Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/09/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 8, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 3 1 Hugh Curtis X 4 0 Darel Harris X 4 0 Hugh Kaptur X 4 0 Peter Koetting X 4 0 Don Lawrence X 3 1 Paul Madsen X 3 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner II Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - September 7 (Tuesday), 1982 • David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Curtis Peter Koetting James Cioffi Absent: Larry Lapham, Chairman Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the August 25, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. NOTE: The Tribal Council Consultant was on vacation; therefore no Tribal Council recommendations were available. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 6.329 VARIANCE & CASE 3.513 . Application by E. HORENSTEIN and D. LOWMAN for a variance from setback requirements to allow construction of carports on Calle Palo Fierro between Twin Palm Dr./Laverne Way, R-TP Zone, Section 26. (This action is categorically exempt from EA, per CEQA guidelines; final action on variance & architectual case. ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that the item had been continued due to incorrect noticing; that in a letter received at the meeting, the President of Canyon South II stated that the person who spoke against the application at the August 25 meeting was representing himself only and not the Homeowners Assoc. ; that staff recommended approval of carports on Lagarto Way; that the AAC recommended restudy; that the architect is taking exception to the AAC restudy recommendation because he understood that the architecture was approved at the August 26 AAC meeting. He then described the project on the display board, including landscaping and improvements, and explained staff reasons for recommending approval of carports on Lagarto Way (a private street) . In response to a question by Chairman, Planning Director, stated that State Law requires that all four findings be positive for approval of a project. • Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Green, resident of Lagarto Way, requested approval stating that he felt carports would enhance the street; that a new era has arrived in Palm Springs in which there are permanent year around residents who need protection from the sun damage to their cars; that the proposed carports will be substantial and will cost between $4,000 and $5,000; that the traffic pattern for the area is established; and that the residents are being penalized because the mobilehome park across the street has not completed improvements. S. Spiegelman, 28 year city resident, requested approval citing sun damage to cars; noting that there was a low traffic volume on Calle Palo Fierro; and stated that the bankruptcy of the original contractor was the reason the carports were not constructed. He quoted a newspaper article relative to heat buildup in cars in the desert from lack of shade in commercial buildings (Planning Director stated that the primary concept of landscaping in parking lots for commercial buildings is to provide shade. ) and requested at least one carport on Calle Palo Fierro per unit be allowed, and two on Lagarto Way; stated that if Lagarto Way carports were allowed and none were approved on Calle Pala Fierro, it would depreciate property values on Calle Palo Fierro; and that the carports would be an asset to the well-maintained condominiums. D. Cahn, Chairman of Calle Palo Fierro Estates Homeowners Assoc. , • requested approval and stated that he had the only carport approved on Lagarto Way; that he could not see how the Commission could deny shade to desert homeowners since the original condominium construction was 18 years ago. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 6.329 & 3.513 (Cont'd. ) E. Horenstein, 2015 Calle Palo Fierro, also representing D. Lohman of Calle Palo Fierro Estates, requested approval stating that he and Mr. Lohman had submitted the application many months ago. He then described the configuration of the proposed carports and stated that the parking area would not be expanded; that carports are a necessity in the desert for full-time residents because of physical discomfort and ruination of cars; that shade provided by the carports will reduce the amount of air conditioning, thus reducing energy consumption; that additional lighting would reduce vandalism and theft; and that carports would upgrade the area since the condominium complex is the only one in the Canyon Country Club area which does not have carports. He noted that the homeowners on Lagarto Way would be constructing carports soon and if the other property owners were not allowed to construct carports, property values would decrease which is not in the spirit of condominium ownership; and that the proposed carports are the same design as the only one which has been approved on Lagarto Way. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's request for clarification of the statement that carports would be built on Lagarto Way, Planning Director stated that the design would need to be approved by the Commission. Chairman stated that the carports on Lagarto Way are recommended for approval by staff but not yet approved by the Commission. • Mr. Spiegelman stated that the reason that the carports were not constructed was because the original contractors were bankrupt. Planning Director stated that the project could not have been built with carports without approval of a variance and that the condominiums were finished according to the plans submitted at that time. Discussion continued on the history of the project. Planning Director stated that the project was a condominium from its inception and that carports were not required at the time it was built. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the configuration of the carports in relation to the street regarding traffic hazards, aesthetics, concept of allowing carports on Lagarto Way only, established exit pattern for the complex, view blockage, shade provided by landscaping, increase of traffic if the mobilehome park is eventually removed, the concept of allowing one carport, and establishment of a precedent which could affect property values. • e September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 6.329 & 3.513 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director explained that the traffic ideally should maneuver on site, not into the street and explained the configuration of carports to the traffic pattern established on the project. He stated that the parking looks as though it was an afterthought since the buildings are aligned along the setback line; that if the Commission approves the variances, the only grounds would be because it is an existing development and that there is no other logical place for placement of a parking structure that has some founded need; that the Commission could deny the application as not being in the public interest; and that staff sees a major precedent being established if the proposal is approved. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission should distinguish between carports not being required at the time of the original condominium construction compared to a new project which would be built to the existing code. Discussion continued on the precedent-setting nature of the proposal and the possibilty of a study to determine the types of carports in other projects. Planning Director stated that most of the projects in the area have constructed group carports or garages, and that carports in the City are usually off private streets and out of the front yard setbacks except in one case where mature trees would have had to be removed to accommodate a carport; and that the only practical alternative to the proposed carports is landscaping. Discussion continued on possible view obstruction by the carport structures and their being used for unsightly storage, landscaping to provide shade, and dimensions of the proposed carports. Chairman suggested that as a design alternative, if bay parking were used, the amount of open space would be increased considerably and that he would support one carport. Discussion continued on this concept and on the concept of allowing carports on Lagarto Way only. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Madsen for denial of carports on Laverne Way and Calle Palo Fierro. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Kaptur, Madsen NOES: Harris, Koetting, Lawrence, Service ABSENT: None The motion failed. Commissioner Kaptur commented that allowance of carports on only a portion of the project would be unwise. Motion was made by Harris and seconded by Lawrence to deny carports on Calle Palo Fierro and Laverne Way but allow them on Lagarto Way. The vote was as follows: . AYES: Harris, Service NOES: Curtis, Kaptur, Koetting, Lawrence, Madsen ABSENT: None The motion failed. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 6.329 & 3.513 (Cont'd. ) Chairman stated that the area could be landscaped without Planning Commission approval and that motion should be regarding the variance. Planning Director stated that there is no request for a variance on Lagarto Way because of the 55 foot setback from the property line and that the issue on Lagarto Way would be that half of the project would have carports and half would not have them; and that if approved, carports on Lagarto Way would need design review only. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Service & Koetting dissented) denying carports on Calle Palo Fierro and Laverne Way and allowing them on Lagarto Way subject to the following condition: That carport plans be resubmitted with a scale of a" to one foot for AAC and Planning Commission approval . Chairman suggested that if any of the homeowners had questions regarding the case, they should contact the Planning Director. CASE 5.0240-ZTA (Cont'd. ). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Zoning Text for revisions to hotel parking requirements City-wide. . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Planning Directed briefly reviewed the staff report and indicated changes to Page six (on file in the Department of Community Development) , explained revised space requirements for dining, bar, and dance areas and stated that established parking requirements are proposed to be one space for five seats which is slightly lower than a private restaurant; that revisions had been discussed with the Convention & Visitors Bureau and the hotel industry and reviewed by the City Council at its study session of September 7, 1982; and that the Council was concerned that if meeting rooms were oriented to outside functions and hotels became full, a problem would arise relative to parking of additional cars; and stated that outside activities could be monitored by Commission or staff as is done now with the Canyon Hotel. Discussion followed on the number of parking spaces at the Canyon Hotel. Planning Director stated that one of the staff would attempt to obtain parking information before the end of the meeting. The "worked example" sheet for the Canyon Hotel was reviewed. Discussion continued on the definition of a "large" function. Planning Director stated that at the Canyon Hotel , it is any outside use based on the variance for parking. Discussion ensued on a possible requirement to have parking within a certain number of feet of the hotel entrance since annexed parking had • not been viable. Commissioner Kaptur expressed the opinion that a prescribed distance from the hotel entrance in the ordinance will require hotels to provide underground parking so that they become full- fledged hotels rather than motels. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0240-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Chairman declared the hearing open. R. McFeeley, General Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, presented a draft response in letter form (on file in the Department of Community Development) and stated that the Chamber of Commerce supported the revisions. A. Nigro, General Manager of Sheraton Plaza, responded to a Commission request to provide parking statistics for new hotel development. He explained that the parking requirements range from .375 spaces per guest room to 1 space per guest room depending on the type of hotel property, with restaurant parking as one space per ten seats; that downtown and resort parking developments require special studies but none was made for the Palm Springs Sheraton Plaza because of the stringent Palm Springs restrictions; that he felt that restaurant parking for the City is excessive; that the Sheraton