Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/10/13 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 13, 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 5 1 Hugh Curtis X 6 0 Darel Harris - 5 1 Hugh Kaptur X 6 0 Peter Koetting X 6 0 Don Lawrence - 4 2 Paul Madsen X 5 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Ken Feenstra, Redevelopment Director Tom Lynch, Economic & Housing Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer II John Terell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - October 11, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Curtis James Cioffi Peter Koetting Absent: Earl Neel Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the September 22, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 • ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Planning Director reminded Commissioners that the meeting would be adjourned at 6:30 p.m. since the City Council meeting would start at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132. Application by C. DUNHAM & S. PLATT for approval of planned developments 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 Dr. between Cahuilla Hills Dr./Murray Canyon Dr. , R-2 & 0-20 Zones (I.L.) , Section 34. (Recertification of EIR and rehearing. ) Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission recertify the EIR and reapprove PDs 111 & 132 and Tentative Tract Map 16495 subject to original conditions of approval. Planning Director reviewed the projects including the location of the access road which is of concern to the adjacent Vista Canyon homeowners. He stated that the proposed location is the most feasible since alternative locations would scar the hillside more; that the applicants have requested a two year time period in which to submit final development plans; and that the ordinance will be revised to allow planned development districts and maps to process concurrently, however, the ordinance now requires a one year time period and the projects are required to comply with this. He described the roadway and the equestrian trail location on the display board and on the model . Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Dunham, 339 Vereda Norte, applicant, requested approval and stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation. R. Katherman, Sherman Oaks, representing Vista Canyon homeowners, stated that the homeowners had not been properly notified regarding the project and the EIR, especially in light of the access roadway problem; asked for a study of alternative access (suggested that the roadway be aligned through the center of the Platt project) since the current alignment impacts several condominiums; and stated that the homeowners now do understand the EIR process. C. Dunham (rebuttal) stated that he had been cooperative with the homeowners of Vista Canyon; that the homeowners' proposal to realign the access road was not viable because of the traffic impacts created; and • that the homeowners should have investigated the possibility of development behind their condominiums before they purchased. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) Discussion: Planning Director stated that the president of the homeowners association understood the process and was not satisfied with the road alignment but felt that he could not visualize its exact appearance until final development plans are presented; that the amount of traffic generated by the subject project is insignificant, that impact of the roadway would be mitigated by landscaping and walls; and that in regard to the notification during the EIR period, the present homeowners were not homeowners at that time; that the owners at that time had been notified; that the conditions of approval are stringent; and that the homeowners would probably be opposed to any development behind them because they had evidently thought that the hillside would never be developed. Planner III noted that two years ago one of the homeowners had contacted staff about the project but that now there are many new homeowners. He reiterated that the noticing procedure had been adequate and there had been no challenge to the contents of the EIR. Assistant City Attorney agreed with staff and also stated that the previous property owner, not the City, had the obligation to give the information to the current owners; and that the City is not required to monitor property transactions for notification of any new owner. Planning Director explained the eight mitigative measures in the EIR (on • file in the Department of Community Development) that were required for the access roadway. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Harris & Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained) recertifying the completeness of the EIR for PD' s 111 & 132. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Harris & Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained) reapproving Case 5.0185-PD- 132 subject to all original conditions of approval . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Harris & Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained) reapproving Case 5.0136 & TTM 16495 subject to all original conditions of approval . Tribal Council comments: "These cases were considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of May 25, July 13, and September 21, 1982. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, and the review of the City Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 22, 1982, the Tribal Council reiterated its prior actions to: October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) 1. Certify the EIR as being complete in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, and with the understanding that a site survey shall be conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU) of the University of California, Riverside prior to submittal of final develoment plans, and that such plans shall incorporate any mitigation measures recommended by the ARU. 2. Approve the Planned Development Districts subject to the conditions contained in City Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3428 and No. 3436, with the exception that 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. " 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 West Mesquite Ave. between S. Palm Canyon Dr./Belardo Rd. , R-3 Zane (partial I.L. ) , Section 22. (Ref. Case 5.604.CUP) (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, • action for filing, and final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and final approval of PD-143. Planning Director stated that staff is recommending an additional condition as follows: That the roadway construction start within 90 days of City Council approval or concurrently with the roadway construction on the Wessman project (Case 5.0177-PD-133) . Chairman declared the hearing open. G. Marantz, 6 Palomino, the applicant, stated that he had no problems with staff recommendations on Belardo Road, but that he took exception to the requirement to underground the electric lines; and that it had been assumed that the Wessman project would underground its lines, but that was not the case since the lines are now being relocated. Planning Director stated that the condition had not been waived for the Wessman project by the Director of Community Development, and that if the condition is waived for the subject project, the ten year time extension for the use should be reconsidered since it was granted for amortization of the cost of undergrounding; and that the undergrounding • requirement for the electrical lines on the Wessman project will be reviewed by staff. Mr. Marantz again requested that the undergrounding requirement be waived. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0238-PD-143 (Cont'd. ) There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that it takes Edison six months to a year to make plans for undergrounding and that the process should be started by the applicant within that period of time. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Harris & Lawrence; Madsen abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving PD-143 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met, including the full construction of Belardo Road in accordance with the original conditions. 2. That undergrouding of utilities and roadway improvements be started within 90 days of City Council approval or concurrently with the construction of these requirements for the Wessman project (Case 5.0177-PD-133) . 3. That landscape plans for the land north of the existing office and pool area be submitted. (This land was not developed in the construction of the park but is part of the property. ) 4. That trash facilities be provided in accordance with Section 9307.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the masonry wall on the southern and western boundaries of the site be increased to eight feet in height above grade at adjacent curb. 6. That final development plans be submitted within 30 days of approval by the City Council . (Final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans for the south and west yards adjacent to Belardo Road and Morongo Road respectively. 7. That all mitigative measures identified in the environmental assessment/initial study be implemented unless otherwise altered by these conditions. 8. That landscaping, walls, trash enclosure and any other conditions of the City Council be installed in conformance with the approved plan within 30 days of the signing off of the road construction by the City's Engineering Division. 9. That the RV use be permitted for a period of ten years. 10. That the maximum period of stay on the site for any vehicle be 90 days with no accessory structures allowed. • Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council , at its meeting of September 21, 1982 requested that this case be continued to the next regularly scheduled City Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1982. This request was made in order October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0238-PD-143 (Cont'd. ) to provide additional time for the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant to evaluate all the considerations related to extending an interim land use located in a transitional area, for a rather lengthy period of time. It has been noted that the subject property is included within the proposed South Palm Canyon Redevelopment project area, and that the selection and designation of the boundaries of this area and the adoption of a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of the area is on the City Planning Commission Agenda for October 13, 1982 (Item No. 10) . From the City Planning Commission minutes of September 22, 1982, it was also noted that the applicant and/or his representative has indicated the intent that the property will eventually be developed to a higher and better use, and that a 10-year amortization of the Belardo Road improvements is more economically feasible for the applicant. In view of the actions leading toward the redevelopment of the area, and the cast of the Belardo Road improvements, and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Approved the application for a 10-year extension of the • Planned Development District for the existing RV use subject to the conditions outlined in City Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 22, 1982, and with the understanding that the construction of the Belardo Road improvements will proceed concurrently with the construction of that section of Belardo Road in the Plaza del Sol Shopping Center." 