Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0116 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY - JANUARY 16, 1980 1:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 1:00 P.M. by Chairman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey �.r III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Miller Chairman Snyder Staff Present: Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner John DosSantos, Assistant Planner Linda Russell , Secretary Other Staff Present: Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of rescheduled meeting of January 3, 1980. Upon motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the Minutes of January 3, 1980, were approved as written. Carried unanimously (4-0) . �r V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from W. E. Development Company, referred from the Council . Mr. Crump stated that the letter concerned the planned right-of-way width for Magnesia Falls. Ne suggested that the Commission receive and file the letter for later discussion as an item in the General Plan Update process, noting that staff would contact W.E. Development Company to advise them that this matter would be considered at that time. The Commission concurred said action be taken. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. VAR 07-79 - ERNEST W. HAHN, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the height of parking lot light standards from ten (10) feet to twenty-five (25) feet within the PC-3, S.P. (Planned Commercial , Regional Center, Scenic Preservation Overlay) and PR-6, S.P. rezoned to R-3 (9) , (Multi-family Residential , max. ], d.u./9000 sq. ft. � zones, generally located northwest of Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case stating the reason for a continuance � from the last meeting was to permit the Commission to see a similar lighting system at another shopping center. Commissioner Kryder expressed his concern for the possible glare from the lights at a distance. Mr. Crump reviewed the discussion the Commission had, during their field trip, regarding placing a shield on the back side of perimeter fixtures to eliminate the view of the "glow" that occurs just below the fixtures. He further noted, in this particular instance, that the fixture locations were placed inside the parking lot and directed to light outward to the perimeter of the property, rather than placed along the perimeter and directed inward; therefore, he questioned whether shielding would work with this system design. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1980 Page -2- * * * * * * * * * * i� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEAR][NGS (continued) Mr. Crump indiicated that the Commission needed to specify a pole height in draft Condiition No. 2-C. He recommended approval by means of the draft resolution provided, with conditions the Commission deemed necessary. � Chairman SnydE�r opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to � speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. � MR. BILL LYLE., Representative of Ernest Hahn Co. , 200 Continental Blvd. , E1 Segundo, stated that shielding could be provided to prevent a line-of-site light glare. In res��onse to a question from Commissioner Berkey, inquiring whether the inside liights could be shielded as well as the first row of lights, Mr. Lyle stated he cc�uld shield the first row but if the others are required, then they would have to put more light poles in because the resulting light pattern would be resi:ricted. Commissioner N:ryder suggested that they require the first row to be shielded and then shiield the others if it becomes necessary. Chairman SnydE�r closed the Public Hearing._. ' After consider•able discussion on the matter of shielding the 1ights, , Mr. Clyde Beebe, Publlic Works Director, addressed the Commission, and suggested that the Commission assign him the responsibi1ity of reviewing this matter because he expected i;hat any resulting public complaints would be received through his office. Chairman Snyder reported that the Commission did go on a field trip to another shopping center that had an identical lighting system to the one � proposed, and were pl'eased to see that the lights were restricted in their � glow. He stated that: Mr. Beebe's suggestion was excellent and concurred with him that he should inspect the lighting after it was instal1ed to determine other fixtures that might need to be shielded. Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. VAR 07-79 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 566, with Condition No. 2-C to read as follows: A pole height at 25 feet; arid, the outside row of lights on the north, south, east and west sides shall be shielded, all other shielding shall be at the dis- cretion of the Public: Works Director. Carried unanimously (4-0). B. Continued Case No. CUP 08-79 - PALM DESERT COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, Applicant Request for� approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Public Utility pur�poses (with related setback and parking variance) � to all cont:inued use of a facility containing an existing maintenancE� building, water we11 building, and living quarters (H►ith proposed remodeling) on approximately .22 acres within the R-1, S.P. (Single Family Residential , Scenic Pres�ervation Over1ay� zone located at 44-491 Portola ' Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case noting that the applicant had � requested that the ca,se be withdrawn from consideration. He responded � to a Commissi;on quest:ion i:ndicating that they did not wish to pursue the matter at this time. VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIZI. NEW �USINESS . A. Planning Commission Policy relative to the review of Tentative Maps. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1980 Page -3- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VIII. NEW BUSINESS (continued) Mr. Crump reviewed the Staff Report which highlighted the Commission's concern regarding the practice of recommending approval of Tentative Maps where the Design Review process has not been implemented. Mr. Crump indicated a draft Resolution has been prepa'red, and outlined its contents: He recommended that the Commission establish their desired � policy by means of this draft Resolution, with any necessary modifications. The Commission concurred with the language of the Draft Resolution. Motion�was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, that a policy be established as discussed, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 567. Carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Adoption of Six Month Planning Schedule. The Six Month Planning Schedule establishing Commission meeting dates (January 1980 through July 1980) was adopted by Minute Motion. Carried unanimously (4-0). IX. OESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of January 8, 1980. - Mr. Crump noted that there were two items for Commission action. � He described these items, and introduced Mr. Sawa who made the presentations. Case No. 188 h1F - Mr. Sawa stated that the plan for Phase I included 188 duplex and triplex units, and a golf course (excluding the Clubhouse) . He reviewed the architectural elevations and the Board's recommended revisions, � which the app1icant had concurred with. Commissioner Berkey noted that the perimeter palm trees would not provide adequate blowsand protection. Mr. Sawa stated that some of the Board's revisions pertained to blowsand protection and that the final landscaping plans would show how they would provide for blowsand protection and maintenance. Case No. 127 G - Mr. Sawa stated that the Board approved this case subject to a few revisions. He reviewed the revisions and stated that the applicant concurred. He recommended approval . Commissioner Berkey was concerned with the parking lot conforming with the Redevelopment Master Plan. Mr. Crump stated that Redevelopment Plans had only been prepared for study purposes, and had not been formally adopted as a "Master Plan". The Commission then questioned whether the subject project conformed to a design scheme for the overal1 area. Mr. Crump advised the Commission that Staff had monitored development in the block and conditioned each new project to be consistent with design of the adjacent properties, as listed in the Conditions of Approval for the subject case. The Commission recommended staff prepare a plan which they might u1timately refer to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner � Kryder, Design Review Board Case Nos. 188 MF and 127 C were approved, as submitted, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 568. Carried unanimously (4-0). B. Request by applicant for the Commission to assume authority over amendment to Case No. 159 MF. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1980 Page -4- * * * * * * * * * * �• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (continued) Mr. Sawa prese�nted this case stating that Mr. Oliver requested to change the masonite lap siding to stucco for the building wall of his preschool , now under construction. The Board reviewed his request and denied it stating the� siding should remain as originally approved. Mr. Sawa pointed out that: the Commission had 2 options: (1) Abstain from assuming authority; c�r, (2) Assume authority over the case (by majority vote of the Commissian) , and deny or approve the amendment request. Commissioner k;ryder asked Mr. Sawa what was the basis for denial? Mr. Sawa replied that: the Design Review Board felt it was too late for a chan�e and they wer�e also concerned with the compatibility of materials with the architectura�l design. Chairman Snyde�r asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. - MR. FRANK OLIV'ER, Owner, 77-003 Iroquois, Indian Wells, stated that the masonite board wa�s thin and the stucco would save energy. He further added that he had ex��erience with masonite and he didn't care for it. Commissioner E�erkey asked Mr. Oliver if he could get the same color in stucco. Mr. Olive�r stated he could. Chairman SnydE�r asked the applicant why he thought the Board denied his request. Mr. Oliver stated that he was not present at that meeting. � Chairman SnydE�r stated he was reluctant to override the Design Review Board`s denial , but he did not see a justification for denial . Commissioner k;ryder also stated he did not believe there would be a difference. He als�o needed a better reason. Mr. Crump elaE�orated on the Design Review Board's reason for denial stating that they felt the architectural design and materials were appropriate and complimentary for this design. They also felt stucco was not compatible. The Planning C;ommission regarded comments from the owner/builder to present facts that we�re not available to the Design Review Board. Based on these facts, the Plan�ning Commission elected to assume authority over Amendment to Case No. 159 MF, and concurred that a change in the material for the exterior building walls from masonite lap siding to stucco of the same color, was justified. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryde�r to assume authority and approve amendment to Case No. 159 MF, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 569. Carried unanimously (4-0) . X. DISCUSSION ITE;MS A. CEQA Booklet Mr. Crump stat.ed that the Association of Environmental Professionals had published a booklet on CEQA, which Commission had received a copy of. This booklet was offered to them for purposes of discussion and asked for any thoughts. There were no specific comments from the Commission. � B. Notice of Preparation of EIR for Monterey Extension. Mr. Crump stated that a Notice of Preparation from Riverside County for the Monterey Avenue Extension was sent to each affected City for input. The Commission reviewed and discussed this item, giving Staff input for the City response letter. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1980 Page -5- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X. DISCUSSION ITEMS (continued) C. General Plan Update - Review of previously distributed drafts. Mr. DosSantos reviewed the Land Use and Housing elements with the Commission. Consideration of Population/Economic and Public Facility . elements were continued to February. �` XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS - NONE XIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 P.M. ��� ���--'" ._------ MURREL CRUMP, Acting Secreta ATTEST: WALTER S. SNYDER; airman /1►" +�,,.. �