Plaza restaurant is used by in-house groups; that the only time in Palm Springs that the hotel is full is holiday weekends; that local functions are held mainly during the season when the hotel is too busy to accommodate them; that their group business needs more meeting space; that the Sheraton Hotel restaurants are mainly within the hotel complexes although there is no requirement for them to be within the building; and that he would be concerned personally only with restaurants located within the complex of the hotel . • D. Christian, architect, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that he was in favor of the revisions; that perhaps there should be one standard for interior restaurants and another for separate restaurants; that the standards are still stringent and should be reviewed further; that there should be a parking break at the 50 room point and another at the 100 or 125 room point for a 400 to 500 room hotel ; that the ratio could be a .5 or .6 ratio rather than a .75 one; and that smaller hotels need more stringent requirements in order to provide adequate parking. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on parking requirements for interior and separate restaurants. Mr. Nigro stated that few in-house restaurants make money but that a restaurant in hotels is a necessity for guests. Lengthy discussion followed on the possibility of having an in-depth study session on the hotel parking requirement revisions in order to protect Palm Springs from the "large parking lot" look to hotels. Planning Director stated that employee parking was not calculated separately. Commissioner Kaptur commented that if there were a distance requirement in the ordinance, it might alleviate off-premises parking. Planning Director stated that staff had been told that there were six to seven hundred spaces at the Canyon Hotel but that he felt that the . figure was unreliable and would write a supplemental report relative to Canyon Hotel Parking. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and unaimously carried ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving ZTA September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0240-ZTA (Cont'd. ) 5.0240 subject to staff preparation of a supplemental report discussing the following additional Commission concerns: 1. a distance factor to the entrance for employee parking in the ordinance. 2. a distance factor to the entrance for any parking for the hotel. 3. a sliding scale to reduce parking for large hotels. 4. a break for interior hotel restaurants vs. a free standing restaurant. CASE 6.327-VARIANCE & CASE 3.514 Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for T. Stykes for a variance from rear yard setback requirements for renovation of a single family residence at 2321 Araby Drive, R-IB Zone, Section 25. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. Final action on variance and architectural case. ) Planning Director stated that there had been a verbal request for . continuance from the architect but the applicants wished to discuss the matter with the Commission. He explained that the motion at the meeting of August 25 was for a restudy so that the applicant could discuss the concerns of the neighbors with the neighbors. Assistant City Attorney advised that the item should be continued to a certain date with no public hearing until it is considered. Chairman stated that he would open the hearing to accommodate those in the audience who thought the item was to be heard. Planning Director reviewed the history of the case and stated that there had been no changes to the plans and there was no new staff report. Chairman declared the hearing open. H. Kaptur, architect, 600 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated that he requested continuance because his client was not available and would be returning within the next two weeks. He distributed photographs showing various angles of the house and explained the roof pitch and height. He stated that the height would be contained within the buildable area and reviewed other homes with high roofs. He noted that the Commission had previously made a decision that as long as the roof height is within the height limit, the Commission cannot get involved. He stated that no building permit could be found for the existing structure because of its age and that the roof would not be raised on the part of the house • within the setback. Planning Director stated that the Commission can review the entirety of the architecture, including the roof, and that the primary reason for review of hillside homes is the protection of the hillside itself. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 6.327-VARIANCE & CASE 3.514 (Cont'd. ) W. Scarlett, 2360 Smokewood Avenue, objected to the project stating that it obscured his view and distributed photographs showing views from his house which would be obstructed; that when he built his home, he built the height within the structure; and that he would propose a compromise that the back be on a lower elevation or changed to another direction. G. Hough, 2330 Smokewood, objected to the project because of the height of the roof line which obscured his view. He stated that no one had met with him to discuss his concerns. H. Kaptur (rebuttal) stated that in answer to Mr. Hough's concerns, he has not been authorized to do anything because of his inability to contact his client. He requested that if the Commission were going to deny the application because of the roof height, he would prefer that the project be approved with a height limitation established. Assistant City Attorney stated that there was no restriction on the number of times a project can be continued. Motion was made by Lawerence, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Kaptur abstained) continuing the application to October 13 for review of neighbors' concerns by the applicant. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Revised) (Cont'd. ) . Further discussion ensued on the project concept. Commission expres- sed the opinion that it was an exciting project. Chairman suggested than an assessment district be formed to maintain the Bogie Road front- age. Mr. Brusseau stated that he had mailed brochures several days ago to prospective tenants. J. Brusseau, 3 Palm Hills Drive, San Juan Capistrano, explained that he did not know the mix of tenants although he was working toward an overall compatibility in the use of the buildings. Planning Director stated that a letter has been received from Jerry Foley, a neighbor, who does not want any noise problems or smoke ema- nating from the project. He stated that he would discuss Mr. Foley's concerns with him. Planning Director explained the two narrow strips of land on the sides of the project as being in negotiations because of a survey error and stated that the ownership of the projerty should be defined. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. • Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously car- ried ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tenta- tively approving PD-140 and TTM 13761 (revised) subject to review. by agencies through the State Clearinghouse and continuing the case to October 27 for responses from the agencies. CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amend- ment to the Municipal Code setting forth regulations relative to home occupationsand amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupa- tions in residential zones in the City. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director gave a brief history of the proposed home occupa- tion ordinance and presented the staff report including findings, recommendations, and direction for Commission action. He stated that correspondence had been received in favor of the proposal . He noted that the ordinance will allow control of home occupations through business licenses. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the business license fee would be approximately $30, but that all fees may be revised upward in the near future. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that there are a significant number of persons with home occupations. who are currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the home occupation ordinance will allow more ease in enforcement. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Revised) . Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for Bogie Road Development Co. for a planned development district to allow construction of an industrial complex on Bogie Road between Vista Chino/Tachevah Drive, M-I-P Zone, Section 7. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recom- mendation, and direction for Commission action. He stated that staff would recommend ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declara- tion and continuance of the hearing to October 27 for the project to be considered by CEQA as a project of regional significance requir- ing clearance through the State Clearinghouse for responses from gov- ernment agencies. He explained the extensive mitigation measures and explained the access for the project and the architectural style which will be established as a "seed" project. He stated that the staff wished to review the project further in order to submit a com- plete set of conditions, and that the project will be reviewed again if tentative approval is given, that no grading permits will be issued during the windy season, and that the entire acreage would not be graded at one time. He stated that Bogie Road will be expanded eventu- ally into four lanes as it is shown on the General Plan, and that Bogie Road has an informal landscape plan using olive, palm, and eu- calyptus trees and a groundcover with boulders with a 25 foot land- scape setback and a meandering bikepath. Commissioner Koetting suggested that a firm landscape plan be formu- lated for Bogie Road since it is a major thoroughfare to Highway 111 . Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Christian, architect, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that the traffic engineer is not opposed to having an access on the north side of the first phase as outlined on drawings submitted to staff. He stated the uses of the property will be a compatible mix of commercial and other uses, and that to avoid CUP hearings, there is a tentative proposal to staff of allowing 30,000 square feet for a single tenant with any buildings over 30,000 square feet requiring Planning Commis- sion determination. He requested that the approval period for the planned development district be two years with the ability to request time extensions. He then reviewed the remaining Development Committee and mitigative requirements with which he had concerns. Planning Director advised that the total project should be reviewed in concept with details to be reviewed later. B. Brusseau, applicant of 3 Palm Hills, San Juan Capistrano, explained the scope of the project. He stated that it would take four to eight years to construct, that he has built many projects such as this with this being the most ambitious. He stated that it would be a major job-producing project for the Palm Springs area and described the type of businesses (video companies, exercise centers, landscape and pool maintenance companies) that could become tenants. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont 'd. ). CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA (Cont'd. ) . Discussion followed on enforcement. Assistant City Attorney stated that in the "PURPOSE AND INTENT" section of the staff report the pur- pose as set forth is sufficient for the purpose of the ordinance, and that Section 5.22.010, "Purpose" is sufficient and precise. In response to a Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the premise is a home, and it is illegal for the Police or Fire Department to enter the home to investigate the home, and that the occupation is incidental to the fact that the dwelling is a home. He stated that Section 5.22.050, Subparagraph 4 limits the number of people to two, but that it is difficult and impossible to enforce. He noted that the number appears arbitrary if challenged and would be difficult to defend. He stated that Section 5.22.070 should make provision for a hearing on a determination that the permit should be revoked so that the permittee has an opportunity to show cause why it should not be revokedand an opportunity to appeal to the Coun- cil , but that he had not discussed this with the Planning Director. At the request of Chairman, Planning Director stated that the provi- sion for two people is so that there will not be a large number of persons involved in the "home" occupation, and that