Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1019 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1976 7 PM - 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 pm in the Council Cham- Now bers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner VAN DE MARK Chairman WILSON Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of October 5, 1976 %Nor The minutes to the above meeting were amended as follows: Page 3, llth paragraph, to be reworded as follows: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of an additional 320 square feet to an existing pre-school , situated in the R-1 Zone District on the east side of San Luis Rey, 300 feet north of Alessandro. Page 3, 13th paragraph, add the following sentence: Mr. Fleshman's report also indicated that this would not be an increase in the number of children attending the pre-school ; it would just be an addition to the facilities for an expansion of 320 square feet. Page 4, 4th paragraph, typographical error, last line, change the word "come" to read "some". Page 4, 4th paragraph, add the word "not" after the word "would" in the second line. Page 5, insert a new paragraph as follows, between the 6th and 7th paragraphs from the bottom: tow There was a ten minute break to allow the staff time to study the matter and prepare a recommendation. A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the October 5, 1976 meeting, was unanimously carried. October 19, 1976 Page One V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Notice of Reception from the Manufactured Housing Institute. Mr. Williams reviewed the above notice of reception with the Commission. The reception is for Public Officials to attend the 24th Annual Manufactured Housing and RV Show in Los Angeles on November 5, 1976. B. Letter from Francisco J. Urrutia, regarding the height and number of stories allowed in the PC(4) Zone District. Mr. Williams reviewed the above letter from Mr. Urrutia. Said letter was requesting some indication from the Commission as to their feelings regarding a proposed project at the corner of Now Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams also explained that Mr. Urrutia was present if the Commission would like to discuss the matter with him. FRANK URRUTIA, A.I.A. , 73-350 El Paseo, spoke to the Commission and explained that the intent of his letter as it was addressed to the Commission was to really find out the Commission's feel- ings regarding three-story structures in the PC(4) Zone District. He explained that what he and his client had in mind was a three- story structure that would remain within the thirty foot limita- tion of the PC(4) Zone District. There was an informal discussion among the members of the Commission which included the feelings of the Commissioners as follows: y J Commissioner Van de Mark felt that as long as the proposed struc- ture was within the thirty foot limitation it would be acceptable. Commissioner Mills asked if it would be appropriate to discuss '? this matter with the Design Review Board. Chairman Wilson stated that it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter with the Design Review Board because Mr. Urrutia had asked specifically for the Commission's feelings; and that the NOW Commission should give Mr. Urrutia some indication of how they felt. Chairman Wilson explained his feelings on the matter stating that he would object to a three story structure, unless it was quite pleasing and unobtrusive. His feelings were based on the feelings of the community from when they went through the preparation of the new Zoning Ordinance and spent considerable time on their decision regarding two story structures and the thirty foot limitation. Commissioner Berkey stated that he would not be opposed as long as the structure was attractive. Commissioner Kelly agreed with each of her fellow commissioners. She stated that she did not want to see any straight three story structures, but she felt that Mr. Urrutia had a unique building in mind. There was a short discussion among Mr. Urrutia and the Commissioners. Chairman Wilson then informed Mr. Urrutia that he should proceed with his plans with some caution and that the matter would be open to re- view by the Commission. He further stated that he hoped Mr. Urrutia 's plans would not include a "typical three story box" type structure. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Urrutia to make sure the proposed struc- ture would not interfere with any views. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS None October 19, 1976 Page Two VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Consideration of the setting of a Public Hearing for the rezoning of all areas in the City that are now zoned 'S' (Study) , to R-E or other more appropriate zones. Mr. Williams reviewed the Study Zones with the Commission and stated that they had reviewed Parcels A through E at their last meeting and at that meeting they had elected to schedule Parcels B and E for Public Hearing on November 4, 1976 and that now the discussion should be centered around Parcels A, C, and D. He further stated that staff recommended setting the above listed parcels for Public Hearing on November 30, 1976. Mr. Williams also explained that a minute motion would be needed for too each individual parcel . There was a short discussion with reference to Parcel A; which is a 36.46 acre parcel located south of Parkview Drive, north of 44th Avenue, east of the Palm Valley Storm Channel , and west of Fairhaven Drive. The previous zoning on this parcel was R-3-7,000 and the staff proposed zoning of R-1-10,000, S.P. During the discussion, it was de- cided that the proposed zoning should be changed to R-1-10,000. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Commission set November 30, 1976, as a Public Hearing date for Parcel A. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Parcel C was the next parcel that was discussed. Mr. Williams gave the location as south of the Whitewater Storm Channel and east of Portola Avenue. He explained that the previous zoning, under the County, was W-2 (Controlled Development). He stated that staff was recommending a zoning designation of PR-6, S.P. , which is a medium density residential designation. There was a discussion during which the Commission decided that a zoning designation with a lesser density should be proposed due to the fact that this particular area needed more study. moo Chairman Wilson moved that the Commission set Parcel C for Public Hearing on November 30, 1976, with a proposed zoning designation of R-E-40,000. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Parcel D was then reviewed by Mr. Williams. The location of this parcel is north of 44th Avenue, west of Cook Street. The parcel consists of 3 lots with a total area of 17.93 acres. Mr. Williams stated that staff's recommendation would be a PR-6, S.P. zoning designation. After a short discussion, Commissioner Berkey moved that Parcel D be set for Public Hearing on November 30, 1976, with a zoning designa- tion of PR-6, S.P. , as recommended by staff. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. B. CASE NO. 15SA, TIE-BREAKER RESTAURANT, APPLICANT Appeal of a Design Review Board denial of a request to modify the sign program for the Tie-Breaker Restaurant. (Continued from the October 5, 1976 meeting. ) Steve Fleshman presented the staff report which included the re- quest from the applicant for the relocation of one sign and the installation of a new sign. %O" Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. DOUGLAS H. POWELSON, 725 East 1600 North, Orem, Utah, spoke to the Commission with reference to his appeal of the Design Review Board decision. During the discussion of this matter by the Commission, it was decided that the new sign which Mr. Powelson was proposing would be non-conforming to the proposed Sign Ordinance, due to the fact that it would be facing another business. October 19, 1976 Page Three Chairman Wilson then stated that the consensus of the Commission seemed to be that the Design Review Board was correct in their denial . Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 186, which denied Mr. Powelson's appeal of the Design Review Board denial . Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. C. CASE NO. 30C, GEORGE RITTER, A.I.A. , APPLICANT Review of a new commercial building on Highway 111. (Continued from the October 5, 1976 meeting. ) Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission. His report included a discussion of the applicant's objections to three of the standard conditions of approval and a staff recom- mendation that the Planning Commission approve the project, with the same conditions as recommended by the Design Review Board, with the modification of Condition No. 5 to allow for the posting of a cash deposit for the pro-rata share of the undergrounding of the total block. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111, Architect for the project and representative of the applicant - Mr. Ritter spoke to the Commis- sion and asked that they specifically direct their attention to Condition No. 14 (the condition requiring the applicant to join any assessment district formed, etc. ). Mr. Ritter asked that it go on the record that even though the applicant was agreeing to Condition No. 14 now; he was doing it only in order to receive a building permit. Mr. Ritter also discussed Condition No. 15 with the Commission. This condition requires the applicant to grant an easement of the City over the parking lot area. Mr. Ritter stated that he felt they were revoking their right over the property forever. Mr. Ritter then stated that the applicant was in agreement with low Condition No. 5, as modified to allow for the posting of the cash deposit for the undergrounding. There was a lengthy discussion among the members of the Commission with reference to the two conditions with which the applicant had A some objections. The consensus of the Commission with reference to I Condition No. 14 seemed to be that it should be used as a standard condition until it is challenged in the courts. The Commission also < discussed at great length the rear storage area of the project. ,Q Mr. Ritter then asked for a continuance to re-design the rear z portion of the project, to mitigate some of the Commission 's objections. Mr. Ritter stated that he would like to make some changes in the design and return the project to the Design Review Board. Mr. Williams explained that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, a continuance could not be allowed since this was already a con- tinued item. Chairman Wilson asked what the proper procedure would be. Mr. Williams explained that a minute motion would be needed. Commissioner Berkey moved that the matter be referred back to the Design Review Board for futher study and additional input from the applicant. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unani- mously carried. Chairman Wilson called a brief recess at 8:59 pm. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 13 pm. Mr. Williams handed out the new reduced copies of the Zoning Map to the Commissioners. October 19, 1976 Page Four D. Consideration of the Circulation Element for the C.O.D. Specific Plan. Mr. Williams stressed the fact that these reports should only be considered as working documents that staff had prepared for discussion. He explained that the material contained in the documents must still go through several stages of refinement with other City agencies before it will be ready as a prelimi- nary Specific Plan element. Mr. Williams also explained that additional comments were needed from the City Engineer. One of the elements that the Commissioners agreed with as being very important was the Bikeway System. The importance of 44th Avenue as a major through route was also discussed. Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to return the Circulation Ele- ment to the City Engineer for additional input. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. E. Discussion of the "Report on Vandalism". All the Commissioners agreed that the report was very in-depth. There was some discussion regarding the vandalism at the Com- munity Park and the Commission decided that they should discuss this matter with the Council at the Joint Meeting. F. Discussion on the Definition of "Family". Mr. Fleshman explained that the the Planning Commission meeting of October 5, 1976, the Commission had questioned the definition of "family" as it related to foster children or a foster home for children. Mr. Fleshman then read the Palm Desert Zoning Or- `finance definition of "family". Further, Mr. Fleshman stated hat at this time, staff did not see a need to change the defini- �'° tion of "family". Mr. Williams stated that staff would prepare another report for ^; the Commission on a way to limit the "family-type" home to six children. G. Discussion of the Agenda for the Upcoming Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting and suggested that the meeting be held in the Conference Room in- stead of the Council Chambers. The Commissioners agreed to add three additional items to the agenda. These items are as follows: Discussion on Vandalism; Discussion of a uniform policy relative to Variance usage. Discussion of possible quarterly joint meetings. Mr. Williams then reviewed the City Council decision pertaining to Frank Goodman's Tract (Tract 8237). VIII. NEW BUSINESS vow A. Reconsideration of the Sign Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. Mr. Williams stated that staff's recommendation would be to set the Sign Ordinance for Public Hearing for November 16, 1976. Chairman Wilson asked staff to provide a brief summary of the history of the Sign Ordinance for the Commissioners and to present it to them at their next meeting. October 19. 1976 Paae Five Commissioner Berkey moved and Commissioner Kelly seconded to set the Sign Ordinance for Public Hearing on November 16, 1976. The motion unanimously carried. B. Discussion of the Annual Report to the "Council on Inter-Government Relations" on Planning Activities. There was a short discussion pertaining to the above report. Commissioner Mills moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 187, as corrected, (change in Resolution Number and change in dates of Planning Commission meeting). Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. tow IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS None X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams gave a report on the last City Council meeting. His report included the Council 's decision on the Frank Goodman Tract (Tract 8237) , which passed with a 3-2 vote in favor of the Tract. Mr. Williams also informed the Commission that the City Council had approved Variance 03-76 (Al Kuri ) on a 4-1 vote. He explained that the Council felt unique circumstances were involved and there- fore approved the Variance. B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Chairman Wilson commented that he thought the annual city-wide -' bus trip was very beneficial in that it gave the people involved a chance to share their thoughts. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 pm. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: tow S. ILSO CHAIRMAN DESERT LANNING COMMI SION October 19, 1976 Page Six