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. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve CASE 5.0245-ZTA, as prepared by staff. Planning Director reviewed a map on the display board which depicted distances (one-half mile) of arcades from City schools. He stated that the School District is not subject to zoning limitations and could put in machines in the schools. He also noted other revisions to wording and meaning in the proposed ordinance, and noted that the one year • amortization period was requested to be deleted from the ordinance by K. Moran, attorney representating the Amusing Sandwich Shop. He noted that because of the portability of the units, the proposed one year amortization period is viable. He stated also that the proposed ordinance is intended to protect the character of the downtown. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0245-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Assistant City Attorney stated that there was no set standard for amortization except that the period should be reasonable and will not unduly penalize a businessman with a vested right with a legal non- conforming use. He stated that arcade games are portable and easier to move than permanent improvements, and that the one year amortization period is reasonable under the circumstances. Discussion followed on the area of public service, allowance of machines as a secondary use under a CUP in a resort hotel in the CBD Zone, and the possibility that there could be more machines as a secondary use under certain circumstances of floor area than as a primary use. Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Caifano, Desert Palms Drive, stated that arcades are beneficial to Palm Springs. K. Moran, attorney representing the Amusing Sandwich restaurant, supported the ordinance concept but stated that there are concerns with portions of it, i.e. the amortization period; cited legal cases to support a longer amortization period; stated that the one year period was written into the ordinance to affect his client; and that he supported the thousand foot distance between arcades. Commissioner Koetting stated that the thousand foot distance was between schools, not arcades. (Planning Director stated that it would not preclude arcades being side by side. ) T. Gorham, 260 N. Palm Canyon Drive stated that he was against the provision to eliminate arcade games in the CBD Zone; that his business license was predicated on the anticipated income from the vending machines; and that his lease would not expire for six years although the amortization period could end within one year. S. Bock, 260 N. Palm Canyon Drive stated that her business had four arcade machines; that no problem with the children had arisen; and requested that the terms "eyesore" and "nuisance" be defined. She stated that the vendor serving her business has been in the game machine business for many years, that the small businessman is being discriminated against, and that the removal of the games would cause her an economic hardship. T. Barton, local video game vendor, stated that his family had been in the business many years; requested the definition of the nuisance; stated he had never had a problem in the downtown because of the machines; that the City should only enact an ordinance when there is a problem; that it was a Judge Roy Bean ordinance; and that arcade games should not be excluded from the downtown. • Commissioner Koetting stated that the ordinance was prepared to have guidelines (which had been lacking previously) in the placement of arcades. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • CASE 5.0245-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Chairman stated that the topic generates differences of opinion, that the City Council can revise the ordinance, and that no public input had been received until this meeting. Mr. Barton stated that the City should protect the public health, but that no hazard exists from the machines. D. Cramer, Amusing Sandwich Shop owner, stated his business was an asset to the City; that he does not allow schoolage children during the day; and that he objected to the one year amortization period. P. Bright, 129 The Plaza, stated that the ordinance discriminated against the small businessman; that the one-half mile limit from the school only makes people drive further; and that he was not taking the games out of his store. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that the one-half mile requirement pertains only to primary and secondary uses, and that up to four machines would be allowed in most commercial establishments. Chairman stated that the School District should place machines in the schools to raise money; and that he did not see any problems with the • machines as an accessory use in the downtown. Commissioner Madsen explained that the IRS amortization period was different from the ordinance amortization period since the City is not saying the machines are obsolete but that they are to be removed. Discussion followed on portions of the ordinance which caused disagreement among the Commission, i .e. , square footage required for each machine, machines as a secondary use in resort hotels in the CBD Zone, control of arcades, and additional public input. Commissioner Kapter noted that if machines are in resort hotels downtown, the hotels manage them; that the games encourage gatherings of young people who sometimes are boisterous and intimidate older people downtown; that the downtown area has been viewed as restrictive and sophisticated and arcades may cause policing problems with more police having to be hired with resulting expenses to the City. He stated that he felt that the games have a proper place in other than the downtown area such as the Palm Springs Mall ; that the School District should