Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1202 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. in the City Hall Council boo Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY I(. VAN DE MARK, S. ROY WILSON Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Jeff Patterson - City Attorney Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. The minutes of the meeting of November 11 , 1975 were approved as written on a motion made by Commissioner Mullins, seconded by Commissioner Wilson. B. The minutes of the meeting of November 18, 1975 were amended as follows: Page 2, paragraph 14: Correct "north of Catalina" to. . . "west of Portola" . Page 3, paragraph 2: Correct spelling of "Thoral Lake". Page 3, paragraph 10: Add the following after "Chairman Seidler reopened the public hearing". . . (and explained that the Planning Commission had reviewed in some detail , the various sections of the text related to Article 25.46 prior to the meeting during study session and no changes were recommended. ) Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Paul Williams reviewed a letter received from Marvin Bledsoe requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council , that the General Plan be amended to eliminate the Bowie ten acres in the Cahuilla Hills area being designated as an equestrian center. After a brief dis- cussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that this request may be appropriate. Chairman Seidler directed staff to forward Mr. Bledsoe's request to the City Council for their review; and if the Council felt that the request was appropriate, the Council should give guidelines to the Planning Commission for their review of said General Plan amendment. VI. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Seidler explained the public hearing procedures and advised that the items on the Agenda had been reviewed prior to the meeting by the Planning Commission during study session for information purposes only, and no decisions were made. He then declared the public hearing open for the first case. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -2- December 2, 1975 A. Continued Case No. C/Z-01-75, RMW of the DESERT: Consideration of a request for a change of zone from R-3-7000 to R-3-3000 on 2.28 acres on the south side of Parkview Drive between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and Fairhaven Drive. Paul Williams presented the staff report and advised that this was a con- tinued item from the October 6, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was requesting a change of zone to provide for the development of an apartment complex to be utilized as proposed student housing. Changing the zoning designation to the requested designation would increase the density from approximately 5 units to the acre to 14 units to the acre. The Planning Commission, in their recent review of the new Zoning Map, ..r designated a 40 acre parcel (including this property) as an R-1 designation. It was staff's recommendation that the change of zone request be denied by Resolution No. 98; and as an alternative, that the Planning Commission approve a zone designation for this property as R-3-5000 whichwauld allow 8 units to the acre providing for multiple family development. Mr. Williams then reviewed a letter received from Joseph Iantorno, Dean of Student Personnel Services at College of the Desert, responding to the City's request for information from the College relative to housing needs for students attending the College. In the opinion of the college adminis- tration, student housing for the community was inadequate and they felt that further consideration should be given as to the need and location for student housing in the City of Palm Desert. After a brief discussion by the Commission, Chairman Seidler welcomed comments from the applicant and/or representatives of RMW of the Desert. KARL MEISTERLIN, 68-272 Farrell Lane, Cathedral City. Mr. Meisterlin, developer of the project, commented that he concurred with College of the Desert's letter. After Mr. Meisterlin advised of the studies and planning involved for the project, he asked that the Commission approve the request to allow for the development of student housing in an effort to upgrade the community and provide said housing for students attending College of the Desert. v LASZLO SANDOR, 1550 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs. Mr. Sandor, project architect, spoke in favor of the request. He commented that the project was in conformance to the character of the City of Palm Desert. He began to explain the design of the project when Chairman Seidler inter- jected stating that the Planning Commission could not take into consideration the project itself. At this meeting, the Commission could only evaluate this case on the basis of specifically a zone change. What the Commission was interested in hearing was the effect of changing the zone in that area from its present zoning of R-3-7000 to R-3-3000. Mr. Sandor requested that the change of zone application be amended to apply for a planned residential district with a variance to lower the minimum project area to 22 acres. By doing this, Mr. Sandor felt the project would be locked into the area and nothing else could be developed. After clarification of Commission procedures, it was staff's recommendation that Mr. Sandor's request for an amendment of the zone change application could not be considered during this public hearing. Chairman Seidler advised that in the best interests of both the City and Mr. Sandor, the Commission should continue with the zone change public hearing and hear additional testimony. CHRIS BLAISDELL, 202 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs. Mr. Blaisdell legal counsel for R,44 of the Desert, addressed his comments to the specific *No change of zoning and the increase in density. He felt that reducing the density from 114 to 8 units per acre per staff's recommendation would not be creating student housing. He felt multiple family development would mean a significant reduction in the density; and an increase in the rental costs for the students. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION -3- December 2, 1975 Mr. Blaisdell stated that in order to make this project feasible, the proposed student housing should be located in this area and at the density as proposed by RMW in an effort to provide low cost student housing. MARJORIE EGAN, 73-465 Grapevine. Mrs. Egan advised that both she and her husband were of the opinion that there should be an allowance for student housing in the area of College of the Desert. She felt the College was an asset to the whole community, therefore the community should provide the things that go with it. Regarding this property, she felt it would be economically unfeasible to building anything less than 11-12 units to the acre. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission then reviewed in detail , all testimony heard. Based upon staff's recommendation, Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 98 designating the zoning for the area as R-3-5000. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which was defeated by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners BERKEY and VAN DE MARK NOES: Commissioners MULLINS, SEIDLER, and WILSON Reasons for denial were as follows: 1 . The increase in zoning would not be upgrading the area. 2. The request was not appropriate in terms of adjacent zoning. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 denying the request for a change of zone; and denying staff' s recommended R-3-5000 zone change as specified in Resolution No. 93. Motion for denial carried by the following vote: *Now AYES: Commissioners MULLINS, SEIDLER, and WILSON NOES: Commissioners BERKEY, and VAN DE MARK Both Commissioner's Berkey and Van de Mark felt student housing was badly needed in the community, therefore they felt the R-3-5000 zone designation could accomplish such housing needs and the present zoning, R-3-7000, would not. B. Continued Case No. VARIANCE 07-75 RMW of the DESERT: Consideration of a request for a variance from Section 18.12 and Section 18.11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of 1-bedroom apartments with a minimum size of 600 sq. ft. and with 1 .5 off- street parking spaces for a 2.28 acre parcel on the south side of Parkview Drive, between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and Fairhaven Drive. Continued from October 6, 1975 meeting. Chairman Seidler advised that in view of the denial for case no. C/Z-01-75, this variance request was no longer appropriate. After consultation with the City Attorney, Commissioner Mullins moved approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 100 rejecting the request without prejudice. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. Case No. CUP-03-75 LURIA DEVELOPMENT, INC. : Consideration of a final EIR for a 100-unit planned residential project on a 20-acre site, `..• located on the east side of Portola Avenue between 44th Avenue and El Cortez Way. Sam Freed made the presentation of the Environmental Impact Report on this project. He advised that a draft EIR had been circulated in October to approximately 26 public agencies and utilities for review and comment. He then reviewed in detail , written responses received from the following: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -4- December 2, 1975 1 . California Department of Transportation 2. California Regional Quality Control Board 3. Coachella Valley Resource Conservation District 4. Riverside County Department of Fire Protection 5. Southern California Edison 6. Southern California Gas Mr. Freed commented on areas of concern which included water flow problems, date grove preservation and traffic circulation. He advised that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 101 recommending to the City Council that the final Environmental Impact Report on the Portola del Sol project be certified as complete Now based upon the following justification: 1 . Conformance of the project report to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the State Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA as amended. 2. Conformance of the project report to all requirements of Palm Desert Resolution No. 74-14 for the implementation of the Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111 , project architect. Mr. Ritter advised that he had worked with staff and consultants in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report; and substantially concurred with staff's report to the Commission. He recommended the report be accepted as complete. After all questions from the Planning Commission and the public had been answered, Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Berkey moved approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 101 recommending to the City Council that the final Environmental Impact Report be certified as complete. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Commissioner Wilson advised that in the future, he felt that the Palm Desert Community Services District should be contacted by the Environmental Impact firm representing the applicant to determine whether or not they would be able to supply the water for projects such as this. Chairman Seidler agreed and added that mitigating measures of the Environmental Assessment such as increased traffic be approached in future Environmental Impact Reports, specifically addressing the area around the college and Portola Avenue. D. Case No. CUP-03-75 LURIA DEVELOPMENT, INC. : Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a 100-unit planned residential project on a 20-acre site, located on the east side of Portola Avenue, between 44th Avenue and E1 Cortez. Paul Williams presented the staff report. In his report he advised that Portola Avenue was currently a 60 foot right-of-way which was planned for an ultimate width of 88 feet. It was staff's recommendation that the applicant should be required to dedicate 14 feet along the east side of Portola for the full frontage of the site and improve it with 8" curb, gutter, tie-in paving and sidewalk at 32 feet from the street centerline. Catalina Way should be extended eastward as a 60' public right-of-way with street improvements that would serve the property to the east and to the north, the spplicant should also offer for dedication, a 30' strip along the eastern boundary of the site as a public right-of-way for possible future roads. To avoid unnecessary interference with the flow of traffic on Portola, the two 5-car parking bay areas as shown on the plot plan adjacent to Portola should be deleted. The cul-de-sac drives should be shown as inter- secting with Catalina Way at a 900 angle. A second stop sign should be added on Catalina westbound at Portola Avenue. In addition to Catalina, emergency vehicles would be provided access to the project through the 20' half width easement along the north boundary line or from the east along the 40' easement that runs east and west through the middle of the site connecting Portola to Deep Canyon. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -5- December 2, 1975 Staff felt that the project, as presented, appeared to have a rather unattractive ratio of dwelling units to recreational amenities. The number of pools should be increased with the addition of several tot lots, barbeque areas, and basketball courts. After review of the conditions of approval which specified several changes as recommended by staff, Mr. Williams advised that approval of this project was recommeded by Resolution No. 102, subject to those conditions. Justification for approval was based upon: 1 . The project would ensure the protection of the public health, safety, ;6W and general welfare by contributing to the upgrading of the water system in the area. 2. The project would provide for the preservation of a substantial number of existing date trees on the site. 3. The project would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. 4. The project would be in conformance with the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111 , project architect, agreed with staff's recommendations. Mr. Ritter added that preservation of the date palms had not been adequately clarified. He then described the design of the landscaping in terms of preservation of the date palms and open space; and how it related to the total design concept for the project. After a review of the conditions of approval , Mr. Ritter felt that one of the most important aspects of the project was the number of units. Reducing the number of units as proposed by staff to 95 was not going to reduce development costs, but would in effect be increasing the cost per unit to the individual ... owners. He felt the reduction of 5 units would not impact the layout of the project and requested that the project be approved as shown on the plot plan with 100 units. Mr. Ritter also added that the Environmental Impact Report done on this project was based on 100 units. GLEN LACY, 74-216 E1 Cortez, spoke against the project. He emphasized the need for the preservation of the date palms along El Cortez. P>1r. Lacy preferred to see no development in this area as he felt the views on E1 Cortez and Portola would be hindered. MAURINE SNUFFER, 74-115 E1 Cortez, questioned the two story building height proposed for various units of the project. She was under the impression that the zoning for this area dictated a single story development. Paul Williams advised that the City Council had developed an R-1 , single story zone when the City incorporated, however this area was not defined as a single story area per the City's present zoning. Mr. Ritter was then allowed time for a brief rebuttal to comments made. Chairman Seidler left the public hearing open while the Commission discussed the project and public testimony so that all areas of concern could be clarified. The following is a brief summary of major concerns expressed relative to the project. Chairman Seidler was concerned with how the City was going to keep people from driving on private streets and didn't know if it was desirable to designate Catalina Way as a private street. His other concern was if Catalina Way should be considered as a public street which would be heavily used going east and west. If designated as a private street, he asked who would enforce the no parking. He commented further that he had a reservation concerning the blocking off of Catalina Way by making it a private stteet. thus cutting off the east/west access. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -6- December 2, 1975 Commissioner Berkey questioned alternative east/west access routes that could be used near the north boundary line of the property between Portola and Deep Canyon. He was impressed with the design of the project and the preservation of the palm trees maintaining the character of Palm Desert. His only concern was whether Catalina Way should be a public or private street. Commissioner Mullins commented that if Catalina Way was designated as a public way he felt there would be no problems. He felt Catalina Way should be maintained as a private street only if there was an alternate street the City could use as an east/west access. He felt the City should Y... leave Catalina Way as a public street as the City does need an open alternative street on the northerly side to help alleviate traffic. Commissioner Van de Mark liked the project very much, especially the pre- servation of the date palms. Her concern was with Catalina Way. She hated to think of a family project such as this with a thru street. She felt it would be a safety hazard to the children who would be residing there, therefore she recommended that Catalina Way be a private street. Commissioner Wilson also was concerned with Catalina Way. If there was some way the City could find an alternate route, it would be better for this development. He would like to have Catalina !Jay maintained as a pri- vate road, but wanted to leave the option open to extend the road if needed. He also recommended that a condition be added that as a part of the development of the tentative tract map, the applicant should preserve a row of date trees so as to maintain the date grove character along the adjacent property on E1 Cortez Way. George Ritter explained that the project was designed in such a way that he could accommodate any alternative that the Planning Commission would recommend. If the Planning Commission would establish how wide they wanted the right-of-way, the applicant would provide it to the city to dedicate it. Chairman Seidler again expressed his feelings that he would like to see .. some access provided through east and west. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. As the result of discussion and hearing of public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the following changes to the conditions of approval . Condition #4 Addition after the words "to the Design Review Board" (and the Planning Commission) Condition #5 Addition after the word "Planning" (and the City of Palm Desert) Condition #10 Third sentence, after "use" sentence should read. . . (as meant) Condition #llc This condition was revised to read as follows: "The applicant shall offer for dedication, the easterly extension of Catalina Way as a 60' width public right-of-way for the full length of the project and shall improve same with curb, gutter, and curb cuts at 40' in width with sidewalks on both sides and built to County Standards. Conditon ;�12 Condition was deleted and replaced with the following: "The applicant shall underground all overhead utility distribution .. lines along the full frontage of the project on Portola Avenue. " Condition ;#13 Additional condition added as follows: "As a part of the development of the tentative tract map, the applicant shall preserve a row of date trees so as to maintain the date grove character along the adjacent property on E1 Cortez Way. Condition #14 Additional condition added as follows: "A second pool area shall be provided immediately across the street to the north of the proposed pool area. " MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -7- December 2, 1975 Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 102 with the conditions before the Planning Commission as modified to show that the total number of units for the project as 100; adding the undergrounding of all overhead utility distribution lines along the Portola frontage of the project; adding landscaping along the southern boundary with additiona date palms; and including a full-width standard street as the prolongation of Catalina Way, with the revision of condition number 11C which required the improvement of Catalina Way on the basis of a 60' public right-of-way with improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk to County Standards. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. Chairman Seidler asked that the motion be amended to include revisions in wording of conditions #4, #5 and ,#10. Commissioner Berkey moved an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Wilson amended his second. Motion carried unanimously. E. Case No. CUP-08-75 HAROLD BROMLEY: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a commercial parking lot in an R-3 zone and located on the north side of Larrea Street, between Prickly Pear Lane and San Luis Rey. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit in order to add additional square footage to his existing building on El Paseo which would allow the landowner to remove parking from the E1 Paseo side of his building. This would result in an improvement to the overall parking and appearance of the building. It was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the request by Planning Commission Resolution No. 103 subject to the attached conditions. Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing. HAROLD BROMLEY, 73-640B Golf Course Lane, applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He was in accordance with everthing the City was trying to do to beautify the City. In review of the conditions of approval , Mr. Bromley requested that conditions #4, #5, #6, and 111 be deleted. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. After discussion by the Commission, the following changes were recommended: Condition #4 Condition #4 would remain as written as this was a standard condition in accordance with City Council Ordinance 111o. 38, until the City Council chose to modify the Ordinance to grant a waiver of this condition. Condition #5 "on El Paseo" was deleted from this condition. Condition #6 This condition was revised to read. . . "Lighting of parking areas, if provided, shall be provided for as approved by the Design Review Board." Condition #10 This condition was revised to read. . . "Landscaping shall be provided and plans submitted to the DRB for approval . Condition #11 This condition was deleted. v.. Commissioner Wilson moved approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 103 with the attached conditions as modified. Commissioner Van de "lark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -8- December 2, 1975 F. Case No. CUP-06-75 EUCLID-BALL: Request for an amendment of condition #6 to allow the existing ground sign at Highway 74 and Haystack Road to remain for a period of time equal to the tract sales office. Mr. Williams advised that when the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit at their October 6, 1975 meeting for the model homes, one of the conditions was that the existing sign at each end of Haystack be removed as part of the approval . The applicant was requesting to retain the sign located at the southeast corner of haystack and Highway 74. This sign is unlighted and unobtrusive. Staff was recommending approval of the request by Planning Commission Resolution No. 104 based upon the con- formance of the proposed project with the provisions of the adopted Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Seidler opened the hearing for comments. There being no comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 104 as written. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. G. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: Consideration of Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. H. GRADING ORDINANCE: Consideration of Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Paul Williams recommended that items G and H be continued to the December 16, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Seidler opened the public hearing and recommended that both items be continued to December 16, 1975. This would allow for additional review by the Planning Commission of these Ordinances. Since these items had been noticed for public hearing, Chairman Seidler asked for comments from the audience. There were no comments. Commissioner Mullins moved that items G and H be continued to December 16. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Continued Case No. 14C VILLAGE BOOTLEGGER: Consideration of a request for plot plan approval of two on-site business identification signs for a store located on the north side of Highway Ill and west of San Pablo. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and advised that this matter had been reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 11 , 1975 and had been continued to this date to allow the applicant to come up with a solution to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission of the excessive size of the sign facing Highway 111 . As of this date, no revisions had been submitted. Staff recommended as an alternative that the face of the sign on Highway 111 be limited to 50 square feet. Since the applicant was not present, staff had no idea of the applicant's feeling towards this recom- mendation. Commissioner Van de Mark asked if it would be appropriate to continue this matter. Paul Williams advised that without the applicant's consent, the Planning Commission must act within 30 days upon receipt of such a request. In accordance with this time schedule, this was the last meeting at which the Planning Commission could act on this item. He added that the Commission had three alternatives: (1 ) Approve the request, (2) Approve the Resolution as written with the additional requirements in the size of the sign, or (3) Deny the request. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -9- December 2, 1975 Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission deny the request for the signs that were presented at the November 11 , 1975 meeting. Commissioner Wilson suggested that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution as written by staff, thereby allowing the applicant the option of either proceeding with the project or appealing the decision to the City Council . Commissioner Berkey seconded Commissioner Mullins ' motion. After consultation with the City Attorney, it was the concensus of the Planning Commission that Commissioner Wilson's suggestion was appropriate. Commissioner Mullins withdrew his motion for denial . Commissioner Berkey withdrew his second to that motion. After further discussion, the conditions of approval were amended as follows: Condition #7 This condition was revised to read. . . "All existing illuminated signs shall be removed." Condition #9 This condition was added as follows. . . "The design of both signs shall be reviewed by the Director of Environmental Services prior to any sign permit being issued. " Commissioner Wilson moved approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 105 subject to the attached conditions as amended. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. Tract 5795 SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES: Request for a 12-month time extension on the tentative map for a 37-unit planned residential Ironwood Country Club project located south of Portola Avenue and east of Mariposa Drive. tow Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and recommended that the 12- month time extension be approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 106 subject to the attached conditions of approval . Justification for approval was based upon: 1 . The project did conform to the existing and proposed development in the area. 2. The project did conform to the proposed Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. 3. The project did ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. After a brief discussion, Chairman Seidler advised that even though this item was not a public hearing, comments from the applicant and/or repre- sentative would be welcomed. DON SHAYLER, 73-893 Highway 111 , Palm Desert. Mr. Shayler advised that he was a representative of Silver Spur Associates and commented that he felt a great deal of staff's report dealt with architectural detail which was not part of the submittal . .. Mr. Shayler then addressed his comments to the conditions of approval . Ile recommended the deletion of Condition #13. Mr. Shayler questioned the one-quarter participation as recommended in condition #17; and asked the Commission to consider a reduction of this figure to one-eighth. Commissioner Berkey moved approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 106 with the only amendment to the conditions being the deletion of Condition No. 13. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -10- December 2, 1975 B. Case No. Tract 5797 SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES: Request for a 12-month time extension for the tentative map on a 82-unit planned residential subdivision on 15.3 acres in the Ironwood Country Club project and located north of Irontree Drive and west of Mariposa Drive. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report. When first approved in 1974, the Zoning Ordinance for Palm Desert only specified that the project have 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. This was achieved by providing one covered parking space, with the rest uncovered, either off-street or on the private streets ..,. surrounding the tract. The adoption of Ordinance No. 54 established revised off-street parking standards, especially the requirement of two covered spaces per dwelling unit which automatically affected Tract 5797, since the project had not yet received plot plan approval . Although there were other violations of the new Zoning Ordinance, primarily in the area of setback requirements, staff felt the change in off-street parking facilities would have a significant affect on the project. Because of the complex interrelationship between the design of the dwelling units and the location of the covered parking structure, it did not appear probable that the project could be redesigned to conform to the new requirements without destroying the unique development concept of the original design. Staff, therefore recommended that the tentative map be allowed to expire so that the applicant could begin a redesign of the project. Mr. Fleshman advised that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission deny this request for the extension by Resolution No. 107. Justification for denial was based upon: 1 . The project did not conform to the proposed Zoning Ordinance of the City in that each unit would only have one covered parking space; a minimum separation of 20 feet between buildings had not been provided in all cases; and a minimum building setback of 20 feet from the street had not been provided. Now DON SHAYLER, 73-893 Highway 111 represent ed the applicant. He pointed out that the request was simply for an extension of approval for the tentative tract map; no submittals had been made for architectural improvements; and he was not prepared to discuss or defend any architectural comments in the staff report. Jeff Patterson, City Attorney, advised that legally, if the Commission wished to do so, they could deny the extension based on its apparent inconsistency with the present Ordinance. However, he did ask if similar cases had been presented and acted upon by the Commission which would have a bearing on this case in terms of consistent Commission policy. Chairman Seidler advised that there had been two such cases which he remembered f to be somewhat similar, however he felt that before making a decision these cases should be reviewed in light of the case before them. Therefore, he recommended that the case be continued to allow the City Attorney time to evaluate and provide a legal opinion on the relationship of this case to other actions made by the Planning Commission on extension of times. In this way the Planning Commission would remain consistent on planning actions. r Further, Chairman Seidler directed staff to meet in study session with the City Council to receive guidance on the issue of extensions placed on parking requirements and minor adjustments; and report back at the con- tinued meeting of this case. Chairman Seidler moved that the Planning Commission continue this item until its meeting of January 13, 1976. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Commissioner Wilson commented that for the sake of the developer, the Planning Commission should not continue this matter. He felt the sooner the Planning Commission could provide an answer, the sooner the developer could see which way to go. Chairman Seidler asked if the case could be continued without violating the provisions of the State Law. Jeff Patterson, City Attorney, advised that it could be continued and action still be taken this month. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Wilson voting no. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -11- December 2, 1975 IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - None X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Chairman Seidler seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion to adjourn carried unanimously; and the meeting as adjourned at 11 :45 p.m. L A. WILLI MS, SECRETARY AT EST: 7 ILLIAM R. SEIDLER, AN ,mow WON