HomeMy WebLinkAbout0328 1�ZINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - MARCH 28 , 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
Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. D2INUTES of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission
of March 15, 1978.
Mr. Williams noted the following correction to be made to
the minutes.
�
Page three, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, change
the word "Commission" to "Council" .
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly, the minutes were approved as corrected; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Williams noted that all communications would be covered with
the related cases during the public hearing portion of the agenda.
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Com-
mission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the
staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey
then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present .
�' A. Case No. TT 5553 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES , Applicant
�
;� Consideration of a request for approval of a Tentative
Tract Map to create 71 single-family residential lots
ran�ing in size from approximately 10, 000 sq. ft . to
30, 000 sq. ft . from a parcel approximately 27. 5 acres
in size located within the PR-7 (Planned Residential ,
maximum 7 du/acre) zone at Ironwood Country Club.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28 , 1978 Page Two
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case No. TT 5553 (Cont . )
Mr. Williams reviewed the case, reviewing a'�map showing the
size and locations of the lotsinvolved and noted that Portola would
be extended. Correspondence from Mr . Fred W. Griggs, President of
Silver Spur Ranchers Association �as pointed out and Mr . Williams
noted that the Association's concerns agree with most of the proposal �'
as it now exists. The Association is requesting 50 foot setbacks,
the Zoning requirements are 25 foot setbacks and the applicant has
agreed to 40 foot setbacks along Feather Trail and Birdie Way. A
petition received from the Silver Spur Ranch Tract 2521 homeowners
noting their concerns for the location of lots within their tract
` and the effect their Deed Restrictions should have on the project
with regard to the project being reviewed by their Architectural Re-
� ��view Board. Mr . Williams noted that the applicant is asking the
�,1.Planning Commission to now consider 40 ft . side yard setbacks on
��'�?�Ylots 61-70 and 50-52 instead of 25 as recommended by the R-1-15 ,000
`�'' zoning requirements, also the side yard setbacks will be wide enough
� '��` to allow vistas for adjacent homes. Mr. Williams then noted that
� '�� Staff is recommending approval without mention of the deed restric-
.� tions as these are civil matters and the City has no control over them.
In conclusion he reviewed the Special Conditions and passed out a
proposed revision to Special Condition No. 1 prepared by the appli-
cant (Exhibit A) noted that the frontyard setbacks will be effected
by the placement of the driveways .
Chairman Berkey addressed the deed restriction question and
referred to Mr. Williams discussion with the City Attorney concerning
the lawsuit invalving the County imposed 10, 000 sq. ft . minimum lot
size and asked if the City is bound by these restrictions. Mr. Wil-
liams stated that the County CUP states that lots on the parcel known �
as 'F' shall not be less than 10, 000 sq. ft .
Some discussion followed with regard ta the various setbacks
and the loaation of A Street . Mr. Williams noted that Staff is re-
commending 25 foot setbacks throughout the subdivision and the ap-
plicant is offering 40 feet . With regard to the lacation o� A Street
and the effect it will have on the lots if the street is widened,
there was some discussion about pulling A Street down which would
reduce the lots on the south side and increase the lots on the north
side . Mr . Williams stated that this was possible.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked
the applicant if he wished to speak at this time .
LARRY SPICER ., representing Silver Spur Associates,
75-855 Alta Mira„ Indian Wells, addressed the Commission
and noted that he had spoken with the Silver Spur
Ranchers Association and the Silver Spur Ranch Tract
2521 group and he had agreed to increase the rear yard
setbacks on Feather Trail . He also noted with regard
to the maximum building height of 16 feet an additional
foot might be required for drainage reasons.
Commissioner Kryder questioned the elevations on Birdie Way
and asked if they were higher . ,,,�
Mr. Spicer stated that the existing lots are 3 to 5
feet higher and the lots on Feather Trail are a
little higher .
Chairman Berkey asked if it was possible to move Street A
to increase and decrease the lot sizes in question.
Mr. Spicer stated that they may have to make an adjust-
ment on Street A and it would be considered as an
alternative.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Three
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case No . TT 5553 (Cont . )
Chairman Berk:�y asked if there was anyone wishing to speak
in FAVOR to the project . Being none, he asked if there was anyone
wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project .
� CLIFFORD MARGOLIS , 48-230 Birdie Way, President
Silver Spur Tract 2521 Homeowners, addressed the
Commission stated that his group wanted the plans
to be revised to conform with the existing C.C.&R' s
and deed restrictions.
EDWARD PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail , addressed
the Commission and stated that height is the only
real problem and he still wants the height to be
limited to 14 ft . He noted that n4r. Spicer has
said 16 ft . only on cer�ain lots where drainage
is a problem. He continued that he would like it
put in the approval which lots will have 16 ft .
and that the others will have 14 ft . He also
noted his concern for the size of the houses in
the project being compatible with the houses in
the area, which are 2 , 000 sq. ft . average.
EVE OWNBEY, 48-190 Birdie Way, addressed the Com-
mission stating that Ironwood had given a promise
to the present owners that their view of the
mountains would not be abstructed.
Commissioner Snyder asked Mr . Spicer if hE would agree with
�„ a minimum house size of 2 , 000 sq. ft . , he noted he would. Commissioner
Snyder also expressed his concern for the height limitations. Mr .
Spicer stated that the architectural design is very limited with a
14 ft . height limitation.
JOHN BELOU, Architect for the project addressed
the Commission stating that he would like some
latitude in design and that height limitations
inhibit quality design . Commissioner Kelly asked
if it was impossible for variety. Mr . Belou
not�d that different materials require different a
pitch. Commissioner Kelly noted that people have
moved to the area because of the view. Mr . Belou
indicated that it can be done but it places limi-
tations on the design.
Further discussion followed with regard to the height and Mr.
Williams suggested that 14 feet be used or 16 ft . as approved by the
Design Review Board. The Commission concurred.
THURSTON JORDAN, 48-161 Birdie Way, addressed the
Commission and noted his concern for the enforce-
ment of the deed restrictions on the lots involved.
Chairman Berkey stated that deed restrictions are not part of
"�' the City' s concern , they are a civil matter that attorneys would have
to handle.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission. He then asked for some discussion
on Special Condition No. l . Mr. Williams noted an addition of sub-
section d) which would read : The maximum building height shall be
limited to 14 ft . except that 16 ft . in height shall be allowed if
approved by the Design Review Board taking into consideration the pre-
servation of views from adjacent developments; and the addition of
subsection e) to read: The minimum house size shall be 2 , 000 sq . ft .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28 , 1978 Page Four
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case No. TT 5553 (Cont . )
At this time Chairman Berkey rea�ened the Public Hearing.
RUTH MARGARET FOLAN, 48-120 Birdie Way asked the
Commission that they consider 40 ft . setbacks
not 25 ft .
Mr. Spicer asked that the lots on Portola not be re-
stricted only those on the north side of A Street .
Commissioner Snyder suggested that a few lots be taken out
and do away with the proposed street east of Birdie Way. Mr. Spicer
noted this would be considered. Some discussion followed regarding
the 40 ft . setback requirement on A Street . Commissioner Kelly asked
that it be stated in the conditions that all the lots have 40 ft . set-
backs . Chairman Berkey noted the letter from Bud Engel , City Fire
Marshal , noting that he had been informed that the City was concluding
its deal for a fire station to be located west of the proposed tract .
The Commission requested that an additional condition be added that
no permits be issued until the fire station is operational . Commis-
sioner Kryder stated that it should be sufficient that the fire sta-
tion be in the process o� being built . There was some discussion
between the Commission and members of the audience about this developer
being penalized for the lack of a fire station when this is the City ' s
problem. Chairman Berkey stated that the City has an obligation to
people to give them fire protection , which is already needed, and not
to compound the issue by allowing this development to be started with-
out some fire protection. ;
Mr. Williams noted the changes in the Special Conditions .
�
No. 1 with its 5 subsections; No. 5 add : The additional width shall
be taken from the south of the proposed street ; and, the addition of
No. 13 regarding no �permits issued until the fire station is fully
operative. On a motion by Commissioner Kell.y, seconded by Commissioner
Reading, the Commission approved the case with the noted conditions
of approval by Planning Commission Resolution No . 344; carried unamious-
ly (5-0) .
B. Case No. TT 5564 - SILVE� SPUR ASSOCIATES, Applicant
Consider�tion of a request for approval of a Tentative
Tract to create 19 single-family residential lots on
approximately 16. 1 acres within the PR-7 (Planned Re-
sidential , maximum 7 du/acre) zone at Ironwood Country
Club .
Mr . Williams reviewed the case noting that the big issue is
flood control . He stated that the Director of Public Works feels
that the problem can be resolved by careful engineering. He noted
an amendment to Special Condition No. 1 regarding setbacks and
height limitations to read as follows : 1-a The front yard setback '
shall be 25 ' ; 1-b The rear yard setback shall be 20 ' ; 1-c The side
yard setback shall be 20' ; and, 1-d All proposed residences shall be =
single-story or 18' in height maximum , whichever is less. Commis- +�
sioner Kelly asked about bikeways, if a Special Condition is needed.
Mr. Williams noted it was covered already.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked
if the applicant wished to speak at this time .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Five
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
B. Case No. TT 5564 (Cont . )
LARRY SPICER, representing Silver Spur Associates ,
addressed the Commission noting that these homes
will be a limited edition of custom homes and the
lots will be landscaped by the individual owners .
� Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wha wished to speak
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project .
,�E�dE� PETE BATTIA, 49-425 JFK Trail , addressed the Com-
e�,,4���j��s�` 7i mission and said he was proud to have the Iron-
` 7� wood project in his area.
� 4�
� Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed ancl asked
for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kelly commended the
developer on such a fine project and stated that the City needs more
like this one . On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Com-
missioner Kryder the case was approved with the addition of Special
Condition No . 7 : Building permits shall not be issued for the improve-
ment of any of these lots until the proposed fire station is fully
operative; by Planning Commission Resolution No . 345; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
C. Case Nos . CUP 02-78 and 112MF, CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN
DIEGO, Applicant
Consideration of a request for approval of a Conditional
Use Permit and Preliminary Design Review to construct and
operate a 40 unit , church-related retirement center and
"""' related recreation structure on approximately 7. 96 acres
within the R-1 9, 000 (Single-farnily residential , minimum
9 , 000 sq . ft . site are) zone located on the west side of
Deep Canyon , north of 44th Avenue .
Mr . Williams reviewed the case noting that Deep Canyon would
be extended to the Parkview Estates project . If approved �.s institu-
tional the center would be used for retired priests of the diocese .
The Design Review Board suggested changes in the landscaping and the
church has agreed to the changes . "�'�°���'�����'�J"�''~�
..����� fI;'�N ��
Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any que�:��� -�:�x�' -
at this time. Commissioner Kelly asked if the Design Review Board
was not concerned with the flat roof or the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Williams stated that the DRB was not concerned with the flat roof
and the adjacent property owners had all been legally notified. Chair-
man Berkey asked that a condition be incorporated to limit the use
of the building. Mr. Williams stated that the Resolution could be
changed under the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED subsection 2 to read :
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is granted to the Catholic Bishop
of San Diego , solely for the purpose of construction and operation of a
church-related retirement certer and related recreation center.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if
�, the applicant wished to speak at this time . The applicant was not
present . He then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR
or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none he declared the
Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission .
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly the Case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 346;
carried unanimously (5-0) .
THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 8:40 P.M. Tf� NIEETING WAS REC�ONVF�V� AT 8:50 P.M.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Six
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. )
D. Case No . VAR 03-78 , DAVID FULLER, Applicant
Request for approval of a Variance from the require-
ments of Sec . 25. 68 . 190 and Sec . 25 . 68.230 of the x
Palm Desert Municipal Code regarding the size and �
height of signs in residential zones other than single-
family, pursuant to the procedures established for
the granting of exceptions in Sec . 25 . 68 . 730 of
the Municipal Code, regarding a sign at the Seibu
Apartments .
Mr . Williams reviewed the case and the Sign Moratorium and
noted a letter received from Mr. Fuller stating his reasons for
keeping the sign. Mr. Williams stated that Staff felt there was no
justification for keeping the sign. He further noted that Staff had
received no written correspondence, but had received one phone call
from the property owners across the street who indicated that they
did not want the sign as it is.
Chairman Berkey noted that the applicant feels that the sign
should remain as it was put in under County rule, but that Staff has
no record. Mr . Williams noted that this is correct but that signs
over 10 years have no life other than amortization . There was some
discussion as to what is allowed and how the size of a sign is deter-
mined. Mr. Williams stated that 50 sq. ft . is the maximum. Mr .
Walt Reynolds , Code Enforcement Officer stated that he had no way of
measuring the sign but that it appears to be more than 50 ft . sq.
and that it is above the height limit .
Chaixman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked
if the applicant wished to speak at this time . �
�
DAVID FULLER, owner of the Seibu Apartments spoke
to the Commission and passed out a pic�.ure of the
sign in question and also a petition (�hibit B) signed by
people in the area who do not object to the sign .
' Mr . Fuller further stated that the present sign
cannot be altered and it is part of the decor
of the apartments and a landmark for people who
are trying to locate that area of the City.
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the case. Being none, he declared the
Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission .
Commissioner �ryder suggested that the extra decoration on
the sign be removed and the height lowered. Commissioner Kelly
stated that you only really look at the sign not the extra decoration
attached to it .
Mr. Fuller stated that he would lose_ the decor
if the ornamental part of the sign is removed .
He also stated that the law is unfair to signs =a
that were put in prior to the code .
Commissioner Kryder stated again that there is a workable ,�
solution and the Commission will be testing the wisdom of the
Ordinance and that the Commission has to reaffirm its belief that
the Ordinance is right .
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly the Commission denied the request for a Variance by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 347; carried (3-2 AYES : Berkey, Kelly ,
Kryder ; NOES : Snyder; ABSTAIN: Reading) .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Seven
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
E. Case Nos. DP 04-78 and 114MF, SUNRISE COMPANY, Applicant
Consideration of a request for approval of a Develop-
ment Plan and Preliminary Design Review to provide
for approximately 460 condominium units, a nine hole
golf course, twelve swimming pools and accompanying
�,,,, therapy pools on approximately 155 acres within the
PR-4 , S .P , and PR-6, S.P. zones as an extension of
the previously approved 780 units, 18-hole golf and
tennis club development known as Desert Squire Country
Club .
Mr. Williams reviewed the case noting that there would be
a maximum of 41 tennis courts. He reviewed the Conditions of Ap-
proval and noted the Design Review Board condition .
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing opened and asked
if the applicant wished to speak at this time .
JACK CONLON, representing Sunrise Company, 42 , 000
Bob Hope Drive , addressed the Commission and noted
his agreement with the Conditions .
Chairman Berkey asked if anyone wished 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 Commission .
Commissioner Kelly asked why the traffic situation was not
discussed in the staff report and asked if it should be discussed now
or during the Tentative Tract . Mr. Williams stated that if the Com-
�,,,, missioners had any reservations they should be noted at this time.
Commissioner Kelly went on to say that there is already a traffic
problem and even if Monterey is reconstructed it will not alleviate
the entire problem as this new development will create more traffic .
Further she noted here reservations with regard to the access pro-
blems also. Commissioner Reading asked if anything was going to be
built in the Whitewater Wash. Mr. Williams replied t�at the golf
course would be in the wash. There was some discussion about the
pace for development of the project and the problem with having the
golf course in the wash.
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner
Kryder , the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Re-
solution No. 348; carried unanimously ( 5-0) .
F. Case No . TT 12202 , SUNRISE COn�PANY, Applicant
Consideration of a request for approval of a Tentative
Tract Map to divide approximately 155 acres within the
PR-4, S .P. and PR-6 , S .P. zones into 33 lots to provide
for approximately 460 condominium units, common recrea-
tion areas, water well sites and buffer areas on pro-
perty generally located east of Monterey Avenue and con-
tiguous to the south border of the proposed Desert
Squire Country Club.
�
Mr. Williams reviewed the case and the conditions noting that
the applicant would improve 2 of Magnesia Falls and improve the
median strip. Rancho Mirage has asked that a signal light be put in on the
corner of Clancy Lane and Monterey.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Eight
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
F. Case No . TT 12202 (Cont . )
There was some discussion with regard to access problems
onto n�onterey and perhaps the extension of San Pablo would relieve
some of the problem. P�r. Williams stated that the extension of
Magnesia Falls would help . Chairman Berkey stated that the exten- #
sion of both Magnesia Falls and San Pablo would be very helpful . „�
Commissioner Kelly stated that extending San Pablo is a good idea
but that it won ' t solve the problem as traffic in the area is al-
ready a problem. She further stated that the area is used by entire
valley. In conclusion she could not vote in favor of the projec.t
as traFfic is already a problem and that any more growth in the area
would only create worse problems. At this time Commissioner Kelly
stated that the felt the case should be continued until a traffic
study can be made . Chairman Berkey asked what the legal time limits
were. Mr . Williams stated that it is 50 days from time of date of
filing which would make April 24th the maximum time limit . Chair-
man Berkey stated that he would also like to see a traffic study done
which might also show some alternatives . Commissioner Kelly noted
that perhaps an effort might be made by Rancho Mirage to help solve
the problem. Mr . Williams stated that the case could be continued
to the April 18th meeting for further discussion on the issues of
concern .
Mr. Conlon stated that traffic and other concerns
have already been covered in the General Plan and
the project is in a zone with less density which
would create less traffic and there is no more
information available. He also noted that 85% of
the buyers are weekend residents.
, �
Commissioner Kelly stated that the trend is changing and that
people are staying year round and that Monterey has been a problem
and will continue to be a problem with regard to traffic and access-
ibility to the area in time of floods . Mr. Williams noted that under
the COD Area Specific Plan Magnesia Falls is proposed to be extended
to T,Ronterey wMich will be widened to 6 lanes from Highway 111 to
Interst�te 10. Commissioner Snyder stated that traffic is a problem
�hroughout the valley and that this project cannot be saddled with the
proble�ils of the valley. Mr. Conlon stated that they will do Magnesia
Falls but doesn' t feel that they should be burdened with San Pablo .
There was some further discussion regarding the fact that this could
be discussed during a joint meeting with the City Council and perhaps
having developers contribute to streets just as they do with street
lights . Chairman Berkey indicated that the Planning Commission is
not firm on the policy and they are concerned with whether not to
approve projects until the City finds funds to improve the roads or
ask the developer to improve the roads.
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder and seconded by Commissioner
Kelly the case was continued to the April 18th meeting; carried
unanimously (5-0) .
VII . OLD BUSINESS - None
�
VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None
IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS
A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at
their meeting of March 21 , 1978 .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 28, 1978 Page Nine
IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Cont . )
Mr . Cipriani reviewed Case No. 76C and noted that the Design Re-
view Boaxd had reviewed the case but had not approved the sign program.
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner
Snyder, the Commission approved the actions of the Design Review
Board by Planning Commission Resolution No. 349; carried unanimously
�
(5-0) .
X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None
XI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
XII . COMMENTS
A. City Staff
Mr. Williams advised the Commission of the next Desert
People United meeting which would be held at 7 : 30 p .m. on
March 29th at the Palm Desert Middle School .
B. City Attorney - Not present
C. Planning Commissioners
Commissioner Reading informed the Commission that this
would be his last meeting as he would be moving out of the
area. He noted his pleasure at working with such a fine
group of people and he would miss everyone . The Commission
�"" thanked Commissioner Reading for his time and noted their
displeasure at receiving his resignation. They all wished
him well in his new home.
Commissioner Kelly asked if there was going to be more
landscaping at Portola Del Sol than is in at this time.
Mr. Williams stated that there are some date palms being
stored at the back of the project that will be planted.
Commissioner Snyder commended Commissioner Reading
for his efforts.
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner
Reading the meeting was adjourned at 10 :25 p.m. ; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
�� '�`� l�-...-� _
PAUL A. W LLIAll2S, Secretary
ir..►
ATTEST:
�---
��r���
GEORGE B KEY, Chairman
/ks �
March 28, 1978 EXHIBIT A
REVISED SPECIAL CONDITION #1 FOR TRACT 5553
��.r
1 . a) The front yard setback on all lots shall be a
minimum of 20 ' . Except in those cases where a side
in garage is used the front yard setback may be
reduced to 16 ' .
b) The side yard setbacks shall be 12 ' on all lots
except lots 61 thzough 70 and, 50 through 52 where the
side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 15 ' .
c) The rear yard setback shall be 25 ' except lots
61 through 70 and 50 through 52 where the rear yard
setback shall be 40 ' .
�
�
March 28 a l��%8 EXHIBIT B
� f�
�,.�.• �
, . * �,;
������� � .
I �� �
� . , .
k
v ��
� , . „ ���;�:�;�
,t ., „
. �.. , .-�.�.. . ,
� _._..,� . .�. ��..,.
�
��
i _ � ._ ., a : .. _ �� .
.., i . ��; , �... . , . ..
,'bt< � �.��Y "d
5 �••
��.� .. .... .. .e.�r,-:..
.,�` ��;"� � .� .� �=`A �4
� � ��
�� ^v i� �� ._ F�
��, � � :� � _
.,
. - �
�ei�L. �pts, pa►� .� �esert� ca►� : .
I I
Sign Variance Request
Case No Var 03-78
Diseussion of Staff Recommendationss
l. The sign ordinance will not result in pr�ctical difficulty
or unnessary physical hardship consistent with the
ob�ective� of the ordin�.nce.
a. The sign as now desis�ned achieves a special design
effect or oriental decor. Sec. 25. 68. 730.
b. Th� �i�n is not detrimental to nelghborina businesses
or the community in general. Sec. 25. 68.7�0. See
resident�.l and. business owners �onfirmation
signature sheets. Sheet 2.
c. T�ze hards�i p comes to the owner in �eetinN the cost of
remova.l �.nd installation of a new code sign at a
cost of �1500.
2o There are no re�ognizable exceptional or extraorc�in�.r;�
cireumsta.nces or conditions apparent.
ao The extr�.ordir�ary circunstance to the oFmer is that the
sign nas become sometllinr� of a trademar� (speciel si�n
effect Sec. 25. 68. 730) for xeturning guests and
tenants, Qnd v�111 cause earning loss by loss of
potenti�l renters locatin, the Seibu by knowledge -
of the sign's architectural decor.
3. Compli�nce with the si�n ordinQnce by modifyin� the
existinF: si�n or. replr�clr� it would not alter th�
ar.chltPctural decor of the e.partment .
ao Dr�win�s 3 & 4 shows attempts in alternations of
the Seibu sign.
b. The cod.e and hei�ht limitation r��kes it impossible
to desj.gn � new desi�n to blend 1n with the
architectural decor th�t could. be seen r�ore than a
short dist�nce. Drawi:tig No. 5 shows the best si�n
th�.t could be made to meet the Palm Desert sign c�de,
which woizld h�.ve a poor. community ime.�e and not
� fit into the Seibu �partment decor.
Sign Vari�nce Hc�.uest•
. Case No. Var 03-7II
�.rr
Dat� of Present Existin� Sign
5ft�n P�rmit Obi:�.ined from County of Aiverside in 1963 or 1964.
All per�its of IO ye�rs or older are destroyed by
F3iverside x l�nning Dept - per Mr. Cha.rles Bushman.
See Imperial Sign Co. letter of Narch 21, 1978
which verifies 8�verside permit issued to
Seibu �pts.
To�:al S�n Area Is less than 4S sq. ft, Total Building linea.l
foot�.ge ad�acent to ria�ht-of�vray Sa.n Gorgonia is
212 ft. r"�.ximum alloktable per City Code
No. 26. 68-190 is 1 sq ft of si�n per linea.l foot of
frontage on San Gorgania or a maximum of 50 sq. f�.
Sign Li_�htinrt Intern�l and continuous fluorescent.
Si�n Colors Four ma�or colors with white b�se,
Hei�ht Height of sign 15 ft 8 inches to top of main
sign. Height to top of lis�htins� accessories
24 ft.
�
Sign clearance for pedestrians beneath sign ls 8 feet.
�
March 28, 1978 EXHIBIT B
���������� ( ��� .SV � Oo INC.
�3�m�i:.5a::d»::T i - '� i ( j ��.. � _ ....._��'1..i..i.'�..�
�.::. "
46120 CALHOUN STREET,INDIO,CALIF.922D1 Phones:IND�O 3473566 PALM SPRINGS 3256606
���. .v
�
March 21, 1978
Mr. Dave Fuller
Z�-150 SY�ac�ow Mauntain Drive
Paim DPserr, C�iifornia 92260
Ke: Sabu Apartment Sign
Dear Mr. Full�r:
Tmper�.al Sign Company, Inc. manufactured and i.nstalled
th� aba�re mention�d sign in I963 or 1964.
We 5up�lied the licensed engineerin� and the germit wt�s
secured at the County Ofiic�, which at th�t time was
lac�ted on High�aay 11I, Palm Desert. Mr. Harx•y Schmitz
was the �ead of Planni.rig and M.r. Charles Bushman was
�..►
instrument�Z in issuing the permit.
We had only a slight problem with the set-back as to zone
and being set on a corne� lot, but a permit was taken9
and I am willing to swear under oath to that fact if n�ed
be.
I� th�re a�e ar�y f�sr�he�° questlans z�sgarding this matter
please do not hesitate to contact me.
SincErely,
IMPFRIAL SiGN COMPANY, INC.
�`/l� I��li �
� �
Ra 1ph Eng Ie �
Pre s ident
F.�,�m 7 s
�..
The si�n loc��.ted at the Seibu Apartments , 4469� S�.n C�xlos Ave . ,
. Palm Deser�, Calif, ach�eves � special desi _qn effect of orienta.l
decor which m�tches the epert�ent house architecture, This
sign is in no way detrimental to neighborhood businesses or �
the cammunity in gPneralo
N�me Address Phane �
� J ��� � ?� `^`�S' /-�/'i�-G'(�C C�11 ._-7 r _ �
�/ � `� ��-� �S
-` ���!J ^
. ,�__. �..� __/��_�__._���-�-�-�--.'�..��2..����_��i
� - ___
7`� �� �/ p� � s�
' � � � r� ' i�� .�j i
� � �l � � L c� � i - �
- �� d" �/�?io l'�,,._,,��,�._ ��-. 1
....� . ...�,.�,�—���.�..� a ��-���'� �
�' �c,� - - v"" , ��,- � �-o .��iv u��O L �
� � � J � �." / � I
^--�t-�G��� 6 �c,
,��,�, ���",�, � y.�2�.�, � �
�� ��,;��" � s � � ._ �.�..,,�,: � ��
y }7L �fL f Ci:L-'/'� �
.�C��� ✓r��.�.� ,PiL �� �Y�7�° S�,y �f i' � 3`r� - G �s' / i
�?)t�is��'i r�Ns ���ri�r'�=,G..��� �
,��d,�.-�c t hcu c��s�ntj—. � �}-�-�l�t� �� 1�=bl v 34 6—��O I� i
f}/,�,��� ,/�w.��-`t( ,3 '�'r. _�� _l ,
� , ' �
�1-
�- ,�- -- c���G,� `{`l-:�,�� f��t ;%'�,6/� 3�6 -.s, �7
�L�-rn,�—��yLL��. I ^
1
��/� � !
� �' �:.��c.��'��?��-� !,�Gv��a � ��,G�,�, � �'y�. �� 7� �
��1�,�r- _f��r� . _._._.._._.__._.___.___.
l f � �d w,�s�.r.
�.,���. �/-4- �4/ S�� �P bLo � �y�,-�S��
� �� i
C�v-h.�. C�i.�-�4 �.'r-a - � _.___._ __�_�.
�`y'-o . f�.i ..�� c ��'c�� / lo��) �/�%.✓ / f��� i��7 � " Q�'��
�� I
--- -- .�s�
" __._.,__.
