Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/11/10 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Council Chamber, City Hall November 10, 1982 1 :30 p.m. F-YF-Y 198 2_=1983 ROLL CALL Present Excused Absences This Meeting to Date to Date Planning Commission ___---- X 7 0 Richard Service, Chairman X 8 0 Hugh Curtis X 6 2 Darel Harris X 8 0 Hugh Kaptur X 8 0 Peter Koetting X 6 2 Don Lawrence X 6 2 Paul Madsen Staff Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Dudley Hemphill , Traffic Engineer Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - November 8, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Earl Neel Hugh Curtis James Cioffi Peter Koetting Chris Mills Absent: David Hamilton Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. nanimou ly ed with theufollowinghcorrecction27�P Page Paragraph, meeting e5e -uDelete ' thatp� vheproject is not in financial difficulty as indicated by Commissioner Lawrence." (Case 5.0247-CUP. ) r _ November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 . Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for Bogie Road Development for a planned development district to allow construction of an industrial complex on Bogie Road between Vista Chi- no/Tachevah Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration action for filing, and final approval . No comments were received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Case 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the item had been continued from the October 27 meeting for response from state agencies regarding environ- mental concerns and for staff response to conditions requested by the applicant in a letter dated October 20. He stated that the applicant is proposing that retail tenants be allowed up to 30,000 square feet before a CUP is required, but that staff feels that the key to maintaining the project as an industrial park and to prevent spot zoning would be to limit the retail footage to 10,000 square feet for individual users and 20% of the gross floor area per phase. He noted that another staff concern was the number of acccess points requested by the applicant to . Bogie Road. He stated that the Traffic Engineeer feels there should not be access except at transecting streets, and that several curb cuts will interrupt the perimeter landscaping and detract from the industrial park atmosphere, and that traffic will increase along Bogie Road and inter- mittent driveways will be a problem especially since there are driveways on the project across the street which would be difficult to coordinate. He stated that commercial footage would probably gravitate to Bogie if several access points are allowed, and that the area would become "strip commercial" which would establish a precedent which is difficult to control . Traffic Engineer stated that a problem lies in the unknown types of uses and the kind of access required. He stated that he was concerned about conflicts with driveways on the west side of Bogie, and that each driveway would have to be reviewed for potential conflicts on Bogie. He noted that left turns would be difficult without signalization, and that multiple driveways do not lend themselves to channelized intersections. Planning Director stated that the word "one" in Planning condition No. 3 could be changed to "single" since staff was recommending that no "single" use exceed 10,000 square feet. He noted that retail commercial uses are not normally allowed in the M-I-P Zone, that a single tenant could have 10,000 square feet in a single building, and that certain right of zone "commercial " uses already allowed in the M-1-P Zone would be exempt from the percentage requirement. He noted that banks, restaurant, and offices are some of the uses listed in the Ordinance, • and that staff is suggesting that 20% of the gross floor area of each phase could be in other types of commercial use without a CUP. Chairman declared the hearing open. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 • CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , the architect and applicant, stated that he had additional information of value to the Commission and distributed a marketing brochure showing the master plan of the project. He stated that the developer does not intend to establish strip commercial , and that the applicant will primarily lease to typical M-1-P occupancy. He noted that it would be very helpful to be able to tell a client that a commercial use would be allowed. He stated that the developer is in accord with staff' s masonry wall recommendations. He stated that an abnormal number of uses are not being requested, that the Traffic Engineer has indicated that a right turn in and out would be allowable, that there is no objection from the developer regarding this type of turn in for secondary access, that the access points are necessary, and that the general intent of the M-1-P Zone would not be violated. He discussed staff' s requirements regarding the 10,000 square foot and 20% limit and stated that the client would prefer a 25% figure. Discussion: Discussion followed with Mr. Christian. He stated that there are two streets, not three, as indicated on the brochure, and four minor accesses. He stated that the site plan would be discussed by a representative of ASL Consulting Engineers, and that the tendency is to have more tenants in the front and single tenants in the rear, and that 16,000 to 18,000 square feet would be a workable figure. He stated that the 15,000 square foot figure occurs several places on the project, and that that increment gives a cleaner module. He stated that there are very few 10,000 square foot buildings in the project. Planning Director stated that staff was recommending an arbitrary limit as the point to ensure the maintenance of the industrial park atmosphere, and that staff does not know the type of uses that will be requested for the project. He reiterated that retail uses are not the intent of the M-1-P Zone. Discussion followed on the size of the use to be allowed without a CUP. Planning Director stated that staff was trying to allow the lar- gest use possible and still retain the character of an industrial park, that the emphasis should not be changed to large uses without controls, and that the reference to square footage could be deleted and the percentage figure retained. Chairman stated that the real