Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0917 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 1:00 P,M. - "'I HAI I CO UNr,rI_ f p,VADCDC 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 Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL tow Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Murrel Crump, Acting Secretary/Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Carlos Ortega, Acting Director of Environmental Services John Dos Santos, Assistant Planner Linda Russell , Planning Secretary Others Present: Lloyd Morgan, Engineering Aide IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of September 2, 1980. Commissioner Berkey noted two corrections: Page one, second paragraph under WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, paragraph should read: Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to file the letter in the General Plan Consideration Review File. Page four, fifth paragraph from bottom, second sentence should read: Commissioner Berkey suggested that a monument be installed on the corner as an alternative. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the Minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. City of Indian Wells - Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIR. Mr. Crump explained the letter giving detailed information of a proposed shopping center in the City of Indian Wells. He described the location and stated that if the Commission wished for further information they would provide it. Mr. Crump stated that the purpose of this letter was to notify the City to solicit any comments prior to preparing an EIR. The Commission did not have any comments at this time. B. Ballew/McFarland - Correspondence regarding proposed annexation and development of property in the north sphere area. low Mr. Crump explained that this letter was for General Plan Amendment considera- tion. He showed the proposed uses on the map and indicated that a copy of this letter had been given to the EIR consultants. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. DP 10-79 (Time Extension) - MACK DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension of an approved Preliminary Development Plan to allow 116 dwelling units and associated recreational amenities on 25 acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residential , maximum 5 d.u./ac. ) zone generally located on the south side of Country Club Drive, between Monterey Avenue and Portol a Avenue. Mr. Sawa presented this case reviewing the Staff Report and explaining the reasons given by the applicant for this extension. He reviewed the original proposed Development Plan and recommended approval . Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. INGRID MACK, 111 No. 5th Street, Redlands, explained that because of financial reasons they are requesting this time extension. 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 McLachlan, to approve this time extension by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 637. Carried unanimously (5-0). B. Continued. Case No. VAR 06-80 - QRS CORPORATION (for ANAHEIM SAVINGS) , Applicant Request for approval of a Variance from Sign Ordinance standards to allow three (3) main signs, one of which would be a freestanding sign located within the C-1, S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southwest corner of E1 Paseo and San Pablo Avenue. Mr. Sawa presented this case stating that the Commission previously reviewed this request and continued it for an alternative Sign Program. He explained that the applicant is now requesting two wood signs 10" x 8' under the facia and a freestand- ing wood sign 6'8" long by 3' high in a planter near the intersection of San Pablo and E1 Paseo. Mr. Sawa stated that Staff did not feel there was justification for three main identification signs and noted that it conflicts with the building's sign program. Therefore, denial was recommended. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. BOB VAN GERPEN, 1002 Geneva Street, Glendale, explained what they were proposing and described the size and location of the monument sign. Commissioner Kryder asked the applicant if the two stores presently in that building are in agreement with the proposed monument sign. Mr. Van Gerpen replied that he did not know and explained that the entire building will be used by the bank in the future. Commissioner Kryder asked if the monument sign would be legal under these circumstances. Mr. Crump replied that it would require a variance, at the present time, and also when they were the only occupant, because the business was one of many within the El Paseo Square center. It was noted that E1 Paseo Square had freestanding center identification signs. The Commission discussed with Staff possible combination of signs, freestanding, wall and predestrian signs. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Page Three * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V., r'UDLii, i"iCnttiIIU.) Lu"i6. j Mr. Van Gerpen explained that the Savings & Loan leased area is not facing any streets and they would like to have one sign giving some street exposure. Mr. Crump explained what the applicant is entitled to under the terms of the Sign Ordinance: One main identification sign and one 3 sq.ft. pedestrian sign (if main identification sign is not visible). Commissioner Kryder felt that because of the Savings & Loan's location they should be entitled to a visible sign. Commissioner McLachlan felt that Variances should be granted for unusual situations and he felt this was an unusual situation. Commissioner Berkey felt that one sign facing the parking lot and the free- standing sign was satisfactory. Mr. Van Gerpen asked that the wood sign be located near the entrance rather than facing the parking lot. 