HomeMy WebLinkAbout0131 MINUTES
PALA�I DESERT PLANNING COMI�TISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 31 , 1978
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 Berkey at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall.
�
II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Reading
III . ROLL CALL
Present : Commissioner KELLY
Commissioner KRYDER
Commissioner READING
Commissioner SNYDER
Chairman BERKEY
Others
Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services
Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner
Clyde Beebe - Director of Public Works
Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. 11�INUTES of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission
of January 18, 1978.
�
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner
Reading, the minutes were approved as written; carried unanimously (5-0) .
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Williams noted that all written communications received
would be covered under the appropriate cases.
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Com-
mission had met in a Study Session for the purpose o� clarifying the
staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey
then explained the Public Hearings procedures to those present .
A. Case Nos. DP O1-78 and VAR O1-78, H114S GENERAL CORP . , Applicant
Request for approval of a Development Plan for a 44, 000
sq. ft . restaurant complex consisting of five sit-down
restaurant facilities and a related Variance to reduce
the number of parking spaces from the required 660 spaces
� to 536 spaces on an 8. 5 acre site located south of Highway
111, east of Painters Path and north of 44th Avenue .
Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and noted the graphic of the
development . He stated that the main concern of the staff was the
parking and he explained the reasoning for the Variance request . Chair-
man Berkey asked for further clarification of the reasoning behind the
Variance request . Mr. Williams noted the section of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code that covered the reasoning for a variance request (see
attached Exhibit A) . Chairman Berkey stated that he was concerned
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
January 31, 1978 Page Two
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case Nos. DP 01-78 and VAR O1-78 (Cont . )
Item B & C. Some discussion followed with regard to the Ordinance
being changed instead of asking for a Variance and the formula that
was used for determining the number of proposed parking spaces. �
Chairman Berkey opened the Fublic Hearing at this time and �
asked if the applicant wished to speak .
STEVE FLESHMAN, 74-133 El Paseo, representing HMS
General Corp. , addressed the Commission noting that
the parking was analyzed and figur�d �ith the same
formula that is used by restaurant developers . He
noted that with the valet park�ng service for all
restaurants and the joint usa�e proposal, the de-
ficiency in the parking should r.ot be a problem.
There �r�s some discussion as to the restaurants involved and
�the turn over if the restaurants were not succ�ssful . r�r. Fleshman
stated that the restaurants would sign a 35 year lease and that they
were all AAA national chain restat-_rants, if one went down the whole
chain would go down .
Chairman Berkey noted his reluctance to use the Variance as a
way of alievating the problem and noted that perhaps there was one too
many restaurants . Commissioner Reading asked i� perhaps some of the
landscaping could be omitted and more spaces provided that way. The
Commission agreed that the concept of the proposal is very attrac-
tive and will be an asset to the City especially since it will be
located at an entrance to the City. Mr. Fleshman noted the revenue �
that the proposed "restaurant row'' would generate for the City. ,�
There was �urther discussion as to whether Painters Path
could be used for parking. P��r. �Villiams stated that Painters Path
was E6 ft . wide and that there �ould be parking on one side with
no interference with the present businesses , which are day time
operations.
The Commission commended the app�icant on the landscaping and
the service area concept of the nroject noting that it would be an
asset to the community:
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone one wishing to speak
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none , he
declared the Public Hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Com-
mission.
It was moved by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner
Reading to approve Case Nos. DP O1-78 and VAR O1-78 by Planning Com-
mission Resolution No. 329. Commissioner Kelly asked that the Resolu-
tion be changed to note the fact that Painters Path could be used for
parking. Mr. Williams noted the following change to Resolution No .
329, under the 4th whereas, make a new subsection 3 to� read : That
unique circumstances dealing with the �act that Painters Path is �
presently intended for day-time usage of adjacent uses that are not �
open at night , exist . And, make the previous subsection 3, sub- �
section 4. The motion was carried unanimously (5-0) .