intent is to control the overall charact- er of the industrial park, and that perhaps the square footage require- ments should be dropped and the same result would be achieved. Discussion followed on setback requirements. Planning Director stated that there was a 37 foot parkway on the project which included bike- paths, and equated the setbacks to those of the Fairport Development 0 across the street from the proposed project. Mr. Christian stated November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) that there were no plans yet for the sliver of land (20 to 25 feet wide) on the west side of Bogie although ownership problems have been resolved with the original owners. Commissioner Koetting suggested that it be utilized as a median strip from Vista Chino. Planning Di- rector stated that staff does not know the disposition of the sliver of land and that it is only marginally useful and would be a problem if used as a median island. Traffic Engineer stated that a median would have to align with the northerly extension on the other side of Vista Chino, and the median was discussed as a long-range alternative to control the intermediate access problem which also would be aestheti- cally pleasing with a similar appearance to Tahquitz-McCallum Way and would enhance the capacity of Bogie in the future although the issue was not really addressed per se. Discussion followed on the enhancement of the street and provision of access with the construction of a median island. Traffic Engineer stated that it would be expensive to maintain the median. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the City maintain it. Discussion ensured on the square footage of the project, its design, landscaping, and signing. Mr. Christian stated that signs may be inte- grated into construction of buildings for long-term tenants. • W. Ivey, Santa Ana, of Coldwell Banker, marketing agent for the project stated that an agressive marketing program had been started in the Valley and outside for the dynamic location, that a proposal had been received from a national corporation, that the emphasis is on a business park, not strip retail , and that manufacturing and distribu- tion businesses of good quality requiring 15,000 to 20,000 square feet would be the tenants. He stated that the marketing needs to be flexible and controlled in order to ensure that the quality of the development is high. He stated that his company would prefer that the percentage of the gross floor space recommendation would be helpful in leasing, and that the company did not want to be tied to a maximum amount of square footage per tenant. Planning Director stated that a use such as a distributor or manufactu- rer would not require a CUP, that there are a number of retail-oriented users who can absorb up to 15,000 square feet, other than food uses. Commissioner Koetting stated that the future of the project and the area is of concern, and that it could be a long time before the Vista Chino corner is developed. Mr. Ivey stated that most uses will gravitate to a main intersection. Discussion followed on blowsand mitigation. Planning Director stated that the development will begin at the south end of the site, that the Vista Chino corner will probably be the third or fourth phase, and that overall blowsand mitigation will be required. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) R. Reinan, ASL Consulting Engineers, Tahquitz-McCallum Way, discussed the concerns on access points. He stated that the intermediate streets can be designed so there are physical barriers to allow egress and prevent left turns. He stated that this design allows easier access, that left turn lanes are important to provide, that driveways on the project across Bogie present difficulties and that this has been discussed with the Traffic Engineer. He stated that the proposed access points are a compromise and will not create severe impacts on traffic on Bogie, and that the median can be addressed at the same time. He stated that when the traffic increases on Bogie, a traffic signal may be required, and that an intermediate access point and a right in and out will minimize the problem until a comprehensive design can be developed for the entire project. Discussion: Discussion followed on the most needed access points as perceived by the applicant. Mr. Reinan stated that Tachevah and Chia are the major access points with other necessary points created by uses of the site by as yet unknown clients. Commissioner Koetting stated that he had no concerns with the cut be- tween Chia and Tachevah, but would have problems with the small alley north of Tachevah. He stated that the corner of Bogie Road and Vista Chino is predominantly retail and could be a problem, and that a median would be the solution. Planning Director stated that he was concerned with the intermediate access points, and that a solution could be to open it with Phase I and close it later with the Commission reviewing access points as the project develops. Further discussion ensued regarding problems that would be encountered as the project grows. Mr. Reinan stated that Bogie will be signalized and it is hoped that it could become a major thoroughfare with stops every 1/4 mile. Discussion followed on signalization and whether or not the developer should be required to participate in an agreement for signals. Mr. Reinan stated that the Whitewater Expressway will increase traffic. Traffic Engineer stated that it will terminate 200 feet north of Vista Chino on Palm Drive. B. Brusseau of San Luis Obispo, the developer, stated that Mr. Minash was the seller of the property, that the project should be completed within 5 to 10 years, and that the site is attractive because of its access to Interstate 10 for employees and businessmen, that the staff has been very cooperative, that the percentage requirement allows flexi- bility, that 20 to 25% would be acceptable, that blowsand mitigation is important, that the increments for purchase of the property begin at Tachevah and go toward Vista Chino, and that other phases would be done sooner if possible since he hoped to proceed as • rapidly as possible. He stated that the company has a business park November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) in Riverside Business Center, and that security is provided by a lessee which is a patrol service, and that a similar