Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0301 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIIIG COMNBSSION MEETING MARCH 1, 1977 7:00 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 7:03 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers in the Palm Desert City Hall. � II. PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner BERKEY (excused absence) Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Dave Erwin - City Attorney Hunter Cook - City Engineer Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Marcie Johnson - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commi.ssion Meeting of February 15, 1977. � The following corrections and additions were noted: Page 4, 6th paragraph, add the following sentence: "The Commission then discussed the individual differences regarding the proposed conditions on this tract." Page 4, 9th paragraph, add the following phrase to the end of the paragraph: ". . .if it resulted in the removal of the existing trees." Page 5, 3rd paragraph, insert the following phrase at the beginning of the paragraph: "After an explanation by the City Engineer regarding possible non-compliance to previous County requirements for drainage improvements, . . ." Page 8, 3rd paragraph under staff comments, change the wording to read as follows: "Chairman Wilson suggested that the Secretary notify the Council that the Planning Commission was in agreement with the proposed changes to the Ordinance." �rrr A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Reading, to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the February 15, 1977 meeting, was unani- mously carried. March 1, 1977 Page One MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Ztao V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams stated that the only written communications were those dealing with the individual cases on the agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that the Commission � had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the purpose of asking questions of staff and to look at the items on the a�enda. Further, he stated that no attempt was made to arrive at any decisions. He then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CASE N0. C/Z 01-77, A.D.BABCOCK & DURCO CONSTRUCTION CO. , APPLICANTS Request for a Change of Zone from PR-16 (Planned Residential, 16 Units Per Acre) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) , or other more appropriate zones on 2.475 acres of land located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive between Lupine Lane and Tumbleweed Lane. (This matter was continued from the Special Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 1977, due to inadequate noticing procedures.) Mr. Williams explained that the staff had received a request from WAYNE E. MULLIN (representing DURCO CONSTRUCTION) to withdraw this item from the agenda of March 1, 1977. Mr. Williams also explained that a proposed sale of the property to MR. BABCOCK had not materialized and thus, the request for withdrawal. He then stated that staff was recommending that the Commission consider a Minute Motion accepting the request for with- drawal without prejudice. ;� Chairman Wilson stated that since this was an advertised Public Hearing, the Commission would take any testimony pertinent to the matter. He then opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was any present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the matter. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission for their feelings. Commissioner Mills moved that the Planning Commission accept, without prejudice, Mr. Mullin's request for withdrawal of this item. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. B. CASE N0. DP 02-77, DEEP CANYON LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan for a 200-unit planned residential development in the PR-5,N District on 47.5 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon Road. (This matter was continued from the Special Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1977.) Mr. Williams stated that the Commission had received in their packet of materials for this meeting, a letter from FRANK J. URRUTIA representing his clients on the HIDDEN PALMS Development. Said letter was requesting withdrawal of the Development Plan, the Tract Map, and Case No. 52MF, to allow time for further study and possible re-design of the project. There- fore, staff was recommending that the Commission, by Minute Motion, accept � Mr. Urrutia's request for withdrawal, without prejudice. Mr. Williams also presented a letter from the CITY OF INDIAN WELLS recom- mending certain changes if the project was approved. He explained that copies of this letter were distributed to the Commission during their Study Session. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH l, 1977 Page Three r�, � � �� �� nt Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. He was not present. .� (��S Chairman Wilson then opened the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 02-77 and asked u�a �°� if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to z:� `-� \ this project or the suggested continuance. Being no one, Chairman Wilson closed � �� the Public Hearing and asked the Conunission for their feelings. � Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission accept the withdrawal, without prejudice, for Case No. DP 02-77 and TT 9144. Commissioner Kelly seconded �rr the motion; motion unanimously carried. C. CONTINUED CASE N0. TT 9144, DEEP CANYON LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract for a 200-1ot subdivision for a planned residential development on 47.5 acres of land located in the PR-5,N District and situated at the southeast corner of 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon Road. (This matter was continued from the Special Planning Commission Meeting of January 25, 1977.) Mr. Williams suggested a similar minute motion for