the concept is that the premise is a home within a residential neighborhood. Planner II stated that the reason the section is based upon two people is that a residence usually has two people which is a limiting factor for persons and for traffic. Chairman suggested that the concept be further elaborated upon. Planner II stated that in Section 5.22.050, Subparagraph 1 , the "10 percent of the structure" figure was determined using a reasonable square footage approximately the size of a bedroom which would be used for the home occupation. Commissioner Koetting questioned Section 5.22.050, Subparagraph 13 regarding storage of dangerous chemicals or otherwise hazardous materi- als and/or equipment in relation to landscape and pool maintenance types of home occupations. He also questioned storage of these materi- als and equipment unless offsite mini-warehouse storage is used. Planning Director stated that the home occupation is complying with provisions of Section 5.22.050, Subparagraph 8 which requires off- street storage of vehicles, but that Subparagraph 5 could be clari- fied by staff. Chairman suggested that the ordinance be scheduled for the September 15 study session with the Commission ordering the preparation of a • draft Negative Declaration at the September 8 meeting. Chairman declared the hearing open. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ). CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA (Cont'd. ) . E. Field, 121 S. Palm Canyon Drive, supported the concept with the limitation of 200 square feet in the home since it alleviates other concerns such as the number of persons. He stated that a study ses- sion would be viable since several interested persons had to leave because of time constraints. He noted that that the ordinance will bring to the City a way to deal with home occupations by allowing persons to obtain a license and conduct their own businesses without being a nuisance to their neighbors. W. Comeau, 627 Amado Road, stated that he supported the proposed ordi- nance. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney stated that he would make comments at the study session on September 15. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Harris, and unanimously car- ried ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tenta- tively approving Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 5.0244 subject to any revisions resulting from the September 15 study ses- sion, and continuing the case to the September 22 meeting. Planning Director stated that the Commission does not have to tenta- tively approve the proposal if there were concerns. (The Commission did not revise the action. ) Commissioner Lawrence left the meeting at 5: 10 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. E. Youngerman, 448 S. Indian Avenue, stated that her request for a canvas entry canopy for her delicatessen was recommended for denial by the AAC and requested that the Commission consider it since she felt that the intent of the request was not properly addressed. Chairman stated that the Commission would consider the application. (Ref. Case 3.531 . ) H. Kaptur, applicant for TTM 17432, requested that drainage fees not be required since the structures are in existence, and the only action will be the paperwork involved in condominiut on of the project. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ) . 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 3.531 (Minor) . Application by J. YOUNG for architectural approval of canvas awning and canvas entry at 448 S. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner II presented the application on the display board. Commissioner Curtis stated that the AAC approved the top panel but not the side panels. Discussion followed on whether or not to support the concept. Commis- sioner Harris stated that he was not in favor of the awnings. Commis- sioner Kaptur stated that it is a Building Code violation for side panels to extend over the property line. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the panels did not exceed the property line. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Koetting 0 and Service dissented, Lawrence absent) denying the application. Mr. Youngerman spoke from the audience that he thought there would be a public hearing and a chance for presentation by the applicant, and that not allowing a presentation was unfair. Commissioner Koetting left briefly at this point. CASE 3.529. Application by PACIFIC TENNIS COURTS for E. Mercer for archi- tectural approval of a tennis court at 282 Camino Carmelita, R-1-B Zone, Section 27. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Koetting and Lawrence absent) approving the application as submitted. Commissioner Koetting returned to the meeting. TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS • Planning Director reviewed and explained the map and the Planning Commission discussed and took action of the following map based on the finding that the proposed subdivision; together with the provi- sions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS (Cont'd. ). ordered filed (where indicated) based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17432. Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for RSE Partnership for approval of a subdivision of land to allow condominiza- tion of commercial condominiums in an existing development, C-1-AA and R-4-VP. Zones ( IL) , Section 14 (Ref. Case 3.090) . (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA. ) Planning Director stated that drainage fees are a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance, is a discretionary action, and is consistent with City Council policy and the ordinance relating to it. He stated that No. 2 of the Planning Division recommendations of the Development Committee Minutes of August 19, 1982, is to be revised to delete "when" and add "unless", and that staff would recommend approval with the revisions. He stated that drainage fees were not a requirement of any development in the area when the project was originally con- structed, but that the fees would be required if the project were built today. He stated that if on-site water retention is provided, the cost could be applied to the drainage fees, and that in this case fees would be approximately $25,000. Discussion followed on whether or not the drainage fee is equitable. Commission consensus was that the fee seemed unfair. Planning Direct- or stated that any map action is discretionary, and that the Commis- sion could make a recommendation for elimination of the fees to the Council , but that the fee requirement is a Council policy and in the Zoning Ordinance. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Kaptur abstained; Lawrence absent) approving TTM 17432 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the following revisions: a. That the word "when" be deleted and "unless" added to Planning Division Condition No. 2. b. That drainage fees (Engineering Condition No. 4) be eliminated. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) . CASE 3.528. Application by J. WHITEHEAD for architectural approval of • a bedroom suite addition as a second story to a single family hillside residence at 321 Overlook Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimouly car- ried approving the application subject to the following condition: That the materials match those of the existing dwelling. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) . CASE 3.530 (Minor) . Application by J. YOUNG for architectural approval of remodel of existing house at 2387 Araby Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Planning Director stated that the structure was originally built le- gally, but is now considered non-conforming. He stated that it will lose its exemption from current zoning requirements, as opposed to Case 6.327 in which additions were added illegally. He noted that no views will be obstructed, and that there is a wall behind the struc- ture. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That a landscape plan be submitted for the eastern elevations. 2. That new construction meet ordinance requirements for setbacks. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Rimrock Plaza shop- ping center for architectural approval of a revision to the sign pro- gram, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. Planning Director stated that the applicants have requested a new sign program for more sign visibility at the shopping center and de- scribed the revision. Discussion followed on the advisability of a restudy since there are several conditions of approval . Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) to continue the application to the September 22 meeting pending submission of revised plans. CASE 3.484. Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of landscaping of median islands on Golf Club Drive, Section 29. Planning Director stated that the City desires a desert type of land- scaping for the median islands and is proposing large palm trees in clusters with large brown boulders and desert groundcover. He stated that the Council reviewed the concept at the September 7 study session and found it acceptable. Discussion followed on the advisability of clustering the trees too closely. Planning Director stated that the concept is not a wall of palms, and that there would be open space. • Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence absent) approving the application subject to the follow- ing conditions: September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont 'd. ) . CASE 3.484 (Cont'd. ) . 1 . That species appropriate to the desert be used for groundcover and/or shrubs. 2. That groundcover be extended to the terminus of the island. 3. That mounding be introduced between the trees. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION discussion of proposed landscaping for water tanks westerly of Via Monte Vista, Section 3. Planning Director stated that as a courtesy the Desert Water Agency provided in-house landscape plans for City staff review, and that the AAC had recommended approval . Chairman directed staff to prepare a letter to the DWA for his signa- ture to thank them for their cooperation and sensitive approach to landscaping of the water tanks. • DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION review of landscape requirements for a low/moderate cost housing project on the northeast corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael Drive, PD-116, Section 35 (Ref. Case 5.0144-PD-116) . Planning director stated that the City Council did not like the wind- break design for the AFCOM project and suggested that a field trip be taken to review the total development. He stated that staff feels the landscaping is acceptable. He advised that the Commission would be contacted by staff regarding the field trip. RESTUDY ITEMS The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.265. Application by L. WINTERS for Palm Springs Airwt for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for a light industrial park adjacent to the airport east of Farrell Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Restudy for a more homogenous architecture, for introduction of land- scape species appropriate to the desert, and for further landscaping on the exposed building elevations. • CASE 3.508 (Minor) . Application by the AMERICAN NETWORK for architectural aproval of revised landscape plans for a dish antenna for Hotel 7 Springs on E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone ( IL) , Section 26. September 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 RESTUDY ITEMS (Cont 'd. ) . CASE 3.508 (Minor) (Cont'd. ) . Restudy for screening of the antenna from the residential area and public right of way by a combination of mounding and trees such as African Sumac and California Pepper, submission of revised plans, and a suggestion that flags be placed on-site to represent the antenna for a site inspection by the AAC. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Planning Director stated that an informal AAC item (Case 3.504) would not be addressed until the September 22 meeting (ASC of September 20) . COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Staff to investigate continual garage sales in the 600 block of Monterey Road. - Staff to investigate fence built to the sidewalk in Montoro Estates on Sonora Road. - Staff to investigate continual parking lot sales at the old Mayfair Mar- ket building on S. Palm Canyon Drive. - Staff to prepare resolutions of commendation for former Commissioners M. Harris, Allan, and Christian. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. RVIN D. ROOS Planning Director MDR/mi