Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1116 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 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 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner MILLS (excused absence) Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of November 4, 1976 A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve the minutes of November 4, 1976, as written, was unani- mously carried. During the discussion of the minutes, Commissioner Berkey indicated a desire to discuss a requirement being made of persons representing property owners to have written authorization to present to the Plan- ning Commission. Chairman Wilson suggested that this subject would be better discussed under Comments at the end of the Agenda with which Commissioner Berkey concurred. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams stated that he had two written items that he preferred to save for the Comments section of the Agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CASE NO. ZOA 02-76, THE SIGN ORDINANCE Review of a revised Section 25.38 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and an Amendment to Section 25.39-2. 10 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Williams reviewed the staff report on the revised preliminary Sign Ordinance. Mr. Williams' review included a complete history of the Sign Ordinance, including the fact that the City Council , at their meeting of October 14, 1976, had referred said Ordinance back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with revisions in specific areas. Mr. Williams then explained that several minor revisions had been made for clarification purposes. Mr. Williams also mentioned the surveys that were attached to the staff report and the alternatives regarding the amortization schedules. He then November 16, 1976 Page One stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission con- sider this revised Sign Ordinance tonight and also consider the Zon- ing Ordinance Amendment, which increased the value of signs that may be reviewed by staff from $500 to $1,000. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Commissioner Kelly asked for a clarification regarding Section 25.38- 3.04 (Permit Record Requirement). Mr. Williams explained that the permit would be placed on the sign itself and that it would be a small stick-on type of permit. There was a short discussion regarding the permits and the problems that tow could result from their placement on the sign itself; such as, getting in the way of the aesthetics of the sign, children walking by and pulling the stickers off, etc. Mr. Williams did agree that these would definitely present some problems. Commissioner Kelly asked for some clarification regarding Signs on Public Property and Signs Not Advertising the Use, etc. Mr. Williams provided the clarification in both instances. Commissioner Berkey stated he had no questions of staff at this time. Chairman Wilson stated he had some questions but would wait until after the public had given their input. He then declared the Public Hearing open on Case No. ZOA 02-76 and asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the proposed Ordinance. Being no one, Chairman Wilson then asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 0 o NESTOR M. NOE, 73-677 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and z stated that he wanted to clarify that he was neither for nor *5 against the proposed Ordinance. He stated that he was speaking Nas a representative if the Business Men 's Association of Palm Desert. Further, he stated that he had just received a copy of wow the Ordinance this afternoon and that it was quite a lengthy do- cument; therefore, he felt that additional time should be granted to allow his organization to review the Ordinance. He requested that the Commission not pass the Ordinance tonight. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Williams why copies of the Ordinance were not made available sooner. o Mr. Williams answered that Mr. George Kryder and Mr. Noe had o received copies of the Ordinance this afternoon. However, w Mr. Kryder had previously received the detailed suggestions of the City Council and that the additional revisions were C minor except for the amortization program. Further, he j m stated that both Mr. Kryder and Mr. Noe had come into City z Hall and had reviewed the Ordinance with him. He also felt that they were most concerned with the amortization section. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. MORRIS REICHLEY, (Lou Reichley Realtors) , 74-275 Highway 111, stated he would like to ask staff a question. He asked Mr. Williams what the realtors would have to go through to get a sign approved. He also asked what reaction was going to be taken on "riders". He stated that the signs were limited to three square feet and that he felt this was not a large enough area to permit "sold" riders or "by appointment only" riders. He requested that the Ordinance be revised to allow for additional square footage on real estate "for sale" signs. Mr. Williams explained that realty signs needed the approval of the Director of Environmental Services; that examples of the proposed signs would have to be presented for said approval ; and they would then go on file with the Code Enforcement Office. November 16, 1976 Page Two Mr. Williams further explained that the Chamber of Commerce Sign Subcommittee had discussed the "rider" situation on real estate signs some time ago and that their conclusion was that the three square feet provided sufficient room and that the "riders" must be embodied within the three square foot area. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone else was present wishing to address the Commission in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Being no one, Chair- man Wilson closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. Chairman Wilson stated that he was disappointed that there was so little public input regarding the Sign Ordinance. He further stated that the Commission could only be as effective as the input it received from the community. He also stated that Mr. Noe had brought up a valid point and that the Commission should consider a possible continuance of this matter. He then stated that it might be well to discuss some of the input received regarding the realty signs. Commissioner Berkey stated that if the Hearing was going to be continued; he thought it would be appropriate to continue it now rather than start a discussion on any matters pertaining to the Ordinance. Chairman Wilson asked the Commission what their feeling was. Mr. Williams suggested that if a continuance was in order, it would be necessary to re-open the Public Hearing. He further stated that if the Commission decided to continue the Hearing, staff would recom- mend the 2nd Planning Commission meeting in December, which would be December 13th. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Williams if he felt more input could be received if the matter were continued; if there was ample press notification. He also asked Mr. Williams if the public was aware that copies of the Sign Z Ordinance were available and if so, would members of the business com- munity pick up the available copies. .ac � Mr. Williams stated that it it were made known to the press that M copies of the Sign Ordinance were available; he felt that people Z would come in to pick them up. Mr. Williams then stated that he would like to correct his earlier statement regarding a proposed date for the continuance of the Hear- ing. He then suggested December 14th as being the correct date. Chairman Wilson stated that it has been a long time since the Commission had started on the Sign Ordinance and that according to the history which staff had provided, the first discussions regarding this Ordinance began in January of 1975. He further stated that rather than create a situation where the Commission passed the Ordinance and it went to the City Council for approval and then was referred back again to the Commission; he felt a continuance would be in order. Commissioner Kelly stated that she agreed with Chairman Wilson. Mr. Williams then stated that he felt the Business Men's Association had been working very diligently on the previous draft. He also stated that he felt the concern of the businessmen was simply that o they wanted ample time to review the proposed Ordinance and that a 0 month would provide ample time to accomplish their review. z w Q Commissioner Berkey stated that he felt another month would be worthwhile cn and that possible after that time, the Commission would receive a little more public support and that it should be made known to everyone that z copies were available for review. The Commission then agreed that it would not be appropriate to hold a discussion if the matter were going to be continued. Chairman Wilson then re-opened the Public Hearing on Case No. ZOA 02-76. November 16, 1976 Page Three Commissioner Berkey moved to continue the above case to the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1976. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE ON FAST FOOD CHAINS Mr. Williams opened the discussion regarding fast food chains and stated that the article was presented to the Commission for infor- mation purposes as it was an extremely interesting article and would provide some insight to the Commission. He further stated that here in Palm Desert, we already have two businesses that would fit into this category. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any comments from the Commission on the article. o Commissioner Berkey stated that the most important matter was the w matter of approval based on broad standards. He stated that if specific standards are written in ordinances; such as , architecture, landscaping, etc. , the builders would know what they were up against. Q W ^ Commissioner Kelly stated that we had not had any problems with our �p MacDonalds, other than the traffic situation. Mr. Williams agreed with Commissioner Kelly and stated that the usual problems of juveniles loitering around and trash in the area did not exist with MacDonalds. He further stated that he thought it was a very successful design. There was a short discussion regarding the traffic situation near MacDonalds. Chairman Wilson stated that he was also pleased with the lack of trash UJ ;z n the area of MacDonalds. He then asked if there were any additional comments on the article. Q v U �i Commissioner Berkey pointed out that the Commission should take UJ 0 a look at the Zoning Ordinance and give some thought to specific z �;' quidelines for this type of situation. B. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE ON REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Mr. Williams opened the discussion by stating that in the joint meetings that the Commission had had with the City Council , this issue of development regulations had come up on a regular basis. Further, he stated that he had provided this article to the Com- mission because he felt it was a good article and would provide some food for thought. The Commission briefly discussed development regulations. Commissioner Berkey ended the discussion by pointing out that most developers were willing to conform with government regulations; but they would like to know what they were from the very beginning. November 16, 1976 Page Four C. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE ON "CONSUMER INFLUENCE ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT11 Mr. Williams opened the discussion by stating the article he was presenting to the Commission was a conceptual opinion regarding the change in consumer demands. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any comments from the Commission. Commissioner Berkey stated that he felt it was a very worthwhile article, particularly the insight regarding the family size and character. too Chairman Wilson thanked staff for providing the Commission with the article. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF CASES APPROVED AT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1976. Mr. Williams stated that Associate Planner Fleshman would present these cases to the Commission. The first case that Mr. Fleshman presented was Case No. 41C, (JO CRAIL McCART, Applicant) , which was a request for Design Review Board approval of a 3,000 square foot office building to be lo,= cated on the north side of Larrea, west of Prickly Pear Lane. Mr. Fleshman showed the plans for this project to the Commission and stated that the Commission would be reviewing the Parcel Map on November 30th. He briefly discussed the parking problem and stated that the problem was one of layout as opposed to the num- ber of spaces. The second case that Mr. Fleshman presented was Case No. 35C, tow (HAROLD McCORMICK, Applicant). In this case, the applicant was requesting approval of working drawings and landscape plans for a 3,700 square foot retail building to be located on the north side of El Paseo, west of Lupine Lane. Mr. Fleshman stated that the Design Review Board felt the working drawings were complete and recommended their approval . Finally, Mr. Fleshman explained to the Commission that staff had presented Case No. 34C to the Design Review Board at their meeting of November 9th. He stated that staff had presented this project due to the fact that the builder was requesting that he be allowed to alter his previous approval of the building to conform to what he had already constructed. Mr. Fleshman pointed out that the Design Review Board had voted unanimously to require the construc- tion to conform exactly to the exhibits which were originally pre- sented for a building permit. Commissioner Kelly moved to approve the Design Review Board actions of November 9, 1976, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 194. Commis- sioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams stated that he had an information item to present to the Commission regarding the 'S' (Study) zone matter. He then presented copies of the press release regarding these items which will be up for Public Hearing on November 30, 1976. Nn\/PmhPr 16_ 1976 Page Five Mr. Williams then stated that the second item which he wanted to • present to the Commission was a letter from MR. DICK KITE, a local realtor. He stated that he had originally planned to include this item as a part of the Commissioners' packets; but had changed his mind because he felt that some in-depth research was needed. He then explained that Mr. Kite's letter was regarding the two lots located on the southeast corner of Ocotillo Drive and E1 Paseo. o Mr. Kite's letter indicated that he felt that the City had made a z "terrible mistake" when they had designated a zoning of R-3 for w these lots. Mr. Williams then stated that he had taken the liberty 2 of preparing a response to Mr. Kite's letter and was presenting a a draft of said response to the Commission for their review and com- ,,, U o ment. He then stated that if the Commission concurred with the :D M facts presented in the draft letter, he was requesting that he Z (the Secretary) be authorized to forward the letter to Mr. Kite. here was a short discussion among the members of the Commission regard- ing the draft response to Mr. Kite. Chairman Wilson asked if a minute motion would be in order. Mr. Williams advised that yes, a minute motion would be in order. Commissioner Berkey moved that the Commission approve the letter and that the Secretary be authorized to forward said letter to Mr. Kite. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Mr. Williams then advised the Commission that there would be a "workshop" meeting of the Design Review Board and the Redevelop- ment Planning Priorities Committee to be held on Wednesday, Novem- ber 17, 1976, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Mr. Williams further advised that the main topic of discussion would be the 116-acre portion of the Core Commercial Area and that the TASK V report prepared by Grunwald, Crawford & Associates would also be discussed. He then told the members of the Commission that they would be welcome to attend the meeting. City Engineer Hunter Cook then spoke to the Commission and asked their advice regarding the availability of an area within the City which would be appropriate for storing of the City's heavy equipment, etc. Mr. Cook stated that at this time there was no zoning which would provide for such a use and he was asking the Commission' s advice. The Commission advised Mr. Cook that they were not prepared to give him a solution to his problem other than to take a look at Cook Street. There was a short discussion; but the Commission was unable to advise Mr. Cook as to what he should do regarding his problem other than having staff give it some thought and place it on an upcoming Agenda. B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Berkey asked staff if the sign on the west side of the new City National Bank was the same sign that the Commission had ap- proved. He stated that it looked much bigger and brighter. � r Mr. Fleshman advised that he and Mr. Williams had noticed this situa- tion and that the sign did appear much brighter; but that the sign was exactly as it was approved. Mr. Fleshman did advise that staff would investigate the brightness problem and would solve the problem. Commissioner Berkey then stated that he would like to discuss the matter of members of the audience representing themselves as repre- sentatives of property owners. Commissioner Berkey felt that there might be some legal implications if said persons were not required to present a letter of some type authorizing them to speak for the property owner. November 16, 1976 Page Six There was a short discussion with Mr. Williams explaining the County's procedure regarding this matter. The Commission asked staff to check with the City Attorney before they move forward with such a procedure. Mr. Williams advised that the matter would be reviewed with the City Attorney and staff would present a report to the Commission at their next study session. The Commission agreed with Mr. Williams. Chairman Wilson then asked about the new sign at Geronimos and ftw stated that he believed that it was not part of the original approval . Mr. Fleshman did advise that the sign was illegal and that the matter was before the City Attorney, and that this had been an increasing problem. Chairman Wilson then stated that he would like to welcome Mr. Charles Reading as a new Planning Commissioner and hoped that Mr. Reading would pick up a copy of the proposed Sign Ordinance for review. Chairman Wilson then commended Commissioner Van de Mark for her loyalty over the past two years, her excellent attendance record, and also for her ideas on good planning. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Berkey moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: QLM ILSON,. HAIRMAN PSERT PL NNING COM SSION November 16, 1976 Page Seven