Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0303 , ' x . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 3, 1976 7 p.m. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Seidler at 7:04 p.m. , March 3, 1976, 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 Absence) Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IU. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the February 17, 1976, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Seidler explained the public hearing procedures and declared the Public Hedring open for the first case. Chairman �,,,,, Seidler also explainedjto the audience that a Study Session had been held prior to to�ight' s meeting but that no decisions were made at the session, •only a discussion of the cases on the agen- da. A. CASE N0. VARIANCE 01-76 - ROY W. CARUER - Applicant. Request for a variance to allow additional directional signage at the E1 Paseo Square Shopning Cente�. Commissioner Mullins was excused from the public hearing on the above case (Variance 01-76) due to a possible conflict of interest. Associate Planner Fleshman gave an explanation of the request for a variance from Section 25.38 of the Zoning Ordinance (on site advertising) to permit 3 direct�ional/identification signs. He stated staff recommended approving the variance subject to seven conditions of approval . He also gave the four reasons for the justification of the approval of the variance. An exhibit was passed out to the Commissioners which showed the proposed and staff-recommended locations, plus an existing di- rectional sign. Staff recommended that the proposed sign for Building "C" tenants be moved to the entrance on Lupine Lane. �1r. Fleshman also explained the Conditions of Approval . rr. ROBERT T. BEST, 110 West Las Tunas, San Gabriel , California, a representative of ROY W. CARVER (applicant) spoke to the Commis- sion reference the background and reasons for his company's re- quest. He stated the purpose of the signs was to direct people to the proper shops in the center. Because of the design of the center, some of the shops were not able to be seen from the road- way. The major exposure was away from Highway 111 which keeps the shops in the center from public view. Mr. Best brought a -1- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -2- MARCH 3, 1976 letter signed by 12 tenants in the center and presented it to the Commission. This letter requested approval by the Planning Commission of the request for additional directional signage. Mr. Best was against moving the proposed sign to Lupine Lane. Chairman Seidler expressed his concern over the size of the lettering on the existing sign, stating that people traveling down the highway could not see the words on the sign nor was it safe from a traffic viewpoint. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing on Variance 01-76 """ as there were no further comments either in favor of or opposed to this case. Commissioner Wilson favored the staff recommendation as pertaining to location and made a motion to approve the request by Planning Commission Resolution No. 123. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried with the exception of Commissioner Mullins who was excused due to a possible conflict of interest. B. CONTINUED CASE N0. CUP O1-76 - LAMBETH HOUSE, INC. , Ap�licant Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 100-unit senior citizen housing complex on a 3 acre parcel north of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church. (Continued from February 3, 1976. ) Chairman Seidler granted Commissioner Berkey permission to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest and opened the continued public hearing on Lambeth House, Inc. Paul Williams requested a month's continuance for the following 3 reasons: �.w (1) The Planning Commission was short two members with Commissioner Van de Mark bein� absent and Commissioner Berkey being excused. (2) To his knowledge, the applicant and the architect were not present at tonight's meeting. (3) There were still some minor corrections to be made to the conditions of approval relative to the development. Chairman Seidler felt that due to the fact a lot of concerned people were in attendance at tonight's meeting, if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission and would not be able to attend another meetin� if the case were continued, they should be able to do so at tonight's meeting. Chairman Seidler then asked staff for a brief report on the last meeting of February 3, 1976, reference this case. Mr. Williams gave an explanation of the major items discussed at the last meeting. The items were as follows: �1) A discussion reference mitigation of noise. �„ (2) Calculation of density. (3) Access and circulation problems reference Highway 74. (4) Access to Section 30, west of the Palm Valley Channel . (5) Increased parking facilities. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -3- MARCH 3, 1976 At this time Chairman Seidler asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission who would not be able to come back to an additional public hearing. ROBERT CUMMINGS, 16355 Wimbleton Lane, I�untington Beach, Califor- nia, Consultant on Housing for the Elderly and a representative of Lambeth House, Inc. , commented that the loan application deadline on the project was due in a short time and if the pub- lic hearing was continued to the next meeting, the deadline could �.,. not be met. He stated that he came prepared to have the matter decided upon at tonight's meeting. He further stated that a re- presentative from ROBERT RICCIARDI 'S office (architect for the development) was present, plus several members from St. Margaret's Church acting as representatives of Lambeth House, Inc. Mr. Cummings stated that all the staff recommendations were ac- ceptable to the above mentioned persons and that they hoped the Planning Commission would find it possible to decide the matter tonight. GEORGE SMITH, 46-190 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, California, a representative of the Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church