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 Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve a Variance allowing a 10" x 8' hanging wood sign over the entrance and a freestanding sign as submitted, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 638. Commissioner Richards felt that the applicant should not be allowed the monument sign until they occupy all the building. The vote was as follows: AYES: Berkey, Kryder, Miller, McLachlan NOES: Richards ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C. Case No. PM 16258 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA GROUP AND WAGNER-STANFORD CONSULTANTS, Applicants Request for approval of a Parcel Map to create four parcels on 29.29 gross acres for the development of a 390 unit hotel/condominium complex, a racquet club, two restaurants and commercial shops, 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. Crump reviewed the Staff Report and stated that the proposed Parcel Map was for financing purposes only and recommended approval. Commissioner Richards asked Staff if the applicants could sell the parcels once this request was approved. Mr. Crump replied that the parcels could be sold but development would have to occur as the Plan was approved. Commissioner Richards was concerned that all the proposed uses be constructed in the stages the Commission approved. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. JIM SMITH, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, briefly explained that their intent was to comply with a Development Plan condition requiring consolidation of the previously subdivided site, for financing purposes to facilitate forming separate development entities. 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 McLachlan, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 639, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Page Four * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Case No. GPA 01-80, Revised Public Hearing date. B. Case No. ZOA 05-80, Revised Public Hearing date. C. Case No. C/Z 10-80, Revised Public Hearing date. Mr. Crump stated that because the environmental consultant for the General Plan Update was experiencing some delay in their progress and the established hearing schedule will not be met. He gave Staff's recommendation of the new scheduled dates. " Commissioner Richards asked if November 4th was Election Day. Mr. Ortega confirmed that it was. Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to change the Commission meeting date from November 4th to November 5, 1980, 7:00 p.m. Carried unanimously (5-0) . Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 640, 641 and 642, setting the Public Hearing dates as follows: GPA 01-80 December 2, 1980 7:00 p.m. ZOA 05-80 November 5, 1980 7:00 p.m. C/Z 10-80 November 5, 1980 7:00 p.m. D. Case Nos. DP 15-79, C/Z 09-79, TT 16015, 200 MF - MAYER GROUP and BALLEW-MCFARLAND, Applicants Request for approval of preliminary plans for 9 acre public park at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Sawa presented this case noting that a condition of approval required that ' the applicant provide a plan for the park development. He then gave a general .. r background description of the park site and stated that the reviewing bodies made some comments (City Park and Recreation Commission, Design Review Board, Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District). He reviewed those comments and stated that the Commission should determine what facilities should be provided in the park. Mr. Sawa also suggested that after they determine what facilities should be provided that the Commission review a revised site plan prior to the final plans being prepared. Commissioner Kryder asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the park. Mr. Sawa replied that he anticipated some agreement between the City and Coachella Valley Park and Recreation District in maintaining the park. Commissioner Kryder was also concerned for the unsupervised tennis courts in terms of vandalism, etc. Commissioner Richards asked Staff if there was a study made indicating expected park utilization. Mr. Crump replied that the condominium development would be utilizing the park and that the City Parks and Recreation Commission and C.V. Parks and Recrea- tion District, in their review, defined what facilities they felt were necessary.- Commissioner McLachlan asked if the condominium development would have any tennis courts. Mr. Crump replied that it would not. Mr. Morgan, Engineering Aide, also was concerned for the maintenance. He felt that if the development would be utilizing the park it would be costly to the City for upkeep. .■ There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding the maintenance and what facilities should be provided. They felt that no action can be taken until they know the financial aspect of the maintenance of the park. Commissioner McLachlan also was concerned with security lighting within the park and possible problems lack of lighting may create. Mr. Crump did indicate that there was an original understanding that the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District would be committed to maintaining the park. He suggested that the Commission make some decision on what facilities should be provided and then get a formal commitment from the District. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Page Five VIII. NEW BUSINESS (cont. ) Commissioner Richards felt that a furhter study should be made before any decisions are made by the Commission. The study should include needs, utilization of facilities, maintenance cost, who would be responsible for maintenance, and users fees. MR. FRED ARBUCKLE, of Ballew-McFarland, pointed out that all the reviewing bodies had reviewed and approved this park design. He stated that he had discussed th possibility of lighting and renting the tennis courts with Mr. Doty of the C.V. Parks and Recreation District but Mr. Doty opposed the idea. He indicated that they do anticipate to include lights in the final design but they would not be installing them. The Commission also felt there was inadequate parking provided. Mr. Arbuckle stated that most of the concerns expressed could be worked out and did not want to delay the project further. Commissioner Berkey asked the applicant if the Commission were to decide that it was premature to decide on anything now, would he be willing to bond the completion of the project at a future date. MR. DAVE GUTIERREZ, Project Manager for Mayer Group, 8280 E. Florence, Downey, stated that he would like to look into the bonding amounts. Mr. Crump explained that one of the conditions from the Development Plan states that the park improvements can occur during the last half of development, therefore, the applicants can proceed with development even if no decisions were made tonight. Commissioner Richards suggested that a further study be made and a report be submitted to the Commission. The Commission concurred. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to continue this item indefinitely for further study. Carried unanimously (5-0) . E. Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80, STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Approval of a phasing scheme for an approved Development Plan located at the Southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case illustrating the proposed phasing scheme and uses on the Exhibit. He indicated that Staff recommends the improvements to the Palm Valley Channel occur within the first phase of site development which drains to the channel . Commissioner Richards asked if the Hotel would be developed at the same time the Restaurant would be. Mr. Crump replied that it would. Commissioner Berkey explained that because it was a previous condition to get the CVWD's approval of the improvements, he suggested that Condition No. 3 be amended to read: "Improvements to the Palm Valley Channel shall occur, subject to the Coachella Valley Water District, in the first phase of development to the channel , etc. . . . " He also pointed out that the channel should be improved before any development occurs. Mr. Morgan, Engineering Aide, stated that the Department of Public Works had requested the drainage plan on this site but had not yet received it. He also suggested that Condition No. 3 be amended from "as required by the Director of Environmental Services" to "as required by the Director of Public Works". Mr. Crump clarified the modification to Condition No. 3 as follows: "Improvements to the Palm Valley Channel , as required in the original Development Plan approval , shall occur in the first phase of development. " MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Page Six VIII. NEW BUSINESS (cont. ) Chairman Miller asked if the applicant cared to address the Commission. MR. JIM SMITH, of Stein-Brief/Vista Group, explained that they are planning to submit amended plans addressing additional uses and these would be part of Phase I. He explained the purposes of the phasing and did indicate that all improvements to Hwy 111, 44th Avenue, and Painters Path will occur in Phase I. He also requested a modification to Condition No. 3 to read as originally amended by Commissioner Berkey, MR. DAVE WAGNER, of Wagner-Stanford, added that any upstream improvements, as required, will be made as they develop. Commissioner Berkey pointed out that there are two weak spots at the Channel that might create a problem for the development. He felt that this problem should be looked into or improved before any development. The applicants agreed with Commissioner Berkey and stated that they would make improvements as required by the Coachella Valley Water District. Mr. Crump stated that the Commission had a choice in amending Condition No. 3 as requested by the applicant or as stated by Mr. Crump previously. The Commission agreed to modify the condition as follows: "Improvements to the Palm Valley Channel , as required in the original Development Plan approval , shall occur in the first phase of Development." Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the phasing plan by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 643, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted by the Design Review Board at their meeting of September 9, 1980. Case No. 178 MF - Mr. Sawa presented this case stating that this item was reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved with some revisions. He reviewed those revisions and recommended approval of the revised preliminary plans. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the actions of the Design Review Board by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 644. Carried unanimously (5-0) . X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Consideration of Housing Stock Mix. Mr. Dos Santos made a presentation on this subject and the Commission directed Staff to make the recommended changes in the Housing Element. B. Consideration of Alignment for Magnesia Falls Drive. Mr. Dos Santos gave a presentation and the Commission directed Staff to designate Magnesia Falls Drive as a Scenic Secondary Roadway in the Transportation/ Circulation Element. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS Mr. Crump informed the Commission of his resignation effective Oct. 6, 1980. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 3:31 p.m. ATTEST: MURREL CRUMP, Acting Secretary 'C airman