Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1130 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 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 BERKEY III. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Chairman WILSON Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Jeff Patterson - Deputy City Attorney Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner As required by Article 20 of the California Constitution, Deputy City Attorney Patterson performed the swearing in ceremonies for Mr. F. CHARLES READING, for the position of Planning Commissioner. Chairman Wilson congratulated and welcomed Commissioner Reading. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of November 16, 1976. Mr. Williams suggested the following corrections to the above listed minutes: Page 2, 9th paragraph, 4th line, change the word "if" to "of". Page 2, 9th paragraph, 6th line, change the word "this" to "that". Page 2, llth paragraph, 2nd line, change the word "this" to "that". Page 3, 8th paragraph, 1st line, change the word "it" to "if". Page 3, 13th paragraph, 2nd line, change the word "possible" to "possibly". Page 4, 5th paragraph, 1st line, change the phrase "stated that we had not had" to read "inquired if we had had". Page 4, 10th paragraph, 3rd line, change "quidelines" to "guide- lines". Page 6, 1st paragraph, 3rd line from the bottom, change "ths" to "the". A motion of Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to ap- prove the minutes of November 16, 1976, as corrected, was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams stated that the only written communications were those dealing with the cases before the Commission tonight. November 30, 1976 Page One VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson stated that prior to tonight's meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of asking questions regarding the staff reports for clarification purposes and that no decisions were made at the Study Session. Chairman Wilson then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CASE NO. C/Z 07-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone on approximately 38 acres, located northerly of and adjacent to 44th Avenue, between the Palm Valley Channel and Fairhaven Drive, from 'S' (Study) to R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential , 10,000 Square Foot Lots) , or other appropriate zones. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission. Said report included the location, size, previous zoning, etc. Mr. Williams further explained that the 38 acres is under 10 separate ownerships and that the parcels vary in size from as small as one acre to as large as 15.94 acres. He then stated that staff was recommending that the Commission forward a recommendation for ap- proval of the Change of Zone to the City Council by Planning Com- mission Resolution No. 195. Mr. Williams then mentioned the two letters which had been presented to the Commission at their Study Session. The first letter was from the President and Chairman of the Board of the Palm Springs Medical Clinic. Said letter was requesting that all land presently zoned 'S' be continued in that status for one more year. The second let- ter was from Mr. Carl Meisterlin, General Manager of RMW of the Desert. Mr. Meisterlin's letter strongly protested the Change of Zone to P.-1-10,000. ' Mr. Williams then stated that in summary, staff was recommending the Change of Zone to an R-1-10,000 designation. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing on Case No. C/Z 07-76 and asked for testimony in FAVOR of the proposed Change of Zone. Being none, Chairman Wilson then asked for testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed Change of Zone. RICHARD ARNOLD, 45-325 Panorama, spoke to the Commission as a property owner of a 22 acre plot of land located north of the church and west of Fairhaven Drive. Mr. Arnold stated that he was quite concerned a- bout the situation. He had taken a canvas of the neighborhood adja- cent to the parcel in order to get the people's opinion. He then presented the results of that canvas to the Commission. He further stated that he had talked to Dr. Stout at the College of the Desert and that Dr. Stout said he would be happy to see some good clean apart- ment units that were well-landscaped in the area. Mr. Arnold then stated he would like to see the parcel zoned for good units with good landscaping that would enhance the area. HELEN BREEDING, 38-305 Chuperosa Lane, Cathedral City, spoke to the Commission as the owner of three lots located at 44th Avenue and Fair- haven Drive. Ms. Breeding stated that last February the zoning was changed without her knowledge. She further stated that she would be in favor of apartment unit zoning in the area and therefore, she was very much opposed to the Change of Zone to R-1-10,000. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone else was present who wished to speak against the proposed Change of Zone. DR. NORMAN HABER, 1045 S. Calle Marcus, Palm Springs, spoke to the Commission as a representative of the Palm Springs Medical Clinic. He stated that they had originally planned to build a medical build- ing on the property they owned near 44th Avenue and Parkview Drive; but that it was not feasible for them to expand their operations at this time. He stated that they had put out a large amount of money NnvnmhPr in_ N76 Page Two and they were not in a position to take a financial loss. He then stated that his organization was in favor of the parcel remaining in the 'S' zone. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing as there was no additional testimony either in favor of or opposed to the proposed Change of Zone. Chairman Wilson then stated that the Commission had before them an "old question"; one that they had wrestled with earlier prior to the parcel being zoned 'S' . He then stated that the Commission had just heard testimony from two members of the audience requesting a multi- family zoning for the parcel and one member requesting that the parcel remain in the 'S' zone. He then asked the Commission what their feelings were. Commissioner Berkey stated that he was not ready to buy the idea that this entire area should be put into a R-1-10,000 designation. He stated that due to the studies that were going on, which might indicate a need for some rental units in the area, he was prepared to vote for a continuance of the 'S' zone. Commissioner Kelly stated that she agreed with Commissioner Berkey. She stated that we have a need for R-1 and R-3 zones; but due to the fact that the C.O.D. Specific Plan was not complete, she felt that the parcel should remain in the 'S' zone. Commissioner Reading stated that being the newest member of the Com- mission , he would have to agree with Commissioner Berkey's feelings. Commissioner Mills also agreed with Commissioner Berkey. Commissioner Mills then asked the Deputy City Attorney what the deadline was as per- tains to the 'S' zone. Deputy City Attorney Patterson answered that legally there was a one year deadline. He further clarified this by stating that if the Commission failed to take any action on the re-zoning the 'S' parcels within that one year period, the parcel would automatically revert to its previous County designation. At this time, Chairman Wilson commented that the Commission had wrestled with this situation at length; but until the Commission saw the results of the C.O.D. Specific Plan, they would not really know the needs of the area. He stated that he felt that if the Commission again decided to place this parcel in the 'S' zone, they would run the chance of not meeting the one year deadline before the C.O.D. Specific Plan was com- pleted. He then stated that he was sympathetic to the feelings of the other Commissioners; but he felt that R-1 was the safest way to go. Finally, he asked the Commission if they wanted to put themselves into another time frame and have to make a decision before the C.O.D. Study was complete; or did they want to zone the parcel R-1. Commissioner Berkey moved that by Planning Commission Resolution No. 195, the Commission should recommend to the City Council that the 'S' (Study) Zone be continued for one (1) year (Case No. C/Z 07-76). Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Williams suggested that the following be added to Resolution No. 195: " to allow for the completion of the C.O.D. Specific Plan and to fully determine the needs of the area and to allow additional time to prepare adequate study time for the area". % W Chairman Wilson commented that if the Commission knew when the C.O.D. Study would be complete, they would have a better idea on how to vote. Commissioner Kelly asked if there was a deadline for the Study. Mr. Williams answered that the Study would be complete by July of 1977. Planning Commission Resolution No. 195, was approved with a 4-1 vote. Chairman Wilson voted no. November 30, 1976 Page Three B. CASE NO. C/Z 04-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone on approximately 225 acres, located generally northerly of and adjacent to 44th Avenue, between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, from 'S' (Study) to PR-1, S.P. (Planned Residential , One Unit Per Acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) , or other appropriate zones. (Continued from November 4, 1976. ) Mr. Williams presented the staff report. His report included the description, location, size, previous zoning, etc. Mr. Williams explained that this was an 'S' zoned parcel consisting of 225 acres of land surrounding the College of the Desert to the east and the north. He further explained that there were three separate ownerships involved. He also explained that this was one of the most important parcels in the community. Further, Mr. Williams explained that re-zoning of this parcel to a PR-1, S.P. designation would be in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan and the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance; and for those reasons, the staff was recommending approval of Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 196, forwarding the consideration of the PR-1, S.P. zone district to the City Council. Mr. Williams then referred to the correspondence which had been forwarded to the Commission from Mr. Jack N. Schappell , (repre- senting the Regents of the University of California). The Regents own 68 acres within said parcel and Mr. Williams pointed out this acreage on the map to the Commission. Mr. Williams explained that Mr. Schappell felt that a PR-1 designation would not be conducive to the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Williams then reiterated that this was a most important parcel for the following reasons: 1. It is adjacent to 2 major north/south arterials. 2. It is adjacent to a major east/west arterial . Mr. Williams stated that for these reasons, staff felt that this was indeed a very important piece of property and one of the reasons that the City had initiated the C.O.D. Specific Plan Study. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he then opened the Public Hearing on C/Z 04-76 and asked if there was anyone wishing to give testimony in FAVOR of the re-zoning to a PR-1 designation. Being none, Chairman Wilson then asked if there was anyone present who wished to give testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed re-zoning. FRANK GOODMAN, 73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, spoke to the Commission and stated that he had come to the meeting tonight to speak on a different subject; but that after reading the agenda, he decided to speak regarding C/Z 04-76. Mr. Goodman explained that he held no financial interest in any property contained in said parcel . He stated that he felt that the interim zoning proposed by staff would put said property into a situation where there must be a subsequent zoning change prior to any development. He then stated that, as a developer, he would prefer that if the Commission could not make a meaningful decision, they should leave the parcel in the 'S' zone. ALAN SCHULEMAN, 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, spoke to the Commission and stated he was an attorney representing a Mr. Morris who was the owner of approximately 140 acres contained with- in the parcel . Mr. Schuleman stated that the owner was most anxious to see some development on his property and that he would like it zoned for the highest and best use that would be compatible with the City of Palm Desert. He then stated that he felt the R-1 zone was the least compatible. Further, his client would be delighted to participate with the City or anyone else in completing an engineering study of the area. Finally, Mr. Schuleman stated that he strongly urged the Commission to consider extending the 'S' zone for another year. November 30, 1976 Page Four Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else who wished to give testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed re-zoning or if there was anyone who had any remarks or questions. Being none, Chairman Wil- son closed the Public Hearing on C/Z 04-76 and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. Commissioner Kelly stated that the Commission had received some very interesting comments. Further, she stated that she did not have any comments at this time but would like to ask staff what type of uses could go in under a PR-1 designation. Mr. Williams explained that the PR-1 designation meant Planned Residential , 1 unit per gross acre. Further, the PR-1 designa- tion would also allow public and community facilities, public/ to" private recreational uses, and other related uses. Mr. Williams then stated that staff felt that while the question of the density would come up tonight, he was surprised that the people objected to the PR-1 designation. Mr. Williams also stated that some of Mr. Morris' property was located in the "wash" area. Chairman Wilson then re-opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Schuleman how much of Mr. Morris' property was in the "wash" . Mr. Schuleman answered that approximately 22 acres was located in the "wash" and that approximately 120 acres of the land was .developable. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission if they had any additional comments to make. Commissioner Mills asked Deputy City Attorney Patterson if the same 'S' deadline applied to this parcel . Mr. Patterson answered yes. Commissioner Reading stated that he wished to abstain from the discussion due to the fact this was a continued Public Hearing and he had not been present as a member of the Commission during the first Public Hearing. Commissioner Berkey stated that he felt this parcel was similar to the previous parcel in that more study was needed and that the 'S' zone would be equally adequate as a "holding zone". Commissioner Mills agreed with Commissioner Berkey. Chairman Wilson stated that the question was whether or not the Commission would receive the completed C.O.D. Study on time or possibly they should place the parcel in the next closest zone, which would be PR-1, until the Commission had a better understanding of the needs of the area. He then asked Mr. Williams if the July target date for the completion of the Study was a realistic date. Mr. Williams answered that staff was committed to the July date and that they would do everything possible to meet the deadline. Chairman Wilson stated that timing was a factor to be considered and he doubted that the Study would be completed according to the timetable provided by staff. Mr. Williams then stated that it should be pointed out that this parcel was unique due to the following reasons and therefore staff would recommend the parcel be placed in an 'S' zone: 1. The size and shape of the parcel . 2. The parcel 's historic value. 3. The parcel 's proximity to the "wash". November 30, 1976 Page Five Commissioner Mills moved that the parcel (C/Z 04-76) be continued in an 'S' zone and that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 196, recommending approval to the City Council . Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-1 with the fol- lowing vote: Ayes: Berkey, Kelly, Mills Noes: Wilson Abstain: Reading Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that testimony was taken pertaining to C/Z 04-76 on both November 4, 1976 and on November 30, 1976. vow Mr. Williams stated that the Resolution would be worded cor- rectly and that it would be returned to the Commission for their review at their next meeting. C. CASE NO. C/Z 05-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone on approximately 10 acres, located at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111, from 'S' (Study) to C-1, S.P. (General Com- mercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) , or other appropriate zones; and on approximately 5 acres at the northwest corner of the Indian Wells City Limit Line and Highway 111, from 'S' (Study) to PC(4) (Planned Commercial-Resort) , or other appro- priate zones. (Continued from November 4, 1976. ) o Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission and o explained that this case had been continued from the November 4, 1976 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional Uj } time for study of the impacts of commercial development on the 14Cexisting residential lots that front on Alessandro. Mr. Williams w then presented several alternatives to the Commission and stated %MW Z that the Commission should consider the total area to be developed Z under a C-1, S.P. designation. AJ Mr. Williams then explained that the staff recommended zoning designations provided for the best development potential of the property under consideration. Further, all the alternatives had shortcomings or problems equal to or greater than the recommenda- tion. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of Planning Com- mission Resolution No. 197, containing either staff's original re- commendation or one of the alternatives. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Commissioner Berkey stated that if the Commission knew what was going to happen to the Frontage Road and to Alessandro, it would be helpful and he would like to see staff do a little more work on that aspect to give the Commission some insight for a final decision. Chairman Wilson asked staff for a little more in-depth report on the situation. Mr. Williams then went to the map and explained the different alter- natives pertaining to the Frontage Road and Alessandro. He explained that the Frontage Road could be left as it was or that it could be o eliminated and that access could be limited to Alessandro. Further, Mr. Williams explained that the City of Indian Wells favored the ex- tension of the Frontage Road system and its connection with Alessandro. W e i Commissioner Berkey then stated that what he really had in mind was to resolve this matter rather than placing the parcels back in the 'S' zone. a _Z Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional questions at this time. Being none, he then opened the Public Hearing on Case No. C/Z 05- 76 and asked if there was anyone present wishing to give testimony in favor of the proposed changes in zoning. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone present wishing to give testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed changes in zoning. Being no one, Chairman Wilson closed November 30, 1976 Page Six the Public Hearing on C/Z 05-76 and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commission had received testimony at the Public Hearing on November 4, 1976, from several property owners in the area who were concerned about commercial development adjacent to residential development. He then stated that the Commission had staff's proposal which conformed to the General Plan and also several alternatives to said proposal . He then stated that it might be possible to take the C-1, S.P. zoning designation and seeing it changed to a PC(1) Specialty Development designation which would give the Commission quite a bit more control over development on that site. He stated that this would also allow the Commission to see some workable road solutions. Commissioner Reading asked to abstain from the discussion on this case due to the fact that it was a continued item and he had not been a mem- ber of the Commission during the first discussion. Commissioner Kelly stated that she was strongly opposed to commercial development adjacent to residential development and stated that she had made this opposition known at the last Hearing on this case. She then stated that she would like a little more input regarding what type of controls were available under the PC(1) designation. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Williams to explain what types of controls would be applicable under both the C-1 and PC(1) designations. Mr. Williams explained both designations to the Commission. Chairman Wilson then stated that the consensus of the Commission seemed to be that no one was happy with the C-1, S.P. zoning desig- nation. Mr. Williams reminded the Commission that this was a continued matter and that if the Commission did not make a decision, the parcel would revert back to the original County zoning. Commissioner Kelly then stated that she would like to see some dis- cussion on the PR zone and she thought this would be a more feasible zone for this parcel . Mr. Williams stated that a PR-5 designation would be feasible for the northerly portion of the parcel . Commissioner Berkey stated that a PC(4) designation would be in con- formance with the General Plan. Commissioner Mills stated that he agreed with Commissioner Kelly. Chairman Wilson 'stated that the Commission could also place the par- cel back into a 'S' zone for another year and that actually the Com- mission had three options: 1. Re-zone the parcel 'S' to allow more time for study. 2. Apply a PR-5 zoning designation to the northerly half and a PC(4) designation to the southerly half of the parcel . 3. Recognize that commercial development would be appropriate as long as it was planned so that it would not affect the z existing residential development. w Commissioner Kelly moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 197 be approved for a Change of Zone from 'S' to PR-4 on the first portion of the parcel and from 'S' to PC(4) for the westerly 9 acres of the 4 parcel . Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Berkey stated that he agreed with the PC(4) designation but questioned the PR-4 effect on resort hotel development. Mr. Williams stated that a "4" designation was not a factor in hotel development. November 30, 1976 Page Seven Chairman Wilson stated that he was concerned when he looked at the overall Zoning Map and saw a lot of PC(4) and R-3 zoning and he was afraid we were getting too much hotel development within the City. He stated that his main reservation pertaining to Commissioner Kelly's motion was that it was too restrictive. Commissioner's Kelly motion carried 3-1, with the following vote: Ayes: Berkey, Kelly, Mills Noes: Wi,l son Abstain: Reading D. CASE NO. C/Z 08-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone on approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at the northeast corner of Mag- nesia Falls Drive and Portola Avenue, from 'S' (Study) to R-E, 40,000 (Residential Estate, 40,000 Square Foot Lots) , or other appropriate zones. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission and explained that this parcel was considered during the General Plan Hearing and also the Zoning Map Hearing. During these hearings, many zones were considered ranging from Commercial to Multi-Family with a decision finally being made to place the parcel in an 'S' zone. Mr. Williams asked the Commission to consider the numerous impacts on the parcel ; such as : its proximity to the "wash" , to Portola Avenue (which is a major arterial ) , and to the school and recreational facilities. Due to these impacts, staff felt that a PR-3 designation would be appropriate; therefore, the staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 198 and forwarding the recom- mendation of PR-3 to the City Council . Commissioner Berkey asked staff how they had come up with the PR-3 designation and that he was questioning the density. Mr. Williams stated that staff was looking at the usable portion of the property after you subtracted the streets, "wash" , etc. Further, he stated that staff felt that the majority of the development would have to occur close to Portola Avenue. Commissioner Berkey stated that he wanted a greater density, perhaps 4or5. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing at this time on C/Z 08-76 and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the Com- mission in FAVOR of staff's recommendation for a Change of Zone to PR-3. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed Change of Zone. LU FRANK GOODMAN, 73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, spoke to the Com- Z mission and stated that he had no financial interests in the property. He did state, however, that he felt the Commission � should leave this property in an S zone until a developer comes in. He then stated that Dr. Rigby, who is the owner of the property, did not get a notice of the Public Hearing. z Further, he stated that he did not see how the Commission could make a decision without the property owner being present. 2' Chairman Wilson stated that he sympathized with Mr. Goodman's feelings; however, the Change of Zone was given the proper public notification and the property owners were sent notifications of the Public Hearing. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else who wished to give testimony regarding this particular Change of Zone. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing on C/Z 08-76 and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. November 30, 1976 Page Eight Commissioner Kelly stated that she was in favor of either the R-E, 40,000 designation or a PR-1 designation due to the fact that she was against a higher density because of the problems in the area; such as : drainage, schools, recreation facilities, etc. Commissioner Mills stated he had no comments to make. Commissioner Reading asked staff if there were any alternatives for this odd-shaped piece of property. Mr. Williams stated that this parcel had been wrestled with many times and that staff felt a PR designation was the best way to go in order to mitigate the problems and concerns of the Commission. w Commissioner Berkey stated that he was inclined to vote for a contin- o `, Nance of the 'S' zone. z w Chairman Wilson stated that perhaps the R-E, 40,000 designation was < too limiting and that maybe a PR-2 designation might be a good com- UJ y`` promise. He further stated that he would prefer getting this parcel z_ out of the 'S' zone and putting it into a lower density zone. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolu- tion No. 198, recommending to the City Council that the property (Case No. C/Z 08-76) be re-zoned as PR-1. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Williams asked if this Change of Zone would be for the same reasons as pointed out in the original resolution. Commissioner Kelly answered yes. The motion was carried 4-1, with the following vote: ' Ayes: Kelly, Mills, Reading, Wilson Noes: Berkey E. CASE NO. C/Z 09-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone on approximately 18 acres, located at the northwest corner of 44th Avenue and Cook Street, from 'S' (Study) to PR-6, S.P. (Planned Residen- tial , Six Units Per Acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) , or other appropriate zones. c� Mr. Williams presented the staff report and explained that his property was now vacant. He also explained that this particular piece of property was important due to its close proximity to two major arterials; namely, the 110 foot 44th Avenue and the 88 foot Cook Street. Further, he explained that even with the potential of a high school on the 40-acre site to the north, the subject property was located in an area that has been predominantly zoned residential . Finally, he stated that staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 199 for a Change of Zone to PR-6, S.P. and forwarding of same to the City Council for approval . woo Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing on the above case and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR of the pro- posed Change of Zone. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed Change of Zone. Being no one, he then closed the Public Hearing on C/Z 09-76 and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 199, with staff's recommendation of a PR-6, S.P. zone designation. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. November 30. 1976 Page Nine Chairman Wilson called a brief recess at 8:47 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. F. CASE NO. PM 8810, JO CRAIL McCART, APPLICANT Consideration of a Parcel Map to divide an 81,000 square foot parcel into two (2) parcels of 10,000 square feet and 71,000 square feet respectively, on property located at the northwest corner of Larrea Street and Prickly Pear Lane. Mr. Fleshman presented the staff report and explained that the Commission had reviewed the working drawings for the new building to be located on this parcel at their last meeting and had approved same. Further, he explained that the purpose of the Parcel Map was for financing purposes only; that the ownership would remain in one entity with separate financing to be provided. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant was present. JO CRAIL McCART, 73-860 Larrea Street, spoke to the Commission and stated she was the owner of the property under considera- tion. Further, she stated that she was making this application for loan purposes only. Chairman Wilson asked Ms. McCart if she was in full agreement with the staff report and staff's recommended conditions of approval . Ms. McCart answered yes. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to give testimony either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this Parcel Map. Being no one, he then closed the Public Hearing on Case No. PM 8810. Chairman Wilson asked that the resolution be corrected to include a ""' phrase regarding the fact that a duly noticed Public Hearing was held. Being no questions, comments, or objections, Chairman Wilson stated that a motion would be in order. Commissioner Reading moved to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 200, as corrected, approving PM 8810. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. G. CASE NO. PM 8740, SUN LODGE LTD, PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT Consideration of a Parcel Map to divide a 4.53 acre parcel into two (2) parcels of 4.25 acres and 10,000 square feet respectively, on property located at the northwest corner of Sun Lodge Lane and E1 Paseo. Mr. Fleshman presented the staff report on this case and explained that it was reviewed by both staff and the City Engineer and that the Parcel Map met all the requirements of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, as amended. Further, the City Engineer had agreed with staff's recommended conditions of approval . Therefore, staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution Num- ber 201. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he then opened the Public Hearing on Case No. PM 8740 and asked if the applicant was present. BERNARD LEUNG, 73-960 E1 Paseo, stated he was the architect for the project but that it was not necessary for him to speak. November 30, 1976 Page Ten Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this Parcel Map. Being no one, he then closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission for their feelings. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 201, approving the Parcel Map, and as corrected to include a phrase regarding the duly noticed Public Hearing. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. VII. OLD BUSINESS None .. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY P.D. ON TT 8672 Mr. Williams explained that the City had received a request for comments on a 30-acre, 130-lot subdivision to be located on Warner Trail , adjacent to the Palm Desert Country Club. Further, he stated that the Commission was to review this tract as if it were located within the Palm Desert City Limits and that staff was recommending the forwarding of seven com- ments to the County pertaining to said tract. Commissioner Mills asked if this was a normal procedure. Mr. Williams answered that yes, this was the normal procedure according to the Joint Planning Agreement between the County and the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Mills moved that the Secretary be authorized to forward staff' s comments with regards to TT 8672 to the Riverside County Plan- ning Commission. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unani- mously carried. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF THE NOVEMBER 23, 1976 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING. Mr. Williams asked that the Commission make a note that a correction would be needed in the Resolution, changing the first case's applicant to read CHRIS HAENEL as opposed to JO CRAIL McCART. Mr. Williams then explained that the Design Review Board had met on November 23, 1976 and at that time had considered four separate cases which were embodied in the above mentioned resolution, with their attached conditions of approval . Mr. Williams then recommended that Case No. 40C be deleted from the resolution and discussed separately in order to speed up the main discussion. Mr. Fleshman then presented the three remaining cases from the Design Review Board meeting. The first case to be presented was CASE NO. 42C, preliminary drawings for a new commercial building for ROGER MEYER. Mr. ..► Fleshman explained that the Design Review Board had approved these preliminary drawings, subject to 15 conditions of appro- val . Mr. Fleshman also presneted copies of the above mentioned drawings to the Commission and explained them in detail . The Commission seemed to be concerned about the condition of approval requiring sidewalks. Commissioner Berkey stated that it should go on record that the policy of the Commission was to require the installation of sidewalks. There was a short discussion regarding the sidewalk issue. November 30. 1976 Page Eleven The next case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 48MF, five model homes for the PARKVIEW SUBDIVISION for FRANK GOODMAN. Mr. Fleshman presented the preliminary drawings and materials for this project to the Commission and stated that the Design Review Board had approved the project, sub- ject to some 15 conditions of approval. Mr. Fleshman also a reminded the Commission that they had reviewed the Tract Map o for this subdivision approximately a month ago and had approved U-1 t. Mr. Fleshman further explained that the five units would be 1n located at Rutledge Way and Portola Avenue and that no two > > , units were alike. Further, the units varied distinctly in Z fIx appearance and ranged in size from 12,050 square feet to 16,000 square feet. Both Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification or rewording of Conditions No. 13 and No. 14. Staff agreed, and Mr. Williams gave the following rewording: 13. All drawings shall be corrected to conform to the approved plans. 