�` �
r �r �r � �r +�r �r � �rr wr vr +� �r v�r ir �r +�r �r+ � �r .r �r �rr +ir � +tr +rr � .� .�
�, -� �
��
�
_ � ' �� � � �
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
January 31 , 1978 Page Three
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
B. Case No. TT 11883, U S. LIFE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOC. ,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to
create 65 lots to provide for a condominium hotel,
? single-family residences and 57 condominium units
�r on approximately 17. 8 acres generally located be-
tween Highway 111 and Candlewood Street , west of
Palm Desert-Indian ZVells City Limit Line .
Mr. Williams reviewed the case and the conditions noting the
letter received from the Coachella Valley County Water District stat-
ing that a section west of the property might be used for a channel
and that the applicant and the City should be aware of this possibility.
Commissioner Snyder asked about the width of the frontage and
if it was in compliance. Mr. tiNilliams noted that the actual design
had been approved wh�n the development plan was considered. Commis-
sioner Snyder stated that the property adjacent is zoned R-1-10, 000.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if
the applicant wished to speak at this time.
FRANK GOODMAN, 77-900 Avenue of the States, addressed
the Commission and noted that the original plan had
called for 9 lots and this had been reduced. He re-
ferred to the Planning Commission meeting at which
the Development Plan had been discussed and approved.
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in
� FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposal . Being none, he declared the
Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission.
Mr. Williams noted that the lots across from the subject tract
vary in width but are all 88. 6 or 88. 2 feet and all are just under
90 feet . Commissioner Snyder stated that he would like to see all
lots increased in size but the applicant has complied with the zoning
designation.
On a motion by Commission Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kry-
der, the Commission approved Case No. TT 11883 by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 330; carried unanimously (5-0) .
C. Case No. TT 11881 , PHILIP ABRAMS CONSULTING ENGINEERS ,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to divide
a 6. 16 acre parcel into two parcels, one of which will
be further divided as a one-lot subdivision to provide
for 30 condominum units and common open space and recrea-
tion facilities on property located south of El Paseo ,
north of Shadow Mountain , between Lupine Lane and Sun
Lodge Lane.
�"' Mr. Williams reviewed the case and the conditions of approval
and noted that the main concern throughout the review of the project,
the numerous driveway openings onto the streets which border the pro-
ject , has been adequately addressed in the related CUP 17-77.
Chairman Berkey declared �h� Public Hearing open and asked if
the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
January 31 , 1978 Page Four
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
C. Case No. TT 11881 (Cont . )
TOM ESSEN, 431 S. Palm Canyon , representing Philip
Abrams Engineering, stated that he was impressed
witli the completeness of the Staff Peport and agreed
with it completely. �
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak �
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposal . Being none, he declared
the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commis-
sion.
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the Commission approved Case No. TT 11881 by Planning Com-
mission Resolution No. 331 ; carried unanimously (5-0) .
D. Case No. ZOA 01-78, INITIATED BY T�IE PA��M DESERT PLANNING
COMMISSION
Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
provide for the utilization of mobile homes as
housing for agriculture workers by Temporary Use
Permit .
Mr. Williams informed the Commission that the person desiring
this amendmenthad made other arrangements and had withdrawn his re-
quest. Mr. Williams suggested that the item be tabled at this time.
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner 'ff�
Kelly, Case No. ZOA O1-78 was tabled until such time that the Com- '�
mission requests its further consideration; carried unanimously �
(5-0) .
At this time Mr . Williams noted two items that had been in-
advertently omitted from the a�;enda, that the applicant had requested
be continued to the February 15th meeting, by a letter addressed to
the Planning Commission, notably Case Nos. CUP 18-77, 67C and PM
11796. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly, the Commission continued the cases to the February 15th meet-
ing; carried unanimously (5-0) . (See attached Exhibit B)
Mr. Williams also informed the Commission of the Council ' s
consideration of Case No. C/Z 12-77, Lewis Homes of Cali�ornia,
applicant at their meeting of January 26 , 1978. He noted the map
showing the Council ' s proposal . Since their proposal is different
that the recommendation of the Planning Commission , the case must be
re�erred back to the Planning Commission for further review and a
report must be reported back to the Council within 40 days. ARr.
Williams noted the alternatives the Commission could take, which _
are as follows :
1 . Reaffirm its previous recommendation of R-1-12 , 000 on the total
propert y. }
�
2 . Concur with the action of the City Council on this matter . �
3. Consider other alternatives.
There was some discussion with regard to when the case should
be discussed and when the Planning Commission makes their recommenda-
tion, can the City Council continue the case at their meeting. r,7r.
Williams noted that the City Council can continue the case and take
a second reading of the Ordinance .
�inutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
January 31 , 1978 Page Five
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
Commissioner Snyder stated that this needs the best jud�ement
and consideration of the Commission and that adequate time should be
taken to aehieve this. Commissioner Reading asked if the case was
continued to February 28th, then would it go before the City Council
on March 8th. Mr. Williams confirmed it would. The Commission felt
that continuing the case until February 28th, would delay the appli-
� cant unnecessarily. On a moti.on by Commission Snyder, seconded by
Commissioner Reading, Case No. C/Z 12-77 was continued to the February
15th meeting for further recommendation and study; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
VII . OLD BUSINESS - None
VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None
Chairman Berkey acknowledged the presence of Ted Hamilton from
the Indian LNells Planning Commission and asked if he wished to address
the Commission. Mr. Hamilton told the Commission that he had a draw-
ing that he would like to present to the Commission for their review,
of the proposed alternative routes for the Cove Communitites By-Pass
that had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr.
Hamilton displ�;yed the map and noted the various alternatives he pro-
posed as discussed at the previous meeting.
Chairman Berkey asked if the Staff would be ready with a report
at the February 15th Study Session. Mr . Williams noted that a Staff
report would be presented at that time and that Staff intends to review
the alternatives with the staff of the various other cities in the
i�,,, Cove area. Chairman Berkey stated that a time could be set at the
February 15th meeting for the next meeting of the all the cities to
discuss the issue further. Chairman Berkey invited Mr. Hamilton to
attend and thanked him for his presentation of the map .
IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITE1l7S
A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at
their meeting of January 24, 1978.
Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No. 71C, noting a concern with the
signs. The Sign Ordinance allows either a ground monument or fascia
moun�ed sign. Applicant prefers a fascia sign , staff has suggested
a ground monument . A,4r. Cipriani also noted the Design Review Boards
concern with the front architectural treatment . He noted that the
Commission will see the revised preliminary plans prio� to the final
plans.
Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No. 66MF, noting that the applicant
has complied with the conditions , specifically nos. 6 , 11 & 12.
On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly, the Commission approved the actions of the Design Review Board
at their meeting of January 24, 1978 by Planning Commission Resolution
�" No. 332; carried unanimously (5-0) .
X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None
XI . ORAL CO1I�MUNICATIONS - None
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
January 31 , 1978 Page Six
XII . COMMENTS
A. City Staff - None
B. City Attorney - Not present
C. Planning Commissioners
Commissioner Kelly asked if the secretary would forward
a thank you note to the Bob Hope Desert Classic , thanking
��em for the badges that the Commissioners had received.
��"��` ',
���„�� '� � Chairman Berkey asked why the Commission was not re-
����a�� ` iving Wheeler' s Desert Letter any longer. Mr. Williams
��..
:� stated that they would in the future.
�,�
� Commissioner Kelly asked about the future of a bikepath
on Highway 111. Mr. Williams stated that there is a proposed
path in the mid-block area that will end up in the Palms to
Pines Shopping center and involve the frontage road on High-
way 111 also it will connect with the path proposed in Rancho
�4irage connectinb with Parkview. This path will be a pedestrian/
bicycle path concept .
li4r. Beebe stated that he did not think there was sufficient
pavement on Painters Path �or parking on one side and two lanes
of traffic. Mr. Williams noted that there is presently a curb
on the Moller side of the road and that the road will be 44 ft .
when the curbs are put in on the other side .
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner
Snyder, the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 p.m. ; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
C;���� •
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
ATTEST:
� ��
��� �
�
GEORGE KEY, Chairm n �
/ks
E«�IIBIT A
25.78.050--25.78.070
'
3. A decrease of not nore than forty percent of the
required rear yard;
4. A decrease of not more than forty percent of the
distance required between the front property line and the
building line;
5. A decrease of not more than ten percent of the
required parking spaces;
6. An increase of not more than ten percent of the
permitted projection of steps, stair�oays, landings, eaves,
overhangs, masonry chimneys, and fireplaces, into any re-
quired front, rear, side or yard between buildings. (Ord.
� 99 §1(part) , 1975: Exhibit A §25.39-5.04) . .
25.78.050 Public hearing. The planning commission
shall hold a public hearing on an application for a variance.
The hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed in
Section 25.86.010. At a public hearing, the commission shall
review the application, statements, and drawings submitted
therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning
the variance, particularly with respect to the findings pre-
scribed in Section 25.78.010. No public hearing is required
for the consideration of an adjustment application. Public
hearing time and notice requirements shall be met as pro-
vided in Section 25.86.010. (Ord. 99 §1(part) , 1975: Ex-
hibit A §25.39-5.05) .
C25.78.060 Action of the planning commission or zoning
administrator. The commission or zoning administrator may
grant a variance or adjustment as the variance or adjustment
was applied for or in modified form, or the application may
be denied. A variance or adjustment may be granted for a
limited time period, or may be granted subject to conditions
as the commission or zoning administrator may prescribe.
(Ord. 99 §1(part) , 1975: Exhibit A §25.39-5.06) .
25.78.070 Findings. The planning commission or zoning
administrator may grant a variance or adjustment to a reg-
ulation prescribed by this title with respect to fences,
walls, hedges, screening, or landscaping; site area, width,
or depth; front, rear, or side yards; coverage, height of
structures; distances between structures, usable open space,
frontage on a public street, or other develooment standards
as the variance or adjustment was applied for or in modified
form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence
� submitted, the commission or zoning administrator makes find-
ings of fact that establish that the circumstances prescribed
in subsections A, B, C and D do apply:
A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforce-
� ment of the specified regulation would result in practical �
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title;
�_
456
---. I
25.78.080--25.'8.110
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinanvolveduor
C � stances or conditions applicable to the propert�
to the intended use of the property that do not aoply gen-
erally to other properties in the same zone;
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enflicant
�ment of the specified regulation would deprive the app
of privileges enjoyed by the� owners of other properties in
the same vicinity and zone;
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustnent �.aill
� not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. (Ord. 99 §1(part) , 1975: Exhibit A §2�.39-5.07) •
� 25,78,080 Appeals. A decision of the planning commis- �'
sion on a variance may be appealed to the city council. A
decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the
planning commission. (Ord. 99 §1(part) , 1975: Exhibit A
§25.39-5.08) .
25.78.090 Determination by citv council or plannina
commission. The city council or planning cor,unission shall
hol lic hearing on a variance or adjustment as pre-
scribed in Chapter 25.86 if an apoeal has been filed within
the prescribed fifteen-day appeal period. The decision c`_
the city council shall be final. (Ord. 99 §1(part) , 1975:
i Exhibit A §25.39-5.09) .
�_
25,78.100 Effective date of variance or adjustment.
A decision of the planning commission or zoning administra-
tor on a variance or adjustment shall be effective Lifteea
d�vS aftar ti�.o A=*..
..F ��.,. a--' _ . " �
EXHIBIT B
���a �
PLANNING & ARCHITECTURE
January 20, 1978
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Planning
City of Palm Desert '`
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92660
Re: Palm Desert Shopping Center
Highway 74 & Highway 111
Job No. 7679
Dear Paul: �
I would like this letter to serve as our formal request that �
our scheduled hearings at the Design Review Board on January
24th, and the Planning Commission on January 31st, be con-
tinued. It is my understanding that the next Design Review
Board meeting will be February 7th, and the next Planning Com-
mission meeting February 15th.
We are studying possible revisions to the submitted plan, and
this additional time should allow us the opportunity to com-
plete this work.
Should any other action on our part be required in requesting
this continuance, please contact me.
Respectf 1 ,
�
Ronald D. Roberts, AIA
;.�-
RDR:mlr � � � �, � �, � �
cc : Bill Hughes �
J/ii�� � ,', 1n .>^
s., c%
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
. MEMBEFS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE 440 UPAS STREET SAN DIEGO CALIFOPNIA 92103 PO 6UX 33326 Tc�714 29'G731