this case. Chairman Wilson stated that Commissioner Reading's motion had included the withdrawal of this tract. D. CASE N0. CUP 08-76(AMEND) , DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATIOPd-KMIR-TV, APPLICANT Request for an Amendment of an approved Conditional Use Permit to allow for a revised Development Plan for a television studio and office facility on a 3-acre site located on the north side of Park View Drive, west of Monterey Avenue, in the PR-7,S.P. District. � Chairman Wilson stated that he would first like to call on the City Attorney for his advice pertaining to this case. City Attorney Erwin stated that there were at least two commissioners who had declined to act on this case and who would possibly abstain from voting on the matter. However, due to Commissioner Berkey's absence, this left only two Commissioners to make a decision which was not a sufficient amount to constitute a quorum. Mr. Erwin then stated that it would be appropriate that the two Commissioners, even though preferring to abstain, remain on �.`� . the Commission and vote on the matter; otherwise there would be no authority � ;� to act. Mr. Erwin then asked the two Commissioners to identify themselves. � � Chairman Wilson stated that speaking as an individual, due to the close �C � proximity of this matrer to his occupational field, he would prefer not t- � to vote on this matter, but in view of the situation, he would not abstain ,� �� from voting. � �� =r Commissioner Reading stated that he had an interest in the opposite station and he would prefer to abstain. At this time, Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission. Said report included the applicant's request for an Amendment to the original Conditional Use Permit which the Planning Commission had approved by Resolu- tion No. 172 on August 31, 1976. The CUP was subsequently approved by the City Council in September of 1976. Mr. Williams then listed the following �"` major revisions for the Development Plan, as requested by the applicant. 1. Reduce the building size to 16,420 square feet. 2. Revise the design of the overall structure in terms of architectural treatment and layout. 3. Re-position the building on the proposed site to within 120 feet of Park View Drive versus the previously approved 400 feet. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Four 4. Re-positioning of the building to provide for side entryway to the building and parking on the side and to the rear of the building. 5. Re-positioning the building to within 20 feet of the east property line. 6. Total revision of the landscape program for the project. � 7. Provision for the large area indicated as an undeveloped area on the north portion of the lot. 8. Increase the height of the front portion of the building from the original 15 feet to 18 feet. 9. Re-locate the entryway from Park View Drive to the center of the lot. Mr. Williams then showed the plans to the Commission regarding this "L" shaped parcel. Mr. Williams stated that staff was recommending that the Commission consider a continuance of this case to the meeting of April 5, 1977, and require the following revisions to the development plan: 1. Re-positioning of the building to as close to the rear of the property as is feasible, a minimum of which would be 300 feet from Park View Drive. 2. Re-orient the access and building design so as to provide for the side access from the east side of the building versus the proposed west side and provide for driveway and parking on the east side of the building. As an alternative, consider orienting the building on east/west orientation on the rear of the lot versus north/south. �► 3. Substantially upgrade the proposed landscaping to provide for mitigation of the height of the rear portion of the building from properties to the east and west. 4. Revise the building elevations to reflect the proposed "dish" on the north side of the building. 5. Provide for an 8 foot wide easement along the frontage of the property for pedestrian purposes. Mr. Williams then stated that because the suggested revisions were so major, staff was recommending a continuance to allow the applicant time to work with staff regarding the revisions. Mr. Williams stated that the key criteria in approving the project originally was that it would be located in a park- like setting and that the project as it was now proposed by the applicant did not do that. For this reason, staff felt that it was essential that the building be re-located farther north. Chairman Wilson asked if the Commission had any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant was present. WENDELL VEITH, 4777 Eagle Way, Palm Springs, spoke to the Commission as the architect for the project. He stated that they were willing to go along with most of staff's recommendations but they did object to pushing �" the building farther back because it would result in a substantial cost increase to the applicant. He did state that they would be willing to move the building back slightly. Also, they were willing to put the driveway down the east side of the project and to provide a landscape buffer. He proposed that the building be moved 30 to 50 feet back instead of all the way back. Further, they could minimize the problems and give the Commis- sion the park-like setting that they wanted. Mr. Veith then told the Com- mission that they would prefer to move the building back so that the high portion of the building was at least 300 to 320 feet away from the street. Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Veith if the building was pushed back 50 to 80 feet, would the studio portion be in the other section. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Five � �� � Mr. Veith answered yes, that half of the studio would be located in the � � rear. � � � Commissioner Reading asked if there was any exposed electronic equipment. �-- � �� Mr. Veith answered that the "dish" would be 4 feet in diameter and would � � be located on the back of the building (north side) and would not be visible from the street. � Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else present representing the applicant. JOHN CONTE, 75-600 Beryl Lane, Indian Wells, spoke to the Commission and told them that he felt the television studio would be an asset to Palm Desert if the Commission decided to approve the project. Further, he stated he would like to see more enthusiasm for th e project which he felt would prove to be a tremendous value to Palm Desert. He felt that Mr. Veith's design was acceptable and that the building would not prove to be a hugh mass on the street. Also, if they were required to push the building back as staff suggested, this would make a tremendous difference in the building costs. He asked the Commission to work with us, not to fight us. He wanted to bring something to Palm Desert that we could be proud of. He then told the Commission that he would welcome any questions. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commission was interested in the best possible facility for Palm Desert. He then asked if anyone was present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. Being no one, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. DON GITTELSON, 9179 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, spoke to the Com- mission as a representative of the owner of the parcel of land located to the west of the proposed television studio. He stated that he had � sent a letter to the Commission requesting denial of the project as it would be in conflict with their own project to the west. Further, the proposed 22 foot high structure was not suitable and that they had liked the original plan instead. He felt the Planning Commission should think twice before allowing a business in a residential area. He then again urged the Commission to deny approval of the project. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Being none, he asked if the applicant cared to make a brief rebut- tal. Mr. Conte stated that he would like to give a reaffirmation of the type of operation the television studio would have. He stated there would be no noise, no towers, no equipment visible, no concentration of traffic, a totally enclosed project, and no external traffic. Further, they had made a full disclosure of the type of building that was proposed and what it was going to look like. The "dish" would be totally out of visual sight on three sides of the project. He also stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council saw it fit to originally grant a Conditional Use Permit for this project and that they were now applying for modifications to that original approval. He stated that he trusted that the Commission would look upon his request favorably. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Conte what he envisioned for the property to the '` north of the building location. i�rr Mr. Conte stated that they had no particular use for it and that the portion of land that lies behind the studio will in all probability be left as it is. They would landscape the perimeter with Italian Cypress. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Kelly asked if Mr. Conte meant for the perimeter to be around the parking or around the entire property line. Mr. Conte stated that by perimeter he meant around the entire property line. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Six Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing and told the Commission that they had before them staff's report and also the applicant's presentation, plus the opposition from the developer. He then asked Commissioner Kelly to lead off the discussion on this case. Commissioner Kelly stated that she wanted to commend the architect for the ne;a type of building which he proposed. Her only concern was with �"' � the positioning of the building. She wanted to know what would result � � if the building was pushed back about 200 feet rather than 120 feet. � � Mr. Williams stated that the building would have to go back 120 feet in � order to meet the studio portion. � �-- � �? Commissioner Kelly then stated that she was very unhappy with the un- � � developed portion of the property to the rear of the building. .,^t_ ;�� Commissioners Mills and Reading stated that had no comments to make at k, �' this time. ��;: ,� r` �; �j Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Williams if he would like to comment from the �� � staff position regarding the testimony concerning the modification of f4. ::� 'h, setback. � �� � Mr. Williams stated that in order to mitigate the staff and Design Review Board concern, a major portion of the building should be moved a minimum of 100 feet and a maximum of 300 feet from the street. Chairman Wilson asked Commissioner Mills specifically: "You have read the staff report and heard the applicant's proposal for a compromise regarding the staff revisions, what do you feel about this project?". �"" Commissioner Mills stated that he would like to see the project go back where it started from. Further, he would like to see staff and the ap- plicant get together and then have the Commission review the case at their next meeting. Chairman Wilson stated that he felt this was a very important facility with a strategic location. Also, that the project had been wrestled with earlier; however, he felt a little uneasy about the compromise solution. He wanted to see the project done right. Further, some serious consideration should be given to the treatment of the northerly portion of the site. He was also concerned about the mass of the building and the parking that close to the road. Finally, he stated that he would be in favor of staff's recommendation for a continuance. Commissioner Kelly stated that every consideration should be given to the residential area - the utmost consideration. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and stated he would entertain a motion. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission continue Case No. CUP 08-76(AMEND) to the meeting of April 5, 1977, in order to allow time for the staff and the architect to work together on more specific revisions as discussed in the staff report. Commissioner Readin seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried, fi'�"'��"�� ����°�E� �� � ` 3 ��/77 �� � � E. CASE NO DP 03-77, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC. for M & T INC. , APPLICANT Request for a new Development Plan consisting of 191 condominium units on the remaining 33.6 acre-portion of a planned residential development known as Mountainback, located in the PR-8 District on the west side of Highway 74, northerly of Portola (Carriage Trail) Avenue extended. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Seven Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission. He explained that the actual application indicated 191 units; however, all the plans reflected a total of 193 units. His report included a complete background of the project and a discussion of the history of the project. He ex- a plained that the density was well below the present zoning of the property �:� which is PR-8. Also, there was a substantial reduction in the number of � two-story units proposed. :;� R �.rr► Mr. Williasm then informed the Commission that staff had received a letter, �+ �� which was included in the Commissioners' packets, from a resident of the Mountainback Development. He explained that the letter was requesting that � ��� the Planning Commission deny a permit or approval of the development. � 1 Mr. Williams then stated that staff felt the Commission should also be aware of a letter_ from Robert Ricciardi presented on behalf of the property owners directly w�st of the Mountainback development. Said letter was requesting access through the proposed project to the existing property to the west. Mr. Williams then pointed out the recreational amenities for the development on the site plan. He also explained that it was staff's opinion that to provide the access which was requested, this would require a major re-design of the project. Finally, Mr. Williams stated that staff was recommending ap- proval of the Development Plan by Planning Commission Resolution No. 220, which would include the requirement for the appeal of the original Planning Commission Resolution No. 181. Mr. Williams then briefly discussed the recommended conditions of approval which included a requirement for undergrounding, a requirement for a masonry wall to be installed along Highway 74, the installation of a pedestrian/bike- way system, and the modification of existing lights on the tennis courts. City Engineer Hunter Cook informed the Commission that he had discussed �rr the easement situation with the C.V.C.W.D, and that there were some pos- sible reservations as to whether or not there were sufficient residents in the Cahuilla Hills area to justify the access easement. He requested that the Commission hold off on a decision to give him time to investigate the situation further. Mr. Cook did point out that the Chauilla Hills resi- dents already had access through the mobilehome park to the north and south of Mountainback. Further, he did not personally consider the access situa- tion to be a problem but he would like additional details. Chairman Wilson asked if the Cammission had any questions of staff. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on DP 03-77 and asked if the applicant was present. SCOTT BIDDLE, 3848 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, spoke to the Commission and asked them to consider removal of two of the suggested conditions of approval. The first condition that he disagreed with was Special Condi- tion No. 1, requiring the undergrounding of all existing overhead utility lines on or immediately adjacent to the Mountainback project, both existing and proposed phases. His main objection to this condition was that it was not economically feasible; therefore, he was appealing that condition stating there was no way the applicant would be able to comply. The next condition that Mr. Biddle appealed was Special Condition No. 2, requiring the instal- lation of a masonry wall along the full frontage of Highway 74. He stated, that from an aesthetic standpoint, there should be a better way to handle ` the mitigation of noise from Highway 74. He also stated that with the ex- � ception of the above-mentioned two conditions, the applicant was willing to accept the balance of the conditions. Again, he strongly appealed the re- quirement for undergrounding. Chairman Wilson asked if the Commissioners had any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. CONSTANCE WIEDEMAN, 73-245 Shadow Hills Drive, spoke to the Commission and stated she a�d her husband owned three units in the present Mountainback development. She recommended that the Planning Commission approve the pro- ject; as it had always been understood by the residents that there would be future phases. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Eight Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 73-700 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and stated he was neither for nor against the project; all he wanted to do was re- ' quest that an easement be granted through the proposed development to al- low access to the Cahuilla Hills property. Mr. Ricciardi then presented �""'` an aerial photograph of the area to the Commission and documentation re- garding the property owned by Dr. Bertrand. Said documentation contained photographic copies of the deed of easement concerning Dr. Bertrand`s 55 acres in the Cahuilla Hills. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of Mr. Ricciardi. Being none, he asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one. Chairman Wilson asked the applicant if he would care to make a brief rebuttal. SCOTT BIDDLE stated that these documents had come as a complete surprise to him. He stated that he could not grant an easement over the C.V.C.W.D. property that he had no right to give. Also, if there was a means by which they could provide access, they were willing to do it even though they were reluctant to do so. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration with regards to the applicant's request for removal Special Condition No. 1, his request for a modification of Special Condition No. 2, and the access easements that were being requested. � , Commissioner Reading suggested that the Commission continue the matter be- � cause he felt they would be getting into something over which they would � � have no control or knowledge. � , � � r. r� Mr. Williams then stated that staff did not think the Commission had '1' 3 the flexibility to waive the requirement for undergrounding - it was � - \; a standard requirement for new subdivisions. r�.� � � Commissioner Reading stated that he would like to see another plan submitted regarding the wall. Commissioner Mills stated he agreed with Commissioner Reading; however, there was still the easement problem. Commissioner Kelly stated that she felt that Condition No. 1 (undergrounding) was a part of our ordinance and we should follow it. Regarding the wall, she would like to see some modifications proposed. Further, she felt that granting an access route through the middle of the new development would not be fair. Chairman Wilson stated he was concerned about the easement issue. City Attorney Erwin stated he had looked over the documents that Mr. Ricciardi had presented and there did appear to be a 32' easement for at least the benefit of the property owned by Dr. Bertrand. Chairman Wilson commented that the easement issue was one that concerned all of us and needed study by engineers and legal counsel to see if an easement � already exists and to see if it was compatible with the Development Plan as submitted. He then stated that he felt strongly that it was not up to the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for undergrounding; that this would have to be done by the City Council. Further, he agreed that Special Condition No. 2 did need some modification to allow for flexibility in the design. Finally, he stated that he would like to see this matter continued until the Commission could have a little more input as to whether or not an access easement needs to be granted. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Nine Mr. Williams suggested a possible continuance to April 5, 1977. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant if this continuance would be agreeable to him in order to allow staff and the City At- torney time to research this easement issue. Scott Biddle replied that the continuance would pose a hardship as they wished to complete the development at the earliest possible date. Difficult as it was, he indicated that he would accept a �' continuance if there appeared to be no other alternative other than to research the matter. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on Case Pdo. DP 03-77 to April 5, 1977, and instruct staff to research the easement question and clarify the matter to the Commission. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. City Attorney Erwin informed the Commission that the easement that already existed appeared to be private, not public; whereas the Commission would be dealing with a public easement. Mr. Ricciardi then stated that he was not here to present any hard- ships to the developer. His only concern was the access problem to Chauilla Hills. Chairman Wilson called for a vote on Co�¢nissioner Reading's motion for a continuance. The motion carried 4-0 in favor of the continuance. F. CASE N0. TT 9377, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT for M & T INC. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract for a 191-unit planned residential development in the PR-8 Zone District on approximately '�' 33.6 acres of land located westerly of and adjacent to Highway 74, northerly of Portola (Carriage Trail) Avenue, extended, known as the Mountainback Development. Chairman Wilson stated that in view of the Co�nission's previous action on the Development Plan for this tract, he felt that a continuance would be in order. Mr. Williams also agreed that a continuance would be in order and he sug- gested the same date as was decided for the Development Plan, which is April 5, 1977. Chairman Wilson stated that since this was advertised as a public hearing, he would declare the Public Hearing open on Case No. TT 9377 and take any testi- mony in FAVOR o� or OPPOSED to the project. He then asked the applicant if he cared to address the Commission. Scott Biddle stated that in the best interest of the developer, a continuance would be in order. However, there were a couple of conditions he would like to go on record as being in opposition to at this time. He then stated that he did not oppose the under- grounding of utilities within the subdivision, only on the outside of the property abutting their project. He requested that the word "most" be inserted at the beginning of Special Condition No. 11, which required drainage to be kept on site and conducted to the Palm Valley � Storm Channel. Finally, regarding Special Condition No. 15 (require- ment for pavement on Desert Flower Drive all the way to Highway 74) , Mr. Biddle stated that as an alternative they would be willing to grade and oil the road until such time as the utilities were installed and t11en the road would be paved. Chairman Wilson suggested that if the Commission did decide to continue this matter, Mr. Biddle get together with staff to discuss the above-mentioned objections. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on Case No. TT 9377 to the meeting of April 5, 1977. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANIQING COMMISSIOPd MARCH 1, 1977 Pa;e Ten THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 8:35 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:44 P.M. G. CASE N0. DP 04-77, PRELUDE DEVELOPMEPdT COMPAIdY, APPLICANT '� Request for approval of a Development Plan for 55 condominium units on an approximate 8.94-acre parcel located in the PR-7,S.P. District and situated northerly of and adjacent to the intersection of Park View Drive and Fairhaven Drive. Mr. Williams explained the request for approval of this Development Plan and gave a brief background of the project. He explained to the Commission that as of yesterday (February 28, 1977) , the applicant had submitted to staff a revised plan calling for a reduction in the number of units from 55 to 50. Further, he and the City Engineer were requesting a continuance on this Development Plan and also the Tract Ma.p (TT 9396) as they had not been able to resolve the matter. He suggested a continuance to March 15, 1977. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Commissioner Kelly asked if the revisions should be discussed at this time. Mr. Williams answered that staff was suggesting time for them to get together with the applicant to review his alternatives and also their own. Further, there were some differences between the new Development Plan and the Tract Map in terms of unit location and street location and these matters would have to be resolved. '`� Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant was present. DON GITTELSON, 9171 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, spoke to the Com- mission as a representative of the owner, He stated that they were in accord with Mr. William's recommendation for a continuance; however, they would like a clarification on some of the conditions that staff was recommending. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the project itself or the recommendation for a con- tinuance. Being no one, he asked the Commission if they had any questions. There were none. Chairman Wilson suggested that if the Commission did decide to continue this matter, the applicant should get together with staff to discuss the above matters and clarify same. Mr. Williams stated that staff would like to have the Commission's feelings on the setback requirements on Park View Drive. Chairman Wilson stated that he felt the setback was extremely important requirement as this project was near a major entrance to the College of the Desert. Therefore, at the present time (due to the S.P. Overlay de- signation) he tended to support the added setback requirement. The rest of the Commissioners concurred with Chairman Wilson. � Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on Case iJo. DP 04-77 to the meeting of March 15, 1977. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mills and unanimously carried. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH l, 1977 Page Eleven H. CASE N0. TT 9396, PRELUDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map for a 55-lot condominium subdivision on an approximate 8.94-acre parcel located in the PR-Z,S.P. District and situated northerly of and adjacent to the intersection of Park View Drive and Fair- �""'" haven Drive. Mr. Williams again recommended a continuance due to the Commission's pre- vious action on the Development Plan for this project since the Zoning Ordinance requires that a development plan be acted on prior to action on the tract map. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the continuance. Mr. Gittelson stated the continuance was acceptable and he was sure that the matters could be resolved between the staff and himself. ��' Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either t,Y; R{ in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the continuance. Being no one, he closed the Public `'`' � Hearing and asked the Commission for their feelings. � -� y � - �'�A Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission continue the �`� � Public Hearing on Case No. TT 9396 to the meeting of March 15, 1977. Commis- sioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. . VII. OLD BUSINESS '�"' A. CASE N0. 52MF, DEEP CAT�lYON LTD. , A.PPLICAIQT Request for approval of design review of a 200-unit condominium development located in the PR-5,id District and situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams stated that this case was related to the development plan and tract map (DP 02-77 and TT 9144) for which the Planning Commission had ap- proved the request for withdrawal made by the applicant. Therefore, staff was recommending that the Commission also accept the request for withdrawal on this case to allow for a re-design of the project. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions. There were none. Commissioner Kelly moved, and Commissioner Mills seconded, that the Planning Commission accept, without prejudice, the applicant's request for withdrawal on Case No. 52MF; motion unanimously carried. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPOSED � CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CONSISTING OF A 900-FOOT EXTEP3SION OF DOMESTIC WATER DISTRIBUTION MAIT1 IN IROPdW00D STREET, VERBA SANTA DRIVE, AND BETWEEN VERBA SANTA AND OCOTILLO DRIVES. Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that staff did find these projects to be in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan and, therefore, recom- mended Planning Commission adoption of Resolution i1o. 220, approving same. Being no questions of staff, Chairman Wilson asked the Co�nission for their feelings. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 220. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Twelve IX. DESIGPd REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1977. Chairman Wilson stated that some of these cases had been reviewed at the Study Session and he asked Mr. Williams to highlight the cases before the Com- mission at this time. �rr Mr. Williams listed the following cases which were approved by the Design Review Board at their meeting of February 22, 1977. Case No. 50C - Request for preliminary approval of the floor plan, site plan, and elevations for a commercial building for DR. CRAINE; Case No. 30C - Request for approval of final construction drawings for a commercial building for N. W. DeVOE; Case No. 56MF - Request for approval of final construction plans for a 7-unit apartment project for JIM BELKNAP; Case No. 58MF - Request for modification of site plan and elevations for a storage building and golf cart parking structure for SHADOW MOUNTAIN GOLF CLUB; . Case No. 60MF - Request for approval of final construction drawings for an 8-unit apartment complex for F.S.& L. INDUSTRIES; Case No. 61MF - Request for preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans approval for a duplex for 0. M. HOMME. � Mr. �dilliams stated that in review of the actions taken by the Design Review Board, the area most discussed was Case No. 30C. He stated that these were final construction drawings for a furniture store to be lo- cated on the south side of Highway 111 between Sage Lane and Highway 74. He also stated that the Design Review Board had approved the drawings with the following modifications: a. The parking layout and building size shall be compatible with the proposed Redevelopment Plan. b. A pedestrian access opening shall be provided on the north side of the trash enclosure. Gates shall be added to the east wall of the enclosure. c. A landscape area shall be reserved adjacent to the rear of the building but no plants shall be installed. He recommended that "a" be revised to read: ". . .shall be even with the Palm Desert Glass building to the east." Other than the above, Mr. Williams stated that the indications were that the actions taken by the Design Review Board were acceptable and, therefore, staff recommended approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 221, and a revision to the conditions for Case No. 30C, as listed above. � Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. There were none. He then stated that even though this was not a public hearing, the Commission would take any testimony pertaining to the Design Review Board cases. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111, Architect for Case IVo. 30C, spoke to the Commission and stated that he would go along with any of staff's recommendations for revisions that were listed previously. He then asked that the Commission note a correction on Case No. 50C.- Change P1o. "c" in the Design Review Board minutes should read six (6) inches as opposed to six (6) feet. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Thirteen ERIC LOYER, Laguna Niguel, spoke to the Commission on Case No. 56MF. He stated that they were requesting the deletion of the requirement for the installation of sidewalk because if it was installed, it would be the only sidewalk on that side of Ocotillo Drive. He felt that landscaping to the curb would be more desirable. Further, they would be happy to install sidewalks in the future when more sidewalk was installed on Ocotillo Drive. � Mr. Williams stated that staff could not support the applicant's request for a deletion of the requirement for sidewalk. Chairman Wilson asked the Commission for their feelings regarding the sidewalk issue, explaining that this issue had been discussed many times before on other projects and that the Commission's decision has always been to require the installation of sidewalks. Commissioner Kelly felt that the sidewalk requirement should remain now and in the future for public safety purposes. Commissioner Mills had no comment. Commissioner Reading stated that he agreed with staff's position. Chairman Wilson then asked if the Commission was in agreement with staff's recommendation for the change to modification "a" on Case No. 30C. Mr. Williams stated that the modifications would be noted on the plans and suggested a Minute Motion agreeing with same. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 221, approving the Design Review Board actions of February 22, 1977. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Kelly then moved that the Planning Commission approve the mo- difications as proposed by staff relating to Case No. 30C. Commissioner Reading �„ seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. X. ORAL COMM[1NICATIONS None XI. CONiNIENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams informed the Commission that the Planning Schedule which they had received in their packets for this meeting already needed several revisions. Further, staff would be presenting these schedules periodically to the Commission and that the main reason for doing this was staff allocation. C. City Attorney None. D. Planning Comanissioners Commissioner Kelly asked staff if undergrounding was one of the condi- `�.+ tions the last time Mountainback was on the Agenda. Mr. Williams answered that there was no reference to this in the minutes. Further, he would look into the matter. He stated that undergrounding was a standard requirement for all developments. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1977 Page Fourteen Commissioner Kelly also asked staff why the developers did not receive their conditions earlier so as to eliminate their coming to a meeting and saying they had just received the conditions and had not had a chance to review them. Mr. Williams informed Commissioner Kelly that the applicants � had received the conditions for the Development Plan on the Friday before the meeting. Commissioner Kelly felt that the above staff comment should be stated publicly and noted for the record that the applicant had received the conditions on the Friday prior to the meeting. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. r�'`" � ;_ , ,� . �� � \ r� � �`� , �� , , ��, C. '�, � `+. x • � - , �- - -�����- r PAUL A, tidILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: � n �� i . ROY , CHAIRMEIN M DESER PLANNING CO ISSION �r..+