14. The roof treatment on Plan 402 shall be restudied and resubmitted for approval . The final case to be presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 18SA, the sign program for PLAZA TAXCO by CURT DUNHAM. Mr. Fleshman presented the proposed sign program to the Commis- sion and stated that the Design Review Board had approved said program subject to 5 conditions of approval . Mr. Fleshman then asked the Commission to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 202, approving the Design Review Board actions, to include their action on Case No. 42C, 48MF, and 18SA, and the revisions to the conditions of approval for Case No. 48MF. Commissioner Mills moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 202. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1, with the following vote: a i Ayes: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Reading ace, Noes: Wilson z w Chairman Wilson stated that the reason he had voted no was because he was in favor of having sidewalks installed throughout the commercial U area and that he hoped his vote would not reflect on the project. Mr. Fleshman then stated that the next case to be discussed would be CASE NO. 40C, working drawings for a new commercial building for CHRIS HAENEL. Commissioner Kelly asked to be excused from the discussion due to a possible conflict of interest. She then left the Council Chambers. Mr. Fleshman presented the working drawings to the Commission and stated that the Design Review Board had approved these drawings at their November 23rd meeting. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of Resolution No. 203, approving the Design Review Board action. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolu- tion No. 203. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Kelly abstaining. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None November 30, 1976 Page Twelve XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams informed the Commission that another meeting of the Redevelopment Study would be held on Wednesday, December 8, 1976, at 7:00 p.m. He invited the Commissioners to attend the meeting. Mr. Williams then reminded the Commission that the Sign Ordinance Hearing was scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on December 14, 1976. B. City Attorney r.. None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Kelly stated that she felt it was extremely important for the Commission to receive the Design Review Board minutes in order to obtain what input was received on the projects. There was a short discussion regarding the Zoning Ordinance and the section pertaining to Conditional Uses under the R-E zone as applied to horses. Chairman Wilson stated that he hoped staff would make an effort to get the C.O.D. Specific Plan completed on time. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mills moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: I S. 0 W LSON47CHAIRMAN PAL DESERT PLANNING CO SION r Nnvamhar in_ 1q7A Page Thirteen ERWIN,ANDERHOLT & SCHEROTTER A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION DAVID J. ERWIN 81-711 HIGHWAY III AREA CODE 714 J.JOHN ANDERHOLT POST OFFICE DRAWER H 347-0606 GARY SCHEROTTER 34S-1622 JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON INDIO,CALIFORNIA 92201 Vrr MICHAEL J.ANDELSON MICHAEL S.KAHN November 23, 1976 Mr. Paul A. Williams, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Post Office Box 1648 Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Your Memo dated November 17 , 1976 Dear Paul: I checked with the County Planning Commission to see if they had an ordinance covering the question posed in your memo of November 17th regarding written authoriza- tion to speak. They do not have an ordinance covering this matter, but it is departmental policy to require such written authorization from a party who does not own the property he represents . If such a problem presents itself at a meeting, the party should be informed that he must have a written authorization from the owner of the property stating that he is the owner of a designated parcel and that Blank is designated as his agent to speak for and on behalf of the owner before all boards , commissions and councils of the city of Palm Desert. Should you have any further questions , please con- tact me. Yours very truly, DAVID J. ERWIN RECEIVED DJE:lch NKO v'j 2 .4 -`®r ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 2254 Montrose Lane 73-710 El Paseo Montrose, Cali Palm Desert, California 92260 249-1173 (714) 346-9793 RECEIVED DEC 1 ib j1 j J ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES December 14, 1976 CUy Of, PAW DESERT. Planning Commission Palm Desert, Ca. Gentlemen: There are two things that could be accomplished that would benefit our city. tow Enact some type of planning or rules that would leave the vacant balance of El Paseo to retail businesses or at least 75% of the remaining property. The major fear this area should have is the competition of a new shopping center perhaps just slightly beyond our city limits. This day can be forestalled by leaving room for additional merchants to come to Palm Desert. If there is no room, they will go elsewhere. In our industry, retail women's apparel, Palm Desert is capable of twice the present volume, the town has doubled it's apparel business in the last three years. Also I hope the sign ordinance is such that it precludes signs on windows, except for perhaps the smallest most necessary ones, perhaps 2% of the total window area? When we first came to PDJ one of the most negative thoughts we had was the raunchy signs stuck in store windows unlike any, other prestigeous shopping area we had visited. Tou must protect merchants from themselves, one sees a bad sign in his neighbor's window so he feels he must have one in equal bad taste and perhaps twice as big, If I can be of any benefit, I wouldbe hap-)y to si A. Henry F. Hoyle P.S Banks and Savings and Loans are detriment to a shopping area...you do not find banks occupying major space in conventional