and also local residents, commented that there were a number of people present tonight who came prepared to have the matter de- cided and due to the importance of this development, felt that the public hearing should not be continued to the next meeting. THOMAS A. PAULSON, Attorney, 74-133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, Califor- nia, speaking as a member of the Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, explained the problems encountered reference the traffic situation on Highway 74 due to the lack of parking for Sunday services. He felt that if the proposed development were approved, the parking problem would only increase. � WILLIAPA WESTOVER, 7900 Bateman, Sun Valley, California, property owner in Section 30, west of the proposed site, stated he was still concerned about the lack of access to his property on the hillside. Ne also stated that he had heard that the McKeon Project was going to close off the access road to Section 30 by means of fencing. Chairman Seidler interrupted stating the Commission's main concern at this time was to decide whether or nor to continue this matter to the next meeting. Mr. Westover felt the matter should be continued to the next meeting. BYRON R. BENTLEY, 5238 Los Caballeros, Los Angeles, California 90027, owner of 5 acres on Southcliff Road, spoke to the Commission repre- senting himself and M�S. MAUREEN HENDRICKSON, owner of 72 acres in Section 30. They were concerned about access problems and he stated they wanted action now, not in the future. JAMES BONNER, 72-727 Eagle Road, Palm Desert, California, a repre- sentative of the McKeon Project, stated his group wanted to fence off the access road due to the dumping of trash, noise problems, etc. Chairman Seidler again asked the audience to keep their remarks to '�""' the issue of whether or not to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. He also questioned Mr. Bonner's right to fence off a public street and stated that tonight's meeting was not for a discussion on fencing but rather for a discussion on project development. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETTNG -4- h1ARCH 3, 1976 Chairman Seidler asked the Commissioners if they were in favor of continuing this public hearing to the next Planning Commis- sion meeting. Commissioner Wilson moved for a continuance to March 30, 1976, due to the fact that the Planning Commission was short two members and also because there would be two new commissioners at the next meeting. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion for continuance of the public hearing on Lambeth House, Inc. � The motion was unanimously carried. Commissioner Berkey did not vote as he had been excused due to a possible conflict of interest. A brief recess was called at 8:15 p.m. Meeting resumed at 8:25 p.m. C. CASE N0. CUP 03-76 - ALEX ROBERTSON C0�1PA�lY - Applicant Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a parking lot in the �-3 Zoning District, located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive. Steve Fleshman reviewed the request and gave the staff recommen- dation that the Planning Commission approve the request by Planning Commission Resolution No. 124. Mr. Fleshman also gave the three justifications for the request and the background of said request including description, size, zoning, etc. A map of the proposed site was also shown to the Corronissioners. Mr. Fleshman explained that the Design Review Board had also dis- cussed this project at their meeting and their feelings were that since Shadow Plountain Drive was for the most part a residential street, it would be better to split traffic as much as possible �,,, with entrances on both Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive. DEL DE REVERE, Architect representing ALEX ROBERTSON COPIPANY, stated they had reviewed the ten conditions of approval and had no objections to same. They were, however, requesting both an entrance and an exit on the Portola side of the parking lot, also an entrance and exit on Shadow Mountain Drive. WALLY POST, Indian Wells, owner of two lots on Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that if there was an exit on Shadow Mountain Drive, this would create more traffic. He requested that Shadow P�oun- tain Drive be rezoned to Commercial Zoning due to the above and also due to the close proximity of the proposed parking lot to City Hall . He further stated he would be in favor of the above project if rezoning were considered. Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing at this time as there were no further comments from anyone in the audience. He also stressed his concern over the problem of traffic congestion on Portola Avenue and agreed with Mr. Post that if Shadow Mountain Drive were used for access, rezoning should be considered. Chairman Seidler asked the commissioners their feelings reference the above project. They all favored leaving an entrance only on the Portola Avenue side of the project. � Mr. Williams explained that one entrance only on Portola Avenue would require a different design for the parking lot. Commissioner Berkey made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 124, subject to the ten conditions of approval , as amended to only one entrance on Portola Avenue. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. MINUTES PLANNIhdG COMMISSION MEETING -5- MARCH 3, 1976 D. CONTI�JUED CASE N0. SUBDIVISIOf� ORDINAPJCE, CITY 0� PALM DESERT Consideration of a new Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Continued from February 17, 1976. Chairman Seidler felt that this case should be continued to the next meeting due to the fact that the Commission was short two members and also because two of the commissioners would be leaving '�"" the Commission. Also there was no one in the audience wishing to voice their opinions in favor of or opposed to the above ordinance. Mr. Williams suggested the meeting of April 13, 1976 for a con- tinuance. Commissioner !�ilson moved that the discussion reference the Sub- division Ordinance be continued to April 13, 1976. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. CONTINUED CASE N0. GRADING ORDINANCE, CITY OF PALh1 DESERT Consideration of a new Grading Ordinance, Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Continued from February 17, 1976. Chairman Seidler stated he would like to hear a motion to continue this case to the meeting of April 13, 1976, for the same reasons as listed above on the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Mullins moved for continuance of the discussion on the Grading Ordinance. Commissioner t�ilson seconded the motion �, for continuance to April 13, 1976. Motion unanimously carried. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. CASE fd0. CUP 03-75 - LURIA DEVELOPMENT COP�PANY, Applicant Approval of preliminary landscaping, fencing and walkway alans for a 100-unit planned residential development on the east side of Portola Avenue at Catalina Way. Mr. Williams reviewed the above request and recommended that the Commission approve the request by minute motion. Commissioner Wilson moved to approve Exhibit "L" as meeting the conditions of approval . Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion as set forth by the Planning Commission. Motion carried unani- mously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. CASE PJO. 26C, ALEX ROBERTSON COMPANY, Applicant Request for Plot Plan Approval of an 11,000 square foot office building at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Larrea Street. rrr.. Steve Fleshman reviewed the above request with the Planning Com- mission and explained the land map, plus showed plans for the pro- ject. Also reviewed were the four justifications and the back- ground of the project including description, size, zoning, etc. Staff recommended approval of the project by Planning Commission Resolution lVo. 125. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -6- P�ARCH 3, 1976 Commissioner Berkey moved to approve the request for Plot Plan Approval reference Case No. 26C. Commissioner ulilson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. B. CASE N0. 32MF, H. CHAPLIPJ, Applicant Request for approval of preliminary plan for a 12-unit single story apartment project at the southeast corner � of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. Paul Williams explained the proposed project, giving the three justifications and also the staff recommendation that the Plan- ning Commissi�n approve the request by Planning Commission Re- solution No. 126. Chairman Seidler asked Mr. Williams if the Design Review Board had reviewed the project prior to its being presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. l�illiams stated that they had. Chair- man Seidler felt that since the project had been reviewed by the Design Review Board and since there had been a study session prior to tonight's meeting, the Commission should go ahead and make a motion for approval . Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission a�prove the request for approval of the preliminary plan. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion for approval by Planning Commission Resolution P�o. 126. Motion carried unanimously. At this time, Chairman Seidler stated that there was possibly a duplication of effort due to the fact that the Design Review Board was reviewing these cases and also the Planning Commission. He felt that if the Design Review Board had reviewed and approved � the cases, then the Planning Commission should go ahead and ap- prove them without the review, unless there was a specific prob- lem. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS The minutes of the Design Review Board meeting of February 24, 1976, were reviewed by the Commission. X. COP1P�ENTS A. City Staff Paul Williams stated he had two additional items to present to the Commission that were not listed on the agenda. The first item was a resolution for Planning Commission ap- proval reference proposed projects being constructed by the Coachella Valley County Water District; namely, the Whitewater/Magnesia Falls Sewer and the Coral Gables Court Sewer. Commissioner Wilson moved and Commissioner P�lullins seconded a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution �lo. 127, reference the above proposed projects being that they were ,�,,,, in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. h1INUTES PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING -7- MARCH 3, 1976 The second item presented by PAr. t�lilliams was the Riverside County Proposal for the Rezoning of Cook Street. Commissioner Berkey asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman Seidler granted same. The proposal by the Riverside County Planning Commission was to amend the existing Cove Communities General Plan Land Use � Element. Said proposed amendment would change the existing land use designation from Very Low Density Residential to Industrial Park or to a designation deemed more appropriate by the Riverside County Planning Commission on approximately 40 acres located on the west side of Cook Street, north of 42nd Street. The Commission directed the Secretary to notify the East Area Council tf�at this matter does conform to the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner f�lullins moved to approve the above direction to the Secretary and Commissioner �,lilson seconded the rnotion. h1otion carried unanimously with the exception of Commissioner Berkey's vote, as he was excused due to a possible conflict of interest. B. City Attorney - Not present. C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner P�ullins stated that his tenure on the Planning Commission had been both a pleasure and an education workinc� � with all the members of the Commission. Chairman Seidler expressed the same feelings as Commissioner Mullins. XII. ADJOUR�VME�JT Commissioner l�lilson moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Seidler seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. � - ����� �� �.�; ����L � ���= PAUL A. �JILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: �?-�'�'--�� ��: . � .- ../��.5=.�-�j� �iJ w G � S. ROY WILS� Vice Chairman � , „ �