Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1214 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 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 Commissioner MILLS Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Also Present: Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Hunter Cook - City Engineer Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of November 30, 1976. ' Mr. Fleshman suggested the following corrections to the above- listed minutes: Page 6, 4th paragraph, 5th line, change the street name from "Alessandro" to read "Deep Canyon Road". Page 6, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, add the following sentence: "He also discussed the possibility of using a multi-family zone as a buffer between the R-1 and the C-1 zones." Page 7, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, 2nd line, change "PR-4 on the first" to read "PC(4) on the east". Page 7, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, 3rd line, change "PC(4)" to "PR-4, S.P.". Page 8, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, change the third sentence to read as follows: "He then implied that Dr. Rigby, who is the owner of the property, may not have received a notice of the Public Hearing. ". Page 9, 5th paragraph, last line, change "lower density zone." to read "lower density residential zone.". vrr Page 9, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, 2nd line, first word, change "his" to read "this". Page 12, 2nd paragraph, last two lines, change "12,050" to read "1,250" and change "16,000" to read "1,600". Page 12, 5th paragraph from the bottom, change the last word "project" to read "projects". A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve the minutes of November 30, 1976, as corrected, was unani- mously carried. December 14, 1976 Page One V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from David J. Erwin, City Attorney. Mr. Fleshman explained that this letter was in response to the Commission's request for guidance pertaining to persons claiming to be representatives of property owners during Public Hearings. Mr. Fleshman further stated that it would be up to the staff to enforce this problem; and that the Board of Realtors would be informed as to the procedures to be followed. B. Letter from Henry F. Hoyle. "OW Mr. Fleshman explained that this piece of correspondence was received in today' s mail and that it contained several comments relative to development in Palm Desert and the proposed Sign Ordinance. Mr. Fleshman stated that this letter was being presented to the Commission with the request that they receive and file it. Further, he stated that if the Commission so desired, staff would send a letter in response to Mr. Hoyle's letter. Commissioner Berkey agreed that staff should send a letter of response and include a thank you to Mr. Hoyle for his interest and comments. The Commission concurred. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that the Commis- sion had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the purpose of asking questions of staff and to look at the proposed Or- dinance page-by-page. Further, he stated that no attempt was made to arrive at any decisions. Chairman Wilson then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CASE NO. ZOA 02-76, THE SIGN ORDINANCE two 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. (Continued from November 16, 1976. ) Mr. Fleshman reviewed the staff report with the Commission. His report included a brief history of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Fleshman noted that there had been 16 sessions regarding the Ordinance and at least that many revisions were made. He then reviewed the 7 substantive changes that were made to the Ordinance, since the Ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission last summer. Said changes related to the Adjustment Section, the Temporary Signs Section, Vehicle Identification Signs, Signs for Condominiums, Wall Signs, Internal Illumination Size Reduction, and a major revision to the Amortization Program. Mr. Fleshman then advised the Commission that the staff had again reviewed the Ordinance since the November 16th Planning Commission meeting and that two additional changes should be considered by the Commission. These changes deal with Real Estate Riders and Off-Site Directional Signs. Mr. Fleshman stated that staff felt that the "real estate riders" may be allowable if they were limited to one and of a specified size. However, he stated that the staff still felt that the "off-site directional signs" were in direct op- position to the policies and goals of the Sign Ordinance. Finally, Mr. Fleshman stated that staff was recommending adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 193, including the Amendment to Section 25.39-2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. December 14, 1976 Page Two Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing open and asked for testimony in FAVOR of the proposed Ordinance, as it was being recommended by staff and as it has been modified. Being no one