shopping centers.. . . they also should not occupy major space in this unconventional center. F1 Paseo can use all the help it can get, it might be successful now but it is a dinosaur as shopping areas go as most of the "strip" shopping streets r.r have disappeared from the American scene and this one could easily become a street of empty stores when an air conditioned mall became competition. % To: Planning Commission From: Retail Merchants Division, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce (1) By; George D. Kryder Nester Noe We have the following comments to make, based on the revisions suggested by the City Staff, and on further reading of the ordinance in total. Vehicle Identification Signs In our original comment, several reasons were given to support the contention that there should be no regulation of vehicle signs. The proposed revisions still are not specific in this regard. The intent of the section relating to this, as outlined in a City Staff report dated July 14th, reads as follows: The intent of the section is to prevent business operators from putting signs on vehicles and parking vehicles in front of their business to obtain additional sign area." This intent should be so stated by the ordinance, both in the Vehicle Identification section, and in the section relating to signs on public property or right of way. Our primary concern is that there be no regulation of size, color, or type of sign on vehicles as normally used in the course of everyday business. This should apply whether the vehicle be based within, or outside of the City. The ordinance, as written, does not give this protection. In this in- stance, and in others as well, it would seem simpler to designate what is not to be regulated than to attempt to cover all possible contin- gencies on the other side. �w (2) Temporary Signs Under the revisions proposed, and allowance is made ior the use cL temporary signs. We approve of this addition, but havf fo11: comments: The section does not define what is a temporary sign, nor is this described in any other part of the ordinance. We suggest that it be defined, or, if this is not practicable, a qualifying phrase such as that used with the section on "Sale" signs be added. i.e."when such signs are improperly used, they constitute a public nuisance, and, as such, may be abated" This is to prevent abuses which we foresee if the section stands as written. Open-Closed signs It is noted that there is no mention of the commonly used "open-closed" " signs found in the windows of most businesses. We think that these signs should be covered in the new ordinance, with the following qualifications: (1) Allowable size to be compatable with the double-faced "open-closed" signs most commonly used, arl available commercially. (2) Area of such signs is not to be deducted from the allowable area of other permitted signs covered by the ordinance. General In our meeting with the City Staff, we have brought up two points during our discussions which have not found their way into the revisions sub- sequently proposed by the Staff. These relate to the number of colors allowed on signs, and to the too composition of the Ad Hoc sign Committee. (3) tow We are still on the opinion that the restriction of signs to four colors is unwarranted and arbitrary, especially when both black and white are be be considered as colors for purposes of the ordinance„ We make the presumption that it is not impossible to create a sign with more than four colors, and still have compatibility with the aims of the ordinance. We maintain that a sign owner should be permitted to present any sign for approval if he feels that the colors in the sign work to his advantage. We would further point out that the Design Review Board has the capability of making color changes under at least two sub-sections of the ordinance, and that with this authority, there should be no need to put specific restrictions upon something as indefinable as color compatibility. As to the Ad Hoc Amortization Committee, it is felt that the member- ship, as now proposed, will not properly represent the retail businesses of the City. And incidentally, it is precisely these people who will be most affected by the new ordinance. As the proposal now stands, it is entirely possible that no representa- tive from retail business would be serving on the Committee. Therefore, we suggest that under item (b) one of the "fields of endeavor" be changed to "Retail Business" We have farther comment on sub-paragraph 2 of this same section which also relates to selection of members of the Ad Hoc Committee from membership of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors. It is provided that both of these organizations submit three names (4) so that the City Council may then select one from each for the Committee. It is our feeling that both the Chamber and the Board of Realtors are entirely capable of choosing the person whom they feel can best represent their interests on the Committee. We see no valid reason for the City Council to be in a position to over-rule the primary choice of either the Chamber or the Board of Realtors (5) I will close by making the following personal observation, and will again refer to the City Staff report of Aug. 14th. On Page 1 of this report, there is the following statement. "The intent of the Ordinance has always been directed toward providing the Maximum amount of super- vision and control by the City. (underlining added) How discomforting it is to read that our City employees desire this type of power. How nice it would have been to read that the intent of the Staff was to provide the control and guidance necessary to serve the purposes and intent of the Ordinance, or some such positive statement of policy. Nevertheless, the Chamber, the Planning Coamni.ssion, the City Council and Staff have written what I consider a well rounded and enforcable ordinance that should serve the City well.