The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0405 , � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 1977 7:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly schecluled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall. �"'' II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner BERKEY III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner KELLY (excused absence) Commissioner MILLS (excused absence) Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director_of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Marcie Johnson - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 1977. +�rrr Commissioner Berkey noted a typographical error on Page 4, 4th paragraph from the bottom - change "deidcation" to "dedi- cation". A motion of Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the March 15, 1977 meeting, was unani- mously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams informed the Commission that the only written communications were those dealing with the cases on tonight's agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained to those present that the Commission had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the PurP�G�' of asking ques- tions of staff pertaining to the staff reports. Further, there was no in- tent to arrive at any decisions or conclusions. Chairman Wilson then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those � present. A. CONTINUED CASE N0. CUP 08-76(AMEND) , DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORA- TION, 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 facili- ty 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. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March l, 1977. � ' Minutes � Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Two Commissioner Berkey asked that it be noted for the record that he was absent from the March l, 1977 meeting but that he had listened to the tape recording on Desert Empire Television's case and also on Biddle Development's case. Mr. Williams reviewed the request with the Commission for Case No. CUP 08-76(Amend). He explained that this case had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March l, 1977 to allow the �wr applicant and his architect to make specific revisions to the pro- posed Amendment of the Development Plan. Mr. Williams also showed the site plan, elevations, and floor plan for the project to the Com- mission. In summary, Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had made all the suggested revisions which had been suggested at the March lst Planning Commission meeting and, therefore, staff was recommending ap- proval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 225. Mr. Williams then listed the major revisions to the Amendment as follows: 1. Reduce the building size to approximately 16,420 square feet. 2. Revise the design of the overall structure in terms of archi- tectural treatment and layout. 3. Re-positioning of the building on the proposed site to within twenty (20) feet of the northerly property line and the westerly property line versus the original proposal which would have placed the building to within forty (40) feet of the north property line and twenty (20) feet of the west property line. 4. Total revision of the landscape program for the project. �r,r 5. Increase the height for the front portion of the building from the original fifteen (15) foot to eighteen (18) foot. 6. Delete the proposed raised planter along Park View Drive and replace it with a meandering pedestrian/bicycle system and monument sign. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 08-76(Amend) and asked if the applicant was present. WENDELL VEITH, 4777 Eagle Way, Palm Springs, Architect for the project, spoke to the Commission as the applicant's representative. He stated that the only thing they were proposing at this time was to increase the serback from twenty (20) feet to fifty (50) feet on the rear property line to provide turn-around space for vehicles. Mr. Veith told the Com- mission that the applicant had tried to conform to what staff and the Commission had wanted and he would be glad to answer any questions. Chairman Wilson asked staff if there would be any problem with the change in the setback as requested by the applicant's representative. Mr. Williams answered no. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of the applicant at this �""' time. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak to the Commission either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the project. Being no one, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on CUP 08-76(Amend). Chairman Wilson asked the Commission to reflect on the changes that had been made and told the Commission that they had before them basically a situation where they had had some concern.s a month ago and had asked the applicant and his architect to re-study the project. Further, these con- cerns seemed to have been satisfied. �. Minut es . Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Three Mr. Williams told the Commission that before they acted on this matter, he wanted to aduise them of two letters that had been received regard- ing this project. The first letter was from Mr. Don Gittelson, Presi- dent of Prelude Development Company. Said letter objected to use of a television office and studio in the PR-7,S.P. zone district. They based their objection on the fact that their development of some 50 con- dominium units is to be located immediately west of the proposed tele- '�++' vision studio and office facility. Mr. Williams explained that it had been pointed out at the previous Public Hearing on this Amendment that the project does indeed meet the requirements of the PR-7,S.P. District as a community-facility type use. Therefore, staff felt that the letter from Mr. Gittelson had been adequately addressed. The second letter was from the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission and requested the following: l. No transmitting equipment be greater than 20' in height; measured from the ground. 2. That any and all units located on the roof be properly screened from view of the surrounding properties. 3. That an 8 foot concrete bicycle path be installed 4 feet from the curb along Park View Drive. Mr. Williams told the Commission that the above requests had been in- cluded in the Conditions of Approval for this project. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional questions or discussion. Being none, Commissioner Berkey moved for approval of this project by Planning Commission Resolution No. 225. The motion was seconded by Chairman Wilson and �T' passed with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: READING B. CONTINUED CASE N0. DP 03-77, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC, for M & T INC. , APPLICANT Request for a new Development Plan consisting of 193 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. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March l, 1977. Mr. Wi?_liams explained that this case had been continued from the March lst Planning Commission meeting to address two specific matters as follows: 1. The existence of a private easement across the property for access to the property west of the Palm Valley Channel. 2. Previous history of the project regarding undergrounding of utility � lines. Mr. Williams then brought the Commission up to date on this project and gave them the location, circulation, amenities, size, number of units, etc. Mr. Williams also showed the Commissioners the site plan for the project. He then explained that there is a private easement in existence. Further, the applicant is proposing as a part of his negotiations with the owner of the property west of the Palm Valley Channel, to utilize the entryway road to service that property as an alternative for access. Also, in analyzing the property to the west of the Palm Valley Channel, the City Engineer has reviewed this and has some firm recommendations and comments on that problem and also the problem of improving the Palm Valley Storm Channel to adequately protect this property from storm runoff. • Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Four Mr. Williams then stated that staff was suggesting that a 32' wide park- way be developed along Highway 74 to establish the entryway to this major project and that a wall be developed on the border of that parkway. The applieant had suggested that a mounding system would be preferable if it could be designed in conformance with the City's noise element which would be to mitigate the noise from Highway 74. Staff felt that a mounding sys- tem could be designed to allow for that alternative and the conditions had been revised to provide for those two alternatives. �r.. The other issue is the matter of undergrounding. The staff report suggests that the applicant be responsible for undergrounding the existing lines along Highway 74 for the full frontage of the property under consideration and also the existing Mountainback subdivision. This is in conformance with the City's Ordinances with regards to undergrounding as they exist today. When this mat- ter was previously considered, the City could not require undergrounding of lines larger than 16,000 volts. This figure has been revised to 66,000 volts and the lines that exist along Highway 74 do not exceed that amount in terms of voltage. The Tract conditions point out that the estimated cost to under- ground the new Tract would be $90,000. Since this is an Ordinance requirement, only the Council may waive the matter. It is within the power of the Commission to consider waiving the requirement as a part of the frontage of the existing development; however, since this is one integrated project, staff felt that it is appropriate that the undergrounding should occur along the full frontage of both the proposed and the existing Mountainback development. Therefore, for those reasons, the conditions were written as proposed in Resolution No. 226. Mr. Williams then asked City Engineer Aunter Cook to discuss the matter of drainage and also the matter of access to the property west of the Mountain- back complex. Mr. Cook stated that with regard to the access to the property west of the Palm Valley 5torm Channel, it appears that the offer of an easement ``'�"�"' which the applicant has submitted is reasonable. However, he would like to suggest an additional condition to be added to read as follows: "Applicant shall provide an access easement to the Bertrand property as generally shown on Plat YK-14. An offer of dedi- cation for public street purposes shall also be made over that easement for five feet on each side." Mr. Cook then informed the Commission that with regard to drainage, there was one very signif icant item which the Commission must be aware of with regard to this property as follows: The property is located on the Palm Valley Storm Channel in the midst of an area that now is under study by the Bechtel Corporation as a result of our re- cent flood. The recent flood showed us that we can have considerable water coming out of the two canyons at the head of Highway 74. This water is presently carried across the cone of Palm Desert over to the Deep Canyon Channel and down to Indian Wells. One of the pro- posals that is being studied at the present time is the possibility of dividing that water and carrying a portion of it down through the Palm Valley Storm Channel. If that water were all to be diverted down the Palm Valley Storm Channel, we are talking about a 300% in- crease in the quantity of water which will be going down the area. This would require some widening of the existing channel and would require some acquisition of additional right-of-way on one side or � the other because of the location of the channel. Because of the location of the channel, it appears that the right-of-way could be obtained from the westerly side. Further, the CVCWD in their sub- mittal of comments on this particular project did not recommend that additional right-of-way be set aside for this type of thing and since there is additional land on the west side of the channel which can be used and could be acquired for the additional right-of-way if anything were needed; I feel that you could go ahead and approve this project as it is presently configured. The condition which is included in the conditions of approval requires that a portion of the channel abutting the property a certain distance upstream be protected, improved, and hardened in order to protect the development that is proposed. � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Five Commissioner Berkey stated that it was awfully important that we not put ourselves in the position of approving something that may adversely affect the final decisions on flood control in this area, particularly Indian Wells' strong feeling that there should be diversion to the Palm Valley Storm Channel. Further, it should be certain, not a possibility, that the Channel could be widened. � Mr. Cook commented that prior to the time the Tract Map for Mountain- back is to be eonsidered by the City Council, the Bechtel Corporation should be contacted to find out what their recommendations are. Mr. Cook suggested that the Commission wait to make a decision until ad- ditional information is available; possibly within the next 90 days or maybe as long as 6 months. He felt that approving the development at this time would limit the flexibility. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional questions. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 03-77 and asked if the applicant was present. SCOTT BIDDLE (President of Biddle Development representing M & T Inc. , the owners of the property) , 3848 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, spoke to the Commission. He told the Commission that the applicant saw no ,.� � � problem with the general standard conditions of approval that had been �.} issued. However, they were objecting to the requirement for the under- � grounding of utility lines along the frontage of the existing Mountain- -� back development. They were not objecting to undergrounding for the -g � lines along the full frontage of the proposed development. He stated ;' � that they no longer have any interest or ownership regarding the existing A.� " � Mountainback project. He stated that it would be unrealistic and un- ? justifiable to require the undergrounding along the existing project. +urrr � Mr. Biddle also objected to the Fire Marshall's requirement for 3,000 GPM fire flow. He felt that this requirement was far in excess of nor- mal requirements for this type of development. The Commission felt that Condition No. 5 which reads as follows was standard enough: "5. The applicant shall conform to all requirements and improvements deemed necessary by the City Fire Marshall." Further, the Commission felt that the applicant and the Fire Marshall could possibly review the requirements together and come to a mutual agreement. Mr. Biddle then stated that they were in accord with the City Engineer regarding the easement conditian which he had suggested. He also stated that flood control was a serious problem for all of us; but he would like to point out that during the recent flood this particular site received no flood damage. Further, to delay or postpone the development of this groject at this time would cause a financial hardship on the developers. He submitted that if this property is developed as it stands, that the water flow can be moved west of this property to undevelopable property. Therefore, to take a prime site such as this and use it for a potential storm drain would be a horrendous thing. Mr. Biddle also stated that the time element was of extreme concern and asked the Commission to ap- +��rw prove the project at this time. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. Being no one, he asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 73-700 Highway 111, spoke to the Cotranission and asked exactly where the access easement was being proposed. City Engineer Cook pointed out the existing easement and the proposed easement on the map. Mr. Ricciardi asked if the road was going to be elevated. � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Six :� ��;; :.� s 1 :a ,p Mr. Cook answered yes, that provisions would be made for said elevation. .� :_a Mr. Ricciardi stated that he just wanted this written into the public +--, � testimony that the City is going to require elevation of the road. �: � Chairman Wilson asked if there was any additional testimony either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the project. Being none, he closed the Public Hearing on Case '�"" No. DP 03-77. Chairman Wilson told the Commission that they had before them the concerns regarding undergrounding and drainage. Mr. Williams stated that the condition regarding the access easement which was suggested by the City Engineer should be included in the conditions for the Tract Map as opposed to the conditions for the De- velopment Plan. Commissioner Reading stated that he did not see how the Commission could make a decision until they had received a report from the Bechtel Corpora- tion regarding the drainage. He felt that any decision the Commission made at this time would be futile. Commissioner Berkey suggested that "and flood control considerations" be added to Standard Condition No. 7 to read as follows: "7. The sewerage disposal system and flood control considerations shall be submitted to and approved by the Coachella Valley County Water District prior to issuance of a building permit." Commissioner Berkey stated that he agreed with the applicant regarding the undergrounding of utilities along the frontage of the existing de- � velopment. He felt this requirement was not reasonable and should be deleted. Commissioner Reading stated that he agreed with Commissioner Berkey's suggested rewording on Condition No. 7. Further, he agreed with Com- missioner Berkey regarding the deletion of the requirement for under- grounding along the frontage of the existing development. He felt that if the applicant had no interest in the property, he did not see how the Commission could require such undergrounding. Chairman Wilson stated he was also concerned with the drainage and felt that Commissioner Berkey's suggested rewording of Condition No. 7 was good. Further, the Gommission should address any other concerns to the City Council in the Tract Map. Also, he favored the deletion of the re- quirement for undergrounding along the frontage of the existing Mountain- back development. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 226, with the corrections and/or additions as suggested above regarding undergrounding and drainage. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE �, ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE � Minutes � Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Seven C. CONTINUED CASE N0. TT 9377, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC. for M & T INC. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract for a 193-unit planned residential development in the PR-8 District on approximately 33.6 acres of land located westerly of and adjacent to Highway 74, known as the Mountainback Development. Continued from the Planning Commis- '"�""� sion meeting of March 1, 1977. Mr. Williams explained that this was the Tract Map for the Development Plan which the Commission had just approved. He stated that the major issues had been discussed as a part of the last case. He then told the Commission that staff was suggesting the payment of a fee in the amount of $12,790 in lieu of dedication of an equal amount of land according to the requirements of Article 26, 15 of the Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. Finally, he stated that staff was recommending that the Tentative Tract be approved by Resolution No. 227, subject to the addition of the condition recommended by the City En- gineer relating to the access easement. Chairman Wilson asked if the recommendations from the State Department of Transportation were included in the conditions of approval for the Tract. Mr. Williams answered that they would be a part of the standard that would have to be approved by the State and these requirements will be applied by the State when they apply for an encroachment permit. Chairman Wilson asked if that included the entryway. Mr. Williams answered yes. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other questions of staff at this �"' time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on TT 9377 and asked if the ap- plicant was present. SGOTT BIDDLE spoke to the Commission and stated the concerns regarding the Tract Map were the same as those expressed for the Development Plan. Further, if the Commission had any questions, he would be glad to answer them.. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions at this time. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the approval of this Tentative Tract Map. Mr. Will.iams stated that before Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing, staff was suggesting that an additional section be added to the Resolution revoking the original Tract No. 4442 as a part of their recommendation to the Council; if not the Commission would have duplicate tracts on this pro- perty. Mr. Williams suggested the following addition to Subsection No. 3 on Page Two of Resolution No. 227: "on the basis of revocation of the previous action on Tract No. 4442." Chairman Wilson asked the applicant if he cared to address Mr. Williams' suggestion. �, Mr. Biddle stated that he presumed that that would become effective upon action by the City Council. Chairman Wilson explained that this resolution the Commission passed would be a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Biddle stated that this would be fine. City Engineer Cook stated that he would like to clarify the previous additional condition which he had suggested and gave the new rewording for the condition as follows: � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Eight "Applicant shall provide an access easement to the Bertrand property as generally shown on Plat YK-14 and such other ease- ments as may be required by the City Council. An offer of dedi- cation for public street purposes shall also be made for said - easements plus an additional five (5) foot on each side." �"' Mr. Biddle commented that the above reworded condition would be satisfactory to him. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else present wishing to address the Commission. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing on Case No. TT 9377 and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Berkey commented that he felt Special Condition No. 2 should be changed to read like Standard Condition No. 5 on the De- velopment Plan to give flexibility to the Fire Ma.rshall and the ap- plicant. The Commission concurred. Staff also concur�ed. Commissioner Serkey also suggested that Special Condition No. 10 should be reworded as follows to be consistent with the Commission's previous action on the Development Plan: "10. Flood protection satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Coachella Valley County Water District shall be pro- vided. This wi11 include hardening of a portion of the Palm Va11ey Storm Channel." Commissioner Reading stated he had no additional concerns or comments. Chairman Wilson stated that he was satisfied with the changes that had `�""' been made. Commissioner Berkey moved that the .Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 227, recommending approval of the Tract Map No. 9377 to the City Council, including the changes that have been discussed and including the additional condition regarding easements as suggested by the City Engineer and also the addition to the Resolution concerning revocation of Tract 4442. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE D. CASE N0. C/Z 02-77 R. D. FULLER and T. M. HILL, APPLICANTS A request for an Amendment to Article 25.46 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance to Change the Zone from Multi-Family Residential (R-3(4)) to General Commercial (C-1) on a 1.9-acre parcel located � south of E1 Paseo and east of Ocotillo Drive. Mr. Williams explained the request to the Commission. He informed them that the City Council had recently amended the Redevelopment Plan to al- low commercial development on the subject property; therefore, the Change of Zone would merely bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the adopted Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 228, approving the Change of Zone. , Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Nine Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on C/Z 02-77 and asked if the applicant was present. Being no one, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the Change of Zone Request. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for the pleasure of the Comanission. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution � No. 228, recommending to the City Council that Ar.ticle 25.46 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance (the Zoning Map) be changed from R-3(4) to C-1 for the property in question. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READIN�, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE E. CASE N0. CUP 02-77, STEPHEN HERMAN and COLIN McDERMOTT, APPLICANTS Request for a Conditional Use Permit to build a private health club on two (2) adjacent parcels on the north side of Alessandro Drive, 420 feet east of Portola Avenue. Mr. Williams went to the map and e�plained the request to the Commission. He also presented the staff report which included a background of the projeet with size, coverage, zoning, parking, utilities, General Plan commitment, etc. In summary, Mr. Williams 5tated that staff felt that "�""" this was an appropriate location for a private club and therefore, was recommending Planning Commission approval of Resolution No. 229, subject to compliance to the attached conditions of approval. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on CUP 02-77 and asked if the applicant was present. STEPHEN HERMAN, 45-660 Camino Del Rey, Indian Wells, (applicant) , spoke to the Commission and told them that they had no difficulty with any of the conditions imposed by the staff. However, he would like to ask staff to allow them to utilize the square footage of the deleted court (Court No. 6) for future expansion if they were to utilize in an alternate manner such as an expanded lounge or spa • facility. He indicated they will conform to the requirement for a five courts as opposed to six; but would like to make use of the -- space in an alternate manner if that would be acceptable. � �' Chairman Wilson asked staff if the condition deleting the sixth court =+�a would not preclude remodeling at a later date. _�� Mr. Williams answered no, that the area could be used for storage � or some type of more passive activity and that other building pur- poses could be utilized. �"` Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone 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. LORING CLEAVELAND, 74-070 Alessandro, spoke to the Commission con- cerning the noise factor and also the drainage factor. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Ten Mr. Herman explained that the courts would be recessed nine feet into the ground and that there would be 12" cement block walls plastered both inside and out, with plaster ceilings and insula- tion in the roof. He stated that there would be no outside noise and that the number of people using the facility at any one time would be limited. Regarding the drainage, Mr. Herman stated that � he understood that they would build up the rear of the lot and the water would drain onto the street; it would not drain onto the adja- cent property. Chairman Wilson stated that this issue would be taken care of during the Design Review Board process. At this time, Mr. Williams stated that there should be a revision to Condition No. 4 to read as follows: "4. Al1 existing and proposed overhead utility service lines adjacent or within the proposed development site shall be placed underground as a part of construction." Mr. Williams also suggested that an additional phrase be added to the end of Condition No. 6 to read as follows: m6. ; and the fact that the project will not adversely affect the adjacent residential areas from the standpoint of noise. Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 229, subject to the above additions and/or revisions to Condition No. 4 and Condition No. 6. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: �rr AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE F. CASE N0. DP 05-77, 0. MICHAEL HOMME, APPLICANT A request to amend the Development Plan for the Sandpiper Condo- minium Project to permit construction of a duplex on an 18,700 square foot parcel located north of Pitahaya and east of Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission and showed slides of the area to the Commissioners. Mr. Williams' report included a descrip- tion of the project and a complete background of same. Mr. Williams also read into the record a letter from Mr. R. A. Kronman, 34A-Sandpiper, Palm Desert, California. Said letter is attached to this set of minutes and per- tains to Mr. Kronman's objection to the type of fencing that Mr. Homme had planned on installing. Mr. Kronman requested that the Commission give con- � sideration to requiring the installation of a block wall as opposed to wood f enc ing. Chairman Wilson stated that the concern e�pressed in Mr. Kronman's letter seemed to be addressed in Condition of Approval No. 6 which requires the installation of a masonry wall on the north property line. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Eleven Mr. Williams felt that some consideration should be given to a requirement for installation of a masonry wall on the east side of the property also and that Condition No. 6 should have "and east" incorporated into the Condition. Mr. Williams then stated that staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Reso- lution No. 230, subject to compliance with the 7 Conditions of Ap- � proval. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 05-77 and asked if the applicant was present. MR. 0. MICHAEL HOMME, 73-061 E1 Paseo, (applicant) , spoke to the Com- mission regarding the installation of a masonry wall and the effects it would have on the drainage problem. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the project. RALPH BURKE, 72-848 Pitahaya, spoke to the Commission and told them that he was neither for nor against the project; he was mainly con- cerned about the grading of the lot and the potential drainage problem. Chairman Wilson asked the City Engineer to discuss the situation. City Engineer Cook explained that the water would drain onto the adjacent property unless curb and gutter was installed along the street (Pitahaya) ; then the water would drain to the Palm Valley Storm Channel. There was a discussion between Mr. Burke and Mr. Cook pertaining to how �' the residents who lived on Pitahaya Street could form a district for the installation of curb and gutter. Chairman Wilson suggested that Mr. Cook follow up on the above discussion with the residents in the area. Chairman Wilson then asked if there was anyone else present wishing to speak regarding the project. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission for their f eelings. There was a discussion between the Commissioners and staff regarding the drainage problems and the fence situation as pertained to height and loca- tion. The concensus of the Commission was that the height of the masonry wall to be installed on the north and east property lines should be changed from six (6) feet to four to five (4-5) f eet. The applicant agreed with the rewording for Condition No. 6. The Commission also discussed the formation of a district for the installation of curbs and gutters with the City Engineer. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Comanission adopt Resolution No. 230, with the amendment to Condition No. 6. Commissioner Berkey seconded the � motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE ' Minutes � Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Twelve Chairman Wilson called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:03 p.m. VII. OLD BUSINESS �+' None VIII. NEW BUSINES3 A. Request for the Planning Commission to Initiate an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map to reflect changes in Service In- dustrial Uses and Zoning f or the Area adjacent to 18th Fairway Lane. Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that when amending the Redevelop- ment Plan to provide for a new Service Industrial site, the City Council wanted to be sure that the project would be adequately regulated. They specified that a Conditional Use Permit should be required for the project. To carry out this provision, the staff is recommending that the Service In- dustrial District be amended so that a Conditional Use Permit would be needed for any Service Industrial Use located in the Redevelopment Project Area. ZOA 02-77 should accompZish this objective. Further, because it was not shown on any previous base map for Palm Desert, the area around 18th Fairway Lane was inadvertently left off the new Zoning Map. Adoption of C/Z 03-77 will correct this situation. Therefore, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution iVo. 231, directing staff to set the proposed amendments for Public Hearing for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 3, 1977. `�""' Chairman Wilson asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Resolution No. 231. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, REI�DING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of March 29, 1977. Mr. Willi�.ms requested that Case No. 149SF be deleted from the Resolution pertaining to the Design Review Board items. He stated that this case had been on the DRB agenda because there was a line-of-sight problem and that it need not �o beyond th� Design Review Boarde Th� Conutsission agreed with staff�s request. Mr. Williams then informed the Comrnission that Mr. Freed � would be presenting the cases which the Design Review Boaxd had acted upon. The first case that Mr. Freed reviewed was Case No. 49G - a request by SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION tor approval of prelimi- nary site, floor, and elevation plans for a commercial building to be located at San Pablo and tfie Highway 111 Frontage Road. There was a lengthy discussion between the staff and the Commission re- garding this case. The main concerns centered around the traffic flow pattern, the color and materials to be used, and the sign program. The consensus of the Commission was varied at this time so they decided to discuss the other DRB cases and come back to this case and make a decision. . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Thirteen The following cases were presented to the Commission by Mre Freed, (Al1 cases listed have received Design Review Board approval.) : Case No. 51C - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for an office/retail complex for HMS PLAZA WEST; �, Case No. 52C - Request for approval of preliminary site plan and elevations for retail/office building for WILLIAM STEWART; Case No. 42C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for ROGER MEYER; Case No. 43C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for CURT DUNHAM; Case No. 33MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 80-unit condominium project for SI7NRISE CORPORATION; Case No. 32MF - Request for an extension of time of DRB approval for a 13-unit apartment complex for RICHARD COFFIN; Case No. 63MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 18-unit condominium project for MARRAKESH BUILDING AND COUNTRY CLUB; Case No. 64MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a private health club for STEPHEN HERMAN and COLIN McDERMOTT; �,,,,, Case No. 65MF - &equest for approval of construction plans for a 70-unit condominium project for FRED RICE. After a brief discussion pertaining to each of the above cases, the Comanission again discussed Case No. 49C. Their consensus at this time was that Conditions No. 8 and No. 17 should be revised as follows: 8. Parking lot lighting and signage shall be provided in accordance with final construction plans to be submitted to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for final approval. Signage shall be limited to one (1) main building sign located on the north frontage of the building, a 24-hour teller sign, a time and temperature sign and logo sign as a part of the main sign on the north side of the building, a logo sign on the east and west sides of the building, a three (3) square foot drive-in teller sign, and a three (3) square foot customer parking sign. No signage shall be permitted on the fountain. The free standing directory signs shall be white letters on a brown background. 17. The stucco color of the building shall be more earthen tan in color and the roof material shall be red tile, a sample of which shall be reviewed as a part of the construction drawings. Commissioner Reading asked that it be noted for the record that he felt the entire traffic pattern should be redesigned. �rw Commissioner Reading then moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 232, with the revisions as noted to Condition No. 8 and Condition No. 17 on Case No. 49C; and the inclusion of these revisions within the Resolution. Commis- sioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE � Minutes � Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Fourteen X. ORAL COMMIJNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff +�r None B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Chairman Wilson welcomed Ralph Cipriani as the new Associate Planner for the Department of Environmental Services. Gommissioner Berkey initiated a short discussion regarding density. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Wilson seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. rr�rr .__._� (�'� ;.� � ( `h h ..�� F"^��_.--�� PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: /`�''`_ � . f�' � ,-- r?-� /� /�- <�; S. WILSOI�J� CHAIRMAN �' P L �'DESERT LANNING COMMISSION /mkj �.rr � r � REC� IVE � CHICK IVERSON PORSCHE AUDI � � ��" 900 W.Coast Hwy. �n� � ; �.,, � Newport Beach,California 92660 ENVIRONMENTAL 3ERVICES Phone(714)646-9391 •(714)549-3325 (`,,j�OF. PALM DESERT l ��n -,^�^ � �\'_ K' �'` { Q1,..,�r.1c�1 , �►< <°oM�^�SS��J � d � �. 0� �Nvti�►J�`��AL C�,c�.s �o �� e r _ � �S �ti�S Q�� Q�� L�� ti�� Q i��.,t� � `�Cv�-� �C''(1�,'�' `��: �� Q — J S�-�� C� - I� - 'CT O M i'v.�- � ��-4L.. c].�L. �. � (�v�. �!! �.-�,c�-,.1�� o� `�� . �'(Z- � � W. �\ ��C� Q (al.lr� 91 SG�,� . C`� v�?�.o�c��r�-.,.., �,...-�--- -)�.. Q�jG� �.� �C �.��-�-�" � `� ��. ��r..,�...�. _.vt„� (�:,._:L9-� �Y �1�14, Q� N�'�' O�� C�-N� �� . ..� � �"'C S ��-� � � .�iG..�C'� �'C •( �; O� ��,�G,'�'� �J�_ v�.• � . � � � P_,- �� J��\ �o R-ca CL- ,s Q�o�F � �- �, S � � �(L � A V� l,�Q ��r�c�C� n C.,l. ��'^S -.� � Q.$ ' � � �N � �.�2 A't��' -� �N G^� O� ��A Q: S i A�Lrc. 1� � � � Q�R �� l�oc.�L. thf n� ll 5 �aS�i ��l� �J�� `T o � �� .�vC., v'��—�..�z., (�� - �.o t�-- �j- �,�E f��'�ti F� . A �� 1�.;� � 3� c �a s S�� ,�S r �r � � � �-- �" � �-11-S� � A�S (l��.-- �'° �`^.r�-� s �/w5��c, as'� (�a�,-r-- '�"" �w l•�h!T O f�.) `�� N �S S,L�- � �� W��1-. .�,.,� S � , � J�,-� ��,�e� s�A��. W�-��- �� C��,�� g� � ` � r' � S',�� `�o C� `r�f A L�-- � 'T-� M��c �. � x �Q�C'-�S, �-�.N C�S . � _ t '?/ i�' , . CHICK IVERSON PORSChiE AUDI 900 W.Coast Hwy. � Newport Beach,California 92660 Phone(714)646-9391•(%14)549-3325 I I � `_'C�o v�.�� e�.�.� �---,;�.�.�. �.,.s��-1 � ��--� ��P�c� A—► c� �S��, � A�c c�,,:,s Q►��cu:, �s � �4�� `Tr�E� �� ' �.s�� L�S 1r. . � � � A W�.`.�. �S `t'o ..�'�.-�r. ��-- 0'�' I Q V�.(�. �p�2,A�(� �- , , A-S �'C�(� ��...,'`'`�'/ l �Q-. �o M 1v�C:`S �tV� �C. C� I` � `To �-�. ( Q�-��-�S�k �d c�--.� � (� �'�„�:�9 -c�J �� i c �,ti .�'�.,•S irJ �S ��C A� (�- C.,o S� � r , A �-�s � a�� j ��w..�c�-�-�S �� '�'v' . . � �� (w j`c c� �s o � ��"� �.1 t�C� �C nl i�� h-�- �- N�C. S , \ �� ..-.T2...- - ��_s�� .,�g �`— b �� w�� ,. � . ` �„�- . .�.rz-�- �.�� t�� cJ,��, ��- ��-�,ra�� ,�,�� c�.JA l\ � ( � � W�r.• ...Q.— A C.�►�cr-�..�`z. C� ��- ��c f � �� ,�ar�J L 1ti,,,,,.�;,J�T�^'� �/�l_\� S�l..�� s-- A "`.� �., ' � ,� � � Do�� {��r�� ,^'� ti t S 1n,.>�s � �_ t�(�,�c�� . � L.',.J� � � �rl c� v�1-� � N o�- S N � ��- . . �w �' C �� . , ��ws,i,��{�T�� -J �� AS � v��r2._ C,.��► S• ��`J�� A� "�°'�' _ ,� n.,��'l� S�A`�4,S`�` w �� /�+J '�S� A��--�.'� �a �� , �„ � 1�Q , ,, �. ��._.. � � �2 �S � c�,c �J�� n� OJ�� -Q-- �� 'W S � �c� � ,J (��.c� . � �� Q�� - �� _ `C� �`^�-- . \�M-/�^-�:.. ��, N �.�.-S , (�:� . G � ��- �� S . o Q.�s �cc,�c �-�� SL�;;.��a \�- (�' ' �J`J M�• ".� �r `3� P. S A.�� Q-- Q�"l._r--- 4>r S 6�-�� C�?—, �