+ � ' 1 � - __.�_ ....._��__�_._.._ ___,...____.-�._.--_.__._.__. .-- . __;
l � ��'� �� �� f��f_��-.� �`� f,. %'� �; -� ,
�_��s..� �— '` ` ; �- �.�-L.-- � __._- �� :������
J ______�._=_
�` �,�f�'�/1� j L:�tis�-��
r .,
7 � /.
. ;
�
--`�� ..11_u_._`�%��.� �����-�-�`. � 3 YG � //� .
�.�..�. �__
r_� � , ___.... _.._._..�... ....�.
,�</Z�-d`-�1., E� � r-F�'-� I �,- '' , � � 7 ,' E _ i
. _ ��:� �� ��. � � _��' 'y.i
_,.�____�a�� �:���,
� ��--�,-- , _.___—_..._ _
�_l � �� � ���t-7� _._.:_.�5-s �� Ci�'�'j;;=�,,� l_'�� ; .� �f C � .� '� 5�
�r��_._ _��__..._.__.� ;
, � �, ----
��....)� �,.?j�.' �--..� i '���� C� C✓�7 /��-i l/e°?�/, l j �" l, � y � �
` f \� .�, f� �,/ Z�
L�2��` S� �1i�1;�\�,�_'��'�L l_��a ��,�_1��l� �, _����`c l� - �
,, � �-� I� :
� t'� ° ��.� �.n_e1.�c��___.__.—___ ______-----________...._.---__..___---------- -----f
� �.
S��l��f '�-
March 28, 1978 EXHIBIT B
r
The si�n loc�ted at the Seibu Ap�rtnents , 4�695 S�n C�rlos Ave. ,
P�lm D�sPrt� Calif. �chieves � speci��,l desi�n effect of orient�l
decor vrh� ch m�tches t'ne t�pFrtr�ent house �architecture. This
sign is in no ta�y detrir�ental to neighborhood buslnesses or
' the comr,;un1 ty in gener�l.
�, _.._..______ _. .._W_�_.___._,__.._
___'_._---___._. ____._......
........___..__ ----
__._..--__ _.
._.......�
�� Name �ddress Pllone
.�__.__..._._.____._._._ ..._..�._..... __�..�._.__�.._,,._..._..._._.______.._.�.,��_...........___.e._.��_.____ .... . ....._ ,.._. . .
-� � �L �� /� � �
- �:�r�����.....____,.. �___.. ._._...,,�__.._L...�U .-.�1���—C�.'JZ�,/'ll.��'��j � �-- ,— -� �
�°-� 7 �
..�� �' __.. __ _..-- �.�->.
-- --� �
- �-�--�----n.�-� _.��-� _._./
�
;
�� h�z, _����L�i ,�.__._____ _._.___..._.__._ � _�___.__ _;
� � � ,� � �{-�
;
t�' _" _ --.. --��._ ��__—�-_�_`��Jf_G_�__�� .,._;.._.r-�.�6-_ 6� /�
,
�jG L/JG'rz G�/!.2/Cfe%� � ;
. L
—,�- i ���'t�" ����� -�� C' `�� l-��__�_�/� �G ���� .
. �
;
__. . __ _ _...._._w.. � -- --
. . . . . _.___.._...____.... .__. .. _._.. __ _; _.__�.�_;
;��+-� �� � .
t
_. __ ____________�__�����. ��'��/�___.__________�`���� `�z ` �
; � 4___.. _. �_____.___.- .
,
� �/ � � ��� 7�� S��t� IQaSG-� i ��-' :
_ ____._.___._ , 3`��}��'��
___ _ .___._.__.___�..�..__._. _._________�__
�--�/_ > i '� ---- --- .__.._.._....__.____
1 _� �� i `�3 -`�� t� �l ! � ��
.... �._._���________. � _.._...___._—__�____..__.� �__.___.._��-_-! �' �l,- G� .�.__
A � J f�. � �__�.`
V��
S1 � V(� :_' � �r
� �
; : �
1 � ..� ��'�/21
>�� .__�.�..._ _ _L __.�_. ,.�..�t.�.._�__�_._�_ �__._.______' f��„�� �'_. _,,__..
/'_ !% I . s.. �� !`_�
, �j/�-i(/, !+'fi� ( C � � � ` � -- /
---- --. _ �:___.. ' �f y_�,�.�/� � /�/-i,LL=C. � � � '�:�C� �
_ . �
._____;_.....�_.---_._......_�.a.____.
....-..��..�,.�,�,c...�����, �_��v— /� f .�
� ' �``-�.��-Q--�X_ '� � c� l-l'-� ��
_ , _... . _. _. __. , -�--,_._.._..._ _.._ ._ .���:� z.�..
