Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0817 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 17, 1976 7 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kelly III . ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner GEORGE BERKEY Commissioner GLORIA KELLY Commissioner MARY K. VAN DE MARK Chairman S. ROY WILSON Absent: Commissioner NELSON MILLS (Excused Absence) Also Present: Stephen A. Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 27, 1976, continued meeting. There were several corrections to the above minutes. They are as follows : tow Page 2, Comment No. 4, under Item B of Written Communications is to be deleted. Page 3, 2nd paragraph, first sentence, delete the word on Page 4, 3rd paragraph to be re-worded to read as follows: "The next condition which the applicant objected to was Condition No. 4 which reads as follows: All drainage shall be handled in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Interior drainage from the drainage area easterly of Mari- posa Drive shall not be discharged onto Portola Avenue. After a short discussion, the Commission decided to delete the second sentence from Condition No. 4. " Commissioner Van de Mark moved to approve the minutes of the July 27, 1976 meeting with the above-noted corrections. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS None August 17, 1976 Page 1 VII . OLD BUSINESS A. CASE NO. ZOA 03-76 - CITY OF PALM DESERT Consideration of City Council Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Fleshman explained to the Commission that according to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is to review any changes made by the City Council and may report back to the City Council . He further explained that the Council had adopted the Planning Commission's proposal with the following changes: - deleted automobile tire centers as a conditional use in the C-1 Zone - deleted automatic and self-service car washes from con- ditional uses in the C-1 Zone - deleted dog grooming parlors from conditional uses in the C-1 Zone - deleted small animal out-patient clinics from the conditional uses in the C-1 Zone Mr. Fleshman also mentioned that the City Council , at their meeting of August 12th, had decided to delete the new Professional-Office Zone from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fleshman further stated that the Commission actually had three options in relation to the above Council actions. These options are as follows: 1) make no comment at all 2) respond to the Council and concur with their changes 3) reaffirm their position on any of the deleted items and low submit new evidence to support their position At this time, Chairman Wilson stated even though this was not a Public Hearing, the Commission would be willing to accept any testimony reference the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. FRANK GOODMAN, .73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, spoke to the Commission and requested they appeal to the City Council to reconsider their stand on car washes. After a rather lengthy discussion between the Commissioners and staff, Mr. Fleshman stated that staff's recommendation would be for the Com- mission to make no comment at all and bring back their revisions as a new set of amendments (ZOA 04-76). A short discussion then ensued between the Commissioners reference conditional uses, etc. The Commission felt that these items pertaining to the above uses (which the Council deleted) should be discussed at a joint City Council/Planning Commission session. Commissioner Berkey then made a motion that the staff be directed to report back to the Commission with all pertinent information on the proposed uses at the August 31, 1976 meeting and that the Commission concur with the deletion of the Professional-Office Zone according to wow City Council action of August 12, 1976. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Van de Mark. Chairman Wilson asked Commissioner Berkey to elaborate on the above motion. August 17, 1976 Page 2 Commissioner Berkey stated that staff should include in their report certain information pertaining to where the citizens of Palm Desert would be able to obtain services such as dog grooming parlors, car washes, etc. , if they were not located in Palm Desert. An in-depth survey of the surrounding cities should be a part of the above-mentioned report. A short discussion ensued, after which, Commissioner Berkey agreed to withdraw his motion with the understanding that the staff report will be forthcoming. The Commission then decided to make no comment at all to the City Council reference ZOA 03-76. VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE - CVCWD Review of proposed construction of 12 inch domestic water line on Desert Lily Drive, between Grapevine Street and Goldflower Street. Mr. Fleshman explained to the Commission that the above request was ty- pical of the ones received by the City from the Coachella Valley County Water District. He further stated that staff's recommendation would be for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 166, finding the proposed im- provement to be in conformance to the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Planning Commission adopt Reso- lution No. 166, finding that the projects proposed by the CVCWD are in compliance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion ; motion carried unanimously. B. RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GPA-59-756-CC-7 Review of proposed project now before the Riverside County Planning Commission to amend the Cove Communities General Plan from Tourist Commercial , Open Space and Planned Development (1-3 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial , Industrial Park, High Density Re- sidential , and Low Density Residential on a 240-acre parcel located southwest of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report to the Commission and also pointed out the proposed location on the map. The staff report included a copy of a letter from Mayor Brush to the Riverside County Planning Commission. Said letter explained that the area concerned was not within Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. Mr. Fleshman ended his presentation with a staff recommendation that the Commission make no comment on the project in that it lies within the Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence and that the County would be capable of making a sound judgment on the matter. The Commission concurred with Mr. Fleshman. C. CASE NO. ZOC 05-76 - GEORGE RITTER Review of Zoning Ordinance Clarification to determine whether a res- taurant would be permitted in association with a hotel in the Multi- Family (R-3) District. Mr. Fleshman presented the staff report to the Commission. His report in- cluded the request that the Planning Commission determine whether the Multi- Family (R-3) Residential Zone would allow a restaurant facility in associa- tow tion with a hotel . He stated that staff recommended the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 167 finding that in the R-3 Zone, a restaurant in as- sociation with a hotel facility would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. The justification was based upon the following: 1) The zone already permits limited commercial uses directly related to private recreational facilities such as country clubs, tennis and swim clubs, and golf courses. 2) Requiring a Conditional Use Permit will permit the mitigation and careful regulation of any such activities. August 17, 1976 Page 3 3) By requiring restaurants in association with hotel facilities, the emphasis of design can still be focused on the residential element. 4) A restaurant-hotel combination provides for a beneficial relation- ship that allows tourists to walk to a restaurant instead of being forced to drive. GEORGE RITTER, 73-345 Juniper, the local architect who represented the owner of the Carousel Motel , spoke to the Commission reference the owner's request to convert an existing residence on the site into a restaurant. He stated that this would produce a situation roughly similar to that between the Adobe Garden Hotel and the Iron Gate Restaurant. A short discussion ensued between the Commission, staff, and Mr. Ritter reference building height, possible parking problems, other uses in the R-3 areas, etc. Commissioner Berkey made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt Reso- lution No. 167. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion ; motion car- ried unanimously. D. REQUEST for the Planning Commission to initiate Change of Zone pro- cedures from the Study (S) ; PP,-1, D. SP; and OS Zone Districts to Multi-Family (R-3-43,560(9) S.P. ) or other appropriate districts on a 2-acre site located on the east side of Highway 74, near the Dead Indian Canyon Stormwater Dike to permit the Masonic Temple to submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Fleshman reviewed a letter received from Mr. Bill Hobbs reference the request and stated that the request was a formality required by the Zoning Ordinance, since a portion of the property was zoned Study District, and further explained that the Planning Commission may initiate a Change of Zone in this case. Mr. Fleshman ended his presentation with a staff recom- mendation that the Planning Commission set for Public Hearing on August 31, 1976, consideration of a Change of Zone to R-3-43,560(9)S.P. for the subject property. vim.. Commissioner Berkey moved that staff be directed to set a Public Hearing on this matter to change the zone to R-3-43,560(9)S.P. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion ; motion carried unanimously. E. CASE NO. ADJUSTMENT 08-76 - CHARLES JACOBS Request for an adjustment from the requirements of the swimming pool fence ordinance to allow a two-foot fence instead of a four-foot fence around a therapy spa located at 73-465 Ironwood Street. Sam Freed presented the staff report to the Commission and stated that the staff recommended denying the request by Resolution No. 168 and directing the applicant to submit fence plans to the Design Review Board process for approval . Staff's recommendation was based upon the following justifica- tions: 1) The required four-foot fence height could be achieved through the use of wrought iron or other open materials and would not affect the resident's view of the golf course. 2) Said fence addition would not be substantial in cost and would not outweigh the safety element to be gained. 