Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/09/22 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 22, 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 4 1 Hugh Curtis X 5 0 Darel Harris X 0 Hugh Kaptur X 5 0 Peter Koetting X 5 O Don Lawrence X 4 1 Paul Madsen X 4 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Diane Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - September 20, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Curtis James Cioffi Absent: Peter Koetting Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the September 8, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC NEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amend- ment to the Municipal Code setting foth regulations relative to home occupations and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations in residential zones in the City. (Commiactionsfornfilingnse to written and final approval . No comments ts on draft receivede )Declaration, Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve an amendment to the Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations in residential zones in the City. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. E. Katz, 835 Spencer Drive, stated that she and her husband, Stan Lane, were in favor of the home occupation ordinance. E. Field, 121 S. Palm Canyon Drive, supported the amendment and felt that the provision for the number of persons allowed in the home would alleviate concerns regarding numbers of people participating in a home occupation. Mrs. Pat Tourtelot, 575 Fern Canyon Drive, supported the amendment with its proper enforcement and stated that its approval would aid those in need of two incomes, on set incomes, and handicapped persons. J. Hicks, 701 N. Patencio, realtor, objected to the amendment and stated that home occupations were difficult to control and led to deterioration of single family neighborhoods; that there are many vacant commercial buildings that could be utilized for business purposes; that he felt that the main purpose was to allow the City to raise additional revenue; and requested that the amendment be discussed further from a single family residential concept. R. Fey, 1580 S. Palm Canyon, objected to the amendment in single family residence and condominium zones because he felt that there should be an off-street parking requirement to control trucks parked on the street since there is a security problem when neighborhoods lose control of the identity of vehicles on their street; and that he felt that there would be an increase in traffic. Planning Director explained that the ordinance regulates this type of vehicle parking; that there will be enforcement as problems arise; that there will be no employees in the homes, no deliveries on the premises or customers coming to the homes; that the ordinance will allow more ease in enforcement; and that he could meet with those in opposition before the amendment was reviewed by the Council . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. • September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA (Cont' d. ) Commissioner Harris stated that when condominium C.C. & R. 's prohibit home occupations, they will not be allowed. Planning Director noted that the City does not enforce private C.C. & R. ' s although a letter of approval from the homeowners association could be requested by the City. Commissioner Harris stated for the record that staff and the Task Force should be complimented on their work in developing the ordinance. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he would support the ordinance and hoped that it could be enforced and that probably the additional revenue would be authorized by the Council for enforcement. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unaimously carried ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving ZTA and MCA Case 5.0244 as developed by staff. CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132. Application by C. DUNHAM & S. PLATT for approval of planned development districts for two contiguous development proposals as follows: PD-111 for 11 hillside single family lots & PD-132 for 10 hillside condominiums and one single family lot, both located on the west side of S. Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 & 0-20 Zones (I.L. ), Section 34. (Recertification of EIR and rehearing. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the application to October 13 for staff to meet with the applicant and Canyon vista Homeowners Association representative to resolve concerns regarding a roadway location. Planning Director stated that there had been a flaw in the previous public hearing noticing and the application was returned to the Commission from the City Council for renoticing; that a letter had been received from Mr. Dunham requesting continuance to October 13 to allow a review of the concerns of the homeowners in Canyon Vista Condominiums (with whom he had met) by Mr. Platt who was on vacation and whose property would be affected if a roadway location were revised. Chairman declared the hearing. R. McDermott, 3000 Cahuilla Hills Drive, stated that a gentlemen who had spoken at a previous meeting in opposition to the project stating he represented the homeowners of Cahuilla Drive was not representing the homeowners; that he would like to see two more beautiful homes at the end of Cahuilla Hills Drive; that he had paid taxes on the private road • although the previously mentioned gentlemen had not; that septic tank sewage disposal is not a problem; and that he felt that if anyone spoke for the homeowners it would be he. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Koetting informed Mr. McDermott that the two lots referred to by him have been deleted in the redesign of the project and that there will be no new lots accessing Cahuilla Hills Drive. Mr. McDermott stated that the road would be up to standards and had no traffic and that he could not obtain any money from the previously mentioned gentlemen. C. Dunham, 339 Vereda Norte, applicant, stated that he met with the representative of the condominium association adjacent to his property and he has alleviated some of their concerns but that one of the concerns affects Mr. Platt's property. He requested continuance to October 13; stated that none of the homeowners in Vista Canyon had inquired of the City relative to the type of zoning surrounding the property before they bought; and that his map has been processing through the City for two and one-half years. S. Ehrens, 2481 Cahuilla Hills Drive, stated that the public hearing notice shows the old plot plan, and that he is in favor of the project as it now has been revised. W. Jed, 2458 S. Palm Canyon Drive, questioned the notice he had received because his property is more than 400 feet away from the proposed project. Planning Director explained how the noticing was done and stated that Mr. Jed's property was in proximity to the Dunham project. Mrs. A. Osborne, representing Vista Canyon Homeowners, opposed the project because of view obstruction and increased traffic on an already impacted street. She stated that the homeowners had thought that there would not be any hillside development when they purchased their property. Mr. Dunham declined rebuttal. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on whether or not the EIR should be recertified at the meeting and whether or not a continuance should be granted. Planning Director stated that the applicant can request continuances indefinitely, but that the applicant was requesting continuance as a conciliatory measure only. He stated that staff would be willing to meet with the homeowners relative to their concerns, but that final development plans will be submitted by the applicant for review and that there could be a problem if the homeowners wished to eliminate the one point of access to the Platt property which would then affect the plans and the EIR; that as many as 70 units could be built on the property although mitigative measures would be required to allow that many, and that a revised map would be prepared by staff to distribute to the homeowners although the project will probably not be renoticed; and that the EIR could be recertified on October 13. • Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Lawrence & Kaptur abstained) continuing the application to October 13. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council , at its meeting of July 13, 1982, certified the EIR as being complete in accordance with provisions of CEQA, and with the understanding that a site survey shall be conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU) of UCR prior to submittal of final development plans, and that such plans shall incorporate any mitigation measures recommended by the ARU. The Tribal Council tentatively approved the Planned Development Districts subject to receipt and review of the City Staff Report, Development Committee minutes, site plans, etc. This action was taken in order not to delay the further processing of the cases. After consideration of the recommendations of the Tribal Planning Consultant, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its action of July 13 to certify the EIR and noted that Planning Commission action of July 28 to approve the Planned Development Districts included a condition "that prior to submission of final development plans, the applicant shall contract for a complete archaeological study prepared in-site by the ARU of UCR." 2. Approved the Planned Development Districts subject to the conditions contained in City Planning Commission Resolutions 3428 and 3436, with the exception that action on the condition requiring drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff. " CASE 5.0238-PD-143. Application by G. MARANTZ for a planned development district to extend the use of a non-conforming existing recreational vehicle park at 211 W. Mesquite Avenue between S. Palm Canyon Drive/Belardo Road, R-3 Zone (partial I .L. ) , Section 22. (Ref. Case 5.604-CUP. ) (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission tentatively approve PD-143 subject to conditions and order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, and continue the application to October 13 for final review. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council has requested continuance for further review by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant; that the applicant is objecting to the payment of drainage fees since the City would obtain the fee at the time the property redevelops, but that drainage improvements are needed since • the area floods repeatedly during storms. Planner II stated that the sanitary facilities which do not meet current zoning requirement are not a health hazard. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0238-PD-143 (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on the ten staff conditions of approval ( in staff report on file in the Department of Community Development) . Planning Director stated that the Happy Traveler Park is one of only two sanctioned by the Commission although there are a few other RV spaces in older mobilehome parks. Chairman declared the hearing open. P. Selzer, attorney representing the applicant, requested waiver of drainage fees (since the park is in existence at the present time) with the fees to be required when the property is redeveloped; that utility lines not be undergrounded since it is an economic hardship; that the sidewalk requirements on the west side of Belardo Road be eliminated; that the landscape requirement for the 25 foot strip of land between the park and the adjacent property be waived; that the increased height of the walls be waived; that the word "continuous" be inserted before "stay" in staff condition No. 8; and that the RV use be permitted for ten years since the park serves community needs. He stated that a ten year amortization of the Belardo Road extension is more economically feasible for the applicant. Discussion followed on the length of time the use should be extended. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Selzer stated that if the use is not approved, the park will cease to exist because of the economics regarding the lease; that there is no security problem; that park attendance fluctuates with the season; that landscaping the land adjacent to the park would not solve any problems; and that the power lines had been moved by the applicant to their present location when the park was first developed. He noted that the applicant did not want to come back in five years to ask for another extension; and that the ten year period would allow amortization of the Belardo Road extension. Chairman stated that the applicant was to have put in Belardo Road ten years ago and that the improvements have been held in bond. G. Marantz, No. 6 Palomino, applicant, gave a brief history of the trailer park, and stated that he had initiated the request for extension of the use; had requested a ten year extension intending that the property will eventually be developed to a higher and better use; that there is a 100% occupancy of the park 8 months a year; that the bond on Belardo Road is current; that the street will not go anywhere; that it was not built originally because of security with the Tahquitz Wash; that the power lines will be undergrounded when the property redevelops; that he will landscape the 25 foot strip if necessary; that the park sanitary facilities are more than adequate; that in some cases, park residents stay longer than 30 days; that lengthy parking of the RV' s is not encouraged but that approximately 3% of the vehicles are left for a longer period of time; and that only one RV in the park cannot be moved in an hour. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on ordinance requirements for RV parks. Planning Director stated that the CUP Section addresses RV parking as transient, September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • CASE 5.0238-PD-143 (Cont'd. ) that occupancy shall not exceed 30 days; that every stay under 30 days requires collection of a transient occupancy tax; that the RV use is illegal and should have been ended two years ago; that the five year time extension period is more enforceable; and reviewed staff conditions of approval for the project. He noted that a previous ruling of the City Attorney determined that the park is not subject to collection of transient occupancy tax. Discussion continued on drainage fees. Planning Director stated that if the fees were not paid in the beginning, the City would collect them on an ongoing basis under Proposition "F" provisions. Chairman gave direction on conditions to be addressed in the motion. Planning Director reminded the Commission that it is reviewing a new case which is important from the standpoint of requiring drainage fees. Discussion followed on the undergrounding of utilities. Chairman stated that undergrounding should be required where feasible; that the Council can take action on this; and that the park should not be burdened into extinction. Discussion continued on drainage fees, undergrounding of utilities, and the remainder of staff conditions. Planning Director reviewed staff recommendations and reminded the Commission that the Tribal Council requested a continuance. He noted that the site will be in one of the new redevelopment areas. Further discussion followed on the conditions of approval . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving the application subject to the following conditions: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the following exceptions: A) that drainage fees be deferred until the property redevelops; B) that construction of the sidewalk on the west side of Belardo Road be waived until the propety redevelops; C) that the requirement for increasing the masonry wall on the southern and western boundaries of the site to eight feet be deleted; D) that the RV use be permitted for a period of five years; and E) that staff recommendations, with the exceptions noted above, be met. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Koetting, Service NOES: Harris, Kaptur, Lawrence ABSTAINED: Madsen ABSENT: None The motion failed. • Further discussion followed on the conditions of approval . Planning Director stated that undergrounding of utilities should be required at the present time to tie into the Wessman proposal . Commissioner Kaptur September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0238-PD-143 (Cont'd. ) stated that if the street were going through at the present time, he would support street improvements with a ten year time extension as a trade-off. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Madsen abstained) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact and tentatively approving the Planned Development District for the RV use for a period of ten years subject to the conditions outlined above. Commission continued the application to October 13 for final review. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that the subject property is located within a transitional area with respect to land use, i .e. , a shopping center is under construction on property contiguous to the south; properties contiguous to the south, west and north were included in zone changes and/or General Plan amendments that were effected during the past year and which permit more intense development of the subject properties, etc. After consideration of the recommendations of the Tribal Planning Consultant, the Tribal Council respectfully requested that this case be continued to the next regularly scheduled City Planning Commission meeting (October 13, 1982). This request is made in order to provide • additional time for the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant to evaluate all the considerations related to extending what has been indicated as an interim use, located in a transitional area, for a rather lengthy period of time." CASE 5.0245-ZTA. Initiation by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a zoning text amendment to consider zoning regulations and appropriate locations citywide for the location of electronic game arcades. (Environmental asessment & tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve ZTA 5.0245, and continue the case to October 13 for final review. Planning Director explained the zones where video game arcades are allowed as primary, secondary and accessory uses in staff report and the draft ordinance (on file in the Department of Community Development) . He explained that the ordinance will state that arcades would not be allowed as a primary use in the C-B-D Zone as an example. He stated that arcades would be allowed as a secondary use in conjunction with resort hotels in the C-B-D and C-1-AA Zones but not as a primary use. He then read the ordinance regarding the definition of resort hotel and • explained that arcades would be allowed as a secondary use in any resort hotel . Discussion followed on the number of machines allowed per square foot of floor space. Planning Director explained that staff could not establish September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 5.0245-ZTA (Cont'd.) occupancy requirements except by parking spaces required, but that the requirement would not impede the fire department from establishing its occupancy requirements. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. London, 1600 N. Indian Avenue, Visitor Promotion Task Force member, stated that the Task Force, although not primarily concerned with game arcades, was in accord with the staff recommendations with the exception of the possibility of allowing machines in the Youth Center on Belardo Road in the downtown area. J. K. Moran, attorney representing the Amusing Sandwich Shop, stated that his applicant approved the concept but had concerns about several revisions. He voiced concerns over the proposed amortization period which he felt did not allow fair and just compensation and would allow his client's business to be taken from him. He stated that his client's investment could not be amortized in a year and explained IRS amortization guidelines. He stated that the amortization period proposed is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance which states the amortization period is ten years for non-conforming uses; noted other ambiguities as he saw them in the proposed arcade ordinance; mentioned that he had a very brief time to prepare remarks; and stated that machines cost approximately $3,000 each with additional maintenance • costs for machines and the building. Planning Director stated that there are no arcade businesses open in the City as a primary or secondary use except for Shakey's Pizza which has had more than four machines for many years. Mr. Moran stated that his client had obtained a business license for 25 machines. Planning Director stated that the machines could be an accessory use in the C-B-D Zone as the ordinance is written. Discussion followed on appropriateness of the machines as an accessory use in the C-B-D Zone and their proximity to schools. Chairman mentioned that in Maryland machines are put in schools and felt that the use should not be ruled out of the "0" Zone in locations such as recreation complexes, and golf courses. Planning Director stated that Mr. Moran' s client has no certificate of occupancy, that the ordinance does not allow the use as proposed, and Mr. Moran is trying to get the use established; that the client obtained a business license to place a sandwich shop and 50 vending machines (the type was not defined) , but that a business license is not a license to operate because it is a tax and has no standing as a license. Discussion continued on the amount of floor space per machine, whether or not the distance of an arcade to a library mattered and parking • requirements of one parking space per eight machines. Commissioner Madsen stated that perhaps the Commission was not ready to take action on the ordinance. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0245-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Discussion on the appropriateness of an arcade in the C-B-D Zone as an accessory use continued. Commission consensus was that it not be allowed. Chairman suggested that if an ordinance is to be reviewed at a study session, staff needs direction. Planning Direction stated that the meeting could be adjourned to the special study session of September 29, although it was to have been concerned only with the six new redevelopment areas; that there was not that much disagreement among the Commissioners and suggested that tentative approval be given and the preparation of draft Negative Declaration be ordered with the issues of parking and elimination of arcades as an accessory use in the C-B-D Zone taken into consideration. Chairman stated that he felt that an accessory use anywhere was innocuous, and that the issue is really one of more than four machines. Commissioner Lawrence commented that Palm Springs is supposed to be a "glamour" city, and arcades should not be allowed downtown because they do not conform to this Palm Springs image. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Curtis, Harris & Madsen dissented) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration; tentatively approving ZTA 5.0245; and continuing the item to the October 13 meeting for final review subject to the following • revisions: 1. That one parking space be provided for every eight machines. 2. That no arcade be located within one-half mile radius to a public or private grade school . 3. That the restriction regarding distance from public libraries be deleted. 4. That video amusement machines as an accessory use to a conforming established use be permitted in all commercial/industrial zones, hotels and private and public clubs except in the C-B-D Zone. 5. That arcades be allowed as a primary or secondary use in the "0" Zone. CASE 5.0246-CUP. Application by J. DIETMEYER for P. J. Nathaniel , Inc. for a conditional use permit for a takeout pizza parlor in an existing shopping center (Rimrock Plaza) on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Bogie Road/Palm Hills Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. (Ref. Case 5.0090-CUP) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use • Permit 5.0246 subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that roof equipment will be required to be screened; that it is takeout only with no seating; that parking is generated by the amount of space where the public is served; and that an September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 5.0246-CUP (Cont I d.) additional trash enclosure should be a condition of approval although the condition could be resolved with the applicant. Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Smith, Victoria Investment Co. , the applicant, requested that the trash enclosure requirement be waived because there is an enclosure very close to the proposed takeout pizza parlor; that some spaces in the center have been leased; that trash compactors were a possiblity for major tenants although he preferred deletion of a trash enclosure requirement in any case; and that the CUP process is an involved procedure since he had submitted his application in May. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, approving the application with deletion of the trash bin. Discussion followed on whether or not the trash bin requirement should be deleted. Commissioner Curtis revised his motion as follows with the consent of the seconder: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: • 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That either eight additional parking spaces be added to the site or that future buildings be downsized to balance the parking provided on site. 3. That complete mechanical equipment plans be submitted including plans to adequately screen any equipment not enclosed or concealed by the existing roof structure. 4. That the trash bin enclosure construction be deferred until staff finds that the trash enclosure is needed. 5. That detailed plans be submitted to the Fire Department and Building Division to determine occupant load, exiting requirements, etc. 6. That commercial cooking equipment will require a fixed fire protection system to be installed in conformance with NFPA #96. 7. That portable fire extinguishers be required in conformance with the Fire Code. 8. That a grease trap is required . 9. That the Riverside County Health Department approve the layout and facility. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CASE 5.0246-CUP (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that staff had not had the application since May as indicated by the applicant and that it had been submitted on August 25. Commissioner Koetting suggested that requirements for a free-standing VS. a restaurant in an existing shopping center be reviewed at an upcoming study session. Applicant stated that the Planning Director was correct about the application date but that the requirement for CUP for a restaurant in an existing shopping center loses customers for the center. CASE 6.330-VARIANCE & 3.512. Application by W. VEITH for F. Matjasich for a variance in building height and architectural approval for a single family hillside residence on Southridge Drive between Tiger Tail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the variance and architectural applications. Planning Director explained the site and suggested a field trip. He stated that the AAC recommended approval . • Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Veith, 4777 Eagle Way, applicant and architect, stated that the additional height of the house is not intrusive; that there are other houses on the hillside which are more prominent; explained that the slope of the site is 22%, not 30% as indicated in the staff report; noted that the roadway will not be noticable since the area will be covered in native vegetation; stated that the house will become an integral part of the hillside; that the drainage problems will be resolved; that all houses in the area have septic tanks since the homeowners do not want to pay the cost of sewers; that the color was approved by the Southridge Homeowners Association; that the copper fascia could be dulled with a special finish at the time it was constructed; and that the 38 foot height was required because of the design requested by the client and location of the site. Planning Director stated that the County Health Department and the Water Quality Control Board would not approve a septic system for the site. Discussion followed on problems of sewering of the site, the building height and the design. Planning Director stated that staff feels that the house has been forced on the site (other places on the site would be less intrusive) ; and that a fairly massive scar will result from construction of the house. . Mr. Veith stated that the cut will be in the rear of the house and will be covered by the building itself. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CASE 6.330-VARIANCE & 3.512 (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had major concerns with the design of the building. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that he would not support any application where sanitary conditions were not approved by the Health Department. Motion was made Kaptur and seconded by Koetting to remove the item from the agenda to resolve architectural and environmental problems. The vote was as follows: AYES: Kaptur, Koetting, Lawrence NOES: Curtis, Harris, Madsen, Service ABSENT: None There was a tie vote, and the motion was defeated. Discussion followed on the validity of the application. Planning Director stated that staff was recommending denial because of environmental concerns. Commission consensus was that the applicant should understand what is required since there are severe environmental concerns. City Attorney stated that the variance is a request for • variance from the height limitation of 30 feet and does not depend on the architecture of the building since it is based on specific findings in the ordinance; that if the Commission cannot make the findings, the variance should be denied so the developer knows in what context he is working; and that a new building will not change the variance. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Curtis dissented) denying the variance with the architecture to be returned to the AAC for restudy and resolution of CEQA considerations with staff. • • September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman explained that applicants may speak for three minutes when their items are heard on the agenda, and that anyone else who wished to speak on any other matter could speak during the public comments section. There were no public comments. Chairman left the meeting briefly; Vice-Chairman presided. TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the map and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on 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 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 18785 & CASE 3.511 . Application by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for the Racquet Club of Palm Springs for subdivision of land and architectural approval of case to allow construction of a condo- minium on the northwest corner of Racquet Club Road/Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the map and the case were recommended for restudy by the AAC, and the application would be removed from the age�a pending submission of revised plans. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur (Service absent) for a restudy of the map and the architectural case noting the following concerns: 1 . That the site plan have a more varied layout. 2. That the general architecture be further defined. Chairman returned to the meeting. • September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 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 3.504. Application by J. WOODS for architectural approval of revised plans for a single family residence at 151 S. Tahquitz Drive between Andreas Road/Tahquitz-McCallum Way, R-2 Zone, Section 15. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That 4 X 10" timbers be used for the roof overhang. 2. That 4 X 8" timbers be used for the window surrounds. 3. That 6 X 10" timbers be used for the stair handrails. 4. That the arch elements on the garage doors be eliminated. 5. That landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be sub- mitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for the Hilton-Riviera Hotel for architectural approval of revised plans for an attraction board for the hotel on the northeast corner of Vista Chino/N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. J. London, representing the owner of the hotel , stated that the Com- mission had not seen the plans on the board. Chairman stated that the Commission had seen the design previously. Mr. London stated that the AAC recommendations were for approval of the attraction board fitted between the columns so that the fountain statues were not obscured and to prevent vandalism and persons changing the attraction board letters. Discussion on the recommendation for a monument sign ensued. Mr. London stated that the AAC recommended what was presented on the display board, not a monument sign. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and carried (Harris and Koetting dissented) approving the sign as recommended by the AAC subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the sign be raised to the level of the capital element of the column. 2. That the sign be fitted between the columns. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont 'd. ) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Rimrock Plaza shopping center for architectural approval of a revision to the sign program, C-D-N Zone, Section 30 (Ref. Case 5.0090-CUP) . Planning Director questioned the time frame for phasing out of the existing wood signs, but Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that it had not been discussed at the AAC meeting. Planning Director stated that a two-year phasing out program would be acceptable. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously car- ried approving the sign program subject to the following conditions: 1 . That there be a two-year amortization period for the existing wood signs. 2. That simulated wood be used for the sign face. 3. That the plexiglass color be limited to ivory and camel . 