Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0419 • t ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19, 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 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall. II. PLEDGE - Commissioner KELLY �rrr III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Marcie Johnson - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1977. Mr. Williams noted the following corrections: Page 5, 4th paragraph, 4th line from .the bottom - delete �"" "along the frontage of" and replace with "within". Page 6, change the 2nd paragraph to read as follows: "Mr. Ricciardi stated that he just wanted this written into the public testimony that the City is going to require accessibility to the west side of the Wash." Page 9, 4th paragraph from the bottom, delete the word "not". A motion of Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the April 5, 1977 meeting, was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams advised the Cotrunission that the only written communica- tions were those dealing with the cases on tonight's agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS � None VII. OLD BUSINESS Prior to opening the discussion on Case No. 49C, 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 reviewing the minutes and dis- cussing some of the items on the agenda, particularly the Design Review Board cases. Further, he noted that the Commission had not made any decisions nor reached any conclusions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Two A. APPEAL OF CASE N0. 49C, SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION Appeal regarding Conditions of Approval No. 8 and No. 17 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 232. Mr. Williams reviewed this case with the Commission. His review included the Planning Commission action taken on April 5, 1977 regarding the modi- fication of two of the Conditions of Approval; namely, Condition No. 8 and �"'` Condition No. 17. Mr. Williams also explained the applicant's request for � a revision of both conditions. Further, that the applicant had requested � ` that the Commission re-consider their decision and go back to the conditions � as approved by the Design Review Board with regards to the signage program. � L� Secondly, the applicant was requesting that the Commission also re-consider "� their decision pertaining to materials for the roof and the stucco color of �� the building. _.1 � �'� Mr. Williams then showed pictures to the Commission of the building as � �'� proposed by the applicant with the blue tile and the navajo stucco color. He reiterated that the Commission had reached a decision that the blue tile roof material should be changed to red and that the stucco color should be changed to a darker tan to compliment the red tile. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he asked if the applicant was present. MARK SANDSTROM, 600 "B" Street, San lliego (lst Vice President of San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association) , spoke to the Commission regarding his appeal of their previous action. He gave a general back- ground regarding San Diego Federal which included the fact that there are presently five branch offices in the Coachella Valley. Mr. Sandstrom explained that in all the branch offices of his company, � theg had utilized a theme similar to the one they were proposing for Palm Desert. He stated that his company was not just a faceless fran- chise coming into the community - they were an important facility. Mr. Sandstrom then distributed pictures to the Commissioners depicting the various branch offices located in Indian Wells, Desert Hot Springs, and Palm Springs. Further, Mr. Sandstrom explained that his case had been before the Design Review Board on two separate occasions and both times the Board had approved the blue roof and the navajo white stucco color. Also, they had been advised by the Chairman of the Design Review Board that it was not necessary for the applicant to be present at the Plan- ning Commission meeting when the case would be discussed. He then urged that the Planning Commission approve the original Design Review Board findings pertaining to the color of the roof material and the color of the stucco. Secondly, Mr. Sandstrom explained that the same situation existed regarding the signage program - where the Design Review Board had approved the program and then the Planning Commission had applied modifications to the condition regarding signage. He stated that he felt their signage program was tasteful and asked the Commission to follow the original requirements as imposed by the Design Review � Board. Commissioner Mills asked Mr. Sandstrom if the Palm Springs branch had the blue tile roof. Mr. Sandstrom answered yes. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Three Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional questions. Being none, he stated that the Commission was sorry that there had been a mixup regarding the applicant attending the Planning Commission meeting of April 5th. Chairman Wilson then asked staff why there had been a reduction in signage. Mr. Williams stated that staff felt the signage program as proposed ``r""' by the applicant would misdirect the public. Mr. Williams also showed the elevations which included the signage program as proposed by staff. Chairman Wilson then told the Commission that they had heard the applicant's strong appeal for retention of the original Design Review Board conditions of approval regarding the roof, the stucco color, and the signage program. He then asked the Commission to address the matter of the roof material first. He stated that he objected to the blue