvement on that side of the street. B. Case No. VARIANCE 05-75 IRIS CARMEL: Request for a variance from Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.12 (parking) to permit the applicant to operate a restaurant located on the north side of El Paseo, between San Luis Rey and Portola Avenue. (C-P-S) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. In his report he noted that this was the former location of Klicks which recently went out of business. The applicant was proposing to utilize this commercial building for a 5,000 square foot restaurant. The dilemma confronting the applicant was the parking requirement. The applicant requested that a variance be granted to reduce the number of required spaces of 112 to 43 spaces. In an effort to help with the parking situation, the applicant had purchased additional property (Lot 29). By using a common driveway with Bank of America, the applicant could get 43 parking spaces laid out in such a way to allow for easy conversion to the Prototype Block Plan. Furthermore, the parking proposed by the Bank of America had an excess of 33 spaces which the applicant might be able to use. In summary, he stated that this project afforded an excellent opportunity to coordinate parking with future development. Staff felt there should be only two (2) driveways on E1 Paseo, east of San Luis Rey. This meant the coordination with Bank of America. Any approval given, would man- date a coordinated design. Based upon the unique circumstances as presented in his report, it was Staff's recommendation that the variance was appropriate and therefore, recommended approval of Resolution No. 64 subject to attached conditions. The Commission proceeded to review in depth, the specific details of this variance. It was the general consensus of the Commissioners that a more thorough study be done and additional information be forwarded to the Commission before they could make their decision. Paul Williams advised the Commission that the Prototype Block circu- lation Plan was currently under study by the City's planning consultants , Wilsey & Ham and the Planning Priorities Committee. The estimated time frame for completion of this study was at least 12 months. Upon com- pletion of the study, the Planning Priorities Committee would report back to the Commission, their determination as to the acceptable parking ratio based upon ultimate square footage. Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. *.. LASZLO SANDOR 1500 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , Palm Springs Mr. Sandor, architect representing Mr. Carmel , spoke in favor of the project. He explained that the applicant would grant a deed of easement to the City for public parking and was prepared to join an assessment district formed for the improvement of parking and landscaping in the Prototype Block area. Minutes -4- July 14, 1975 Mr. Sandor further explained that while Bank of America had a long way to go before the bank would be finished, they may not go along with the parking. Generally speaking, he said a large organization takes a longer time to act on decisions. In summary, he spoke of the time constraints presently facing the applicant in order to meet his commitments. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. Chairman Seidler advised that what was important was that it would be very difficult for the Commission to base their decisions on what the Bank of American was going to do or not do; and to count the 33 spaces at this time would be inappropriate. It was the concensus of the Commissioners that the parking situation be reviewed by the Property Owners Association, the E1 Paseo Association, the city's consultants, and the Planning Priorities Committee for their input prior to the Commission making a final decision. The Commission felt that the variance requested at this time was too great; and felt that additional study should be done before they could properly evaluate this request. Chairman Seidler reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Sandor if his client wished the Planning Commission to deny the variance or con- tinue the variance to give them additional time to work out the parking problems with the Planning Priorities Committee, consultants and staff. Mr. Sandor stated that in order for the applicant to meet his commitments, he felt that a decision was necessary within a six (6) week period at the maximum. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. After further discussion between the Commissioners, Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to deny Variance 05-75. Motion carried 3-1 with Commissioner Wilson voting no. The reason for Commissioner Wilson's no vote was that he felt the matter should be con- tinued to allow the staff to gather additional information and input wow from property owners in the E1 Paseo area. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Case IOC - PALMS TO PINES SHOPPING CENTER: Review of signage for Palms to Pines Phase III. Steve Fleshman advised that subsequent to the last Planning Commission meeting, staff had received correspondence from B. Leung and R. Carver requesting that the applicant be allowed to discuss the signage of the McDonalds building as they were not represented at the last meeting. The applicant was asking to leave the size of the roof sign as approved, but wanted to use a wood color border with a beige colored panel with back lighting. The applicant also requested that he be allowed the "M" on the west elevation, with the same color scheme as the roof sign; and he asked to have 8 of the dark "M" panels and the remaining 10 panels in resawn redwood. DENNIS GOODMAN 10960 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles The first sign reviewed by Mr. Goodman was the facia sign. He presented to the Commission, those colors and materials as recommended. The second sign discussed was their logo on the west elevation. He expressed that this was merely for identification purposes, not advertising and presented the Commission with a colored exhibit more harmonious with the scheme of the building. The size proposed would be approximately 4' x 4' , covering less than 2% of the west wall . BERNIE LEUNG 73960 El Paseo, Palm Desert Mr. Leung, architect for the project, discussed the panels on the lower por- tion of the windows. He described their function and materials; and stated he would like to retain these panels for continuity because he did not find them architecturally objectionable. Minutes -5- July 14, 1975 The Commissioners reviewed the materials presented and the requests made by the applicant. After considerable discussion with each of the Commissioners expressing their views and recommendations, Chairman Seidler moved that the following be approved: 1 . The roof top sign to be approved with the colors and materials shown in the exhibits just presented. 2. The sign on the westerly side of the building including the logo to be approved. The size shall be the size of the exhibit and the colors of stained cedar and dark brown (the same colors as shown on the material board). The letter "M" should be the size as shown on the exhibit and should be ivory in color. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0 with Commissioner Wilson abstaining. Not included in the motion was that there would be no change from the Planning Commission's previous decision regarding the panels and size of the roof top sign. It was then suggested by Chairman Seidler that the applicant forward a sample of the anodized aluminum panel to tie into the window frame for staff review; and then the Commission would arrive upon an agreement. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. 14C - TONI O'MALLEY: Approval of remodeling plans for Village Square Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Palm Desert Drive and San Pablo. (C-P-S) Paul Williams presented the Staff Report. He noted that this request had been previously reviewed by the Design Review Board and they recommended ten conditions of approval . After their review of the project, the DRB recommended the deferment of any sign program until the complete sign program was submitted. *AW It was the recommendation of the staff, in conformance with the DRB's action, that this matter be approved by Resolution No. 65, subject to the attached conditions as recommended by the Design Review Board. After a discussion by the Commissioners of the conditions, condition #7 was modified to include review by the Planning Commission for final approval . Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion for approval of Resolution No. 65 subject to the attached conditions; and condition #7 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Review of Rancho Mirage General Plan and E. I.R. Chairman Seidler recommended that this matter be continued until the Commission's study session scheduled for July 21 , 1975. Commissioners concurred. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS The Commission briefly discussed their review of those items acted upon at the Design Review Board meeting of July 8, 1975. They did express their concern to staff that a Chairman was needed as soon as possible. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Minutes -6- July 14, 1975 XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - Chairman Seidler stated that other than the request for the study session on July 21 at 5:00 p.m. , to get back to the Zoning Ordinance; three study sessions had tentatively been scheduled for study of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. On the Commission's last study session, the City Council would be invited to attend in order for the Commission to provide helpful information for their review of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Chairman Seidler added that the study sessions from this time forth, would begin at 5:00 p.m. instead of 4:30 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: S. WILSON, VICE CHAIRMAN