4. That the bottom of the sign cabinet overlap the bottom of the support beam, and that all cabinets have a uniform installation. CASE 3.525. Application by GREENHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for archi - tectural approval of installation of mushroom lights and high pres- sure sodium vapor landscape lights within and on the perimeter of a condominium complex at 1101 Alejo Road, R-GA (8) Zone ( IL) , Section 14. T. McKown, 411 N. Hermosa, manager of the Greenhouse, stated that the proposed high pressure sodium lights were for the security of the back alleys of the complex which are the location of the carports. He stated that the association would be willing to paint the fixtures the same colors as the building (Navajo White) and also paint out sections of the lenses so that light does not fall onto other properties. Planner II stated that the design of the fixture was recommended for denial by the AAC. Planning Director stated that light is not allowed to shine on other properties, per the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion followed on the intensity of the light in the proposed fixtures. Planning Director stated that the fixture is not a well-designed one, and is not in keeping with the Greenhouse. Discussion followed on the proposed mushroom lights which had been recommended for approval by the AAC. Commissioner Harris recommended further research into other types of fixtures. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen abstained) for a restudy with the applicant to return with a more professional light concept and specifications on a plot plan of the distance the lights will cover. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) . • CASE 3.525 (Cont'd. ) . Mr. McKown stated that the better-designed fixture costs an addi- tional $4,000 above what the association has already spent. CASE 3.532 (Minor) . Application by T. DALU for Z. Pitts for architectural approval of canvas awnings for businesses at 115 S. Indian Avenue, 125 The Plaza, 128 The Plaza, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, an carried (Harris dissented) approving the canvas awning as submitted for the busi- nesses at the above addresses. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that no sign details had been sub- mitted by the applicant. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0120-CUP (Ref. TTM 18302) . Request by SNEDAKER CONSTRUCTION CO. for a 12-month time extension for a CUP to con- struct 13 individual single family residences at the southwest corner of Araby Drive/Morongo Trail , R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Harris, and unanimously car- ried approving a time extension for the CUP to expire concurrently with the map. The new expiration date for the map and case is Janu- ary 20, 1984. There are no new conditions. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.292 (corrected from Case 5.0217-CUP) . Application by L. LAPHAM for G. McGlamary for architectural approval of grading plan for a single family residence on Mesquite Avenue, west of Belardo Road, R-1-A Zone ( IL) , Section 22. Planning Director stated that the wrong description had appeared on the agenda, and that the correct case is the McGlamary residence, not the condominium project. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried approving the grading plan as submitted. CASE 3.533 (Minor) . Application by WARNER CABLE to install two dish anten- nae and for architectural approval of parapet screen wall addition to headquarters office at 1050 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 and C-2 Zones, Section 11 . Discussion ensued on the visibility of the antennae. Planning Direc- tor stated that they were not visible from Palm Canyon Drive. Commis- sioner Kaptur commented that the antennae sometimes were not as ugly as the screening. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) . • CASE 3.533 (Cont 'd. ) . Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That landscaping be added to screen the ground-mounted antennae. 2. That the parapet screening not be installed including the addi- tional screen bay at the south edge of the bulding until the dish antennae are installed and reviewed by staff and the Commission in the field. 3. That all dish antennae be painted to match the building color. ADDED STARTER (ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM) CASE 3.513 (REF. CASE 6.329-VARIANCE) . Application by E. HORENSTEIN & D. LOWMAN for architectural approval of revised carport elevations on Lagarto Way for condominium complex on Twin Palms Drive/Calle Palo Fierro/Lagarto Way, R-TP Zone, Section 26. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried approving the application as submitted. • CONTINUED ITEMS SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Union Oil Company for architectural approval of a revised sign at gasoline station at 301 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. This item was continued at the applicant's request to the October 13 meeting. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following item(s) were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application(s) will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.265 (ADDED STARTER) . Application by L. WINTERS for Palm Springs Airpark for architectural 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 the applicant to submit true street elevations to Alejo Road including landscaping and submittal of landscape plans and eleva- tions of all sides of the two-story buildings. September 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 COMMISSION DISCUSSION, REPORTS, AND REQUESTS - Affordable Housing Field Trip, September 21 . No discussion. - Special Study Session. Planning Commission discussion with Planning and Redevelopment staffs regarding the six new redevelopment areas in the City, September 29, 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. , Large Conference Room, City Hall . - Joint Dinner Meeting. Joint Planning Commission and City Council din- ner meeting to discuss City goals and policies, October 4, beginning at 6:30 p.m. , Lyons English Grille, 233 East Palm Canyon Drive. 'oVt A D REC OR VjN MDR/mi