Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1216 MINUTES PAL11 DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 16, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Vice Chairman at 7:05 p.m. in the Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners BERKEY, MULLINS, VAN DE MARK, WILSON Absent: Commissioner SEIDLER (Excused Absence) Others Present: Dave Erwin - City Attorney Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. MINUTES Minutes of the December 2, 1975 meeting were not available and would be submitted for the January 13, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairman Wilson advised that there would be a revision of the meeting Agenda by postponing Public Hearing items until after the New Business items were handled. He advised it should be noted that the Planning Commission met in Study Session prior to the meeting to ask questions about the projects before the Commission, but no decisions were made. It was recommended by Paul Williams that the Planning Commission begin the meeting with item VIII (A) on the Agenda. The Commission concurred. VIII . NEW BUSI14ESS A. Case No. 23C, DR. PROCK: Consideration of construction, landscaping, and sign plans for a small animal hospital on the north side of Highway 111 , east of Monterey Avenue. (C-P-S) Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and advised that this case had been forwarded to the Planning Commission from the Design Review Board. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this request by Resolution No. 108 subject to the attached conditions. Justification for approval was based upon: 1 . Proposed use was in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use would not be detrimental to other neighboring .. properties because it would take place in a completely enclosed, sound proofed building to be designed and constructed in accordance with the appropriate City codes. Problems which arise could be con- trolled through the previously granted Conditional Use Permit. 3. The property described in this location was suitable for the proposed use because it was located in a commercial district and it was of adequate size and proper shape to accommodate the proposed use. 4. The proposed use would not place an extreme demand upon utilities, municipal improvements, or services. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -2- December 16, 1975 As the result of discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the following changes to the conditions of approval : Condition #14 was added as follows: Two metal doors shall be added between the rear area and the office. Condition #15 was added as follows: Noise levels generated from the use shall not exceed 50 decibals (a) at the property line at all times. Resolution No. 108 was amended by deleting the word "more" from finding #3. Vice Chairman Wilson commented that although this wasn't a Public Hearing, the Planning Commission welcomed the applicant to address the Commission and comment on the staff report or any of the conditions. DR. PROCK, 1359 North Main Street, Salinas, California commented that he was in complete agreement with both the staff and Design Review Board recommendations. Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 108 with the attached condi- tions as amended. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS C. Case No.-REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Relative to the City's Rights and Responsibilities in regard to existing private covenants, con- ditions and restrictions. City Attorney, Dave Erwin, began his report by giving his conclusion of the relationship between the City's Zoning Ordinance and Private Covenants, .. Conditions and Restrictions which was as follows: "Zoning generally has no effect on private restrictions and agreements as to land; and if the reverse is true, the private restrictions, covenants, conditions and agreements are not to be considered and are basically immaterial in determining the validity of any Zoning Ordinance, nor do they have any part in Zoning Administration. " He stated further that when looking at the purposes of private restric- tions they generally, though sometimes are directed toward a public good or welfare, are nevertheless privately established. They are placed on the land; and in the City's case in particular, are placed on the land by the developers. Fie advised that the organization the City was most familiar with was the Palm Desert Property Owners Association which did in fact establish in them zoning quite similar to many Zoning Ordinances in effect at that time. They are nevertheless private agreements between the developer and the subsequent owners of the land; and between each of those owners of the land. When they are recorded prior to the sale of the land, any purchaser then takes subject to those covenants, conditions and restrictions. The difference is that zoning legislation is rules and laws placed upon the property by a governmental agency and for these to be valid, there must be a public interest, health, safety and welfare as a basis for the imposition of the zoning regulations. Another distinction between the conditions, covenants and restrictions and a Zoning Ordinance is the method by which they are enforced. With covenants, conditions and restrictions, you have private agreements. If they are to be enforced, they are to be enforced by those individuals establishing the private agreement. The Zoning Ordinances are enforced by the governmental agency that imposes them. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -3- December 16, 1975 In summary, the City Attorney advised that the basic distinction between the two was the primary purpose under which each had been established. The private covenants, conditions and restrictions are established by private individuals or developers through contracts that are entered into by private individuals for their own specific purposes at that time. The Zoning that is imposed by this Commission is a manner that would have to be determined to be in the best interests of public safety, health, and welfare or it cannot stand. After a brief discussion, Vice Chairman Wilson recommended that the Planning Commission move to the Public Hearing section of the meeting and explained .. the public hearing procedures. He noted that the public hearing items had not been discussed in study session. The Planning Commission was con- sidering this public hearing as a study session to go into detail on the particular items before them. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Continued Case No. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (Cif of Palm Desert) : Consideration of a new City Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Paul Williams introduced the Subdivision Ordinance which was the fourth revision of an original document that was prepared in December of 1974. The draft was mailed to some 100 individuals and organizations for comment and review. This fourth revision was the result of additional staff review and comments received; and was the first time presented for discussion by the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams advised that the Subdivision Ordinance was intended to be used in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance, the State Subdivision Map Act and adopted Development Standards to regulate the division of land within the City of Palm Desert. Staff attempted to provide a document that was clear and complete in terms of the requirements of the City in the development of land. This Ordinance was divided into eight sections which ,., Mr. Williams reviewed for the Commission and audience. Vice Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments relative to the Subdivision Ordinance. Throughout the duration of the meeting, the following members of the audience commented on various Sections of the Ordinance. ENOS REID, representing Ironwood, commented on the following: Section 26.2-6.02 Land Division Committee Section 26.2-7 Suspension of Requirement; Variance or Deviation Section 26.2-9 Extension of Time Section 26.2-10 Appeals of Decision of Planning Commission Section 26.3-13.04 Maintenance Guarantee Section 26.3-14.06 Appeal to City Council Section 26.5-3.06.03 Curbs, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Ways Section 26.6-1 .12 & .14 Minimum Requirements-Subdivisions & Parcel Maps Section 26.7-2.01 & Neighboring Facilities 2.03.01 Section 26.7-3.04 & .05 Dedication of Land for Park & Recreation Purposes Section 26.3-1 Appeal DON SHAYLER, 73-399 Highway 111 , commented on the following Sections: Section 26.1-4.03.01 Private Streets Section 26.2-9 Extensions of Time Section 26.5-1 Street Tree Deposits Section 26.5-5 Street Trees MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -4- December 16, 1975 Vice Chairman Wilson felt that there were a number of items for additional study and he felt the Planning Commission did not have sufficient time to adequately review the document that was before them. Commissioner Mullins advised that the Commission had received very good input from the audience and recommended a continuance of this matter until January 13, 1976 to give staff and the Planning Commission additional time to study the document and recommendations made during the Public Hearing. The Sections of major concern to be studied further by the Planning Commission and staff were as follows: Section 26.1-4.03.01 Private Streets Section 26.1-5.03 Planning Commission Section 26.2-1 Tentative Map Filing Section 26.3-13.04 Maintenance Guarantee Section 26.4-1 Street Tree Deposits Section 26.4-3 Fees - Special Section 26.5-3.05 Grade, Curves & Sight Distances Section 26.7-2 Neighborhood Facilities Section 26.7-3 Dedication of Land for Park & Recreation Purposes Vice Chairman Wilson directed staff to address themselves to the various comments made regarding these sections and give additional recommendations at the January 13, 1976 meeting. Commissioner Mullins moved that the Public Hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance be continued to January 13, 1976. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. B. Continued Case No. GRADING ORDINANCE (City of Palm Desert) : Consideration of a new City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Paul Williams introduced the Grading Ordinance for review which was an �... amplification of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code to establish the minimum requirements for grading, excavating and filling of land. The Grading Ordinance was to be used in conjunction with the Subdivision Ordinance, Hillside Overlay Section of the Zoning Ordinance and in relationship to the Design Review Board process. In connection with this process, development standards under the Subdivision and Grading Ordinances would be developed. Mr. Williams then reviewed the first set of such standards, Grading Standards 1 and 2, to be considered for approval . After discussion by the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing. There were no comments from the audience. Vice Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing; and advised that sufficient questions had been raised during discussion to justify a continuance of the Public Hearing on this item. The major items for further study by the Planning Commission and staff were regarding the following Sections of the Ordinance: Section 27.2-2.03 Special Requirements for Land Alteration Section 27.2-10 Qualifications to do Work-Property Owner (It was the consensus of the Commission that this Section be thoroughly reviewed & modified. ) Section 27.5-3 Special Investigations Section 27.6-1 Computation & Payment Section 27.6-3 Fee for Failure to Obtain a Land Alteration Permit Now Section 27.6-4 Violation Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission continue this Public Hearing item until January 13, 1976 and asked that staff report back their recommendations. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Commissioner Van de Mark felt that the procedures outlined in the Grading Ordinance should be made as clear as possible and less complex for individuals submitting small projects. Motion for continuance was unanimously carried. MINUTES -5- December 16, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission recessed for a five minute break. Vice Chairman Wilson reconvened the Public Hearing for case #C. C. Case No. DESIGN EVALUATION CRITERIA (City of Palm Desert) : Considera- tion of the proposed application requirements that will be used to evaluate future construction projects in the City. Paul Williams introduced the first in a series of Design Standards that were being developed by the Design Review Board as the basis for evaluating all projects to be reviewed by the DRB and/or staff. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report. He advised that the Design Evaluation Criteria would serve as both a guide by which developers could plan their projects and the criteria by which each project is evaluated. In this way the applicant would know in advance what requirements were expected. The Evaluation Criteria are subdivided into major categories with specific design criteria listed under each category. Mr. Fleshman reviewed the Submittal Requirements to be used in conjunction with the Evaluation Criteria. The applicant would be required to supply staff or the DRB with information as noted and with this information staff and/or the DRB would be able to make an evaluation on those items as required. As a result of discussion, the following changes to the Design Evaluation Criteria were recommended by the Planning Commission: V. Utility & Equipment Standards A. Revised to read. . . "All service utility lines shall be placed underground. " VI. Vehicle Parking Standards D. Revised to read. . . "Carports for apartment developments shall not front onto a public right-of-way. " ` E. Revised to read. . . "The design of the garages should be encouraged not to front onto a public right-of-way. " F. Deleted VIII. Landscaping Standards C. Revised to read. . . "Landscaping, walls, and fences shall not create unsafe conditions along public rights-of-way." IX. Lighting, Identification & Signage Standards A. Deleted E. Added as follows: "Signage for commercial uses shall be for identification purposes only. " X. Fencing, Screening & Enclosure Standards D. Added as follows: "Fencing and walls shall not obstruct line of sight along public rights-of-way." Commissioner Berkey moved that the Evaluation Criteria be approved as amended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 109. Commissioner Mullins rr, seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS B. Case No. 25C ROBERT DRIVER: Consideration of a parking lot layout for a proposed restaurant located on the south side of Highway 111 , between El Paseo and Panorama Drive. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and recommended approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 110 subject to the attached conditions; and based upon the following justification: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -6- December 16, 1975 1 . Conformance of the proposed project to the requirements of the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed development does ensure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. Adverse impacts on adjacent residential property would be mitigated by subsequent landscaping, lighting and perimeter fencing plans. Paul Williams recommended a minor correction to condition #6 substituting "Riverside County Standards" with (City Standard 'C' ) . Commissioner Berkey advised that he was abstaining from discussion and voting on this case. The Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the case and recommended condition #15 be amended to include "screening". It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this was a good project. Vice Chairman Wilson asked for comments from the applicant. There were no comments. Commissioner Van de Mark moved approval of Resolution No. 110 with the attached conditions as amended. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried 3-0 with Commissioner Berkey abstaining. VIII . NEW BUSINESS D. Discussion of Possible Joint Projects Involving the City of Palm Desert and College of the Desert. Paul Williams advised that staff had been reviewing the possibility of utilizing a valuable asset of the community which was College of the Desert and related personnel . Three major areas which would be of benefit to both the City and the College by a combination of forces were: 1 . Invaluable informational resources exchanged between the College and the City. The City could use the College resources in preparation of Environmental Impact Reports; and the College would have available to them, information from the Planning Division Library of planning and public administration technical documents which were not available at a community level college. 2. Formulation of the Specific Plan for the College of the Desert area could be better achieved through the utilization of a staff committee from the College workinq in conjunction with the Planning Commission and/or City staff. 3. A beautification program for both the College itself and the adjacent streets in terms of appearance and upgrading of property around the College could be achieved through joint efforts and funds by both the College and the City. Paul Williams welcomed any further suggestions for joint projects and advised staff would prepare a list of those suggestions recommended to be forwarded to College of the Desert for their input. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that these were all good projects; and that the College would be instrumental in convincing the City that a greater emphasis should be placed on projects such as these to upgrade the total community. Vice Chairman Wilson suggested that the City initiate procedures for discussion of the possible joint projects involving the City and the College by a letter addressed to Dr. Stout. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -7- December 16, 1976 Paul Williams suggested that the Planning Commission compile a complete list of joint project items and discuss with them with the City Council before being presented to Dr. Stout. Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission forward a list of recommended projects to the City Council for their review and initiation of procedures to discuss joint projects between the City and the College. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS There were no items brought up for discussion of cases heard at the December 9, 1975 Design Review Board meeting. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MARJORIE EGAN, 73-465 Grapevine, Palm Desert. Mrs. Egan, referring to the City Council meeting of the week before, remarked that a discussion regarding a condition applied to a recently approved subdivision as to whether or not Catalina Way should be a public road, could have been reduced significantly if minutes of the Planning Commission meeting approving said project had been available to them. She felt in this way the City Council would have adequate information concerning the pros and cons as discussed by the Planning Commission for their recommendation on projects to be forwarded to the City Council . Vice Chairman Wilson commented that one of the major problems for the minutes not being available was the fact that December was a very hectic month with several Planning Commission and City Council meetings meeting back to back. There was not sufficient time between meetings to transcribe the minutes for the upcoming City Council meeting. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that minutes should be available to the City Council discussing the ramifications of their actions on cases to be forwarded to them prior to their meetings. XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Rttorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ATTEST: UL A. WIL IAMS, SECRETARY S Y WIL N, VICE CHAR AN