Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0304 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 4, 1980 7:00 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 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissidner Berkey � III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Miller Chairman Snyder Staff Present: Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner John Dos Santos, Assistant Planner Linda Russell , Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes o_f regular meeting of February 20, 1980. Commissioner Berkey noted one correction: Page 2, last paragraph, the word "residence" to be changed to "residents". Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Minutes were approved as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0) . � V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. PM 1�332 and VAR 01-79 - V. VICTOR PETITTO (Represented by: Qescove, Inc. ) , App3ic«nt Approval of a one year time extension for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide two acres into three parcels within the R-1 20;OOQ (S;ng'e Fami?y, ?0,000 sq. ft. minimum lots) zone and a related VariancP for parcel width, south and east of Della Robia Lane extended. Mr. Crump presented this case stating that there was no specific reason offered for tne time extension request but the conditions related to the approVal have noL chariged. fie recomn�ended approval of a one year time extension, noting the new conditions contained in the draft Resolution. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Case Nos. PM 14332 and VAR 01-79 were approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 574, as submitted, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0). � 6. Case No. VAR 01-80 - C.G. DUNHAM, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a Variance from the Palm Desert Muni- cipal Code (Sign Ordinance) to allow two (2) free-standing signs, one on each street frontage, listing courtyard tenants for a commercial building complex in the C-1, S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at 73-260 E1 Paseo. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -2- ***************************************************************************** VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Case No. VAR 01-80 (continued) Mr. Crump presented this case stating that the applicant had requested installation of 2 free-standing signs, 5' ll" high, with three 8" x 2'8" tenant panels, (1.72 sq ft. ) for identification of courtyard businesses. He indicated that the ordinance does provide for a maximum one sq. ft. identification sign � and directional signs at a maximum of three sq ft. Mr Crump indicated that an .� adequate pedestrian sign could be installed within the limitations of the sign � ordinance. He, therefore, recor�nended denial . Commissioner Kryder asked for a clarification on what signs would be installed there in any case. Mr. Crump and Chairman Snyder clarified this stating that the 2 free-standing signs could be permitted there but would have to conform to the size the ordinance allows. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. JOHN THOMPSON, John Thompson Ltd. , explained that he is a merchant in that building and the procedures they have gone through relative to this matter. He pointed out that there were many signs in the City that do not conform to the sign ordinance. He explained that the tenants in this building do not need directional signs but do need an identification sign. He further stated that people cannot see what businesses are there from E1 Paseo. ` Mr. Crump stated that they were asking for an identification sign where there is no frontage. He pointed out that the City would tend to see more of courtyard/mall designs and also felt that the required size of the sign would serve the pedestrians. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Crump if the only variance was in the size of the sign. Mr. Grump replied that it was. Mr. Crump also pointed out that � signs are not to describe all of the business services, but rather used for the � name or principal activity of the business. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Thompson if it would be acceptable to him if they just used the name of the business on the sign. Mr. Thompson replied that it would not. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. JENNY YATES, Jenny`s Women's Apparel , stated that during the Christmas season they had a sign similar to the one they're requesting, and the business tripled because of it. She stated that she couldn't stay in business without the sign. She also pointed out that other businesses have big signs in front. Chairman Snyder explained briefly the purpose of the sign ordinance and why the Commission needed strong justification for granting a Variance. Commissioner Kryder asked staff to explain the directional sign that is permitted under the ordinance. Mr. Crump explained what the original purpose was for directional signs. Commissioner Kryder stated that he did not agree that the tenants should be limited to name of business only. He felt that they did need some description of their business and suggested that the sign ordinance be reviewed. :� Commissioner Berkey agreed with Commissioner Kryder and stated he was � strongly against granting a Variance. He explained why he felt the merchants ''� on E1 Paseo needed some identification for the�r business, stating that with a new Regional Shopping Center in the near future, the specialty shops on E1 Paseo would not be able to compete without some type of identification. Commissioner Kryder suggested that they approve a temporary identification sign, to conform with the ordinance, until they review the sign ordinance. MINUTES PALM'DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -3- ***************************************************************************** VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Case No. VAR 01-80 (continued) The Commission agreed that the sign ordinance should be researched thoroughly. Chairman Snyder asked Mr. Thompson if he was agreeable to the temporary � sign. Mr. Thompson stated that it would be expensive to install a temporary �` sign of that size (one square foot per tenant panel ) and requested that the Commission approve a temporary sign the size they requested (1.77 sq. ft. ) � until the matter is resolved. Commissioner Kryder asked staff if they could have a painted temporary sign, conforming to the ordinance, explaining it would be less expensive. Mr. Crump replied that they could. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the variance was denied by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 575. Carried unanimously (4-0). Chairman Snyder at this time explained to Mr. Thompson that they can utilize the sign discussed and assured him that the sign ordinance would be reviewed. Mr. Thompson asked if they had an alternative. Chairman Snyder replied that they could appeal this case to the City Council . C. Case No. TT 16015 - MAYER GROUP, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map for 24 lots to allow construction of 264 residential units and a nine acre public park on approximately 39 acres within the PR-7 (U.A. ) (Planned Residential , max. 7 d.u./ac. , Upon Annexation) zone �► located at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Crump presented this case reuiewing the Tentative Tract Map conditions relative to the right-of-way improvements, which carried recom- mendation that a permanent median island break not be permitted in Country Club Drive. He added that a temporary opening could be used if tract phasing begins at the Country Club entrance and could remain open until an access to Monterey Avenue was established. Mr. Crump explained this procedure on the map. Commissioner Berkey asked staff to comment on the letter from the Fire Marshal , which recommended denial . There was discussion on the location and the time it would take before construction started of the proposed Fire Station in that area. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. Mr. Ron White, Project Manager, asked that Special Condition No. 2, which states that no left turn would be permitted off Country Club Drive into the site, be deleted. He explained on a map how the left turn would not create a conflict. Mr. White added that the Public Works Director requested that a left turn pocket be constructed. Mr. White also requested that Special Condition No. 6, which related to the Master Qrainage Plan, be modified. He felt that there was no 1imitation as to their cost and amount of work that would �""' be involved. Ne also stated that there was no Master Plan facilities on their parcel . Ne asked that this requirement be changed to allow them to pay the acreage fees and do only those required facilities within their parcel . Mr. White presented their Consulting Engineer. MR. STAN MORRIS, 45-445 Portola, gave a short presentation and explained why his engineering analysis supported Mr. White's request for payment of drainage fees only. MINUTES PALM' DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -4- ***************************************************************************** VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS C. Case No. TT 16015 (continued) Chairman Snyder asked Mr. Crump if he had any comments. Mr. Crump explained that the Public Works Director required left turn pockets at the intersection of Country Club Drive and Monterey, which was not the same area Special Condition No. 2 referred to. He also explained relative to the Master Plan of Drainage, that the subject request is a project that is being built upstream and anyone developing in that area would be responsible for connecting the system. He added that they don't have to install the whole system. Mr. Crump stated that there was no way of anticipating the cost because this was based on the future engineering data to be supplied to Public Works. Commissioner Kryder asked why the divider was rejected since Mr. White did point out that there would be no conflict. Chairman Snyder explained that the major concern was that the divider should not have a break less than 1000 feet. He stated that if they provided for a median island break into the site, the break between that area and the intersection at Monterey and Country Club would be approximately 200 feet. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Crump how the people going east, who lived right off Country Club Drive, would get in. Mr. Crump explained, illustrating on the map, that they could turn left into the project at ' Monterey. _ After more discussion on the matter of the median island break, Commissioner Berkey suggested that they provide for a temporary left turn pocket and after a period of time, the matter be reviewed to see if it would work out or not. The Commission agreed to have Special Condition No. 2 amended to read as follows: Subdivider shall be permitted left turn access into the site from Country Club Drive subject to the design and bond- � ing approval of the Director of Public Works, to serve initial phases of the tract development. Director of Public Works shall investigate the accept- ability of the median break after installation and use. The Department of Environmental Services shall forward his report to the Planning Commission for determination of whether the median island break, permitting left turn access, is to be maintained permanently. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing tvas closed. Chairman Snyder reviewed the discussion and explained to the applicant why implementation of the drainage plan was necessary. A short discussion continued between the Commission, staff and the applicant concerning the responsibilities for implementing the Master Plan of prainage facilities. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Miller, Case No. TT 16015 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 576, as amended and subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0). D. Case No. DP 01-80 - KENT LANQ CO. , Applicant � Approval of a Qevelopment Plan, Residential , consisting of 48 dwelling units and recreational amenities on approximately 9.5 acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residentia1 , max. 5 d.u./ac. ) zone located on the north side of Hovley Lane approximately 2250 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case stating this request was a slightly redesi�ned concept p1an to reinitiate an expired conceptual Development Plan approval . There were three items the Commission needed to consider: 1) pro- v�sions for a pedestrian/bicycle system; 2) Master Plan of Drainage facilities; and, 3� one northern dwelling unit (on ei�her side of the tennis courts), to be deleted. Mr. Crump stated that with these modifications staff recommended approval . MINUTES PALNf DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -5- ******************************************************************************* VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. Case No. DP 01-80 (continued) Commissioner Berkey questioned Condition No. 4, relative to the one year period the applicant had to commence construction. Commissioner Berkey reminded Commission and Staff about the new policy that was established regar.ding the Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan expiration dates coin- ciding. - Mr. Crump explained that if the Council granted an extension of time � for the Tentative Tract Map, there would be no other extension beyond that. There was a short discussion relative to the Tentative Tract Map con- forming with this Development Plan approval and having the expiration dates coincide. Zt was decided to change the Standard Condition No. 4 to read as follows: Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval , March 8, 1981, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. Commissioner Kryder asked staff why the Fire Marshal was not equally concerned for servicing this project as he was for the previous Case TT 16015, being it was the same situation. Mr. Steve Fleshman answered his question explaining that the distance was the same, but it would take a shorter time to get to this project. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. TOfVI QUEZADA, Kaufman & Broad, 18902 Bardeen Way, Irvine, asked if the Commission would amend Special Condition No. 5 with an additional statement referring to the drainage fees paid by the applicant shall go towards the work they do on this project. Chairman Snyder explained to Ms. Quezada why the condition was necessary `"�" and that the Commission had no authority other than to keep Special Condition No. 5 as was written. Ms.�uezada accepted the conditions and asked for approval . Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Kryder asked if staff was making sure that as developments go in on Hovley Lane, �hat they are relating to one another in terms of entrances , frontages, etc. Mr. Crump replied that they were. Upon motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Case No. DP 01-80 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 577, as amended and subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0). E. Case No. DP 02-80 - T&D CALIFORNIA INVESTMENTS (David Moss) , Applicant Request for approval of a Residential pevelopment Plan to allow construction of 24 residential units on approximately five (5) gross acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , max. 5 d.u./ac. ) zone located on the south side of Hovley Lane, approximately 1600 feet east of Monterey Avenue. � Mr. Crump reviewed the staff report and stated that this Development Plan was si.milar to the previous one. The application was simply for a refiling of the expired conceptual Development P1an approval . He briefly pointed out on the map the design scheme of the project and recommended approval . Commissioner Berkey asked if this was similar to the one previously approved, in relation to Special Condition No. 4. Mr. Crump replied that it was and also amended �p����1 Cond�tion No. 4 to read as follows: Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval , March 22, 1981, otherwise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. MINUTES PALM' DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -6- ****************************************************************************** VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. DP 02-80 (continued) Commissioner Berkey stated that there was no reference in regards to the drainage plan and Signalization Fund from the memo from the Director of Public Works. Mr. Crump explained that these would be added conditions to the extended Tentative Tract Map. The Commission was concerned with the consistency on this matter, and asked for a better clarification. After a thorough discussion between Staff and Commission Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. DP 02-80 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 578, as amended and subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0). THERE WAS A 10-MINUTE BREAK AT 9:25 P.M. - MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M. ITEM F, UNDER PUBLIC HEARIfVGS, WAS REFERRED TO A LATER PORTION 0F THE MEETING. IX. DESIGN REVIEW �OARQ ITEMS Mr. Crump stated that there were two subjects for consideration. A. Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of February 26, 1980. Case No. 176 MF - Mr. Sawa presented this case stating that there was one area that required specific Commission conformation of revisions by tne _Design Review Board, which involved not moving the driveway further to the west. He recommended approval�. � Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the actions by the Design Revew Board for Case No. 176 MF, were approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 579, as written. Carried unan- _ : imously (4-Q�. ' B. Case No. 202 MF - TED R. LENNOPd, Applicant Letter to appeal Design Review Board's denial of a security gate entry on Juniper Circle for Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club. Mr. Sawa presented this case stating that the Design Review Board reviewed this case and felt there was inadequate stacking area and turn around. They also felt that this case was not in compliance with the development standards, therefore, denied this request. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to present his case. MR. TEp LENNON, explained briefly the process he went through, stating he agreed the original design needed revisions. He redesigned the plan mov- ing the security guard gate back. He further explained that there was suf- ficient turn around space within the project. He asked Commission to recon- - sider for approval . Chairman Snyder asked Mr. Lennon if it were possible to create a circular condition east of the gate for the turn around problem. Mr. Lennon explained why it would not be possible. MINUTES PALM"DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -7- ****************************************************************************** IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS B. Case No. 202 MF (continued) Commissioner Berkey asked if the guard gate would be manned only at night. Mr. Lennon replied that it would be and also for special events. He also explained the purpose of the security gate at night. Mr. Crump asked who would be responsible for the maintenance and ownership of the gate. Mr. Lennon replied that the Homeowners would have ownership and the expense would be shared by the developer. �r.► Mr. Crump pointed out that the Homeowner's Association could change the operating procedures for the gate at some future date. Mr. Lennon concurred that it could happen. Chairman Snyder concurred with thP Design Review Board with regard to inadequate turn around area. Commissioner Kryder felt that there was no problem in relation to the turn around, because the gate would be opened all day. He stated that based on the new information provided, this was acceptable to him. Commissioner Berkey concurred with Commissioner Kryder but was con- cerned for the possibility of a stacking problem during the special events, in which the gate would be manned during that time. After further discussion between Commission and applicant, Commissioner Berkey suggested there should be a requirement on the hours the gate would be manned. _ The Commission agreed to operational requirements and set forth the following conditions: 1) The security gate shall only be used during the night hours to deter easy access to the project, or when manned. 2) There shall be a 24 hour PBX phone coverage or guard to oPen the gate. 3) A security guard shall be on duty during the night to man the gate for vehicles larger than a long-wheel based van or truck. These vehicles will be allowed to enter the project where they can use a four-way intersection to turn around. � Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Miller, the Commission assumed authority over Case No. 202 MF, and whereas, based on additional information and operational requirements to be implemented, this case was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 580, subject _ to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0) . THE COMMISSION RETURNED TO PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM F. F. Case No. ZOA 01-80 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request to amend the City`s zoning ordinance text for Municipal Code Section 25.68, et seq, to provide for a new class of signs identifying multiple tenant buildings or building complexes in tne Commercial and Industria1 Zone, Chapter of the Sign regulations. Mr. Crump reviewed the staff report stating that prior to this Public Hearing staff had reported to the Commission that the City sign regulations were ambiguous in there application to multiple tenant buildings. He explained the research process staff had conducted and the outcome of a sign survey, which Commission had a copy of in their packets. He further explained the usage and suggested sign size criteria for this new specific type of sign. �"' The Commission discussed this matter briefly and agreed there was a need for a specific category of building identification signs. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Case No. Z0A 01-80 was recommended to the City Council for approval , by adoption of planning Commission Resolution No. 581. Carried unanimously (4-0). MINUTES PALM"DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1980 Page -8- ******************************************************************************* VII . OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIII. . NEW BUSINESS - NONE X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Continued Discussion - General Plan Update, concerning: e Population/Economics Element • Public Facilities Element These items were not discussed but would be continued at the second meeting of March. B. Riverside County - General Plan Amendment, Draft EIR. Mr. Crump stated that staff had three items for discussion on this matter, and any additional comments from the Commission were to be forwarded to the Riverside County. These items included: 1. Access to Hovley Lane 2. Analysis of existing commercial zoning 3. Drainage implications There was a short discussion on the density. Chairman Snyder directed Staff to forward comments in regards to the three items discussed above and recommended a rewrite of the draft report. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS - NONE XIII. ADJOURNMENT � Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner � Miller, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. C����t��� PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: �J WALTER S. SNYDER, Cha' man /lr