3) Adjustment granted for this parcel would create an unwise prece- dent for other properties in the area which may add pools in the future and which would be unfair to homeowners who have already installed the required height fence along other lots adjacent to the golf course. August 17, 1976 Page 4 Mr. Fleshman stated that the prime consideration in this matter was whether sufficient evidence existed to justify the granting of an ad- justment. He then read part of Section 1.2(e) of Ordinance No. 123, which reads as follows: "Section 1.2(e) : Adjustments from the terms of this Section may be granted by the Planning Commission when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Section would cause a loss in aesthetics or an increase in cost which would outweigh the safety element to be gained. . ." HAROLD A. PETERSON, Sun King Spas, 73-925 Highway 111, represented the owner of the property (Charles Jacobs) , spoke to the Commission and ob- jected to staff's recommendation for denial of the request. There was a lengthy discussion between the Commission, staff and Mr. Peterson. This discussion centered mainly around the elements of safety and the present surrounding properties. Commissioner Kelly strongly ob- jected to approving the request for an adjustment. Her main concern was the safety element. Chairman Wilson suggested that the entire matter of fencing around pools should be an agenda item for a future City Council/Planning Commission study session. The Commission concurred with Chairman Wilson. Commissioner Berkey made a motion to adopt a Planning Commission Reso- lution No. 168, appr_o_vi_n9 the request for an adjustment. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded tie motion. The motion was carried with a 3-1 vote as follows: AYES: Berkey, Van de Mark , Wilson NOES: Kelly Chairman Wilson again stressed the fact that this entire matter should be taken up at a joint Council/Commission session. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases heard by the Design Review Board at their meeting of August 10, 1976. Mr. Fleshman first reviewed Planning Commission Resolution No. 169 with the Commissioners and stated that Case No. 34C (J.REID-Commercial Building) and Case No. 41MF (DEEP CANYON TENNIS CLUB) should be deleted from the resolution. Mr. Fleshman then asked the Commission to review Case No. 39MF (Portola del Sol Condominiums) and Case No. 42MF (Silver Spur Associates) first, due to the fact that the architect and the engineer for these projects were both present. The Commission agreed. Case No. 39MF - Mr. Fleshman presented the Design Review Board findings as pertaining to 39MF. Mr. Fleshman reminded the Commissioners that at their last meeting they had had some concerns relative to the landscaping and maintenance of this project. The main topic among the Commission seemed to center around the existing date palm trees at the location. Commissioner Berkey asked if the Commission hadn't made an agreement with the developer to maintain the character of the date groves on the south side of the project. Mr. Ritter answered yes, there was such an agreement. August 17, 1976 Page 5 Chairman Wilson felt that the date and citrus trees should be used wherever possible. The Commission agreed to reword Condition No. 12 as follows: "The date palm character along Portola Avenue and the southerly property line shall be preserved. " Case No. 42MF - Steve Fleshman presented the plans reference Case No. 42MF to the Commission. He pointed out that the applicant was requesting the deletion of Condition No. 7 which pertains to the installation of curb and gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving along Irontree. The ap- plicant was requesting deletion as he felt these improvements were not necessary at this time and felt they should be installed when that por- etion of the project was developed. Don Shayler, engineer for the project, stated he was requesting (on behalf of the applicant) the deletion of Condition No. 5, reference roof top air conditioning units being prohibited. He further stated that the roof top air conditioners would be fully screened. A short discussion ensued and the Commission agreed with staff reference the deletion of Condition No. 7. The Commission further agreed with the deletion of Condition No. 5, as long as the developer screened the roof top air conditioning units in an architecturally integrated means. Case No. 10SA - Mr. Fleshman stated that this case had been before the Design Review Board several times. The Commission, after a short discussion, agreed with staff to add the following conditions to the list of conditions of approval : "6. The Sign is to be moved down one space from the top. " Case No. 45MF - There was a brief presentation of this case by Mr. Fleshman. The Commission decided that sidewalks should be installed on all three sides of the subject property, along the full frontage of said property. too Commissioner Van de Mark stressed the strong need for an established side- walk policy and requested that this item be added to the agenda for the joint Council/Commission meeting. The Commissioners concurred with her suggestion. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 169, with the above-noted changes and corrections. Chairman Wilson seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff None B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners VMW None August 17, 1976 Page 6 XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. E4fLESHMAN, Associate Planner ATTEST: �ry�� � /� V S.(_ROY WI ON, Chairman August 17, 1976 Page 7