wishing to give testimony in favor of the proposed Ordinance, Chair- man Wilson then asked if there was anyone present who wished to give testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed Ordinance. GEORGE KRYDER, (Owner of Nelsha's Draperies at 44-850 San Pablo) spoke to the Commission as President of the Retail Merchant's Division of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce. He mentioned that MR. NESTOR NOE, who is the Vice President of the same divi- sion, was also present. Mr. Kryder stated that they had made comments on the original draft of the Ordinance and that many of %NW the changes had been made and were reflected in the revised Or- dinance. However, he had a few additional comments to make with regards to the latest revisions. Mr. Kryder's first comment was that there should be no regulations for vehicle identification signs as used in the course of every- day business. He stated that the Ordinance as it now reads does not give that protection. His second comment was that they did approve of the Section dealing with temporary signs; however, the section did not define said signs. Mr. Kryder's third comment related to the use of "open-closed" signs. He stated that there should be some provision for this type of sign. Further, these signs should not be counted as a part of the allowable sign area. UJ rz His fourth comment concerned the restriction of signs to four colors. Z He stated that he felt this restriction was unwarranted and arbitrary. coHe further stated that it was impossible to create a sign with only F``'. four colors. Finally, he felt that the Design Review Board could make Z ` the color changes and with this authority, there was no need to put Z restrictions on color compatibility. Mr. Kryder's fifth comment related to the Ad Hoc Amortization Committee. He stated that they had no quarrel with the way the Amortization Commit- tee was going to work. Their objection was to the "make-up" of the Com- mittee as there was no mention of any representative of the Retail Mer- chants of the City. He suggested that under Item "b" of Section 25. 38- 18.08(1) , one of the fields of endeavor should be listed as Retail Busi- nessmen. He then questioned the selection procedure for members of the Amortization Committee. He stated that both the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors were entirely capable of choosing members and he could see no reason for the City Council to overrule the selection pro- cess. Further, he stated that he had talked with Mr. Dick Coffin, Presi- dent of the Board of Realtors, and that Mr. Coffin had concurred with him on this feeling. Mr. Kryder then stated that he had no additional comments other than a personal one. He stated that he was concerned with the following phrase which was contained in a staff report on the proposed Ordinance: "The intent of the Ordinance has always been directed toward pro- viding the maximum amount of supervision and control feasible by the City." Mr. Kryder stated that it was quite discomforting that the City had this kind of power. He further stated that he disagreed with the City's intent to maintain power; it was not their perrogative, it was the perrogative of the people. December 14, 1976 Page Three MORRIS REICHLEY, 74-275 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission as a representative of the Board of Realtors. He stated that the Board of Realtors had been very instrumental in maintaining property values and that the proposed Sign Ordinance could assist them in that matter. He then thanked the Commission and the City staff very much for the work that they had done and stated that the Board of Realtors felt very good about some of the revisions that had been made. Mr. Reichley then asked staff for a clarification pertaining to the decals; he asked if this referred to real estate signs also. Mr. Fleshman answered that the decals would be placed on real estate signs and all other signs that were approved. Mr. Flesh- man also referred to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment which staff was recommending, which would raise the value of signs requiring Design Review Board approval to $1,000. Mr. Reichley then informed the Commission that the Board of Realtors was going to try again with reference to directional signs for open houses. He stated that the Board had done a little review on their own and had found out that 80% of people who attended open houses did so because of the off-site directional signs. Further, it was diffi- cult to find houses on some of the side streets and some of the cul- de-sac streets. He stated that even though the directional signs were placed on private property; this was not done without the property ow- ners' consent. Finally, he stated that the Board was policing this situation and they were requesting at least one off-site directional sign, in addition to the house sign, be permitted. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed Ordinance. GRAHAM DEXTER, 73-757 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission as a member if the real estate business. He stated that he had had the pleasure of working for at least 15 months with the Sign Committee. Further, out of this work, came a deep appreciation for the work and understanding of the City staff. However, he was going to have to disagree with staff concerning their position relating to off- site directional signs. He stated that there was indeed an econo- mic need and referred to Section 25.38-10.05 (Other Signs) : "Any such signs so authorized shall be necessary to preserve a legal right or serve an economic need.. . : Mr. Dexter requested that the Commission revise the Ordinance so that at least one (1) off-site directional sign would be allowed when there was an Open House. Further, he stated that the Board of Realtors had had and will have the ability to police themselves in this respect and he would like to assure the Commission that they will have the Board's full cooperation and understanding; if they would just grant this one small concession. JIM RICHARDS, 74-470 Abronia Trail , spoke to the Commission as the owner and operator of the Sandra-La Motor Lodge. He stated that he appreciated the input that had been received from groups such as the Board of Realtors and the Retail Merchants. However, it seemed that there had not been any input from the motel groups. He stated that he had attended several of the meetings on the pro- posed Sign Ordinance but this was the first time he decided to speak. Mr. Richards asked that the Commission consider the situation he was in; a situation where he has a substantial amount of money tied up in signs, probably $15,000 or $20,000 worth of signs. He stated that there was a considerable amount of "gray area" in the Sign Ordinance. Further, he had attended most of the meetings and read the notices; but he really did not know where he stands. He then stated that he felt that the motel owners should be notified specifically that their signs could be in violation before the Ordinance was passed. December 14, 1976 Page Four Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else present wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed Ordinance. Being no one, he then asked the Commission if they had any questions they would like to ask of any- one that had given testomony. Commissioner Kelly stated that she would like a little more information about the policing policies of the Board of Realtors. Graham Dexter answered Commissioner Kelly and stated that there would be a committee formed that would take care of the strate- gic areas. Further, he advised that they would keep an eye on the situation and if anyone violated one of the rules or regula- %NW tions, they would let them know. He assured Commissioner Kelly that this situation would be very well policied and controlled. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any further questions. George Kryder asked if he could submit a copy of his comments to the Commission. Chairman Wilson answered yes, and said comments were received by the secretary. At this time, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on the Sign Ordinance. He stated that there had been quite a bit of input re- ceived both tonight and at the hearing of November 16th. Further, the Commission had before them the staff' s recommendations and also the concerns which had been raised and asked Commissioner Berkey for his feelings. o Commissioner Berkey stated that first of all he had no doubt that "riders" w should be allowed on real estate signs. Next, the phrase pertaining to z "30 days from the opening of escrow. . ." should be deleted as it was not enforceable. The next matter that Commissioner Berkey addressed was the Q matter of off-site directional signs. He stated that a precedent would be set by the realtors if the off-site directional signs were allowed and he UJ felt that this matter was adequately handled in Section 25.38-10.05 (Other z f Signs). Commissioner Berkey then stated that he felt the "open-closed" signs would be justified and that they should not be subtracted from the al- lowable sign area. Commissioner Berkey then stated that he felt the restriction of four colors would be unwarranted and arbitrary; that there were adequate controls under the Design Review Board Process. Finally, Commissioner Berkey stated that he agreed with Mr. Kryder' s feelings about adding a member of the Retail Merchants to the Ad Hoc Amortization Committee. Commissioner Kelly stated that before she got into the issues at hand, she would like to make a comment pertaining to what Mr. Richards had talked about. She stated that it was a shame that people had failed to speak during most of the previous hearings on the proposed Ordinance. She explained that it was very important for the Commission to receive public input and she was sorry that Mr. Richards had not spoken up sooner. Further, she stated that there had been as much press publicity as possible and that she had personally tried to hand out copies of the Sign Ordinance to the public. Commissioner Kelly stated that she felt the number of colors being limited to four