tile because it was a logo tile. Commissioner Reading stated that if the blue t�le were used it would set a precedent. Gommissioner Berkey stared that due to the T.estimony presenteu by the ap- pli�ant, he felt that perhaps he was not correct in his earliPr decision regarding the change to red tile. Furthery he felt ttiat the blue tile would not be architecturall,y objectionable and therefore he would reverse his earlie.r decision. Commissioner Mills stated he agreed with Commissioner Berkey. Commissioner Kelly stated her main concern at this point was that she felt the Commission was dictating. Further, she did respect the feelings of the � other Commissioners but she felt that the color of the roof tile should re- main blue. The Commissioners then discussed the condition regarding signage and the general consensus seemed to be that if the applicant agreed to cut down on the signs as suggested in the revised Condition No. 8, the Commission would go ahead and okay the change back to the blue tile roof material and the navajo stucco color. Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Williams for the correct wording for the new resolution. Mr. Williams suggested the new wording for Resolution No. 233, a copy of which is attached to this set of minutes. Commissioner Mills moved, and Commissioner Kelly seconded, a motion to approve Resolution No. 233, with the suggested rewording as given by staff. Chairman Wilson stated he felt that this would be a departure from the past history where more earthen tones and colors were required. The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, READING NOES: WILSON ABSEI�T: NONE � ABSTAIN: NONE Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Four VIII. NEW BUSINESS � � A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY EAST AREA PLANNING COUNCIL VARIANCE CASE N0. 1306-E � � �� Request for comments or recommendations from the Director of Environ- � mental Services regarding the deletion of tron.t s��back and planter � requirement in the M-1 Zone in Cathedral City. � � Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that the County had requested �"' � � eomments or recommendations on the above Variance. Said Variance in � the M-1 zone is for a reduction in the front yard setback from 25 feet to zero feet. Further, the applicant is requesting the deletion of the 25 foot setback to enable the buildings to be placed on the front pro- perty line. Their justification is that the financial cost of the de- velopment requires maximum use of the property. Mr. Williams then asked the Commission to concur with staff1s letter dated April 12, 1977 to Mr. Streeter listing the following reasons for not granting the Variance: 1. The total subdivision was developed and designed to provide for the required design standards as specified within the County's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The required landscape areas are needed to provide for wind- breaks for the development to occur on the property. 3. The required setbacks and landscaping are needed to maintain the aesthetic character of the subdivision. 4. A granting of such a request would result in all the lots being developed in the total subdivision without the required setbacks and landscape treatment in that the lots in question are no dif- � ferent from the remaining lots within the subdivision. Therefore, the request would be precedent setting. 5. The County Ordinance does not preclude a twenty foot portion of the front yard setback from being utilized for parking purposes. Such an orientation of the parking adjacent to the front of the industrial complex is good sighting in terms of providing for security and easy access by potential customers. Therefore, the Variance does not appear appropriate. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff. There were none. Commissioner Berkey, by Minute Motion, moved that the Planning Commission concur with staff�s findings as contained in the letter to Mr. Streeter dated April 12, 1977. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases Acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of April 12, 1977. � Chairman Wilson asked that it be noted for the record that the Commission had reviewed the Design Review Board cases at their Study Session prior to to- night's meeting and that the only questions raised were those pertaining to Case No. 66MF. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Five Mr. Williams suggested that if Case No. 66MF was the only case that there were questions about, possibly the Commission should discuss the other cases first, as there were some of the applicants in the audience. The Commission agreed and Chairman Wilson asked if any of the applicants were present wishing to speak regarding the cases which had been approved by the Design Review Board at their meeting of April 12th. `�""` RONALD SULLIVAN, 42-365 Acacia, Hemet, spoke to the Commission as the applicant on Case No. 67MF. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was in complete agreement with all the conditions of approval ex- cept for the condition requiring the installation of sidewalks. He stated further that there was no requirement for sidewalks in either Case No. 66MF, 34MF, or 35MF; therefore, he felt that it was unfair that his project should required to install sidewalks. Chairman Wilson asked staff for the rationale for requiring sidewalks on Case No. 67MF and not on the others. Mr. Williams explained that the project on Candlewood was the last project in that block; therefore sidewalks were not required. Further, the project on Shadow Mountain should have been required to install sidewalks but that there was an error on staff's part. Chairman Wilson added that in areas where the project is the last develop- ment in the neighborhood where there are no existing sidewalks, the Com- mission usually did not require the installation of sidewalks. However, where there was potential development in an area, sidewalks were required. Mr. Williams explained that both Case No. 34MF and No. 35MF were projects that had originally been approved a year ago at which time there was no formalized policy regarding sidewalks.. Further, these were the final con- i�""` struction plans for both projects and the same conditions were applied that had been applied a year ago. Chairman Wilson felt that the Commission should be consistent one way or the other. Mr. Williams agreed. Chairman Wilson asked for the feelings of the Commission on all three cases - No. 67MF, No. 34MF, & No. 35MF. Commissioner Berkey felt that they should not be looked upon as indivi- dual cases, but rather whether or not they conformed to the policy of the Commission. Chairman Wilson stated that it should be the Commission's policy to re- quire sidewalks for all three cases. Commissioner Reading agreed with Chairman Wilson and stated that it has been Commission policy in the past to require sidewalks and they should not change the policy. Commissioner Mills asked if the condition requiring sidewalks could be re-entered into the Condi.tions of Approval. Mr. Williams answered that it certainly could be added as a part of the � Commission action. However, due to the fact that these were the final construction drawings, financing was normally complete by this time and � t � this could create a problem on both Case No. 34MF and No. 35MF. cy Commissioner Kelly felt that the condition requiring sidewalks should be � included on all the cases; however, she wondered if possibly staff should �T � check with the City Attorney's office regarding the legality of the matter. �, � �: � � � Commissioner Berkey stated he felt the projects did not qualiy for dele- � � tion of the condition pertaining to sidewalks. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Six Chairman Wilson stated that it seemed to be the consensus of the Com- mission that the condition requiring sidewalks be retained on Case No. 67MF and added to Case No. 34MF and Case No. 35MF. At this time, Mr. Williams explained that Case No. 66MF should be con- tinued for two weeks to allow the applicant time to submit the revised plans which had been requested by the Design Review Board. �rr Chairman Wilson then explained that the Design Review Board had required a number of revisions and the Commission did not want to act on this case without seeing the revised plans. Ae asked the applicant if this contin- uance was agreeable. LARRY SHIELDS, representing American West Development as the ap- plicant asked what the date would be for the continued case. Chairman Wilson answered that it would be the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 3, 1977. Mr. Shields stated that this date was okay and asked when he should submit the revised plans. Chairman Wilson advised him that the revised plans should be submitted to staff as soon as possible to allow time for review. Mr. Williams suggested that Planning Commission Resolution No. 234 per- taining to all the cases with the exception of Case No. 66MF be approved by the Commission. Cotrnnissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Gommission adopt Resolution No. 234, approving the Design Review Board actions of April 12, 1977, and also in- '�"" cluding the addition of the condition requiring the installation of sidewalks for Cases No. 34ME and No. 35ME'. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion u- nanimously carried. Commissioner Berkey, by Minute Motion, moved that the Planning Commission continue Case No. 66MF to the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 1977 with the understanding that the applicant will submit the revised plans to staff prior to that time. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. DISCUSSION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE C.O.D. SPECIFIC PLAN Mr. Williams stated that it had been awhile since the Commission had discussed this Specific Plan and that at present, staff was doing a survey at the College regarding student housing. Further, with this analysis, it was staff's hope to get an understanding of the desired of the students regarding housing. Mr. Williams also stated that the problem areas regarding the Plan were less in number than 6 months ago when the Study was started. Mr. Williams showed a colored land use map and explained the various land use designations. He explained that this was a very preliminary map. He also talked about the need � for a fire station in the area of 44th Avenue and San Pablo which would compliment the proposed city hall site. There was a brief discussion pertaining to lot development and con- solidation in the area of 44th Avenue. The Commission also discussed densities and zoning for the areas in question. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Seven Mr. Freed discussed the draft Land Use Element with the Commission including the residential study zones and the public & private in- stitutional areas. Also discussed were the open space and recreation areas and circulation concepts. During the above discussion, the Commission and staff spent considerable time talking about the crowded school situation, Mr. Freed explained that he had talked with Mr. Roger Harlow, Superintendent of the Desert Sands Unified School District just last week regrading the situation. '�" Subsequently, Mr. Freed had included in his draft Land Use Element, the enrollment projections for the Desert Sands Unified School District for 1976-1989. Chairman Wilson stated that he felt our community was not characteristic with the state's growth rate. Commissioner Kelly stated that she would iike to talk personally with Mr. Harlow regarding this situation. Mr. Freed explained that Mr. Harlow said that he would be available to attend any meeting that the Commission desired and discuss the school situation with them. Mr. Williams said he would arrange to have Mr. Harlow attend the next Study Session meeting which was scheduled for May 17, 1977. The Commission felt that this would be extremely valuable to be able to discuss their concerns with Mr. Harlow. The Commission then had a lengthy discussion regarding Study Zone A, which is located north of 44th Avenue between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and Fairhaven Drive. The following audience members spoke to the Commission regarding the above- listed Study Zone A: � CARL MEISTERLIN, 73-261 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission as the owner of some property located in Study Zone A. He explained that all the property owners in this area had gotten together and hired FRANK J. URRUTIA, A.I.A. to come in and develop a plan for the entire 34 acres. Further, all the property owners were in a- greement regarding what they envisioned for this property and there were no dissident members, FRANK J. URRUTIA, 73-350 E1 Paseo, spoke to the Commission and ex- plained that he had put together a very brief land use plan for the area. Also, his intention for tonight's meeting was to get input t from the Commission regarding their reactions to the plan. He also stated that the had spent some time with staff regarding the plan and proposed density for the area. Mr. Urrutia then showed his plan to the Commission with the assis- tance of Mr. DICK ARNOLD, another local property owner of land lo- cated within the area in question. There was a discussion between the Commission and the above audience members and staff regarding the types of uses proposed. Chairman Wilson felt that possibly Mr. Urrutia's plan was a bit premature. Mr. Arnold stated that the more time spent on this plan would mean that money would � be lost. Further, that the demand was there for the uses which they pro- posed. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Eight Mr. Freed stated that the concern was with the future public facilities development within that area. Mr. Urrutia emphasized that the majority of the property in question belonged to the Palm Springs Medical Clinic and that whatever type use they put on the property would relate to the adjacent residential areas. Chairman Wilson thanked Mr. Meisterlin, Mr. Urrutia, and Mr. Arnold for their concern and their comments. However, since this area was presently �""' zoned "S" (Study) , it would probably remain in said zone until such time as the C,O.D. Specific Plan was completed. Mr. Arnold again reiterated that time was of an essence and they were requesting a zone change to R-3-3,000 for the property in question. Chairman Wilson explained that the Commission wanted to get full public input from all the people in the area on the C.O.D. Specific Plan. Further, the purpose of the Study was to find out what the needs of the area were. Finally, the Commission did not want to move on the basis of false assump- tions. The consensus of the Commission was that they should move as fast as possible regarding the area in question but that they should get the benefit of additional public input. The Commission then discussed the area near 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon Road and the preservation of the date groves in this area. They also discussed a possible municipal golf course, densities in the area of the College, and drainage problems. � THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:04 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9: 12 P.M. B. CONSIDERATION OF TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION AND THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 25, 1977. Mr. Williams explained that the purpose of this joint study session was to review the classical organizational relationship of the two commissions. Further, the City Council had just recently created the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission which would act as an advisory board to the Council. Also, it was extremely important that the two commissions get together to develop the Master Plan of Parks for the City and that if the two commissions got together, the task would be simpler and the relationship would be better understood. Mr. Williams then discussed the role of the Parks & Recreation Commission in working with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District. He also told the Planning Commission that they would act as a "filter" for the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to the City Council. There was a short discussion regarding a possible joint meeting between the Planning Commission, the Parks & Recreation Commission and the City Council. Mr. Williams felt that ultimately this type of ineeting would be fine; however, the Parks and Recreation Commission was now in an orien- � tation period and the joint meeting for study session purposes should just be between the Planning ComQnission and the Parks & Recreation Commission, The Commission concurred and asked that the study session be placed first on the agenda for the meeting on April 25th. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Nine C. CITY OF INDIO'S EFFORTS AT ENERGY CONSERVATION EXEMPLIFIED BY THEIR ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECT. Mr. Williams explained that the lengthy documents which had been provided to the Commissioners in their packets were from the City of Indio and that they contained a logical approach to energy con- ' servation. Further, the documents were not complicated and staff " already utilized many of these criteria on a daily basis. :� < J `� W Chairman Wi_lson commented that this was a very serious subject and � something that we should be aware of and do some hard soul searching �, (� in order to do our fair share. � � Mr. Freed explained that this document had not been adopted as yet, � that the City of Indio would hold public hearings on the matter before � �.� adopting any Energy Conservation Building for New Residential Structures. Chairman Wilson suggested that after the C.O.D. Specific Plan was com- pleted, possibly staff could put this item on the Agenda again for further study and comments. The Commission concurred. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Non e XII. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams presented the new Development Plan for the property `�"" located at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon Road. He explained that this was an entirely different concept that what was originally planned. He gave a brief background of the project including description, zoning, number of units proposed, and amenities. He explained that the project was still short on open space require- ments. The overall reaction from the Commission was that this plan was certainly an improvement over the original plan. B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Mills initiated a discussion pertaining to changing the meeting times for the Planning Commission. There was a rather lengthy discussion pertaining to the proper times and the procedure for making the change. Mr. Williams told the Commission if they were in .agreement regarding changing the times for meetings, the matter would have to go to the � City Council. However, the Commission must be in complete agreement prior to the matter going before the Council. Chairman Wilson stated he would prefer night meetings but would go along with the other Commissioners if they felt a day meeting would be more suitable. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 19, 1977 Page Ten Commissioner Mills, by Minute Motion, moved that the Planning Co�nission change their meeting times as follows: The first meeting of the month to be held on Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. The second (middle) meeting of the month to be held on Wednesday at 2:00 p.rn. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Chairman Wilson commented that it was very interesting to receive �,,,, the minutes from the other planning commissions within the Coachella Valley. Further, we have a very competent staff as far as detail of our minutes is concerned and that the Planning Secretary should keep up the good work. Also, it would be nice if we could receive copies of the minutes from our adjacent cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells in order to share our ideas and philosophies through our minutes. Chairman Wilson then commented about the work presently being done by the Coachella Valley County Water District with regards to the installation of sewers on the south side of the City. He asked staff if the roads would be improved after the initial installation of the sewers or if they would just be patched. Mr. Williams stated that it would best to wait for an answer to this question until the City Engineer returned from an out-of-town trip. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mills moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. �r�. J IylA�� � � + r r PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: , ��-7 ���_� f..�:'�r-=�,� <�__ r�>� � _ � S,r'` OY WILS , C AIRMAN / �A DESE PLANNING COMMI�SION / mkj � . s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 233 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING ITS FINDINGS REGARD- ING MATERIALS FOR THE SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN BUILDING KNOWN AS CASE N0. 49C, AS SPECIFIED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 232. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission of the �"' City of Palm Desert, California, reconsider its requirements regarding signs and building materials as specified in Conditions No. 8 and No. 17, Case No. 49C, in Planning Commission Resolution No. 232; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did consider the applicant's request at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1977; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did find the following reasons do exist to approve the requested change of roof material: 1. The allowance of the roof material would not set a precedent; 2. The roof material is compatible with the community; 3. The decision regarding the signs was correct. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: � l. The above represents the true and correct findings in this matter; 2. That the Commission does hereby approve a request to modify Condition No. 17 as follows to allow the roof material as proposed by the applicant and the related iiavajo stucco color: 17. The stucco color of the building shall be navajo in color and the roof material shall be blue tile as proposed by the applicant. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of April, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, READING NOES: WILSON ABSENT: NONE 'i""' ABSTAIN: NONE _.__ _-•�, �� . <''�"<... �� ��'`•� ..^°'` `/ ."" , � ,�� r. S. RO W�I.S , CHAIRMAN ATTEST: •� '%j ��� ,� � � � �.� � PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION