The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0603 MINUTES _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY--JUNE 3, 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 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL � Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Linda Russell , Planning Secretary Others Present: L. Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of May 14, 1980 Mr. Williams noted some corrections on page four: Last paragraph, under' Item C of DISCUSSION ITEMS; should read: "After some discussion on that matter, the Commission determined that the proposed program provides for the mitigation measures and conditions as approved by the Commission when the project was reviewed. " ' Paragraph under COMMENTS; second sentence should read: "The Hope Lutheran "`�` Church parking lot is in seqaence with the approval of Planning Commission. " Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams indicated that there were several letters received pertaining to public hearing cases; they would be discussed at that time. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON, APPLICANTS, (Representative - BALLEW-MCFARLAND) � Request for Change of Zone from PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) , and PC(4), S.P. , N (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors--Restricted Development Overlay) [Approx. 12 acres] ; PR-5, S.P. N (Planned Residential , max. 5 d.u. per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors--Restricted Development Overlay) and PR-5, N (Planned Residential , max. 5 d.u. per acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [Approx. 19 acres] , TO C-1, N (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors--Restricted Development Overlays) [Approx. 12.6 acres] ; PC(4) , S.P. , N [Approx. 4.4 acres] ; and, PR-5, N �Approx. 14 acres] on �,,,, approximately 31 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a proposed Supermarket, on property to be designated as C-1, S.P. , N, containing approximately 12.6 acres. Request for a Development Plan for a proposed 220 room Hotel/Condominium complex with related Administrative Reception Building, a Restaurant and related recreational amenities, to be located in the proposed PR-5, N zone district on approx. 14 acres. � Request for determination of conformance of the the proposed Change of Zone to the City's Adopted General Plan Land Use Map. (Previously considered by the Planning Commission on April 1, 1980, and deferred to be considered as a part of the total pro.iect) . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Williams began his presentation with an illustration of the proposed zone changes and development at the corner of Deep Canyon Drive and Highway 111. He described the applicant's proposed size and locations for the market/drugstore, commercial shops, hotel/condominiums. Mr. Williams indicated that there would be a proposed new street running 2ast-west, in the center of the project, from Deep Canyon Drive to Cook Street. Mr. Williams then gave a short description of what had previausly been considered by the Planning Commission at this particular `� location in terms of zoning and lan� use. � He described the issues that staff felt needed to be carefully considered which were: Commercial zoning next to residential zoning; traffic impact at the intersection of the proposed new street and Deep Canyon. He described the concerns expressed by the City of Indian 6Jells, and read a number of letters received by ' individuals opposed to this_project, suromarizing their reasons for opposition. The majority of the letters were received from residents at Hidden Palrns opposing the proposed change of zone. Mr. Williams stated that the Planning Commission had previously discussed the zoning on this property on three previous occasions but this was the first time that it would be reviewed with a specific project being proposed. He stated that the applicants had made several studies which included a Traffic Study, Economic Feasibility Study, Analysis of Fiscal Tmpacts and an Evaluation of Natural Factors overlay zone. � Mr. Williams concluded giving Staff's recommendations as follo�s: Approval of the chang� of zone to C-1; approval of the market/drugstore and commercial shops; hotel/condominiums; and, future planned commercial resort development. These recommendations were made subject to the following revisions: Scaling down of the market/drugstore and commercial center and relocating; filing of an amendment for full details of the design of the project; signalization at the intersection of the new proposed street and Deep Canyon; access points off of Hwy 111 to be limited � to right turns in and right turns out; extending the new east-west street to Cook; drainage installation conforming with City's Master Drainage Plan; and, Bicycle and pedestrian paths relocated to run on the new public street on the south side. Commissioner Kryder asked what study indicated a need for a traffic signal on Deep Canyon. Mr. Williams replied that the applicant-prepared traffic stuay . showed the signalization would be needed during peak hours of the day. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Williams how the developers felt about the relocation of the commercial area. Mr. Williams stated that the devleopers did not feel it was feasible. Commissioner Kryder asked if the PC(4) zone area would be unavailable for development. Mr. Williams replied that presently that area is proposed by the applicants to be the final phase, therefore, available for future development. Chairman Miller reviewed Staff's suggestions and recommendations and opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Drive, Rancho Mirage, introduced the following individuals related to the project. MR. BOB WRIGHT, Chicago, stated that he was associated with the Leslie Fund, # Qne of the property owners involved in this application, and described the background � of the fund. �r�ii MR. JOSEPH RAPKIN, Property owner, indicated he was the owner of the PC(4) property. He explained how the market would benefit the community. He did not agree with staff in relocating the market. Mr. Hubbard described how he came to propose this project and believed that it would not create a problem with nearby residents pointing out that 75% of the proposed project conforms to the City's General Plan. He asked for careful consi- deration for this project and introduced Mr. Youngman. MINUTE-S ' PALM DES�RT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLICS HEARINGS (continued) MR. CLIFF YOUNGMAN, employee of Albertson's, 250 Park Center Blvd. , Boise, Idaho, described what the market would consist of and why they chose this area for the market after a research study by Albertson's, and, Lord and Associates. He also pointed out wliat improvements would be provided upon completion of the market. Mr. Youngman indicated that a survey had been donP in the area and the result of the survey indicated that 95% bf the people sarripled were in favor of the pruject. He pronided a list of those residents in the area in favor af the proposed �eveloprr�ent. He then briefly reviewed all -the conditions stating his approval and objections. He ;�, concluded his presentation asking for approval of the plans as submitted. MR. BERNIE SOLOMON, developer, 48-842 Cassia Place, Palm Desert, stated that the market study determined chat this type of development was viable. He opposed the suggested r�locating of the market and requested approval as presented. MR. STEVE FLESHP-iAN, 74-241 Highway 111, original designer of the plan, addressed the Commission on two items which he felt were not appropriate requirements, the sugyested reuuced size and relocation ot the builciings. He suygested some problems that vroul� occur, ii` it were developed as suggested by Staff Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There being no one, he asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION: MR. WAYNE BARLOW, Attorney, 44-685 Monaco Circle, Hidden Palms, stated that his property immediately boarders the proposed development and strongly objected. He pointed out that proper noticing was not received and requested a continuance on this case for an opportunity to research the matter. He also felt that it was not appropriate to approve the project without an Environmental Impact Report; he believed there would be a tremendous impact on the community. Mr. Barlow asked for necessary information and forms to appeal this case. He also gave a number of reasons as to why he and residents of the Hidden Palms area felt the� proposed � project should not be approved. He concluded stating that residents at Hidden Palms intend to live in that area for a long time and had moved there with the understand- ing that the vacant property next to it would remain as residential . The following is a list of residents of the Hidden Palms area who voiced their opposition to the change of zone and did not receive legal notice: TOM SCHULTZ, 44-681 Monaco Circle ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44-685 Monaco Circle BOB MCGUIRE, 44-099 Bygo Court GERRIE SNERMAN, 44-656 Monaco Circle LOU JONES, 44-691 Monaco Circle ROGER BAILEY, 74034 San_ Marina Circle (Not Hidden Palms resident) CHRISTINE JONES, 44-691 Monaco Circle KATHERINE SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court (purchasing home) NICK BATLEDGE, 44-289 Portofino Court MR. G. BRUTAN, Southwest Engineering, Baden Court, Hioden Palms, believed that some of the problems could be resolved in joint meetings. He requested a continuance for this purpose. MR. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Rd. , also stressed his opposition to the project, giving many of his views on the matter. PAT REED, 44-249 Portofino, stated she was a Real Estate Agent and felt � that the project would have an adverse affect on the sales market value of the homes in Hidden Palms. PHYLLIS JACKSON, 45-151 San Luis Rey, asked that the Commission consider a continuance. MR. HENRY GRACE, 44-775 Qeep Canyon, stated he also did not receive notice. He noted that on previou� zone, changes in that area, notices were also not received. He opposed the project for reasor�s such as increased crime rate, traffic hazards , affect on property value, and noise impact from service trucks. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Hubbard stated that he would agree to a continuance. CHAIRMAN MILLER CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS--THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M_ Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to July l, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). � � B. Case No. DP 06-80, GERALD CHAZAN, APPLICANT. � Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow the construction of 71,200 square feet of commercial space on approximately 7.23 gross acres within the PC(3) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Regional Center, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of E1 Paseo and Hwy 111. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had sent a letter requesting for a continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being no one, motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to June 18, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0) . C. Case No. CUP 03-80 - MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a pre-school at an existing church within the R-1 9,000 (Single family residential , minimum 9,000 square foot lot) zone located on the northwest corner of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. _� Mr. Crump presented this case stating that the pre-school would accomodate � 20 students. He proceeded to review the staff report which indicated that staff felt there would not be a traffic impact, and that ti�e location was acce�table for the intended use. f-1r. Crum� reviewed the c�esign features and recommended that a 3rd Saecial Condition be added to read: "That the total number.of pupils shall be litnited to 20. An increase in the num�er of authorized pupi.ls shall require an amendment to be filed for consideration by the Planning Commission". Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, 1900 East Ocean Blvd. , Long Beach, briefly explained when the school would open and that the school hours would be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She added that the children's ages would range up to 5 years of age. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 599, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0) . � D. Case No. CUP 05-80 - GUY AND VICKIE LA LIBERTE, Applicants � Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the usage of an existing building detached from the main building for a guest room and the construction of a new garage wi�hin the R-E, d.h. (Residential Estate, maximum 1-3 dwelling units per 5 acres, drainage and hillside preservation overlays) zone located at 72-240 Upperway West in the Cahuilla Hills area. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Crump presented this case pointing out the location of the proposed garage from the existing structure. He added that the propnsed garage meets all the code requirements and recommended approval subject to those conditions he reviewed. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking the applicant if he cared to present his case. `"' MR. RON DALKE, Representative, questioned Special Condition No. 2 - Which requires the applicant to pave a portion of Upperway West and dedicate it to the City. He explained that it would be 180 feet of asphalt and asked if it was necessary. , Mr. Williams explained why it was a requirement of the Planning Commission for all similar projects. Commissioner McLachlan asked how much it would cost the applicant to pave the road. Mr. Dalke replied that the cost would exceed the price of the garage. Commissioner Richards asked what was the road used for presently. Mr. Dalke stated that there was only one other resident that lived up the road. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Williams if it was necessary to require this of the applicant, who is just requesting a small change. Mr. Williams stated that the Commission had previously required that the road to the pad be paved in a similar situation. Commissioner Richards felt that the condition was too harsh for the applicant. Commissioner Kryder agreed but pointed out that this was a requirement previously ��iade by the Commission, and noted that they should be consistent in the application of `'�"' road paving requirements. Commissioner Richards asked Staff for an explanation on the matter of requiring an individual to pave a road which is in the City. Mr. Williams explained that in this case the road serves as a private road. He also explained that the Commission, after reviewing this area, felt it was important to begin improving accesses. He then stated the two ways to do this: (1) by establishing an assessment district; (2) or, improvements to be made incremently. Chairman Miller asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request. MRS. RON DALKE, stated that it did not make sense to have a piece of pavement at that location, when the rest is dirt road and there is nothing else but old shacks up that road. Commissioner Berkey asked to hear from Mr. Beebe, Director of Public Works. Mr. Beebe stated that since there might be a chance of that area becoming an assessment district, he felt that in this case the requirement of paving just the driveway would be sufficient. He did add that there was no assurance that it would be an assessment district and as development proceeds, he and Mr. Williams would recommend roadway paying as a part of property development. After Comrnission discussion, h1r. Crump pointed out that a new conciition could be added to read: "The applicant shall execute a Future Improvement Agreement ;� on forms provided by the Department of Public Works", and, deleting Special Condi- tion No. 2 . MR. DAN GREEN, Cahuilla Hills, addresseu the Cor;�inissian on the matter of a Future Improvement Agreement, stating that he can contact i�lr. and P�Irs. LaLiberte, but he felt sure that they would agree to this new condition. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. The Commission felt that the new condition should be added to replace the Special Condition No. 2, motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 600, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0) . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) E. Case No. CUP 06-80 - DAVID HEUSINKVELD, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert a nine unit apartment complex to "non-statutory" condominiums on approximately .7 gross acres within the R-3 13,000 (3) (Multi � family Residential , minimum 13,000 square foot lot, one dwell- '� ing unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area) zone generally located on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive, approxi- mately 200 feet east of Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Crump presented this case referring to the site plan. He pointed out the location of the carports and indicated there was a setback variance. Mr. Crump reviewed the draft conditions with recoru�ended revisions as follows: uelete standard conditions Nos. 5 and 6; delete City Fire i�•1arshal from No. 9. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, representative, 45-900 Paseo Coronado, Indian Wells, concurred with Staff's report and requested approval . Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 601, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). F. Case No. TT 13462 - NOE-JACK #2, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract to create a ten lot "non-statutory" condominium subdivision on approximately .7 gross acres within the R-3 13,000 (3) (Multi family Resi- dential , minimum 13,000 square foot lot, one dwelling unit per 3,000 feet of lot area) zone generally located at 73-415 Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately 700 feet east of �, Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Crump presented this case and indicated that it was in substantial agree- ��e�t with the approved CUP. Staff recomrnended approval subject to conditions. Nir. Crump recom��ended revisions to the draft Resolution and Conditions as follows: Strike the paragraph beginniny with FURTHER, �E IT RESOLVEU; delete standard condi- tions nos. 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 21� Conclition No. 4 should read "/�ccess ri�hts to Shadow Nountain Drive shall be offered to the City as a dedication on tih� Final i•�iap, exce�t for one approved driveway opening" ; Strike (a) in Condition iVo. �. ,Commissioner Richards asked Staff how the fees are established for Special Condition No. 1 (Signal�zation and Drainage). Mr. Crump replied that they are established by City Resolution. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, representative, stated that he concurred with the revisions but did question the special condition requiring the applicant to pay a fee for signalization and drainage. He stated that the signalization fees are established by a Resolution which did not include a list of fees. He felt that since the project was not adding to traffic, it should not be their responsibility. Mr. Beebe briefly commented on .the fees to be cnaryed in connection with this subdivision. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 602, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0) . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) G. Case No. TT 16133 - J.M. PETERS CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a parcel of land into 163 lots for 156 residential units on approximately 34.06 gross acres within the PR(5) , S.P. (Planned Residential , maximum 5 dwelling units per acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. �... Mr. Williams reviewed the conditions which addressed street improvements and recommended approval to the City Council . Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. BOB TRACT, representative, requested Condition #19 be modified to have the expiration date of the Tentative Tract Map concur with the related previousiy approved design review case. Commission agreed to amend condition No. 19 to read: "The applicant shall have twelve months from the date of the approval or conditionalapproval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time of up to eighteen months is granted by a Resolution of the City Council . This action shall include the establishment of the time limit for Design Review Board case known as Case 204 MF to run concurrently with the tentative map. " Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 603, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). � H. Case No. PM 16258 - STEIN-BRIEF VISTA GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a Parcel Map to create two parcels for the development of 414 unit hotel/condominium complex with 21,365 square foot racquet club and 50,000 square feet of pro- fessional and commercial spaces within the PC(4) , S.P. (Planned Commercial , Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams stated that because related case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 have been continued, he recommended that this case be continued to June 18, 1980. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue Case No. PM 16258 to June 18, 1980. Carried 'unanimously (5-0) . I. Case No. CUP 04-80 and VAR 04-80 - BILL GUENTHER, Applicant Request for approval of Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow the rehabilitation of an existing building and construction of an off-site parking lot located at the northwest corner of � Portola Avenue and Palm Desert Drive (Hwy 111) and the north- east corner of San Jacinto Avenue and Alessandro Drive, respectively. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant indicated he would send a letter with- drawing this request and that the letter had not been received to date. Mr. Williams stated that Co►�nission could deny this request without prejudice or continue until the letter by the applicant is received. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to deny this request without prejudice, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 604. Carried unanimously (5-0). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) J. Case No. ZOA 02-80 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 25.68 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Palm Desert, California relating to Directional Signs for commercial buildings with courtyard or plaza tenants. Mr. Crump presented this case explaining that the Municipal Code did not provide for pedestrian directional signs for commercial buildings with courtyard "�' or plaza tenants. He reviewed the draft amendment (Exhibit A) and recommended approval . Commissioner Kryder pointed out that the sentence in Exhibit A which reads: which groups the names of businesses or principal services--should read: "which groups the names of businesses and/or principal services. . . " Mr. Williams also noted that Item (b) should state 12 sq. ft, instead of one sq. ft. Commissioner Richards asked if the signs still needed to go to Design Review Board before approval . Mr. Williams stated that they would as a part of the projects review. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. PHYLLIS JACKSON, DRB member, pointed out that Item (d) should be revised to seven feet maximum height, instead of six. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve this case, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 605, ""'�' as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). K. Case No. ZOA 03-80, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applica.nt �onsideration of an amendment to Section 15.68.150 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Palm Desert, California, relating to real estate open house signs. Mr. Williams presented this case stating that the Soard of Realtors had requested two changes to the ordinance (a) Exemption from the public property restrictions and, (b) exemption to the allowable number of signs. Mr. Williams stated that staff surveyed the Coachella Valley and based on that survey staff recommended some minor revisions shown in Exhibit A of the resolution. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. HARRY HOYT, Representative of the Palm Desert Board of Realtors, 49-305 Hwy 111, explained why they were requesting the revisions to the ordinance stating that the present provisions hinders sales. He believed that one sign on a corner of public property wou1d be acceptable. RUTH RANAMINE, Real Estate Agent, stated that two signs would not be enough. � Chairman Miller closed the Pub1ic Hearing. Commissioner Kryder indicated that he needed a clarification of the maximum allowable signs. He felt that it would be appropriate to make some exceptions. After Commission discussion it was agreed to revise the draft resolution as follows: First paragraph, second sentence, delete "maximum of two off-site"; Item C, add "unless prior written approval for unique circumstances is obtained from the Director of Envirnmental Services"; Item D, replace "one" to "two" and delete "for a second sign". Commissioner Richards suggested that staff report to the Commission after a one year period for any necessary revisions. - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve this case by adoption of Resolution No. 606, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). L. Case No. ZOA 04-80, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Municipal �„ Code (Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Palm Desert, California, relating to permitted uses in the PC (4) zone district. Mr. Williams stated that this request has been discussed on two previous occasions. He felt that if the wording of the ordinance was more consistant with the wording of the Redevelopment Plan it would resolve the problems. He explained the difference between the related uses to Hotel versus the related uses for Restaurants. He reviewed the recommended uses shown as Exhibit "A". Commissioner Berkey questioned Item D, he suggested a revision ta read: "The Commission may permit other uses which it may determine to be similar to thoselisted above". Commissioner Kryder felt that in Item B, "Professional Offices" should be expanded to "General Offices". The Commission concurred, therefore, making the uses Accounting services, General Medical Care and Services, and Secretarial Services to be listed under the General Offices. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. BOB GILROY, PDR Associates, stated that he reviewed the proposed list of uses and still had some questions relative to his list of proposed uses for the Las Sombras project. � Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Williams to clarify these uses for Mr. Gilroy. Mr. Williams clarified the matter to Mr. Gilroy's satisfaction. Commissioner Richards stated that there might be a problem with the financial institutions in terms of banks, being that it was not listed on the Exhibit. Commissioner Berkey explained that Item D would determine that use. Mr. Gilroy then gave a brief presentation on proposed uses for the Las Sombras project. MR. FRED ARBUCKLE, stated he needed a better clarification in terms of ancillary uses. He asked if a restaurant and hotel could be on the same project. Mr. Williams replied that it depended on the size of the project. He added that a principle use would have to be declared and if it were an 8 acre project it could declare two usesa noting the minimum development site in the PC(4) Zone is four acres. After a brief discussion the Public Hearing was closed and motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the amendment by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 607, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). VII: . OLD BUSINESS - NONE � VIII. NEW BUSINESS - NONE IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of May 27, 1980. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve Design Review Board case No. 133 C, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 608. Carried unanimously (5-0) . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Phyllis Jackson addressed the Commission on the matter of the sign ordinance,amendment. XI. COMMENTS There was a brief discussion on the Hubbard project, in regards to � notices being sent out to the nearby residents. XII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 P.M. �� `�-*..w.---�, PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: ) . � r / .,- ` � r r CHARL LE , Chairman Y /lr � �