��`�'l � ,�'��iC� ' ��S S^ c��'������J' ' ; j�`
- - -- ___ ��__.'....__ �� ���% ,3 ,�
�. �� ��� __..�_.___...__
L« � � � '
�u�����_ .,3-�� l (L�~C� -� �__�_-___..__..�
� � �./�_._..��._.......... �_._ .. _..�..,�1�. .. .w... �..��.. �,��
f
�t �; ��� -YS�Goa„��,.��'�� ��.,r.i��� . 3�/G- �� �:S/.__
��TM.� z��r i o;c�� �- w.��._ � l._.w_ __u_..._ .�.__.._._.._ .._
' ��.�,� /7c-2 ) ?�`�s c -�7-�j%-�.- _����_ 3 C _-�-.-- ,
�e��� l � °��`�
���-��C �l! Ut4!t���2
.� 1...,.____.._ .,_
�.
_._.....__ __._.........�.._..___..� ,
' _..__.___........__--.,
, ���i� .�u�,�-�/r ----__-w..-_ ..._......__.__.�.. .
-�------------� ' �:�'j � �3-�9� /fwy 1�� � 3 y 6 gd��y
,,.,, �/�v%r�..� cl�- `� --------------_.._.� ` __._.�._____.. ..._......._
� �� � + �
. �� � � � �
� �i j��„�_ i �3--�' � -
��� � � ��_
� 3�'
___._ ,
__._ . �__ _ .._---______.__._�.
�_ _ --_ ...___...____.�.____._ .
_b+���'T 2
s�' '�`' t�
The sign loceted at the Sei�u AnC rtr��nts v 44�h9S SC.n C��rlos ave. ,
P�lm Desert , Calif, a.chieves � s�eci �,l desl�n effect �f orient�l
. decor w'�1ch m�tches the �p�rt�ent house arehltecture. This
sign i.s Sn no w�y d?trlr^ental to the neighborhoad busines�es or
the community in generQ.l. � �
N�me Address Phone i
� I
����s �>,✓ I`�✓ � rt,,
�.��:v � , ����� .�o � 1// �-� � �' °� �
���- ��
",_,-�.7- �-,y �3�Y a �6 h�w r l I/ �T� , 3 Y S"_ 026 S b
,(�/�t.,, r)�s�z2; ��ro P��;s �Nc
/.�... ;f' ; ' :y
� s � Y - '3�
�'�.�G,�//��� ���'�� �!/G'��� ��(�.' �� `
�
� � �+� ) �.-��(�!f ��.(��`3`� ' 7 /
� � � .� � �t ,.��C�C.Y���t�E--�G' L:- � ���l/
� ''C� t��-;� J-� V�� � "� �/� /�GS
.
� � /
f�' ��l�- i�C�/w '�.�� '�Z'�l���1�z.�,�. , -����Q1�f�'�
`--__� - (%� �
,
�' i, �; i',(� � . � � ���.�/,� i,/ �=-� ,,��� �
� , ,.f� �
i' �� ,1 (� �% � u �.w ��� � � - � ��
' �-/�-- �5�. .� � ��� - ���3
.� � . .�.. �
�
���-�� �.� �3��z� � U �-- �c� c� t�
�
, �, '�� -��, -, �� - � o ���.�� v'�'�-� �»..�
��L,,_ ��. � � .�-�� � � ��.. 1 r c �� (�- l�3
` J '` ! �tl_ �.�_3 .
� ,
�.,,�����_ ��� � �3—�� O �_ � `����l�/ 3
,—�-�. . %� `� �i
�� � ,�'?� 2'�'� �� ��//� /� �yU�/ .�34�L ��,z�
i,,..i �_ �' �.�'�it,
} � I
� ` " - �� c'� �
.�� 1��� _ ___t�� �.--�___-�---�- �
--�� -� • ��� �37
������ ,��.'!► � ���C,�e�ja� s
q r r.� ►+�° " � �f �c+� '�,��" 6 � yBf/�'✓ �� � � ��, 1�
'�r�a�...��::±� d _ b�.e� ���� � k
�
�•
March 28, 1978
EXHIBIT B
� a.
The sign located at the Seibu Ap�rtments, 44h95 5an C�xlos Ave. ,
Palm Desert� Calif. achieves b. special design effect of oriental
decor which matches the �partment house architecture . This
sign is in no we..y detrimental �o the neigrborhood businesses or
� the co�munity in genera?.
Name Address Phone
// �/ _
�j����� � � �/ �, )�
� � l�'����� �73 I 3 O ��'��'���'�'- �� � 3 ��� l� �
� �.��.��,�-�...� -
� ��� _� c
� - � �3--s� � .�.� -�
iar� o�i�ifinC g�n _ a n�
�
, � �.��,� l /� ;..� �' J/.���
� .;�. ,��� : ��$'"4u�.`�,s� .�5�►
..�� ��.. � . v�"L�S �
�
