HomeMy WebLinkAbout0503 b4INUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY - MAY 3, 1979
? : 00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I . CALL TO ORDER
The specially scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission was called to order at ? : 00 �.m.by Chairman Snyder, in the
City Hall Council Chambers.
� II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Fleshman
III . ROLL CALL
Members Commissioner Berkey
Present : Commissioner Fleshman
Commissioner Kryder
Chairman Snyder
Others Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services
Present : Murrel Crump - Principal Planner
Stan Sawa - Associate Planner
Susan Schw�.rtz - Planning Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF b�INUTES
A. Minutes of regular meeting of April 18, 1979
Mr. Williams noted the following corrections :
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, last phrase should read: "if the
comments are related to aesthetics. "
�rr
Page 3, last paragraph in Item IX, after "were approved" ,
add: "by Planning Commission Resolution No. 480" .
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the minutes of April 18, 1979 were approved as amended;
carried unanimously (4-0) .
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. CUP 03-79 - JACK WISE, Applicant
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
a racquetball and health club on property located on the
north side of Alessandro Drive, west of DeAnza Way on
Lots 6 & 7, Palma Village Unit #3 .
Mr. Crump presentzd the case, relating a few of the conditions
of approval, which include fixing the time of operations, and
restricting it to a strictly private club.
� Mr. Williams noted a letter rece.ived from a property owner
directly across from the subject property, in which he stated his
opposition to the proposal, in that this would be to the detriment
of the surrounding residential area to convert residential into
commercial for business purposes.
Chairman Snyder then asked if the applicant wished to make a
presentation.
RICK HOLDEN, Architect for the project , wished to note
that he was available for any questions.
Minutes Page Two
Palm Dese�t Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI . A. (cont . )
Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this pro-
posal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and
asked for the pleasure of the Commission.
Commission Berkey commented that this is a permitted use in
the R-3 zone, and the project seemed well-designed to mitigate any
problems that may be created, and made a motion to approve, seconded
by Commissioner Kryder, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution
No. 481 as presented; carried unanimously.
�
B. Case No. DP 05-79 - GERALD J. CHAZEN, Applicant
Request for approval of a Development Plan for a planned
conimercial development on approximately 7. 9 acres within
the P.C. (3) , S .P. zone at the westerly side of Palms to
Pines shopping area, between El Paseo and Highway 111 .
Mr. Crump presented the staff report, noting tha,t ma,jor �onsiderations
for this project would include the method of screening; the handling
of the loading dock for purposes of noise; and circulation to the
site and within the site boundaries. He then related that the proposal,
while conceptually acceptable, contains elements that need restudy.
These elements include the loading area and driveway on El Paseo;
on-site improvements including parking, aisles and landscaping; and
architectural design and configuration.
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners at
this time, and the applicant was not present , so Chairman Snyder
declared the Public Hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak
in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal .
PETER TORrlAY, 811 Sandpiper, did not necessarily wish to
speak for or against proposal, but would like to pose a
�r question regarding traffic. What would the flow of
traffic be on El Paseo; are there traffic lights planned
for this area? He has talked to others in the area that
are concerned about the traffic flow when the project
is completed.
Mr. Williams answered that a signal is scheduled for `
installation at El Paseo and Highway 111 for next year. A signal
is being planned for El Paseo and Highway 74 and should be constructed
this .year; it is the Number 1 priority in signals. In terms of
access on E1 Paseo, the applicant has taken advantage of the openings
of Sandpipe�•, and the problem with this entry is it would appear
that all a�.cess would have to come from the east and therefore
there would be a tendency to park along El Paseo. Some adjustment
should resolve that problem. Other access points - they are providing
a second entrance and exit from Highway 111. It would be right-
turn in and out only. Those are the four major points of access to
this phase of the project . �
JOHN TROPAY, 12C Sandpiper, wondered if consideration
could be given to some kind of limitation to tonnage of
trucks on El Paseo. If limitations of tonnage would
have to come in and out on Highway 111 , it would make
quite a difference on El Paseo.
�,,, Mr. Williams commented that the loading dock location may be
wrong in terms of the impacts on El Paseo.
It was also suggested that perhaps a time restriction could
be enforced, as trucks sometimes rumble through in the early morning
hours.
Chairman Snyder stated that a determination will be made as
to whether there is a vehicle code or lirnitations on hours we could
establish; we may need a City ordinance. He assured that the request
would be investigated by Staff.
�� 3 .�•c�W�on by Co�missic��er :�r���e�, s�ccanded bg C�j.�issi�ner
�er��,, �,::�Q =��.�.�e a;as eantinued +o ��:� Pla�n��g �a�nmission meeting of
'�ar ?�, 19�Q, carried unar.imousZy {4-Oj .
Minutes Page Three
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI . (cont . )
C. Case No. VAR 03-79 - DANIEL L. DWORSKEY, FAIA for
COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN, Applicant
Request for approval for an exception to the Sign
Ordinance to allow an additional identification sign
next to the south entrance of their building now under
construction at the southwest corner of Highway 111
and Highway 74 .
Nir. Crump presented the request , and stated that , upon reviewing
� all of the applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance, realizing their
full impartance and intent , Staff could not recommend granting an
exception to increase the number of signs already permitted by the
Ordinance. It would appear that there already exists a permitted
method of gaining identification for the south side of their building
by means of a pedestrian sign; therefore, Staff recommends denial
of the request .
Mr. Williams advised that two letters to the Planning-�ommission
had been received, stating opposition to an exception to the Sigr�
Ordinance in this instance, from: Hamilton P, and Millicent S. Lawrence,
and Mrs. Jean C. Lane. Sa.id letters are attached hereto and made a
part hereof, as Exhibit 'A' .
At that point , a member of the audience presented the Commission
with a petition from various property owners in Sandpiper stating their
oppositian to the requested sign for the south side of subject building.
Said petition is attached hereto and made a part hereof, as Exhibit 'B' .
Commission Berkey asked for a description of a 'pedestrian sign ' .
Mr. Crump answered that it is used where the main identification sign
is not visible to pedestrians.
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, and asked if
�r the applicant wished to make a presentation .
ROBERT COFFEE of Daniel Dworskey & Assoc. stated that due
to the unique situation of the building site, they have
found it necessary to seek this Variance. There are two
banks in the shopping center at the westerly end, and the
suhject site is somewhat isolated. Their main concern is �
that when turning into shopping area with four other
buildings under construction, they need an orientation
to motorists to turn in to their site; this is essentially
a matter of directing customers. A pedestrian sign would
work well if the building was up against a pedestrian
area, but it is not . The three other signs can only be
read from the side you are facing.
MGE KUDLER, Director, Columbia Savings and Loan
Association, stated that essentially, Mr. Coffee nas
indicated what their particular problems are. They feel
they are quite serious if they cannot get a sign on the
south side of the building. As you drive in to the subject
site, you are in a tunnel situation because there are
buildings on both sides. The sign cannot be seen from
Sandpiper; it can only be seen from across the street
from the entrance there. The sign should not be able to
be seen from any residential area. Again, you cannot see
"�"'� two signs from one side; you can only see each sign head on.
The Code did not take two different parking areas into
consideration. He then named two other banks whc have
signs on all sides of their parking lots. They are seeking
this Variance as a necessity. He then asked for the reasons
p�titioners objected, and Mr. Crump presented the letters
and petition to Mr. Kudler.
Commissioner Kryder noted that the two other signs are
plastic face illuminated signs. He asked Mr. Kudler, if this Variance
were granted for the sign facing south, would they be willing to
consider ;r vatisfactory if rhat �ne �ere not i�luminated.
Minutes Page Four
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1975
VI . C. (cont . )
Mr. Kudler conceded that they might consider that . They need
the sign as a first priority.
Chairman Snyder then asked if anyone present wished to speak
in FAVOR or OPFOSITION to this request .
JOHN TROPAY, 12C Sandpiper, asked if the sign was �oing to be at
the entrance off El Paseo, and was told that the sign would be on the
�uilding.
MRS. ROBERT HAYES, 18B Sandpiper, stated that she can see the
� sign on El Paseo from Sandpiper. She is sympathetic to the
business concerns, but feels that when a commercial building
is near a residential area, these things must be considered.
Mr. Kudler used the site plan to show where the sign is in
relation to the street . The building is lower in elevation
than residential areas, and he does not feel it can be seen
in residential areas. The sign should be readable at only
700' visibility. The colors are very dark dull red on grey
background.
Chairman Snyder asked if the persons speaking in opposition to
the request fully understand, now. The problem is that the City has
created a Sign Ordinance to keep City from becoming garish by signs.
They attempt to make all business comply with the Ordinance.
DORIS EDDY, 14A Sandpiper, noted that she is the first unit
after you enter off E1 Paseo. She does understand the request
more fully now. She was not fully aware of what they were
attempting. She had thought they were seeking a variance to
place a sign on the sidewalk area immedately beginning at
the parking lot . However, she would strongly object to an
illuminated sign.
�r. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Kryder would question the need for illuminating
the sign, also, since it is strictly for identification purposes.
That would be a condition he would suggest .
Commissioner Berkey agreed that the proposal is very low key.
The sign consists of just one color block letters which are very
unobtrusive and blend nicely with the building. He does agree that
the sign should not be illuminated, and felt that some consideration
should be given to the possible reduction in size of letters of sign
on that side of the building.
Chairman Snyder commented that some erroneous conclusions
were created as to where the sign would be located. If Commissioners
agree to make the condition of the south sign unilluminated, that
should eliminate objections from Sandpiper residents.
Discussion followed about the size of the letters of the subject
sign, and it was concluded to also include a condition to reduce the
size of the letters to 12" .
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Berkey, the exception was approved, subject to a maximum of 12" high
'` letters, and that said sign shall not be illuminated; carried unanimously;
� (4-0) .
THERE WAS A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8 : 30 P.M.
D. Case No. C/Z 0�-79 - WAYNE O. AN'D MARIE HUTCHESON,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1
(Single-Family Residential) to C-1 (General Commercial)
for property containing approximately 10, 000 sq. ft .
' located at the northeast corner of Lantana Avenue and
Larrea Street .
Minutes Page Five
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3 , 1979
VI . D. (cont . )
Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that the primary orientation
of the subject dwelling is to Larrea Street and other single-family
uses; however, offices of the HMS Plaza abut the property to the rear,
separated by a masonry wall and screen planting. The subject
property may be viewed as either the end of the commercial area or
the beginning of the residential use area. A determination of which
it actually is would be logically based on the orientation of the
use, rather than the fact that it is adjacent to one use or the other
use. The applicant ' s request is simply a Change of Zone to allow
some undescribed future commercial use of the site. Therefore, the
� proposed Change of Zone, as it is presently constituted, is not deemed
necessary or desirable to implement the City General Plan, and Staff
recommends denial of the request .
Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a
presentation.
WAYNE HUTCHESON stated that he cannot see why it would be
denied when commercial uses surround him. The dental
building is directly west , HMS is on the north, and his
property is on the northeast corner of Lantana and Larrea.
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request .
JOHNNIE BASH, 45-466 Garden Square, stated that since the
all new office buildings are occupied on Lantana, west of
the proposal, the traffic has increased greatly. There
have been near traffic accidents at the junction of Lantana
and Larrea, as it seems that nobody is sure who has the right
of way. He suggested consideration be given to a stop
sign there. If this request for Change of Zone is granted,
the other three houses on that corner will immediately ask
for a Change of Zone also, and could not then be denied.
� If offices were built on these lots, there would be a huge
increase in traffic around Garden Square. There are
many children and animals in Garden Square who have been in
the habit cf playing on the street for years in comparative
safety. In his opinion, there is no need to increase C-l .
Those four houses offer a definite buffer and keep the
neighborhood a completely residential one.
The following persons also spoke in opposition to this request ,
generally for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Bash of increased traffic
in the area:
CHUCK SHADENST, 45-496 Garden Square
PETER CANE, 45-411 Garden Square
Chairman Snyder then offered to allow the applicant to make a
rebuttal.
BOB HUTCHESON stated he does not believe the Change of Zone
would affect Garden Square at all . The traffic problEm could
be niitigated by a stop sign or light at Lantana and Larrea.
,
� that is all that would be needed.
�.r Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Kryder noted that a Change of Zone is a rather
serious matter, and changing the zone for some unspecified future
use is not particularly desirable. He does not feel it is warranted.
Commissioner Berkey concurred with this statement , and that
without further justification for a proposed use that could be
mitigated by a design, and the absense of any plan, this request
seems premature.
Minutes Page Six
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI . D. (cont . )
Commissioner Fleshman also concurred. Without a development
plan to see how the access would work, he does not see how a Change of
Zone could be granted at this time.
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Fleshman, the case was denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 483;
carried unanimously (4-0) .
E. Case No. CUP 02-79 and VAR 02-79 - DELOS H. BOBO, Applicant
� Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate
a restaurant and a related Parking Variance in the San
Pablo Village project on the east side of San Pablo Avenue,
between E1 Paseo and Highway 111 , within the C-1, S .P. zone.
Mr. Crump presented the case, noting tv� changes in the draft Resolution
presented; the square footage of the restaurant should read 1 , 510 sq. ft .
and the Assessor ' s Parcel Number should read 627-211-009-2. He also
noted that assuming that the proposed restaurant would attract most of
its clientele from people already shopping in the area or working in
the area, it would appear that no major parking problems would result
in granting this parking variance.
Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a
presentation.
DELOS BOB, 73200 Tumbleweed Lane, described the proposed
restaurant operation as a gourmet shop of fine selected
meats and cheeses. There will only be approximately three
tables, as 95% of the business will be carry-out . It is
more a retail operation than a restaurant .
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request .
� There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission .
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 484,
witr. changes noted; carried unanimously (4-0) .
F. Case No. CUP 16-78 (Amendment) - C. G. DUNHAM for
DON DRYSDALE, Applicant
Request for approval of a modification to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant
in the El Paseo Village project , and a related Parking
Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from
38 spaces required by the Municipal Code to 22 spaces
on property located on the south side of El Paseo,
between Sun Lodge Lane and Lupine Lane, within the
C-1, S .P. zone.
Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that Staff feels that
the request for an expanded restaurant will be acceptable, and that
during the times of highest deniand for parking of restaurant patrans,
the majority of the retail stores should be closed and should not
present a parking problem.
�""' Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make
a presentation .
GARY LOHMAN, 73210 E1 Paseo, wished to clarify one point . He
has requested a change in the name of the actual people
leasing the restaurant from C. E. Dunham. When acquiring a
tenant to operate a restuarant , you are dealing with certain
constraints. That is primarily why they are asking for
additional space.
Minutes Page Seven
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI . E. (cont . )
It was also
noted that the original size of the restaurant was somewhat
restrictive for the particular operation they have in mind,
as they are serving dinner and cocktails, and would like to
have an additional room for customers who wish to be �away
from the bar area. They also reiterated the fact that
most of the other shops in the complex will he closed after
5 p.m. , so the restaurant should not create a parking
problen, for dinner patrons.
� Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request .
There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission.
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 485,
as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) .
G. Case No. DP 03-79 (continued case) - JAMES E . KAUL,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan
to allow 36 condominium units on approximately 7. 5 acres
within the FR-5 zone on the south sid� of Country
Club Drive, between Monterey and Portola Avenues.
Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that the subject
application was continued from the April 3 , 1979 Planning Commission
meeting for redesign addressing six major items. Three subjects
are still somewhat unresolved: the entrance design; wind/blowsand
protection planting; and the alternate emergency access. The issues
that remain could be left for resolution at the Design Review Board
stage, but they appear to be critical to a decision of whether the
�+ proposed development can be accommodated on the site. Therefore,
Staff would recommend continuing the case to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 29 for one additional opportunity to rework the
preliminary Development Plan .
Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a
presentation. �
MIKE GESLER, Architect for the project and NEIL MORRISON,
Engineer for the project , discuss�d each of these design
concerns with the Commission and Staff , stating that they
would like to see the project approved at this meeting, as
they feel all concerns can be met .
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request .
There being none, he asked for the pleasure of the Commission.
Commissioner Fleshman stated that he could understand the
architect ' s problem with time, but he would like to see a little more
concrete evidence of the precise handling of these concerns.
Chairman Snyder asked if the project could be approved with
conditions that these items be worked out - the entrance design and
' the established protection planting area.
�r�,.
Commissioner Kryder stated that he would be in favor of
approving the case at this meeting.
Mr. Williams then suggested continuation of this case to the
May 16 Planning Commission meeting,
Commissioner Berkey agreed and made a motion for continuation
to May 16, seconded by Commissioner Kryder ; carried unanimously (4-0) .
Minutes Page Eight
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI . H. Case No. PM 14625 - SIEGEL ENTEftPRISES , Applicant
Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide
?7 net acres into two parcels upon annexation; proposing
one parcel to contain approximately 9 acres in the P.C. -2,
S .P. (U.A. ) (Planned Commercial, District , Scenic
Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone, and the other
parcel to contain approximately 66. 5 acres in the PR-4,
S.P. (U.A. ) (Planned Residential, max. 4 d.u. /ac. , Scenic
Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone and approximately
1. 5 acres in the P (U.A. ) (Public/Institutional , Upon
Annexation) zone, located south and east of the intersection
� of Country Club Drive and Cook Street .
Mr . Crump nresented the case, noting that the proposed Parcel
Map seeks to separate the approved commercial zoned property (Parcel
No. 1) from the balance of the Development Plan area. There appears to
be no problems in defining this area separately, as long as the site
development continues to be tied to the larger area in terms of im-
provements and design. Staff would, therefore, recommend approval of
this case.
Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a
presentation.
IRWIN SIEGEL, Encino, California, questioned Condition of
Approval No. 4, stating that the configuration of
proposed Parcel No. 1 daes relfect the same as that
approved in Case No. C/Z 12-78 . He requested that this
particular condition be deleted, as it is not applicable.
After some discussion between Mr . Siegel and the Commission
and Staff , it was agreed that Condition No . 4 should be deleted.
The Commission also discussed with the applicant the merits of
�,,,, defining the P (U.A. ) zoned area as a separate parcel .
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request .
There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission. --
On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman , seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution
No. 486, su�ject to the deletion of Condition No. 4; carried
unanimously (4-0) .
I . Case No. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D. ,
S .P. (Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u. /ac. , Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation
Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. /ac . ,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) ; PR-1, D. to PR-5; and
PR-7, D. to PR-5 on approximately 101 . 5 acres; and related
Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a
- combination of single-family, duplex and townhouses on
approximately 179. 5 acres of land, generally located on the
� east side of Highway 74, north and south of the existing
flood control dike, extending south to the southern
City limits.
Commissioner Fleshman left the Council Chambers at this time,
due to a conflict of interest .
Mr. Crump presented the case, relating the details of the
project . He then noted that , subject to the resolution of the
design questions noted in the Staff Report at the Design Review stage,
the proposal would appear acceptable, and Staff would recommend approval .
+g +hA r±+�. �'��:cil .
Minutes Page Nine
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI , I . (cont . )
Mr. Crump then noted that the applicant had expressed a wish
• for a change in wording on Standard Condition Nos. 4 and 13 , and also
has a question on Special Condition No. 2 and 4a. No. 4 cites the
maximum time for the validity of this approval, and No. 13 restricts
development of the site prior to a tract map. Staff would be amenable
to change of both of these conditions - No. 4 would specify 1989 as
date project should be completed; and No. 13 would add "No residential
dEvelopment" .
� Chairman Snyder then asked if the applicant wished to make a
presentation.
JOHN BALLEW, Ballew/McFalrand stated his agreement with the
wording changes for Conditions as stated above, and noted that he had
an additional question on Special Condition Nos. 2 and 4a. No. 2 cites
a "solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74" , and Mr. Ballew
asked for some latitude in the design of wall . Mr. Williams suggested
to add, after "perimeter" - "except where it abuts other portions of
Iranwood" , and also to delete the word "solid" .
Regarding No. 4a, Mr. Ballew related that theq could solve
most of the 4-wav intersections, but would like the latitude of
introducing 4-ways at points where it creates other design problems. .
It was agreed to add "wherever possible" to Special Condition
No. 4a.
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request .
There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commission
�,,,,, Kryder, the case was approved, with the changes noted to Standard
Conditions 4 and 13, and Special Canditions 2 and 4a, by adopting
Planning Commission Resolution NO. 487; carried 3-0-1 (AYES : Berkey,
Kryder, Snyder, ABSTAIN: Fleshman) .
Commissioner Fleshman re-entered the Chambers at this time.
VII . OLD BUSINESS - None
VIII . NEW BUSINESS
A. Request for comments from Riverside County Planning Depart-
ment regarding Change of Zone Case No. 2842, R-2-4000 to I-P.
Mr. Williams reviewed the proposal with the Commission, and
it was unanimously decided to direct Mr. Williams to notify the
County Planning Department of the City' s opposition to this request ,
for the reason that the requested Industrial Zone district does
not ap�ear compatible to the adjacent residential subdivision.
� IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS
Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board
at their April 24 , 1973 meeting.
Mr. Crump reviewed the cases (Case Nos. 101 C; 171 MF; and
172 MF) . There were no additional conditions or comments by the
Commissioners for these cases.
On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the actions of the Design ReviEw Board at their April 24, 1979
meeting were approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 488;
�,arr��a uLa���ausiy (4-0} .
Minutes Page Ten
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
XI . COMMENTS
A. City Staff - None
B. City Attorney - Not present
�rr
C. Planning Commissioners - None
XII . ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, the meeting was
adjourned at 10: 30 p.m. ; carried unanimously .
c�..�.��� ����.,�
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
ATTEST:
�� �.�
r
WALTER SNYDER, Chair n
/ss
�
+��r
EXHIBIT 'A '
� � � �'� ` `:i�- �
� .� � � � -:�'S" ,�,�. f�.�. �
-� -�
� f�-�,,,� .:tS-.��,_ ��, C,�.G�,'�-z::�..�.
("�F r�-� �' �":� �`����
i�.,;,ti�y. �� e�. '� � �
EN�JtF:C��:1��i'�ii.RL 3ERViCES
�!a Y OF I�A�l4i DES�RT
� �
; _, ,
- l,��-w z,��.�.���_,->.,<-
�'�%ti-,-,-,i :r.!oz..:�<_' i-� ✓.(���z,-,.-,-t .•.,1'
,
' � •.'�_.� . , `. «.
,,, �.G ,��,«_,C.t,� ,2..-,�-.�e.. ; . << z._� ;�
16<��_
y,. - � , . -
�i�;2-c�� �7 z,•��. . �` ,c c.-��z.�-��-,- °�� ,
�- �:,�-.-�1--
> fi .,z,
�..,,.�,l-c-t. � -
� /C�,�. .�l'L,,, �z�"L -�'{ ,f
( i
`� �,�..:�-G t..z
....-i:i �-I__e�.=�.-.[:..t-;:.�-� ,n.� ,AiY--�»--✓ _'''l" .
if_�Go"i�.-% /C.✓''v:��� - , /
� , _ s,.�_�.� r-.t z,�
� ✓�_rr-L-��- ,L�_-.t�,c:, 1�r ,�.r c a �..yC �,.�-,.,:,.
r� i
.
.�r_:7_.,�.2�-.....ac.�-,,,.-Z.-�i /�-"'-�.�t-c-�2�;�,.�.c� j�,c.-°� _
�.G t.L-C�..�� .t_,ry,,-,/ d� . �
%' ' -
. �+ - �. -i;���f L-'Y-`� �
'"" /G��-t'% C./` 4 !��-'•�-t✓,� .�L,.
(�e.,-s..t.,a._-:..e r� ,��-��i '
i/ /
�C L�-t.-�-'ti-'. �; . ��,' ,�:� 7'��
L; �„�_�� �'.c..� � -t �--.�,-��_""
•.,y`r-z,�.,� _
- ;rl->��,.-,-:__.�..� �'_�
_ za ,_'�--c_�ci
,'"f f�2 �z
� /
�...iJ ...c � �'L_.��{� c�G�:-�/ <.
.��. l 1� �✓.�c-,�'
:�/�-�n-,.- /i,.Z, _ u.%t +f � -.ki� ,�c -�%��.�v �'_- �
y
� /' �
�1 J _ C/-C ' �
�-- / ���,�-�--.�-
�ayy��y.�., �o' �l y ,..�_� a��i..w�� C �:_,._-..c�C--.-.'����..�lL.� , .t-/1`
�
� `. '
� , � �
1 . , - L�+7- =�. � ;
�
w=':%l,-ti..J"z^..._��/ �. � ��_.. ,�4`-_y,.,-..� ,��.,ti.y,.-zv �'C. .
� ,
. � _ �/�.x:'� .: �:,.E' _�.-.�-�.
>���� .t' �-. � �,r.�
.,i,,f,�.: ��.L.r-�L��.�_.- � /L�c.- ...-� �-
, - '
�� . .���,��� ,.:,c�i
.��.'i�1--i_��G'"�//r'-�i.�?-t.���/ .�_� ,.C��s�-,G-''��'2�4.�,�„r_;��.� �
Z"..
�/, � ;
.C.--1`�r..a--� .,�`-�-v ,
� -�..' � t--�,-if� �. ,T' �..� ���-�-���'�� �, G�,
�,� �-"� �" �
, � .
_ - . ,. y -
�� ,,z,,_���-���_�_,_�.t_e��-;,�_�r� � _c .c,-z.-C..�'.C� {_/i_'�-r_ �-� ... �-ti-C'--F_;.--
� r -
..�:_-r''' iF'i .�,'.�-t_�`� �f.,,��K �-C� r�-z �. ;i� �
. , _ �._ /- C -��L-z-,...-rvG.�-G_�_c'...�._,-.
t�--�-�-�L-�� .,2�:�z-�Z��� --- �G_a����t.,..�.�,-�-z-a� G`--�-v d>c�-- .�,-�of--��-'
, ,
�-� , _.
_ �, C-�= .L.�z.,y�,c - �
� �-`aa�.--�-v�.-' jd-C��_--� L.t���'�-�. .
'� �
n i
�
--L ry'�-�'_..�,��� f- �
�� ��
, � '
a'
, -' _
. :-` l'..-z-:�c.�
� ` �. ��'. e'_� .. (� ,
i � =
, , `r:ri.i ll� :?_�'79
�.E: 'r�.�. o3-7c
�rentl_e.�!en: :°ve -s�?�_ ��ot �e �n L��' . Jc::;er� Iia�- �, :.�_f'7� ��n.�
�
� (''.c�,vE.' C?S S:;1G- �'ll�)1_1C *'E�-�,�•�r7r:^ 0I7 <?��`TE.' �T`� ,�_i'.i:CB j �'C3'?FT.'F'Y'� '.;'E%
_:.�
<��,,,cl �i'ce 'r,� �� �n 7�ecr�rci of �e� �;• . 4I-">T �-�? � .�e:�+;�or7 to
{_ ,e Si::-n Or� � ���.:�ce ir 1 �_s �-t,����.ce.
�
c-
�--�C�=�-,.c_�.���`�> — ~ (1,��-��-�� ,
T .i.. T-• a- o�;,,-r�n,
. -� •
riu.:rl7 l �.,Oi1 :. =':,�lr�, ,.��l�CeTi v ,�. _._, . �CC-;
7_3—'3 ���c'-:,i��r, ��1,. �:.>e_�t
,
l � �
+���.i�u,�tt��--'�. �:'i',c°'C/G�� t Cc:e.�-
ExxzBz� �s �
A ; , - ,
�,�.�.�� : �-,-�,�.u�, �`� ��`.�.��
���,w ,� :L �c��z�. ,� ��
,� _ / � ,�� �%(� i i
,, ✓ �
�.,�,�e,n � 1�,�� /// � � 7`� �L!yk ���-�.� �-�v,
� �; � ��
��� ;:��-� � �r�z �C�-�c.L� �`'�� � ��� :�-!-�%�L��'W��
� � � �
1
�� � / J J J
� �
, ,� f ' , J
� ��� �/�Lt7'C�a.h.l�,�- . �,.�2� C�� cu,c,�i2.,�ii/�� t�rc. ��.N-�z.. �j�����
.� .� , �
, �
;
� ��. �y�" '�� .,�-:.���n ��=��z��-�'�-�'-�;' ��'
����G n �
. �
` ' `�-� . 7� t-1�"�� ,G��-�%�� �r�z ��,.,�
�,� �� ,
�, ���- -�� � .
' �� �
���'. ,�' � � ��`�"z�.�---- �'� -�-�� ���.�.�
� �J �
J ,. � / ��n�, / �y �y� /� �/y�� �� ���, ���
�...� � -�{`-- ��y��
-� /�-"�_/ (� � '��L...K 2/r.-�(�/7L ,�/"„i'I/ /I.'✓ �,/ " .
� (/
� G,:
t�t--�� ' �.�c.L�r�� _ '
� �f� � ,
G'
e� .r� y�--���'-� o h. /�L°�/(,, r'�c�,-Z f^ �G�.�`.L� �'�- �.0 ��f
���G;�� ' O , �i �
', G/
�L�� ,��.Z '���,cr�.c.e-�-� ,�::Zc-��L�%'��%'/-z�
G �
`���� ,���/""��� /f�� .����,��'�'`
��'
�,, � ,y
.� i f�� i� �? �/���°_.�,/'e� � '
� � ( . ; . �
! / ��
,
/1 , ,�,,��� f'' ��j,7 �� ,.,;,., - � /�
j, , ��
, ,
��� � �'�^'�s`J�..., ,.I.L : , r / f�- / / � ' �`�i` .� „__..
� .
/� �9 `� (i ; : , , _ _ , y� r. t � k .;"'- ' ��
f - ..--.... ...._ ..j' -t-' 2�l"- - ..
~ � �, ,4... i= �� j, � r� ''
�-- � � -n- , '
,� , �� �_�xL��i���t�-�.��' -
�' ' - � � Y.��
,._�
~ ��•.✓ ��,,,t.C'`""�`G'y-`C,L;� ,�".'� y` .�,1,.�"JL._ ' � i'� ��;t,.�1Lti �
, ,
/ ' �� �� �
�: �n - .
, �} �/ ------� ,
�V �.L`'-"?_. t 71 Y�.-l``Y4-�.7'Y�. ,, t .i ���G L't,_��t�� ���� _<'-� < , j'�� .
., � ..,: � � ��.
�7 �
+ . � �� /.-�
t'�� �'��`�L���' �f' /'`� � sy��//7/� , �{ , �� '� �'
;
" � ,
,
� ___� � {�--�G� ' ,� ,
' �f.��y � '" �.
' � t� �
__� "y ��..� - '
�: �,
/�� c�_ ,
., • ' �! . ""'`-,�
, �_ � , F r . ,
; �
. _
r
,'�`.�„'',�:,.��„ /� � S. f u,r - �' '. i L' r .�(�` �t ._ :w �
� � J
*.�L�t, � � �++`` r. `�� ���L. l 7�� �A .E�4�.�,,.� ;�,r
{,� �� t
rt