Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0902 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION September 2 , 1975 City Hall Council Chambers I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Com- mission was called to order by the Chairman at 7 : 03 p.m. on September 2 , 1975 in the City Hall Council Chambers . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners GEOR,GE BERKEY, ED MULLINS , WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY VAN DE MARK, and S . ROY WILSON Others Present : Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of August 18, 1975 will be reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 1975 . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Steve Fleshman presented two letters recently received which were as follows : A. A letter from Al Cook of Robert H. Ricciardi & Assoc. requesting that the Planning Commission assume juris- diction, consider and take action on Case No. 17C, applicant David Carmel , at the Planning Commission Meeting of September 2 . It was staff ' s recommendation that the Planning Commission assume jurisdiction and consider the project on the basis that any approval should include all of the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 42 and Case No . 9C; plus a new condition that made the approval contingent on a lot consolidation . Justification was based upon : 1 . The applicant was not present at the Design Review Board meeting of August 27, 1975. 2. Approval was given to a similar building. 3. The project conformed to all city , county and state requirements. Based upon the facts presented, staff recommended that this item be included on the Agenda. The Commissioners had no objections; and Chairman Seidler advised that the Commission would consider this case as Item F under New Business . B. A letter from Fred G. Rice regarding the "Portola Del Sol" Development by Luria Development Company , requesting that the property on which this project was to be built , be designated as a Planned Residential zone with 5. 5 units per gross acre . This would be consistent with their development plans . It was also also their desire that the zoning map which would be passed out during the public hearings would be con- sistent with their proposed plans . MINUTES -2- September 2 , 1975 Chairman Seidler directed Staff to write back that no action would be taken to increase the density in that area. Staff was to also inform Mr. Rice of the upcoming dates scheduled for the public hearings on the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance. The first meeting for the public hearing on the Zoning Map is scheduled for November 3 , 1975. VI . PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. CUP 1357 ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT CO. : Request low for a 12 month extension on the conditional use permit covering the final 209 units for the Mountainback pro- ject on the west side of Highway 74 , between Homestead and Portola (Carriage Trail) . Steve Fleshman advised that this case was continued from the August 18, 1975 Planning Commission public hearing and presented the staff report . Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the 12 month extension by Resolution No. 75, subject to the attached conditions . Chairman Seidler asked if there had been any changes to the conditions since the Commission ' s last review of the project . Mr. Fleshman replied that the only condition modified since the Commission ' s previous approval was condition #9. He then re- ferred to a letter received from the Coachella Valley County Water District requesting that Condition #9 be changed to require wet sewers as a result of sewers now being available to the area. SCOTT BIDDLE, representative of ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 3848 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California spoke in favor of the project . He informed the Commission that he had reviewed all the conditions and was willing to comply to all of *MW them including the sewer hookup change to condition #9. He felt this change would be most beneficial for both the City and the Environmental Development Company. He then indicated he was available to answer any questions the Commissioners or staff might have. There being no questions, Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 75 be approved subject to the attached conditions . Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. Tract 4442 ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT CO. : Request for a 12 month extension in which to file a final map for the final phase of 209 units of the Mountainback project on the west side of Highway 74 , between Homestead and Portola (Carriage Trail) . Steve Fleshman advised that this case was continued in con- boom junction with CUP 1357; and that the same background information as the conditional use permit applied. It was staff ' s recommenda- tion that the Planning Commission approve this map by Planning Commission Resolution No. 76, subject to the attached conditions. The condition of the sewer hookup as specified in the conditional use permit also applied to the tract map . Other than the sewer condition, no changes had been made to the original conditions since the last approval . I ' MINUTES -3- September 2 , 1975 Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 76 sub- ject to the attached conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request by the Coachella Valley County Water District for Confirmation of Proposed Public Works for FY 1975-1976. Steve Fleshman stated that staff recommended that the tow Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 77 finding that the proposed public works projects within the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence were in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan. The proposed public works projects were as follows : 1 . They proposed to install 1 , 250 feet of 12 inch pipeline in Highway 74 Frontage Road between El Paseo and Pitahaya Street . 2 . They propose to install 500 feet of 8 inch pipeline in California Avenue between Well No. 563 and Virginia Avenue. 3. They propose to install 1 ,400 feet of 8 inch pipeline in Fairway Drive between Deep Canyon Drive and Coronado Drive. 4. They proposed to install supervisory control equipment and miscellaneous house laterals , Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage areas. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the Water District ' s proposed projects by Planning Commission Resolution No. 71'. Motion carried unanimously. C. Case No. 18C CURT DUNHAM: Request for plot plan yr.s approval of a 14, 271 commercial/professional building at the northwest corner of E1 Paseo and Sage Lane. Steve Fleshman introduced the case and advised that staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this case by Planning Commission Resolution No. 78, subject to the attached conditions. After a review of the background of the case , Mr. Fleshman reviewed each of the conditions of approval . During his review of the conditions, changes were recommended for the following conditions : 1 . Condition #8 was revised to read. . . Applicant shall submit a drainage plan considering the building site and adjacent properties to the Director of Environmental Services for approval . 2 . Condition #12 was revised to read. . . Roof mounted exhaust or air conditioning equipment shall be screened from view. 3 . Condition #15 was corrected to read. . . . .. The last sentence - Any future design shall not include less than 57 spaces. (instead of 54) MINUTES -4- September 2 , 1975 With regards to condition #15, staff felt that the Director of Environmental Services working with the Redevelopment Agency and other commercial groups could best develop a workable plan for the precise design for parking on this block. Steve Fleshman then reviewed the site plan for the project . CURT DUNHAM, 71888 Vista Del Rio, Rancho Mirage, applicant for the project commented with regard to the conditions of approval . Referencing condition #3 , he advised the Commission that plans had been submitted and approved by the Palm Desert Property Onwers Association, so this condition had been complied with. He also advised that condition #12 was being complied with by the design of the building which was such that the parapets surrounding the air conditioning units kept them well hidden from view. He welcomed condition #15 which he felt was required with foresight as to problems which may occur in the future. He felt that if something were to be done, now was the time to ensure parking problems might best be resolved. Commissioner Van de Mark questioned the applicant as to what type of development Mr. Dunham had proposed for the adjacent property he owned, as it related to the 9 parking spaces in con- junction with this case. Mr. Dunham answered that at the present time , he had no plans for the development of the adjacent property. At this point he could not say that he wouldn ' t be back in a year or so to request a variance on the parking requirements, but he felt that the Commission should base their decision on the merits of the presently proposed project which would greatly enhance the City of Palm Desert . After a brief discussion between the Commission and staff regarding the conditions of approval , Commissioner Wilson moved �... for approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 78 with the attached conditions as revised. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. D. Case No. 10C, PALMS TO PINES , PHASE III : Request for approval of theatre marquee . Steve Fleshman reviewed the previous actions by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission which lead up to the approval of the marquee signs for the three theatres at the Palms to Pines , Phase III . He then reviewed the conditions approved by the Design Review Board at their August 27, 1975 meeting when they reviewed the revised theatre marquee elevation and site plans. The DRB did not establish the wattage or light intensity factor for the sign. Mr. Fleshman suggested this may be a factor for the Planning Commission to consider. He also advised that the DRB had split their opinion on two suggestions. These suggestions were : 1. Additional lights to be added around the wood frame of the marquee sign . 2 . The base around the bottom of the marquee sign to be in concrete. This suggestion was primarily %NW for the benefit of maintenance. Commissioner Van de Mark questioned policy with regards to the intensity of the light . Steve Fleshman advised that presently there were no ordinances in effect which determined acceptable light intensity. MINUTES -5- September 2 , 1975 BERNIE LEUNG, 73960 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert , project architect , spoke on behalf of the applicant . He explained the background as to how the design of the marquee sign was developed and the materials and colors used. He advised the Commission that the intensity of the light used in the marquee sign would be very low and subdued. He added that it was the developer ' s suggestion that the small lights be added around the frame of the sign at a very low intensity, but would still add rr.. emphasis to the sign. The Commissioners discussed the wattage and height of the sign and then asked Mr. Leung what he thought of the concrete base. Mr. Leung felt it was an excellent idea. Chairman Seidler commented that several things were being discussed that the Commission was not aware of and they were not fully informed on such matters as the relationship of the building to the sign , the base in concrete , the lights around the frame of the sign , the size of the panels , the size of the letters , and the intensity of the light . These factors he felt should have been presented to the Commission prior to their meeting so they had all the facts before approval . He then asked Mr. Leung if a continuance of this sign approval would have an effect or hold up Mr. Carver ' s project . Mr. Leung replied that a continuance would be acceptable as long as the Commission could give him concurrence that the concept of the sign was designed on the right approach. At present he said they had at least 26 different plans on the design of the sign and would like to have concurrence on this particular design. After a brief discussion of the Commissioners discussing their concerns as to the relationship of the sign to the buildings from the west , and the lighting factor, Chairman Seidler advised that Mr. Leung had taken the right approach. The Commission would merely like a chance to review all the factors involved before approving the sign with a resolution which needed to be prepared. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to continue this case to Old Business at the September 15, 1975 Planning Commission P,Ieeting. Motion carried unanimously. E . Case No. 14C TONI O'MALLEY: Request for approval of signs. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and advised that the applicant was requesting approval of the signage for the newly remodeled Village Square . The signs presented were for the buildings along San Pablo. This signage plan was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board at their meeting of August 27, 1975; subject to eight conditions of approval . JIM CONNOR, Mission Sign Company , 83-597 Peach St . , Indio, representing the applicant , spoke in favor of the project . He explained plans for proposed tennants , floor space , construction of the building and the size of the sign proposed. After some discussion , the Commission expressed their con- cern with the total sign coverage proposed for the entire building and for each tennant . MINUTES -6- September 2, 1975 It was the concensus of the Commissioners that two additional conditions be added. 9. Limit the number of signs for the buildings along San Pablo to a maximum of seven (7) signs . (Seven 10 ' signs per approximately every 20' ) 10. The signs ' lettering and cabinets are to be painted a dark brown color with an ivory background. ( Instead of the black and white as proposed by the applicant . ) Mr. Connor found no objection to the change in color of the signs. By minute motion, Commissioner Wilson moved for approval of the signs for the Toni O' Malley project as amended with the ten ( 10) conditions of approval. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously . F. Case No. 17C DAVID CARMEL: Request that the Planning Commission assume jurisdiction of Case No. 17C and approve. Steve Fleshman advised that it was staff ' s recommendation that the Planning Commission assume jurisdiction and consider the project ; and any approval should include all of the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 42 and Case 9C with the addition of a new condition that would make the approval con- tingent upon a lot consolidation. These contingencies would be outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 79 to be prepared by staff. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , architect for the project , reviewed the design concept and proposed landscaping for rr... the building to be constructed. The Commission asked for clarification on the DRB' s con- tinuance of this case. Mr. Fleshman advised it was merely due to the fact that the applicant was not present to answer questions the DRB members had. Therefore , they continued the case until further information was received. Since that meeting , the applicant had submitted the additional information requested by the DRB; and based upon that information , staff was recommending approval . After a brief discussion , Commissioner Berkey moved that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 79 with the attached conditions as outlined by Mr. Fleshman. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PERSONNEL This item was deferred to the last item on the Agenda. X. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN It was moved by Commissioner Mullins and seconded by Commissioner Van de Mark that Chairman Seidler retain his present position as Chairman and Commissioner Wilson retain his position as Vice Chairman to the Planning Commission for another Now term. Justification was based upon the outstanding job done by both incumbents during their term in office. Motion carried 3-0 with Chairman Seidler and Commissioner Wilson abstaining. XI . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. The Commissioners reviewed the cases heard by the Design Review Board at its meeting of August 27, 1975 during study session . There were no items requested to be brought up for discussion at this time . XII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None a '4INUTES -7- September 2 , 1975 XIII . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. Planning Commissioners - None IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PERSONNEL ... The Planning Commission retired to Executive Session at 8 : 30 p.m. and concluded their session at 9: 30 p.m. XIV. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9 :40 p .m. P A A. WILLIAMS SECRETARY A E WI L I A", CHA RMAN Now