Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/05/12 - MINUTES (2) r ' 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 12, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1981 - 1982 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Michael Harris, Chairman X 16 5 Carrie Allan X 19 2 Richard Service X 18 3 Paul Madsen X 19 2 Darel Harris X 19 2 David Christian X 17 4 Peter Koetting X 20 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II . Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 10, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) Hugh Kaptur David Hamilton Peter Koetting James Cioffi Paul Madsen Absent: Earl Neel Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the April 28, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Page 16, paragraph 6 - Case 3.401 - change "obnoxious" to "offensive" and add • after ". . . could be done," "at this time . Commission Christian should be listed as present. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0221-CUP. Application by Y. DENEBEIM for conditional use permit to allow a daily prayer chapel on Avenida Ortega between Via Salida/Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA.) Planning Director stated that the case had been continued from the April 14 meeting because of a religious holiday observed by the applicant and from the April 28 meeting in order to notify one Indian lessor within 400 feet of the project; that there had been some discussion at the April 28 meeting but no action had been taken; that a letter stating that there had been complaints on the use had been sent rather than a cease and desist order; that there had been further verbal contact with the applicant in which he stated that the facility had not since been occupied for any purposes as requested by this application; presented the staff report; and read letters of support and opposition into the record noting that two other letters and a petition had been presented at the previous meeting. (On file in the Department of Community Development. ) He stated that complaints concerning noise, construction without a • building permit, no connection to the City sewer, holding meetings without Planning Commission approval , parking, offensive odors, large groups of people singing and dancing, and teenage girls staying over night had been received; that staff recommended approval of the CUP with adherence to the conditions of approval with possible termination of the CUP by the Planning Commission if conditions were not met; that there is a need for such a use; and that the property will be improved by the applicant. In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director replied that the building coverage is 1,368 sq. ft. , the site area is 9,000 sq. ft. , and that there are two toilets. Discussion followed relative to churches located in residential areas. Planning Director stated that there was no church as small as this and staff recommended approval whether or not the application was for a new use or an existing use. Planner III presented the project on the display board. Chairman declared the hearing open. M. Buccino, 274A N. Palm Canyon Drive, landscape architect for the project, stated that he was asked by the applicant to develop a plan that would meet City requirements and enhance the neighborhood; that the parking lot is designed so that when it is not in use, it looks like a garden; that a landscaped court has been developed to allow some private . outdoor space; that the total project presented a viable picture to the neighborhood in terms of integrity, use and purpose; and that speaking for himself, some of the churches in Palm Springs availed themselves of outdoor space, and the use of the outdoor area should be allowed. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that use of outdoor space by churches is usually for school activities and receptions, and that a typical use is for meditation or movement from area to another. Discussion followed relative to existing walls on the property and the creative parking design by the architect. Commissioner Service stated that the success of the parking area would be determined by the intensity of use since plants cannot grow well under cars. Mr. Buccino stated that the tree proposed would be Indian Laurel or pear of a size that the City deems appropriate. Commissioner Service stated that the tandem parking proposed is used for specific conditions and doubles the occupancy. Planning Director stated that the maximum occupancy of the chapel coincides with the church's requirements that the members do not drive from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown; that the use is specific to this property; and that in case the congregation outgrows the facility, the building could be used for a similar purpose by another church. Mr. Buccino stated that the intermittent use of the parking area would . allow the necessary balance for plants to grow. I. Klassov, 605 Oleander, spoke in favor of the project stating that he was one of the members who walked to the services; that there would be little noise since the congregation has only ten members; that some objections are because some of the neighbors do not have money to improve their own property; that some of the complaints were due to anti-Semitism; and that the reasons of the complainants should be reviewed, including financial status. Chairman interjected that the particular proposal is being discussed, not the entire neighborhood. Mr. Klassov replied that the hotel next door should be reviewed for violations. He stated also that the improvements to the church will upgrade the neighborhood. R. Ott, 430 Avenida Ortega, resident across the street, stated that he had lived in the neighborhood for 12 years and the duplex in question has been a problem since it is too small and too old to attract good renters; that the only time it wasn't a problem was were when he had bought it with partners and upgraded it with air-conditioning and other improvements; that he had no complaint about the use and applauded the upgrading of the property; and that this property as well as surrounding motels should hook up to the sewer system. • He stated that he sold the building in 1978 and no longer has a financial interest in it. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) Mrs. A. Winnick, Mazatlan, representing Herman Wouk, neighboring homeowner, stated that there is no other place in Palm Springs for orthodox Jews to worship; that Mr. Wouk walks to the services; requested that when a final decision is ready to be made, the Commission review a copy of a Presidential Proclamation on a National Day of Reflection which was April 4, and presented a copy of same to the Commission. D. Stauber, 1080 LaVerne Way, attorney for the applicant, stated there would be no parking problem since church members do not drive on their Sabbath; that the applicant would be responsive to the neighborhood in terms of noise and odor; that they would connect to the sewer system; that the chapel is the only place in Palm Springs for orthodox Jews to worship; and to exclude the use would be unconstitutional . Chairman stated that if the project were not approved, the Commission would not be excluding the use from the City but only at one street address; and disapproval would not be unconstitutional . Mr. Stauber replied that it would be unconstitutional only in the context of the hearing. Chairman replied that the concept does not • apply• Mr. Stauber replied that it applied in other areas and that orthodox Jews can only walk to services on Sabbath; that often no non-residential property is available within walking distance; that Zoning Ordinances would not apply because the use is a privileged purpose; that the reformed congregation uses vehicles, but orthodox Jews do not on the Sabbath; that in other areas the church employed a medical answering service to monitor calls for the Rabbis and the neighbors and there was only one complaint and it related to parking; that the Rabbi for the local congregation was presently reviewing the idea; that the daily prayer period is one hour daily from 8 - 9 a.m. and from one hour before sundown to one after sundown; and that the primary purpose of the chapel would be prayer not school programs. In reply to questions by Commissioner D. Harris, Mr. Stauber stated that the reason for the recent occurrence was when out of town children stayed at the chapel overnight when an event scheduled in Big Bear was cancelled and without notice the children were transported to the chapel ; that the situation would not be repeated; and that for a communal service, a minimum of ten males above the age of 13 was required. D. McGettigan, 1670 Via Salida, stated that he had reviewed the file on the case and requested that the Commission consider the petition signed by 21 businessmen and neighbors in opposition to the proposal as well as • letters and phone calls received by staff; questioned who the residents are dealing with since the receipt for the check for the application in the file was from the Friends of Lubavitch; requested the Commission to May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd.) review the amount of construction the group has done in the last year without permit; that the request was originally for ten persons and grew to a prayer chapel , then a use for church meetings, and now is a synagogue/prayer chapel and a half-way house; that the one office church is allowed 12 cars and he has an eight- unit hotel and is only allowed nine spaces; that on one of the Jewish holidays, there were so many church members that a guard was hired; and that the old duplex was not suitable for the proposed operation. E. Dodds, 380 Avenida Ortega, stated that he would reiterate what he had presented in previous letters and that it is obvious that the applicant wishes to increase attendance, not decrease it; he questioned whether or not the operation was for only 36 people, which he stated was unlikely and financially unfeasible; noted that most of the proponents of the project do not live in the area and would be unaffected by the proposal ; stated that his property had been improved; that church members do drive and park in front of his home; and questioned what activities would take place in the outdoor space. D. Stauber (rebuttal) , stated that it was not unfeasible that a church member might drive on the Sabbath although he would not be encouraged to • do so; that the Friends of Lubavitch is a corporate name; that the members' credo is "thought, wisdom and understanding" through which a person comes to understand God; that there would not be use of the outside area; and that the major import would be the prayers on the inside. In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, he stated that the congregation used the Palm Valley School facility for a summer day camp last year; that the camp will be held in a proper zone and not at the chapel location; that he had not known about the newspaper advertisement inviting everyone to come to a party at the chapel ; that the Rabbi would have to adhere to the regulations and would be precluded from advertising; that assemblages would be held at another location; that there are holidays in which over 36 members would attend, at which time the Rabbi would use other public facilities; that 36 people is the maximum number; that he lived in North Hollywood and his congregation does not exceed 25 except for major holidays; and that the local Rabbi would be counseled to move holiday activity to another location. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. • May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 . PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) Commissioner D. Harris stated that he was unconcerned about the request for the daily prayer chapel but the amount of people was of concern, as well as the size of the building and its location; that he felt that there was not enough room nor restroom facilities for 36 people; that the one incident in which people spent the night was also of concern as well as the health, sanitation, and potential fire hazard of the project; and that he would be in favor only if no overnight lodging were allowed and if the capacity were reduced. Planning Director stated that there would be no residential activities on the premises. Commissioner Koetting reviewed concerns of the project and stated that the applicant is working to solve the problems; that the action for approval would be rescindable if there are violations; that the Commission should not interfere with the mode of transportation to the site; and that the Commission restrictions are fair and rigid. Chairman stated that intensification of the use was his concern; that staff has developed rigid requirements, but they may not be enforcable based on past performance; but that he was sympathetic with the use and • perhaps there is a move toward improvement. Commissioner Allan stated that it was unfortunate that the Commission should be involved in a discussion of religion; that if a use were to be granted, it should be granted without discussion of different religions; and that she was also concerned about the tandem parking which if allowed, would set an undesirable precedent. Chairman stated that he allowed the religious issue to continue in order to understand the parking problem of the project. Commissioner Service stated that the CUP was transferable to another user and could be kept on the site; that he shared the Chairman's concern regarding this fact; that he was not sure how the Commission would feel if it were not an existing use since there is a built-in sympathy with an existing use; that there are conflicting views on whether or not the use is a problem; that there should be a right scale and use for the property; and noted that his concern was that the use was too intense for the property. Commissioner Madsen stated that, in his view, it was a parking problem because other concerns are addressed through review of the CUP which could be revoked since there are neighbors who will apprise the Commission of any infraction; that the parking concerned him; and that he would support the proposal because he felt the benefits outweighed • the detriments. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) In reply to questions by Commissioner D. Harris relative to capacity, Planning Director stated that the Fire Department was aware of the use and did recommend that a fire extinguisher be placed and that storage boxes be removed; that with 1,300 sq. ft., 33 people would be allowed with the 36 number based on the number of parking spaces required, which is based on parking for other churches and on the Ordinance; that the number can be limited to 24 under a CUP but that the Building Division and Fire Department, in a final review, could determine a lesser number of persons; that restroom requirements had not been discussed in the Development Committee meeting but the plan checker had no comments and Building Division has issued a conditional building permit based on the interior improvements and the meeting of code requirements pending approval of the CUP; and that if the CUP were not approved, the building would be required to be restored to its original condition as a duplex. Commissioner Koetting stated that the applicant could redesign the parking lot to reflect the Commission's concerns of intensity of parking supporting the number of persons in the building; and that his main concern was the tandem parking arrangement. • Motion was made by D. Harris and seconded by Koetting for approval of the CUP subject to AAC, Development Committee and staff recommendations with the additional condition that no overnight lodging be allowed and that the number of persons be limited to 20 maximum subject to determination under the CUP. Commissioner D. Harris explained that he based the number 20 on attendance of 15 to 20 persons; that ten is a quorum; and also that 20 was the maximum number he felt that the square footage of the building, the parking and the fresh air turnover would allow. The vote was as follows: AYES: D. Harris NOES: Allan, Christian, Koetting, Madsen, Service & M. Harris ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. Planning Director stated that the parking lot design could be revised from a width standpoint but it would eliminate the open space. Discussion followed regarding the size of the lot and the building. Commissioner Allan stated that she felt that the project was being squeezed onto the site; and that if the project were approved, an undesirable precedent would be established; and that she too was uncomfortable with the parking. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd.) Motion was made by Christian and seconded by Madsen for approval of the project subject to conditions of the Development Committee, AAC and staff. The vote was as follows: AYES: Christian, Koetting, Madsen NOES: Allan, D. Harris, Service, M. Harris ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and carried (Christian, D. Harris & Madsen dissented) to continue the application to the May 26 meeting for revisions to the project addressing Commission concerns. Note: The Assistant City Attorney advised that the application be continued to a specific date. Discussion followed after the vote was taken. Commissioner Service stated that the Commission seemed to be heading toward denial of the • project, the applicant should address Commission concerns relative to parking, and that the Commission could not design the project for the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS L. Slaten, Western Ventures, Los Angeles, applicant in Case 5.0106-CUP, stated that he was present to answer questions relative to his case. • May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. CASE 3.493. Application by J. WALLING for F. Buchsbaum for a six unit, two- story rental unit on Stevens Road between Indian Avenue/Palos Verdes, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Planner III presented the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, including directions for Commission action and reviewed the project on the display board. He explained that the equipment is in equipment wells and will be screened. Discussion followed on the roof ladders required to service the equipment. Commissioner Service stated that he wished the ladders could be eliminated on an otherwise clean design. Planning Director stated that ladders are required to be attached to the building by OSHA. J. Walling, architect for the project, stated that ladders are required • to be attached only on commercial projects. Planning Director stated that on multi-family, two-story buildings, it was a requirement and that the alternative is undergrounding of equipment and that access to the equipment would be from inside the building. Planner III stated that AAC member architect Chris Mills, probably dissented because of the roof overhang and the design; and that he likes recessed windows although there were no specific comments from the architect on the reason for his dissension. Discussion followed on architectural details. Chairman requested that the architect answer specific questions. He stated that the trellis design on the roof was to facilitate access through the building itself in the hallway and storage area and that there was no exterior access; that the building was a modular factory unit which comes with roof mounted equipment; that economy is achieved with units delivered on site at a reasonable price with only cosmetic applications to be done by an architect; that the cost is $26/sq. ft. compared to $45 - $50/sq. ft. in a conventional building; and that this amount allows extra money for detailing of the project. Commissioner Service requested that the architect keep in contact with the Housing Administrator to define the efficiencies achieved for this project and Mr. Walling agreed. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.493 (Cont'd. ) Planner III stated that the view obstruction by the project was not significant. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the architecture, and continuing the application to the May 26 Consent Agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 5.0158-PD-122. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for L. Hess for architectural approval of final development plans for a professional office building at the southwest corner of Cahuilla Road/Tahquitz- McCallum Way, R-3 Zone, Section. • Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Discussion ensued on a landscape design. Planner III stated that a tree height of 12 - 14 feet above grade was recommended by the AAC. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Christian, Madsen & M. Harris abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final working drawings of the building be submitted for AAC approval . 2. That palm trees within the parking structure be increased in size to 12 to 14 feet above grade. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of 41 a Negative Declaration as indicated: May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that no written comments had been received regarding environmental assessment items from the April 28 agenda and recommended action for filing and approval of the projects. CASE 3.487. J. CIOFFI for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of single family residence on private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval of case. No comments received.) Conditions: 1 . That all miti ativ eas res identified in the EA/Initial Study be implemented, �xcep or �o. l under "Aesthetics.". 2. That a material and sample board be submitted with natural clay tiles suggested. 3. That final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That a final grading plan be submitted at the same time as the final landscape plan. • TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18352. WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for R. C. Ellis for a sub- division of land for property located south of Ramon Road on the east side of Crossley Road, M-1 Zone ( I.L. ) , Section 20. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval of case. No comments received.) Abstention: Madsen Conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study be implemented. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the filing of a Negative Declaration, and reiterated its action of April 27, 1982, to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 18351 subject to the conditions recommended by City Staff, with the following exceptions/modifications: 1. The 25' landscaped setback area along Crossley Road shall include plant material and ground cover native to this area and requiring minimal irrigation. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) TPM 18352 (Cont'd. ) 2. Action on the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18385. BILLINGTON, INC. for C. Thompson for a sub- division of land between Racquet Club Road/Sanborn Way, one block west of Milo Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval of map. No comments received. ) Conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental Assessment/Intial Study be implemented. . CASE 3.187. D. HAMILTON for F. Wiskowski for architectural approval of land- scape plans for single family hillside residence on Dunham Road, off Andreas Hills Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1 (Lot 7) . Approved as submitted. (Abstention: M. Harris) CASE 3.446. SCHNECK AVIATION for architectural approval of revised landscape plans, drainge plan, deletion of chain link fence, and main sign for fixed base operator at Palm Springs Airport, "A" Zone, Section 13. Conditions: 1. That two groups of five gallon oleanders, six feet on center, be placed at both ends of the structure. 2. That two of the eucalyptus trees be increased to 24" box size as noted on the plans. Abstention: Christian CASE 3.451. WEBB ENGINEERING for J. Dana for architectural approval of plan, including revised location for tennis court, for a single family hillside residence at 345 Chino Drive, above O'Donnell Golf Course, R-1- A Zone, Section 15. Conditions: 1. That the rock facing be applied to the retaining wall . 2. That a revised landscape plan be submitted. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.497. HILTON-RIVIERA HOTEL for architectural approval of conversion of retail space to meeting room space including a revised site plan, at hotel on N. Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Via Miraleste, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Condition: That a revised landscape plan be submitted incorporating necessary landscaping into the parking plan. CASE 5.0080-CUP. R. GREGORY for Our Saviour's Lutheran Church for archi tectural approval of landscape and grading plans for a church sanctuary at 1020 Ramon Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-2 Zone, Section 14. Condition: That two to three 24" box Jacarandas be added on Avenida Caballeros located between the bikepath and the sidewalk. CASE 5.0166-PD-124. R. GREGORY for Palm Springs Baptist Church for archi- tectural approval of final develoment plans (landscape) for Phase I of expansion on the northeast corner of El Cielo/Escoba Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 19. Approved as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0106-CUP (Revised) . Application by MAXWELL STARKMAN, ARCHITECTS for Western Ventures, Inc. for architectural approval of revised elevations and site plan for a 161 room hotel on North Indian Avenue between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Arenas Road, C-2 & C-1-AA Zones (I.L. ) , Section 14. Chairman and Vice-Chairman abstained; Acting Chairman Allan presided. Planning Director stated that the applicant proposed a reduction in the number of stories from six to three since the concrete construction costs were high, and that 29 rooms had been deleted but the site plan remained much the same. Discussion followed on the elimination of the driveways and the owners of the adjoining property. Planning Director stated that there was no problem with the elimination of the driveways since the delivery function is better without the driveway near the Patencio Building; and that the hotel still has some access points. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Christian, and unanimously carried (M. Harris & Service abstained) approving the application • subject to the following conditions: May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0106-CUP (Cont'd. ) 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That revised preliminary landscape plans be submitted, including increased material size and quantity. 3. That a revised color and sample board be submitted. 4. That the porte cochere be redesigned to be consistent with the architectural element at the southeast corner of the site, including details noted on the site plans. 5. That final detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion regarding the concept of placing lights on palm trees on Palm Canyon Drive (for the purpose of lighting buildings (Ref. Case 2.960-The Vineyard) . Discussion ensued on whether or not Commissioner Christian should abstain since his firm designed the Vineyard and was involved in the revisions. Planning Director explained that the concept of placing lights on palm trees to light buildings was to be discussed in general but had arisen because there was a proposal to do this to light the Vineyard complex. He suggested that Commissioner Christian abstain. Commissioner Service stated that his restaurant is lighted by a light placed on a palm tree, but that he would not abstain. Assistant City Attorney stated that there was no application before the Commission with no action to be taken; that the concept should be discussed by the entire Commission; but that if a Commissioner feels uncomfortable and compromised by participating, he can abstain. He noted that there was no legal requirement to do this. Chairman suggested that the item be removed from the agenda and placed on the May 26 agenda without reference to a specific case. Planning Director stated that Commissioner Service's restaurant had to remove lights from the roof; that no permits were taken on lights at the Vineyard; and there was a note on the plans that lights to light buildings would be placed on palm trees in the right-of-way; explained reasons for placing lights on the palm trees in the downtown area; . stated that problems arise because of maintenance; that the light band on the trees could be seen during the day; that there might be a minor liability issue which could be addressed by covenants; that the May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 . MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) Superintendent of Parks is opposed to the idea from the standpoint of who is working on the tree and for what reason since he feels that his department should have control over the trees; and that staff needed direction regarding this idea. Commissioner Service stated that if all architectural lighting were being discussed, it probably would not be in the public interest but that in the downtown, the sidewalks are unlighted and the sidewalk near his restaurant is the only light in that portion of the block; that it is a public benefit; and that it is a reasonable alternative to unlighted buildings or unsightly fixtures. Discussion followed on the maintenance of the Las Casuelas Terraza restaurant lights, types of fixtures, and amount and color of lighting. Commissioner Allan suggested that some type of regulation be formulated so the City is not involved in settling disputes over who is to receive the lighting. Commissioner Koetting stated that the light conduits should be painted • out; and that the type of fixture and brightness of the light should be regulated. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the community benefits from good lighting because it decreases crime, but that the lighting should be a natural color (white or amber). Planning Director stated that one of the issues of the Palm Springs Project is lighting in the downtown and throughout the City; that there probably will be an effort to increase street lighting; that the sodium light is coming but it has no charm; and suggested that the Commission should give a direction for lighting. He noted that the Commission may be able to forestall larger, less aesthetic types of street lights in the downtown especially. Commissioner Service stated that all businessmen probably will not be reasonable regarding lighting of their businesses, and that any lighting should be uniform. He noted that the palm trees downtown are the saving feature and that the height, candlepower, and color of any light should be regulated. Commissioner D. Harris stated that perhaps pressure should be brought against businesses to light their parking lots better to deter crime. Planning Director suggested that the item be discussed at the study session of May 19, and that interested persons in the community should • be included. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on two recent robberies in a parking lot of a local restaurant although it does have large flood lights. Commissioner Service stated that fixtures with a large amount of light cost less than those with a softer light. Chairman continued the item to the study session of May 19, at 3:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room. DISCUSSION. City response to San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study EIR. Planning Director stated that the item could be continued to the May 19 study session with the County Planners invited to discuss it with the Commission; and that the study indicated four alternatives regarding wind resources: 1. A concerted attempt to maximize the wind resource and turn it into electrical power. • 2. A modified approach to the wind resources. 3. A slow approach. 4. A "do nothing" approach. He stated that staff's response was contained in a letter given to the Commission and that staff would not oppose utilization of the wind resources but that clarification and comment were needed on some of the items. He then commented on problems affecting the sphere area and on the inadequacy of information on tourism and visual impacts of the wind machines. He stated that Palm Springs was the only city responding in writing and one of the few major responses to the EIR. Planner III stated that the County will hold a public hearing on June 9, and felt that it would be a slow process for county land but that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has an active program in response to a directive by the Secretary of the Interior; that there is discussion on whether or not the City should obtain leases for property for the windmills or whether the property should be held for further study. Chairman suggested that the County be invited to the study session to discuss the wind energy study with the Commission and continued the item to the May 19 study session. • May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) TIME EXTENSION - TPM 17247. HALLMARK ENGINEERING for Louis Folk for a 12- month time extension for a lot split for residential purposes on Tachevah Drive between Paseo de Anza/Sunrise Way, R-1-C Zone, Section 11. Condition: That the applicant be subject to the school impact fee if adopted by the City Council . (Commissioner D. Harris dissented because of the school impact fee condition. ) TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17371. HALLMARK ENGINEERING for DST Industries for a 12- month time extension for a subdivision of land for an industrial building on McCarthy Road, PD-109, Section 34. No new conditions. TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17430 (Ref. Case 3. 101) . HALLMARK ENGINEERING for Investors Real Estate, Inc. for a 12-month time extension for a subdivision of land for residential condominium purposes on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Amado Road, R-G-A (8) Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. No new conditions. • Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, and on the understanding that City Staff is not recommending additional conditions, the Tribal Council approved the request for a first 12-month time extension for TTM 17430." Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (except for TPM 17247 as noted) approving a 12-month time extension for TPM 17247, TTM 17371 , and TTM 17430 subject to all original conditions of approval and with an additional condition for TPM 17247 as noted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.268. Application by J. SALKIN for architectural approval of miscellaneous revisions to site plan and elevations for a 61-unit apartment/condominium complex on El Mirador between Mel Avenue/N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 11. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planning Director stated that the reasons for the revisions arose during the construction on the project. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Allan • dissented) approving the following items (in numerical order of the letter request) : May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.268 (Cont'd. ) 1. Deletion of the observation decks and relocation of the pool equipment. 2. Stucco of the exterior fire wall . 3. Screen wall for mechanical equipment on the roof. 5. Solar panels located on the roof. 7. Electrical panel enclosure. 8. Revisions to the patio column. The Commission recommended restudy or denial of the following: 4. Stamped concrete to remain as originally approved. 6. Window muntins (grills) to remain as originally approved. 9. Wall height on Indian Avenue screening the parking to remain at 42 feet. 40 10. Revised elevations to be submitted for the main entry off Mel Avenue. 11. End building elevations to be submitted if windows are proposed. 12. That a complete street elevation for carports be submitted for review of compatibility with the project design. Increased screen wall height to a maximum of 52 feet may be considered via the administrative minor modification process. CASE 3.500 (Minor) . Application by T. DALU for Jessie Davis Fashions for architectural approval of canvas awning with painted identification sign at 115 S. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Discussion ensued on the incompatibility of having one only awning on the face of the building and the type of paint used for the proposed sign. A general discussion of canvas awnings followed. Commissioner Christian stated that aesthetically pleasing things can be done with canvas awnings if done properly. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by D. Harris, and carried (Service dissented) denying the proposed awning because of its • incompatibility with the building. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.501 (Minor) . Application by PALM SPRINGS SHADE CO. for architectural approval of three roll-up blinds on the south side of building (Mary Helen Shop offices) at 141 N. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that there was an error in the agenda in that the blinds were proposed for the Mary Helen Office at 141 N. Indian Avenue, not the Mary Helen Shop at 140 N. Palm Canyon Drive. Discussion followed on the appearance of the blinds. Commissioner Madsen stated that the feeling of the AAC was that since the blinds roll up, it is unnecessary to cover all the modules. Discussion continued on the size of the housing for the blinds and their method of attachment to the building. Motion was made by Madsen (Service abstained) approving the blinds as submitted. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (Service abstained; Madsen & M. Harris dissented) denying the application. • CASE 3.480. Application by J. AULD for S. Marlowe for architectural approval of working drawings for a single family residence on Dunham Road between Hillview cove/Stonehedge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Planner III explained the design of the house and the minor revisions. Commission consensus was that the house was not aesthetically pleasing. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried for a restudy of the project addressing the following concerns: 1 . That the overall building elevations be revised to reflect the original preliminary elevations. 2. That the celestory element for the height be reduced 18 - 24 inches. 3. That the materials for the fascia element be restudied. 4. That a restudy of the entry detail be made. CASE 3.401. Application by S. CAVALLERO for J. Davies for architectural approval of "as-built" elevations and revised landscape plans for single family residence on Tigertail Lane in Southridge, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Lengthy discussion ensued on the appearance of the house. Planner III • explained that the applicant has indicated that she will not revise anything on the residence, including the color of the stucco. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont 'd. ) CASE 3.401 (Cont'd. ) Discussion of the color followed. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the offensive color was not indicated in the AAC Minutes. Commissioner Service stated that Bob Hope's roof color was revised because of Commission action. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Christian, and unanimously carried ordering a restudy of the application addressing the following concerns: 1 . That accurate landscape plans be submitted. 2. That the colors are not acceptable. 3. That the residence as constructed is not acceptable. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA SIGN APPLICATION. Application by AD/ART for Security Pacific Bank for archi- tectural approval of change in main identification sign for bank bounded by N. Palm Canyon Drive, N. Indian Avenue, Tamarisk Road, Granvia Valmonte, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 10 (Ref. Case 5.0120-PD-104) . Removed at the applicant's request. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Planner III stated that in Case 3.401, staff had received a letter from the Southridge Homeowners Association stating that the original drawings of the residence were not approved and that the as-built project is much cleaner in appearance. He stated that the color of the house is overly bright but will fade with time and that the applicant will not consider a painting program. Commissioner Allan stated that the neighbors may not object to the residence but that the people in the City may object. Planning Director stated that technically the homeowner could be • required to raze the building as a non-conforming structure if no revisions had been approved in six months. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS & DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) - Staff to research whether or not a bus stop was required for the Senior Citizen's Hotel on Sunrise Way and Baristo Road. (Case 5.0088-PD-102. ) - Staff to research feasibility of a left-turn signal on Escoba at E. Palm Canyon Drive. The Maloof Building sign program probably will be reviewed within the next few months. Mr. Maloof has indicated to staff that he would appeal any negative decision on the signing since he feels that the signs are legal . (Case 3.463. ) Staff to research height of wall on Mesquite referred to in previous meeting by Commissioner Service. Discussion on Aaron Brothers move to National Lumber Co. complex, Cathedral City. Planning Director stated that the owner of the building which currently houses Aaron Brothers had indicated that the tenant wished a modern look to the building or would not stay. (Case 3.351.) Chain link fence on Temple project in northern part of .Palm Springs. (Case 5.0114-PD-100. ) Planning Director stated that the fence would be removed and was erected because of a CalTrans request that service and maintenance vehicles be separated from the highway. Applicant continuation at public hearings. Chairman indicated that from now on, any request of continuance by applicants would be resolved at the Planning Commission meetings with the applicant present since after noticing a project, persons make an effort to appear at public hearings and are sometimes unable to return at a later date. He stated that allowing public testimony when the matter is continued allows the Commission to discuss the project without the applicants presence and the applicant may complain that his rights have not been safeguarded; that the Planning Director will not allow continuance at the last moment; and noted that with the applicant present, perhaps the Commission could allow testimony without Commission comment. Discussion of public hearing fees ensued. Planning Director stated that for the most part, the fees collected covered the cost of mailing. Commissioner Christian stated that there sometimes is enough information for the Commission to act upon even though the applicant desires continuance. Chairman stated that sometimes continuance is politically . motivated. May 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS & DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that the public hearing date would be confirmed with the applicant. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. MDR/mi Y�HLANNI G DIRE TOR i WP