would not pose any problem. In relation to the "open-closed" signs, she asked if staff could contribute a little more to the discussion on this matter. Mr. Fleshman stated that it is staff' s intent to legislate the "open-closed" signs under the Temporary Signs Section and that "open-closed" signs would not be counted in the total square footage sign area. December 14, 1976 Page Five Commissioner Kelly then stated that she felt that a member of the Re- tail Merchants would be included in the Chamber of Commerce membership as pertained to the Ad Hoc Amortization Committee. With regards to the off-site directional signs, Commissioner Kelly felt that at least one off-site directional sign should be allowed, but there would possibly be a problem with enforcement of this alloca- tion. She questioned staff as to how it could be written into the Ordinance without complicating matters. Mr. Fleshman advised Commissioner Kelly that staff could revise the Ordinance to include off-site directional signs, if the Com- mission so desired. Further, the same requirements would apply r. to the off-site directional signs as applied to the signs on the property itself. There would be no flags, banners, etc. allowed and the only place the signs would be allowed would be in a single- family zone and on private property, not in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Kelly commented next on the decals and stated that she felt they were just one more thing to be vandalized. She asked if there couldn't be some type of identification number as opposed to the decals. Chairman Wilson commented that it would depend on the type of decal that was used; possibly the type that wouldn't come off. Mr. Fleshman stated that the decals would be necessary for enforce- ment purposes. Further, the decals would be similar to the "UL" stickers and that they would be required to be visible. Commissioner Kelly then agreed that the decals may not pose a problem. Commissioner Mills stated that he didn't have anything to add; however, he did agree with Commissioner Berkey's comments in that off-site direc- tional signs should be allowed for the benefit of the real estate people. Further, he could see no problem with the decals as proposed by staff. Commissioner Reading stated he had no comments. Chairman Wilson then commented that there was one thing to be kept in mind when you talked about such things as leaving out "open-closed" signs, decals, etc. , and that was that we were all aware of the fact that when an Ordinance is passed, the bugs are worked out by amendments. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance had already been amended a couple of times and that if the Commission proceeded with the adoption of the Sign Ordinance, it should be clear where the needs are and that it would be up to the staff to suggest amendments. Chairman Wilson then stated that he agreed that the phrase pertaining to "30 days from the opening of escrow. . ." would be unenforceable. Next, he commented that he felt a provision for real estate riders should be included in the Ordinance. He then stated that he personally was sympa- thetic to the needs in certain areas to get the off-site directional signs for open houses and he felt that such a provision should be spelled out in the Ordinance. He stated that he thought it would not present a problem if it was not abused, that there should be some means of enforcement, and that there should not be a carnival-like atmosphere. Commissioner Berkey commented that such a provision (for off-site directional signs) should be inserted and incorporated into the Ordinance and that it should be limited to only one such sign restricted to the real estate busi- ness. Commissioner Mills agreed. Chairman Wilson asked staff for their thoughts as to the possible wording of such a provision. While he was waiting for staff's recommendation, Chairman Wilson addressed the following comment to Mr. Richards: "Mr. Richards, if we do approve this Sign Ordinance for adoption by the City Council , I strongly suggest that you sit down with the staff between now and the City Council Hearing and see what effects it will have on your business." December 14, 1976 Page Six Mr. Fleshman then suggested the following wording in regards to the provision for off-site directional signs: "One off-site directional sign may be permitted for an open house, subject to the following provisions: 1) shall not exceed three (3) square feet; 2) no flags or banners shall be used; 3) to be located on private property only; 4) limited to one (1) sign only. Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Fleshman to review the list of comments that had been submitted by Mr. Kryder to make sure that all of the "" items had been discussed. Mr. Fleshman stated that the first comment pertained to Vehicle Identification Signs and that had been a concern of the business- men for quite awhile. Further, staff had deleted this section from the Ordinance and that the only place it was mentioned in the Ordinance was under definitions. Chairman Wilson stated that he believed Mr. Kryder's concern was to spell out where vehicle identification signs would be prohibited. He then re- opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Kryder for additional comments. Mr. Kryder commented that in order to avoid any future misinterpre- tation of the Sign Ordinance; if there was no real need for the de- finition of vehicle identification signs, then the definition should just be eliminated. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing and asked staff what the purpose was of including a definition of vehicle identification signs. Mr. Fleshman answered that if the Commission desired to delete this definition, it probably would not present any problems. Chairman Wilson agreed that it should be deleted and asked the Commission " if they concurred with the deletion of Section 25.38-2.24. The Commission concurred. Mr. Fleshman continued with Mr. Kryder's list and stated that the next two comments concerned Temporary Signs and Open-Closed Signs; both matters which had been discussed. Mr. Fleshman then suggested that the title of retail businessmen be added to the section concerning the amortization committee. Commissioner Berkey suggested that the retail businessmen membership be substituted for the attorney membership. Chairman Wilson asked for a consensus of the Commission. They all agreed that it would be okay to substitute retail businessmen for attorneys. Mr. Fleshman then suggested that it would be staff's recommendation that it should be left as a matter of City Council policy to decide who the members of the Ad Hoc Amortization Committee should be. Commissioner Kelly stated that there might have been a reason for in- cluding attorneys in the list of fields of endeavors; possibly so that they could provide legal advice. Mr. Fleshman stated that the next issue was the issue of four colors and that staff would stick with their original recommendation that only four colors be allowed, including black and white as colors. Chairman Wilson stated that this was not a new issue and was something that the Commission had wrestled with before. Further, with the Design Review Board Process deciding what was creative and compatible, the re- striction should be left in the Ordinance. He stated that the intent of leaving it in would be to give direction to the developers, etc. Also, it was the intent to help streamline and make the Ordinance more efficient. December 14, 1976 Page Seven Commissioner Berkey stated that he didn't have any strong feelings on this issue but that with the Design Review Board Process, the restric- tion should be kept in the Ordinance. Commissioner Kelly agreed with both Commissioner Berkey and Chairman Wilson. Chairman Wilson then stated that the Commission seemed to concur on leaving the restriction on signs to four colors in the Ordinance; but, he also added that the Ordinance could always be amended at a future date. ' Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Fleshman if that completed the list of comments which Mr. Kryder had submitted. Mr. Fleshman answered yes. Chairman Wilson then stated that staff should take all the issues which had been discussed and incorporate them into the proposed Resolution No. 193, Exhibit W . Mr. Fleshman stated that in addition to the changes already listed on Exhibit 'A' , he would like to go through the Ordinance and add the following changes: Page 25.38(2) Section 25.38-2. 13 to be reworded as follows: "A sign with an immediate source of illumination that is completely enclosed by the surface of the sign structure." Page 25.38(4) Section 25.38-2.24 should be deleted. (Vehicle Identification Signs). He explained that this section would show up as "RESERVED" in the final revision of the Sign Ordinance. taw Page 25.38(9) Section 25. 38-10.01, delete the phrase, "or o within thirty (30) days from the opening of w escrow, whichever comes first". c� z All sections in which Real Estate Signs are discussed shall contain `_ a provision for one (1) additional rider and one (1) off-site direc- LIJ tional sign. These sections would be 25.38-11.07, 25.38-12.02 and M ! 25.38-13.02. _z � Mr. Fleshman stated that there was one item (under Gasoline Service Stations) in the Ordinance which he felt the Commission might want to comment on; Section 25.38-12. 11(4) which reads as follows: "One wall sign, not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area with the provision for changeable copy is permitted to advertise special sales and events related to nationwide and/or company- wide special sales or events. No other temporary signs shall be permitted." Chairman Wilson stated that this provision was not allowed anywhere else in the Ordinance and that it was not consistent with the rest of the Or- dinance. The Commission concurred and directed staff to delete Section 25.38-12. 11(4). Page 25.38(16) Section 25.38-13, change the word "when" in the second to the last line to read "may be Page 25.38(25) Section 25.38-18.08, under subsection (1) , change "Councilperson" to read "Council Member". Page 25.38(25) Section 25.38-18.08, under subsection (2) , change "Attorneys" to read "Retail Businessmen". Mr. Fleshman stated that this concluded the changes that had been discussed thusfar. December 14, 1976 Page Eight Chairman Wilson asked if the Commission had any additional ideas or sug- gestions to be included in Exhibit 'A' . Commissioner Berkey raised a question on free standing signs. He questioned the three different heights allowed, being 8 feet, 10 feet, and 12 feet. He felt that 8 feet would be a uniformly adequate height. Chairman Wilson supported that feeling. There was a short discussion regarding height of free standing signs with Mr. Fleshman explaining the height limitations as pertained to commercial and residential zones. He also ex- plained the enforcement and vandalism problems as related to "a" the height of free standing signs. The Commission concurred with staff and agreed that the height limitations for free standing signs should remain at 8, 10, and 12 feet. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other suggestions, ideas to discuss, or possible additions to Exhibit 'A' . Being none, he stated that a motion would be in order. Commissioner Berkey moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 193 be adopted, as modified by Attachment 'A' , forwarding a recommendation for approval of the Sign Ordinance to the City Council . Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any further discussion. Being none, the following vote was cast: 0 o AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, READING, WILSON z w NOES: NONE Q UJ Chairman Wilson thanked all those present for their input and efforts, z and advised then that there would be another Public Hearing before the City Council , on the Sign Ordinance, to be held on January 27, 1977. Chairman Wilson then called a brief recess at 8:38 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:49 p.m. Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that Commissioner Mills left during the recess due to illness. Chairman Wilson then noted that there were several people in the audience who were concerned with the Design Review Board items; therefore, the Com- mission was going to change the order of business and review the Design Review Board items next. VII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases Approved at the Design Review Board Meeting of December 7, 1976. Mr. Fleshman informed the Commission that the Design Review Board had reviewed 9 cases at their meeting of December 7, 1976. Further, all the Design Review Board members were present with the exception of Mr. Buccino. Mr. Fleshman then stated that the first four cases were working drawings which the Commission had previously seen. vow The first case was CASE NO. 38C, SANDY SIERRA NEVADA, INC. & ROBERT RICCIARDI , A.I.A. , APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman gave a brief description of the project and stated that the ORB had approved the project subject to two revisions concerning the trash enclosure and the irrigation and landscape plans. The next case was CASE NO. 26C, SANDY SIERRA NEVADA, INC. , & ROBERT RICCIARDI , A.I.A. , APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman explained that this pro- ject was for the same developer and it was for a professional building to be located at the corner of Larrea and Portola. Further, the DRB had approved the project, subject to one revision concerning the trash enclosure. December 14, 1976 Page Nine The third case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 31MF, DWIGHT BABCOCK & CARL COX, A. I.A. , APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman gave a brief background of the project and stated that the DRB had approved the project with one revision to the trash enclosure and a modification to the carport area. Mr. Fleshman then presented the complete detailed construc- tion drawings for the above three cases to the Commission. There was a short discussion concerning the pedestrian en- trances to the trash enclosure areas. The next case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 49MF, INDIAN HILLS, HERITAGE-DUNPHY, APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman explained that the Commission had never seen this project before as it was originally approved under the County. Mr. Fleshman gave a brief history of the project and ended his presentation by stating that the DRB had approved the pro- ject subject to 8 conditions of approval . Commissioner Kelly asked how many additional units would be added to the project. Mr. Fleshman answered that there would be 53 additional units added with a total of 119 units for the entire project. Chairman Wilson asked to see the elevations. Mr. Fleshman presented the elevations to the Commission. Fur- ther, he advised them that Phase I was complete and all the amenities were in. The next two cases presented by Mr. Fleshman were CASE NO. 30C, N.W.DeVOE, LTD. & GEORGE RITTER, A.I.A. , APPLICANTS and CASE NO. 43C, CURT DUNHAM & PAUL THORYK, APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman presented both of these cases at the same time due to the parking arrangements. Chairman Wilson requested to see samples of the colors and materials board. Mr. Fleshman presented same to the Commission. There was a short discussion pertaining to the landscape plan and the elevations for Case No. 43C. The next case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 19SA, RAY MORGAN & IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman explained that this was a sign approval case requesting a re- model of an existing sign and moving said sign to outside of the public right-of-way. Further, said sign was 24 square feet in size and double-faced as it now exists. Finally, Mr. Fleshman stated that the DRB had approved the sign, subject to 10 conditions. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the fact that the restaurant was considered as an on-going use, the problems of parking and noise, and the sign design itself. The consensus of the Commission at this time was to send Case No. 19SA back to the Design Review Board for additional study. Items specifically discussed were the relation of the proposed landscaping and new location of the sign to the circulation and adequacy of the parking lot. Further, the Commission was very concerned as to the location of the "RR" above the sign and tow decided they would like to see the "RR" located on the face of the sign rather than on top of it. The next case discussed by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 51MF, RALPH ADAMS & SANDPIPER, APPLICANTS. Mr. Fleshman explained that this was a request for an addition to an existing building (sales of- fice) located at Sandpiper. The Commission concurred with the Design Review Board approval on Case No. 51MF. December 14, 1976 Page Ten The final case presented by Mr. Fleshman to the Commission was CASE NO. 50MF, PORTOLA ESTATES, APPLICANT. Nr. Fleshman pre- sented a detailed report concerning this case. There was a brief discussion among the members of the Commission, the staff, and the City Engineer. The Commission asked for a revision of Condition No. 7. Mr. Cook suggested the following rewording for said condition. "7. The pad elevations as shown are rejected. A revised grading plan shall be prepared to lower the pads to the maximum amount possible consistent with the City's Grading Standards. The final grading plan shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer." ZC) There was also a discussion pertaining to the installation of sidewalks cry for each house, with the Commission concurring that a provision for side- walks should be contained in the conditions of approval . Commissioner N Kelly's feelings were that sidewalks should be installed as Haystack Road is a major roadway and sidewalks are vital for pedestrian safety. Z Chairman Wilson then stated that even though this was not a Public Hearing, Z if there were any interested parties in the audience wishing to make any comments , they could do so at this time. Being none, Chairman Wilson stated that a motion would be in order. Commissioner Kelly moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 204 be UJ - adopted, with the deletion of Case No. 19SA (to be sent back to the Design 14C Review Board for further study). Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. z J Commissioner Berkey asked to excused at 10:10 p.m. due to illness. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. C.O.D. SPECIFIC PLAN Discussion on the Preliminary Housing Policies Plan. Mr. Freed explained to the Commission that this report was by no means a complete document. This report was staff's view of the housing conditions that presently exist in the C.O.D. area. Mr. Freed also discussed the goals and objectives of this element of the C.O.D. Specific Plan Study. He also gave a background of the existing conditions. Mr. Freed then explained that there were four priorities contained in the policy analysis as follows : 1. Construction of Basic Public Works Projects 2. Comprehensive Code Enforcement 3. Direct Assistance for Private Rehabilitation Efforts 4. Programs for Low and Moderate Income Housing Mr. Freed also gave an analysis of future housing trends as con- tained in staff's report. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff with the general consensus being that this report should be discussed at length and per- haps an entire meeting should be devoted to such a discussion. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Fleshman presented a memo to the Commission from Mr. Williams concerning the annual Planning Commissioners' Institute. He ex- plained that this year's conference is to be held in Los Angeles from February 2nd through February 4, 1977. Mr. Fleshman stated that staff strongly urged all Commissioners to attend this vitally important conference. ^__�_ ,A Page Eleven B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners None XI. ADJOURNMENT .. Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m. ST FrN A. FL SHMAN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: %NW S. Y A LSON/CHIMMAN P M ESERT KANNING COMMISS ON December 14, 1976 Page Twelve