place machines in the schools; that he would not like to see anyone put out of business by removal of the machines; that there should be a review of the one year amortization period; and that the ordinance could be written to alleviate any concerns. Further discussion regarding the amortization period, accessory uses in • the CBD Zone, the amount of space required for each video machine, and the distance from schools. Planning Director explained that primary and secondary uses will be regulated by conditional use permit. He stated that the Director of Community Development will review accessory uses, that there can be restrictions, and that the process is flexible; that October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 5.0245-ZTA (Cont'd. ) staff did not initiate the deletion of accessory uses in the downtown; and that the quality of display could be controlled through the process. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Curtis to restudy the ordinance. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Kaptur NOES: Koetting, Madsen, Service ABSENT: Lawrence, Harris The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Lawrence and Harris absent; Curtis .and Koetting dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving ZTA 5.0245 as prepared by staff with the following exceptions: 1. That the radius from schools be reduced to one thousand feet. 2. That video games be allowed as an accessory use in the CBD Zone. Planning Director explained the control of any accessory use of video machines is, through the business license procedure which is an annual review. • Commissioner Madsen stated that there was no amortization problem because no businesses are operating with machines as accessory uses. CASES 6.327-VARIANCE & 3.514. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for T. Stykes a variance from rear yard setback requirement for renovation of a single family residence at 2321 Araby Dr. , R-1-B Zone, Section 25. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. Final action on variance and architectural case. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the variance and architectural approval case subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the application was continued because of a neighbor's objections to the roof height, and that the applicant had made no changes to the plans. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Cioffi, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, the applicant, stated that the house was being upgraded by the owner; that after review of the roof height and erection of a pole showing the height, it was found that • there was very little infringement on the view of Mr. Scarlett, the neighbor who opposed the roof height; that the portion of the house in the setback had been built years ago; and requested that the roof height question not be used as leverage in the action on the variance. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASES 6.327-VARIANCE & 3.514 (Cont 'd. ) M. Stykes, 2321 Araby, owner, distributed pictures of the roof height measurement as determined by the pole and stated there was no height problem; that he is upgrading the house and is happy with the high ceiling. He requested that the height not be lowered. W. Scarlett, 2360 Smokewood, described his background as an architect and designer and stated that he knew what good design was; that the roof could be redesigned to improve the appearance of the house; and that the roof will definitely block his view. M. Stykes (rebuttal ) stated that he had tried to cooperate with the neighbors and requested Commission approval. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Planning Director stated that the variance concerns setbacks and may involve a portion of the roof which is inside the setback but that the height allowance is within the zoning requirement. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Harris & Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained; Curtis dissented) approving Variance 6.327 and architectural case 3.514 subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. • NOTE: The AAC approved the application as submitted. CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Revised) . Application by C. MILLS for W. Coble for revised plans for a planned development district to allow construction of a 98-unit one and two story condominium project on Escoba Drive between the Radio Tower/Los Compadres Stables, R-1-C Zone, Section 30. Environmental assessment recommended to be deferred to take quick action for denial . Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the application on its merits. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council disagrees with staff's recommendation for denial and described the configuration of the General Plan Map in the area which the applicant feels led to the R-1-C Zoning, the density of which staff finds inappropriate since density increases for density's sake is not encouraged in the City; that the applicant feels there are special circumstances of its proximity to the wash, the church, and Los Compadres Stables as well as the small size of the units which reduces density, but that the City has an adequate amount of • housing of this type; that approval of the project would establish an undesirable precedent; and that the applicants were not proposing to acquire land across the wash. Chairman declared the hearing open. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Cont'd. ) H. Hampton, 1913 E. Amado Road, applicant, stated that he met with Traffic Engineering staff and the consensus was the project does not create traffic problems and that the access is in the correct place. He described the configuration of the property, its zoning and proposed development; described the units as totally livable with large patio areas and for the type of market which the applicants hope to reach. He stated that he disagrees with staffs analysis of high density having direct access to Highway 111 only; that the project meets some goals and objectives of the housing element; and that it would be a transition between the R-3 and R-1-C Zones. Mrs. S. Millard, 3508 Escoba Drive, stated that a petition had been presented from the homeowners across the street objecting to the project when the application was originally heard. She noted that project will generate much traffic and that the corner of Escoba and E1 Cielo is a dangerous conrner and carries much traffic at the present time. She stated school children walk on Escoba Drive and would be endangered by an increase in traffic and that reducing the units to 98 does not change the impact; that the only access to the portion along Highway 111 is through a residential neighborhood; and also that the small size of the units is not compatible with the larger size of the neighboring homes. R. Watt, 1134 N. Calle Rolph, representing Los Compadres Stables, noted concerns of traffic, density, size of the units, and the impact on the • value of the five acres owned by the stables on the west side of the development. He stated that the stables were landlocked until negotiations with Jerry Buss resulted in an 82 foot easement to the wash. He noted also that the stables have been in existence for 45 years, and that the developer should make prospective buyers aware of this fact. Mrs. R. Sheehan, Escoba Drive, reiterated Mrs. Millard's objections and stated that the neighborhood is 100% against the project. H. Hampton (rebuttal) stated that the stables are in an R-3 Zone and when they cease operating, R-3 density projects will be constructed; that the proposed project is a transition; that he would be willing to dedicate a half street if Los Compadres was willing to also dedicate land; and that the project access does not pose that much of a problem. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that it was not customary to interpret density from the graphics of the General Plan. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the neighborhood had been done an injustice with the approval of the adjacent apartment complex and should not be impacted any further since it is developing into a good residential area. He stated that he felt that the applicant was aware of the zoning when he acquired the property. • Discussion followed on the watercourse designation of the area and the possibility that at one time it could have had direct access to the highway. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Lawrence & Harris absent; Curtis abstained) denying PD-137 (Revised) . Tribal Council comments: "In reviewing the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated April 28, 1982 (Case No. 5.0222-PD-137) , which was prepared for the initial screening of the project on its merits to allow for quick disapprovals prior to initiation of the CEQA process (Section 15075 (b) , it was noted that Item 25-Mandatory Findinqs of Significance included the Planning Staff recommendation that the project be redesigned to reduce project density to maximum General Plan capacity. The E.A./Initial Study indicated that the General Plan density should be an average of 9.8 DU/AC or a total of 100.05 units. Item 25 also noted that "upon Development Committee analysis of the revised site plan and final sewer analysis, the intial study shall be updated, whereby a Negative Declaration may be in order. " Item II- Land Use of the April 28 study included the following mitigation: "If the cluster residential concept based upon underlying General Plan designations is acceptable, overall density shall be reduced whereby compliance with the aforementioned density is achieved (100 du) . This density of approximately 9.0 du/ac. would permit a more compatible land use design. " It was noted that the revised site plan for the subject project includes 98 dwelling units and that the number of two story buildings has been reduced and/or relocated on the site. In view of the findings, recommendations, and mitigation included in the April 28 EA/Initial Study, and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council found that the City Staff was inconsistent and premature in recommending denial since it appears that the applicant has attempted to address the density issues that were raised in the April 28 EA/Initial Study. The Tribal Council recommended that these revised plans for a planned development district be processed by City Staff in accordance with the normal procedures for this type of project. " CASE 5.0231-PD-139. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a planned development district to allow construction of three affordable housing projects on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/extension of Tramview Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) • Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue the application to December 8 to allow for processing through the State Clearinghouse as an application of regional significance (a project over 500 units) . October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that there were many environmental impacts, that the report was prepared late, and that the Commission had just received it. Discussion followed regarding the school site. Planner III stated that if BLM property is not acquired for a school site, a new PD application would be filed; and that the staff recommendation would be for preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and submittal of the environmental assessment material to the State after which staff would address any State agency environmental concerns. He then described several environmental impacts generated by the project and stated that one of the severe impacts is on City sewage facilities. Discussion continued relative to affordable housing criteria. Economic Development & Housing Director stated that the area is being considered as a proposed redevelopment area and that there are identified needs in the project area such as a windbreak, open space, and recreational and housing needs which this project helps to solve; that the developer is attempting to acquire BLM land to move the school site next to Desert Highland park and the Redevelopment Agency will assist in doing this. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278 N. Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, stated that the • project was complex and requested that a draft Negative Declaration be prepared so that environmental documents can be submitted to the State. He requested a study session, if the Commission desired, and stated that the project has been in progress six months and would be beneficial to the City and the neighborhood. He noted that the owner was in attendance to answer specific questions. C. Dauphine, 879 Gateway Drive, stated that he was in favor of the project; that development in the area has been non-existent but the word "redevelopment" scared him because of its connotation as removal of existing buildings with something replacing them; that affordable housing is needed in the area for persons working in the service industries in Palm Springs but that the one bedroom apartments would not be suitable for families. He requested approval of the project and stated that the windbreak would be of great benefit to the entire community. Mrs. Cora Crawford, resident, supported the project for the following reasons: 1. It will beautify the entrance to the City. 2. It will develop the neighborhood which has had no development for 20 years. 3. It will upgrade and raise the standards of the neighborhood. 4. It will allow people who work in Palm Springs to live in Palm Springs and contribute financially to the City. • Rev. J. Rollins, 1st Baptist Church Minister, requested approval and stated that the people in the north area had attempted unsuccessfully to develop the area in the 60's; that there is a serious housing shortage October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd. ) there; that the project will benefit Palm Springs and will allow the area to become a better place to live and will keep church members in the neighborhood. Mrs. B. Richardson, resident, stated that she owned her own home but felt badly for those who did not and requested that the Commission work toward making a home a possibility for the people of the area. D. Ward, Gardena, California, stated that he is a property owner and that the neighborhood needs development. He requested that the affordability factor be related directly to the residents of the north area. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Harris & Lawrence absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to the December 8, 1982 meeting for response to the concerns of State agencies. • • • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 Chairman left the meeting briefly; Vice-Chairman presided. CASE 5.0242-CUP. Application by PACIFIC TENNIS COURTS for a conditional use permit to allow a tennis court at 796 Via Miraleste, R-1-B Zone, Section 11 . Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve CUP 5.0242 sub- ject to conditions. Planner III stated that the 4 foot wall was recommended to preserve the existing oleanders. Vice-Chairman suggested that the tennis court ordinance be reviewed since it may be too restrictive. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Waters of Pacific Tennis Courts, the applicant, explained the posi- tioning of the court and stated that its length is 110 feet because of its crowded location. He stated if the court were to be denied, the owner wanted to request building it on the north side of the • property along Tamarisk which would necessitate removal of 11 mature palm trees but did not violate the setback. Vice Chairman suggested that the application be continued for the applicant to submit the revised plan, and that the south property line location requested had not been acted upon yet. Mr. Waters stated that his client would be willing to participate in a covenant on street improvements on Tamarisk as long as the property owners on Via Miraleste and Indian are required to do so. Vice Chairman stated that the improvements will be waived until de- velopment occurs in the entire area, but that dedication is a City requirement. Chairman returned to the meeting. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he could not support a zero setback and felt also that the setback area should be landscaped. Planner III stated that there are zero setbacks in the Tynberg tract, but they were where courts abutted other courts, and the zero setback would not have been granted otherwise. Motion was made by Curtis and seconded by Koetting to deny the appli- cation. Discussion followed on whether or not the project should be denied, tabled, or restudied. • Commissioner Curtis withdrew his motion for denial with the consent of the seconder. October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • CASE 5.0242-CUP (Cont 'd..). Further discussion followed on the type of action to take on the appli- cation. Assistant City Attorney stated that if tabled, action must be taken before the end of the next meeting (October 27) , or that if action on a restudy is taken, the applicant could revise the architectural concept. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Harris and Lawrence absent) for a restudy of CUP 5.0242. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman stated that comment from applicants can be made during the "Public Comments" section or at the time the item is addressed, and that comments on any other subject are to be made in the "Public Comments" section only. B. McDonald, Anaheim, stated that he owned property in the proposed Ramon-Bogie Redevelopment Project Area and wished to remove it from the project area (for private development) . He stated that his project has been processing for 3 years, and that he was surprised • that it was included in the redevelopment area. He described his dealings with the City regarding development of the property, and concluded by stating that he was against his property being included in the redevelopment project area and will be voicing this to the City Council if allowed to do so. 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 3.520 & TTM 14009. Application by B. LEUNG for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of moderate cost residential condominiums on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone ( IL) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that the AAC had recommended restudy with continuance to an unspecified date, and that there were environmental concerns relative to sewer system capacities. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) for a restudy of the application. . October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS. Request by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for Planning Commission for preliminary development plans for six new redevelopment project areas as follows: Highland/Gateway; North Palm Canyon; Tahquitz/Andreas; South Palm Can- yon; Oasis; Ramon/Bogie. Redevelopment Director stated that the 6 redevelopment projects were reviewed in the special study session of September 29, 1982, and that the revised plan had been distributed as follows: On the North Palm Canyon Project Area, the boundary was brought down to Desert Hospital to consider problems in that area; and in the Ra- mon-Bogie area, additional acreage was added south of Ramon Road from Bogie Road east to the City limits and south to Mesquite Avenue. He stated that the latter area encompasses land on the corner of Bogie and Ramon Road whose owner did not wish it included in the redevelop- ment project area, and that a letter had been sent explaining that the property was included. Redevelopment Director stated that being included in a redevelopment project area does not preclude private development, and that the pri- mary reason for inclusion in the area is to attempt to assist the developer in the improvement of the community. Housing and Redevelopment Specialist described the revisions to the original document (original and revised documents on file in the Redevelopment Division office, City Hall modular) . Redevelopment Director stated that the Planning Commission would adopt the redevelopment plans after which the Redevelopment Agency will transmit them to taxing agencies which have 15 days to organize fiscal review committees and 90 days to review the documents and determine fiscal impact. He stated that after completion of the review process and negotiations with the Board of Supervisors, public hearings will be held, and the public in each area notified of the redevelopment plans by certified mail . He noted that the six projects will be addressed individually. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution to adopt the boundaries of the Highland/Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and formu- lating and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution to adopt the boundaries of the North Palm Canyon Redevelopment Project Area and • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 • ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS (Cont'd. ) . formulating and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution to adopt the boundaries of the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project Area and formu- lating and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution adopting the boundaries of the South Palm Canyon Redevelopment Project Area and formulating and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution adopting the boundaries of the Oasis Redevelopment Project Area and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving a resolution adopting the boundaries of the Ramon-Bogie Redevelopment Project Area and formu- lating and approving a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the project area. RECONSIDERATION. Request by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for Desert Associates for Planning Commission reconsideration of conditions of approval for phasing plan for TTM 17082, a subdivision of land for a condomini- um complex on E1 Segundo/Amado/Alvarado/Andreas Roads, R-4 Zone (IL) , Section 14 (Ref. Case 3.473) . Planning Director explained the request for reconsideration. He stated that the applicants are requesting for economic reasons a temporary pavement condition rather than full street improvements on Andreas and Amado which are two streets bordering the project, and that the City Engineer agrees that it is a feasible alternative to the City' s requirement for full street improvements. He noted that water and sewer lines would have to be constructed for most of the project if the full street improvements were required. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving revisions to conditions for the phasing plan for TTM 17082, as follows: That a temporary pavement be constructed on Andreas Road and Amado Road, but that no curbs and gutters will he required at the present time. • Planning Director noted that the status of the improvements may be • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 RECONSIDERATION (Cont'd. ) . reviewed at the time a time extension request is made (within four- teen months) . Tribal Council comments: City staff has indicated that they are recommending that the condi- tions of approval on the phasing plan for TTM 17082 be revised to permit the construction of a temporary roadway surfacing W' asphalt cap) on Amado Road and Andreas Road. This revision is apparently acceptable to the applicant. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the revisions to the condi- tions on the phasing plan for TTM 17082 as noted above. 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. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Lawrence and Harris absent) taking the following actions: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Union Oil Co. for architectural approval of a revised sign at a gasoline station at 301 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued at the applicant 's request. CASE 3.486. Application by R. SALAZAR for Billy Reed's restaurant for architectural approval of landscape plans for parking lot on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 & R-3 Zone, Section 3. Restudy of the orientation of the groundcover and shrubs, the sub- stitution of a alternative species of Ficus Nitida, and for an increase in the size of the tree wells. CASE 3.487. Application by D. HAMILTON for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of landscape plans for a single family residence on a pri- vate road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. Continued for review by landscape design members of the Committee. • • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 3.506. Application by R. GREGORY for Equitec 80 for architectural approval of landscape plans for a business park on Bogie Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 18. Restudy for revision of the Bogie Road frontage to correspond to previously approved landscaping along Bogie Road and adding landscap- ing to exposed elevations. CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. Application by C. HELLMAN for First Nationwide Sav- ings/First Wisconsin National Bank for final development plans to construct a savings and loan branch office on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Way, R-3 Zone (IL) , Section 25 (Ref. Cases 5.0216-CZ & 5.0235-GPA) . Discussion of the terms of the lease ensued. Planner II stated that staff recommends removal of the median island but it is owned by the homeowners of the adjacent condominium project and negotiations are underway to acquire the land, and that staff wants flexibility to review an alternate landscape plan if the land is not acquired. Planning Director stated that staff recommends that the driveway remain a two-way drive, and that there be no gating of the complex unless done on the west side so the driveway functions as a two-way drive. • Commissioner Kaptur stated that the driveway should not be closed since both sides should be available for bank use. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent) approving final development plans for the project subject to the following conditions: 1 . That a revised landscape plan be submitted with a modified plant list. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That there be no gating off of either driveway, and the driveway is to remain open and available for both projects. CASE 3.525 (Minor) ) . Application by GREENHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised lighting plans for the perimeter of a condominium project at 1101 Alejo Road, R-G-A (8) Zone (IL) , Section 14. Discussion ensued on the aesthetics of painting the lights to shield the glare. The applicant, Mr. Richman, stated that painting would be better than metal shields, and that the paint would be maintained by the association. • October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 CASE 3.525 (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously car- ried (Lawrence and Harris absent; Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the outside of the metal shields be properly primed and painted with a paint designed for adherence to metal . 2. That metal shields be placed inside the lights to ensure that the light is reflected within property lines. CASE 3.527. Application by J. DECOSTER for A. Maytag for architectural approval of a single family hillside residence at 1685 Ridgemore Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 1 . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Harris and Lawrence absent) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 3. That a sample of the roof tile be submitted for staff review. CASE 3.535 (Minor) . Application by S. SULLIVAN for C. Block for archi- tectural approval of additional storage room and three new parking spaces for professional office buildings on Luring Drive, east of Sunrise Way, P Zone, Section 13. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Lawerence and Harris absent) approving the application as sub- mitted. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Chairman reminded Commissioners that the regular study session would be held on October 20, from 3 to 5 p.m. in the Large Conference Room, City Hall . The agenda will be as follows: 1 . Downtown (C-B-D) uses and approval process with the DDAC. 2. The Nederlander Theater proposal for the McCallum Civic Center site. 3. Consideration of staff findings on the need to hold public hearings • on new subdivisions. 4. Updating the status of drainage fees and the machinations of Propo- sition "F" . October 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION (Cont 'd. ) . - Chairman appointed Chris Mills as a standing member of the AAC for a term beginning July 1 , 1982, and ending June 30, 1984. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m. �V Ul✓�f�DC� PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi •