HomeMy WebLinkAbout0915 MINUTES
PLANNING COn.4MISSION MEETING
September 15, 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 : 03 p .m. on September 15 , 1975
in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III . ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS , WILLIAM
SEIDLER, MARY VAN DE MARK, S . ROY WILSON
Also
Present Paul Williams - Dir. of Environmental Services
Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of August 18 , 1975 were amended on page 3 ,
paragraph 4 , to reflect 60' wide lots instead of 50 ' wide lots .
Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion
to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The minutes of September 2 , 1975 were amended on page 2 ,
paragraph 1 , by revising the first two sentences to read. . . "Chairman
Seidler directed Staff to write back that no action would be taken
to increase the density in that area. " On page 5, paragraph 2 , "the
applicant was requesting" was deleted for clarity. Commissioner
Wilson moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to approve
the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
bow
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
VI . PUBLIC HEARING
A. _Case No. C/Z 01-73 GERALD MOSS PROPERTIES : Request for
change of zone from W-2 (Controlled Development ) and
R-2-5000 (Multiple Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial) , R-3 (Residential) , and N-A (Natural
Assets) on property located west of Painters Path and
south of the westerly extension of Avenue 44.
Before opening the Public Hearing , Chairman Seidler noted
that all items on the Agenda had been reviewed and discussed prior
to the meeting for the purpose of obtaining a full understanding of
staff ' s reports . No decisions are made during Study Session ; and
they are open to the public.
Chairman Seidler explained the public hearing procedures and
opened the hearing for the first case.
Paul Williams reviewed a request from John L. Sanborn , re-
presentative of Gerald Moss, to continue the public hearing on the
change of land use until after hearings on the city-wide Zoning
Ordinance. Based upon this request , Staff recommended that this
matter be continued until the last meeting of February , 1976 . All
adjacent property owners would be renoticed prior to the hearing.
There being no comments, Chairman Seidler closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded
the motion to continue this case until the last Planning Commission
meeting in February, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
F
MINUTES -2- September 15, 1975
VII . OLD BUSINESS
A. Case No. 10C BERNIE LEUNG, AIA-Applicant : Request for
approval of Theatre Marquee for Palms to Pines, Phase III .
Steve Fleshman presented the staff report ; and recommended
approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 80 , subject to the
attached conditions . After a review of the marquee drawings, Chair-
man Seidler asked if the color and materials used for the sign sup-
ports were specified under the conditions of approval. Mr . Fleshman
replied no. Chairman Seidler recommended that this condition be
added to the conditions of approval .
Commissioner Van de Mark commented that the sign was an
awfully long expanse of signage and suggested that perhaps it could
be staggered in three sections.
Chairman Seidler asked the applicant to present the material
he had concerning the lighting of the sign .
Mr. Fleshman advised that Palm Springs ' standard for light
intensity was a maximum of 10 candlepower at 10 feet ; and suggested
the Commission use this standard as a guideline.
FRED STEIN, 511 Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, Chairman
of the Board for Century Cinemas , commented that he had no objection
with staggering the sign or any other design. His main concern was
that the threatre would have three distinctive , readable signs to
advertise the films playing. He then presented two samples of
plastic colors (ivory and dark cream) with the actual 92" black letters.
BERNIE LEUNG, 73960 El Paseo , Palm Desert , project architect ,
demonstrated the light intensity using each sample.
After a brief discussion , Commissioner Wilson asked if the
applicant had any objection with changing the color of the letters
to dark brown instead of black, to maintain a more harmonious color
scheme with the colors of the sign. Both Mr. Stein and Mr. Leung
were in agreement with Commissioner Wilson ' s suggestion for the
color change.
Commissioner Van De Mark asked Mr . Leung if there would be
any aesthetic value in staggering the signs in some way instead of
straight across.
Mr. Leung explained that when they went through the design
process for the sign , they had several designs including staggering
the panels. After a lengthy study, they decided that a very simple
design concept , as presented, was the best approach. He then ex-
plained the design problems involved if the panels were to be
staggered.
After Mr. Leung ' s explanation, Commissioner Van de Mark
agreed that the present design concept of the sign was the most
appropriate.
Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing .
A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding lettering,
materials , height , colors, and landscaping surrounding the sign.
The Planning Commission recommended the following changes and
additions to the conditions of approval :
Condition #6 Colors were changed to dark brown , 9z"
letters on an ivory colored background.
Condition #8 The light intensity of the sign shall be a
maximum of 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet .
Condition #9 Wood members of the sign shall be dark brown
as per material board.
f
MINUTES -3- September 15, 1975
Condition #10 Casing shall be metal and painted a dark
brown to be compatible with the other colors of the sign.
Commissioner Wilson moved that Resolution No. 80 be approved
with the attached conditions as amended. Commissioner Van de Mark
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
VIII . NEW BUSINESS
A. Case No. PM 7078 IRIS CARMEL-Applicant : Request for lot
consolidation of three 50 ' x 207 ' parcels (Lots 4 , 5 , & 6)
into one 150 ' x 207' parcel and a waiver of the final map,
on the north side of El Paseo, between Portola and San
Luis Rey.
Steve Fleshman presented the staff report . It was staff ' s
recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the parcel con-
solidation and waiver of the final map by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 81 with the attached conditions.
After a review of the conditions , Chairman Seidler asked for
comments from the applicant , if present . The applicant was not
present and there were no further comments.
Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded
the motion to approve Resolution No. 81 with the attached conditions.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Case No. 20C EL PASEO PROPERTIES-Applicant : Request for
approval of a 12, 730 square foot medical building with
65 parking spaces, located on the north side of El Paseo
between Portola and Highway 111 .
Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and recommended
approval of the plot plan and architectural drawings by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 82 subject to the attached conditions .
He added that this case had been reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board as submitted. After reviewing the 16 conditions of
approval , Mr. Fleshman recommended the addition of Condition #17
stipulating that the applicant shall grant an easement to the City
or other appropriate agency for the entire parking area.
Chairman Seidler asked for comments from the applicant .
ROBERT RICCIARDI , 73700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert , project
architect , commented that the applicant was agreeable to all the con-
ditions except #10 regarding the trash storage area. He explained
that this property was part of another piece of property owned by
the same people. There was a very large trash storage area in exis-
tence which was adequate for use by both the existing building and
the proposed building. Therefore, he recommended that the Planning
Commission consider the deletion of Condition #10.
Staff advised that this request would be appropriate , however ,
the pickup frequency may have to be increased to suit the needs of
both buildings.
Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded
the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 82 subject
to the attached conditions as amended (deletion of Condition #10
.. and the addition of Condition #17) . Motion carried unanimously.
I
MINUTES -4- September 15, 1975
C. Review of Resolution on HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES.
(Development Standard No. 1)
Paul Williams gave a summary of the Hillside Development
Guidelines indicating that they were to be applied as part of the
Hillside Overlay Zone in the new Zoning Ordinance. He advised the
Commission that a more formal presentation would be made at a
subsequent Planning Commission meeting. After some discussion the
Commission accepted Mr. Williams ' report .
D. Revision #8 of the Planning Schedule
After a review of the proposed schedule for upcoming planning
activities, two meetings were set at a later date , those being the
review of the Prototype Block Program with Property Owners in the
Block and with the Project Area Committee. Both meetings were re-
scheduled to February, 1976.
E. Report on Scheduling of Development Projects
Paul Williams advised that the City was coming up to a very
important milestone in the Commission ' s process of implementing the
General Plan. At the same time , the City was receiving a number
of requests to be reviewed by the Commission. Under the normal
schedule , these requests would come up for hearing during the first
meeting of October. With the present schedule of upcoming hearings
on the General Plan amendments and implementation tools , staff pro-
posed to schedule these requests around the Planning Commission ' s
schedule. This would give both Staff and the Commission adequate
time to review requests and still do the work required for Ordinance
changes.
Chairman Seidler asked if Staff had scheduled any of these
requests for the September 29, 1975 meeting.
vow Paul Williams replied, yes . Staff had received four requests
to be heard; and recommended that two requests be heard at the
September 29th meeting and the remaining two at their next meeting.
Staff felt this would be the best time frame ; and asked the Commission
for their comments.
Chairman Seidler stressed the fact that it was the Planning
Commission ' s understanding that the September 29th meeting would be
a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the
Zoning Ordinance and EIR of the various General Plan Amendments only.
He then recommended that this schedule be adhered to and that a
special meeting be called to review these requests .
After a brief discussion, Commissioner Van de Mark moved,
Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to hold a special meeting
on October 6, 1975, which would be a continuation from the meeting
of September 29 to review these requests. Motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commissioners then discussed previous plans to
abide by a more strict and rigid planning review schedule . The first
meeting of the month was to be held for the purpose of reviewing only
applications for change of zone, variances , conditional use permits ,
tentative tract maps , public use permits , time extensions , plot plan
approvals , parcel maps , and other items that required a noticed
hearing or other routine planning matters. The second meeting of
w the month would be held specifically to review and discuss various
ordinances , specific plans, and other long range planning .
However, it was the general consensus of the Commission that
if staff felt , in their judgment , it was necessary to bring a request
before the Planning Commission during the second meeting , or other
routine matters which would not take a great deal of time , the
Commission would have an open door policy for such requests .
MINUTES -5- September 15 , 1975
F. Discussion of Petaluma Growth Management Concept
Paul Williams gave a history of the Petaluma Limited Growth
Concept and its applications to the City of Palm Desert . It was
generally determined by the Commission that the circumstances re-
lating to Petnluma did not apply to Palm Desert .
Paul Williams then advised the Commission , that in February,
1975 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 69 which removed the
Restriction on Development for the commercial area of Palm Desert as
a result of the adoption of the Interim Core Area Plan . Since the
City was embarking upon the crucial program of adopting the implemen-
tation tools to the General Plan ; and since the approval of projects
in the commercial area, at this time , could present as much of a pro-
blem as approval of residential projects , Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission strongly consider a recommendation to the City
Council of reestablishing the restriction on development for the
total community until adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map.
Chairman Seidler commented that the Commission was not willing
to review projects that deviated significantly from the present
Zoning Ordinance .
After a lengthy discussion , it was the consensus of the Com-
mission that a Restriction on Development was appropriate only to the
effect that no development should occur anywhere in the community
that did not conform to the proposed Zoning Ordinance and 'lap. After
additional discussion , the finding was qualified to exclude single
family residences on individual lots .
The Secretary was directed to prepare an Ordinance reflecting
this position to the City Council . Chairman Seidler strongly urged
that this be done as quickly as possible .
XI . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS : Review of cases heard by Design
.. Review Board at its meeting of September 9 , 1975 .
The Planning Commission had no comments regarding the cases
heard at this meeting.
XII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
XIII . COMMENTS
A. City Staff - None
B. Planning Commissioners - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p .m.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS , SECRETARY
A T ,S
ism '1
jfl
IL IAM R. SEI CHAIRMAN