arrangement would be effected in Palm Springs. Mr. Brusseau mentioned that his company also has a business park in Vista. There being no futher appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Planning Direector explained that it is economically un- feasible to bring waste water from the City' s treatment plant to the site, but that if a tenant with a high water usage was on the site, a treatment plant on-site might be feasible and reiterated that tenants are unknown. Commissioner Harris stated that the street north of Tachevah should be left to accommodate the 50,000 square footage use. Commissioner Koetting stated that he was not concerned about elimina- tion of the first driveway as building progesses, and there should be only one curb cut between Tachevah and Chia. Chairman remarked that by the time the developer is ready to build, • north of street "C" on the master plan, there should be a median strip from Vista Chino to street "C", and that a median strip would be an excellent entrance to the City and for the applicant. He stated that he had not remembered that the Whitewater Expressway would also bring traffic to the area, and that a right turn out is a "U" turn. He sta- ted that control is needed as the project builds closer to Vista Chino, and that a median strip should run the whole length of Bogie or at least close to Vista Chino. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0232-PD-140 and TTM 13761 with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1 . That the application for a planned development district for the uses proposed at the location described herein is properly one for which a planned development district is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the 74.7 acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommo- date the proposed planned research and development park including the proposed height, parking, setbacks, walls, landscaping, etc. to adjust the use to the neighborhood. 3. That the use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Gene- ral Plan and would not be detrimental to existing or possible fu- ture uses in the neighborhood. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) 4. That the site is serviced by Bogie Road and Vista Chino, two 100 foot major thoroughfares. CONDITIONS: 1 . That a median strip with landscaping be constructed between Vista Chino and Street "C" of the project when that adjacent phase is developed. 2. That the access point for Phase I be allowed temporarily until Phase II is developed and then the temporary access point be closed. 3. That all recommended conditions of the Development Committee as set forth in the minutes of the June 17, 1982, meeting including the Traffic Engineer's memo of August 31 , 1982, and except as amended herein be met. 4. That final development plans for Phase I and all common design fea- tures be submitted and approved within one year of City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district per ordi- nance. 5. That the amount of retail/commercial development other than that al- ready allowed in the M-1-P Zone be limited to a maximum 20% of gross floor area per each phase. 6. That retail/commercial use in excess of that allowed would be consi- dered under separate conditional use permit. 7. That an overall design development plan as recommended by the De- velopment Committee be submitted and approved for the entire tract including all streetscapes, walls, and other common design features. 8. That the landscape plan for Bogie Road follow the pattern esta- blished, i .e. , dense palm tree and eucalyptus groupings. 9. That all frontages be maintained in common via a property owner's association, and the standards of maintenance be submitted and approved with the landscape plans and be included in the CC & R's for the project. 10. That the width of the interior roads be reduced from 66 to 60 feet with a 50 foot curb to curb improvement. 11 . That State Water Resource Board requirements for water conservation be implemented for each development except that wastewater usage for irrigation is generally impractical due to the distance from the sewer plant. • November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) 12. That the Development Committee recommendation of masonry walls along common interior property lines may be altered upon the pre- sentation of a blowsand and wind mitigation program as part of the final development plans. 13. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental As- sessment/Initial Study be implemented, except as amended herein. CASE 5.0242-CUP. Re-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 . (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.0242-CUP subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the AAC had recommended restudy feeling that there are other places on-site to build the court. Re stated that if the Commission approves the application, the condition that the project be subject to AAC recommendations would be deleted. He noted that the applicant found a drafting error allowing staff's condi- tions to be met (shortening of the court and adjusting the orientation to meet setback requirements) , that the court is 110 feet long and approximately 55 feet wide, and that it is directly adjacent to the guest house. He stated that there is no deadline on the right of way and dedication requirements, and the deadline would be predicated on the submission of an assessment district as the other properties in the area are required to have improvements. He stated that dedication and a non-suit covenant would be required immediately. Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Waters, Pacific Tennis Courts, the applicant, stated that his client desired a fullsize court, and that was the reason that there was a zero setback on the property line, but that the applicant has now agreed to a 111 foot court. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Discussion followed on the location of the court. Plan- ning Director stated that Ordinance requirements are 15 feet from the south property line and 20 feet from Tamarisk Lane, and that the neigh- bor directly south of the proposed court constructed his court within setback requirments. He stated also that there was no request for lighting the court. He explained that reduced setbacks can be consi- dered under a conditional use permit, and if the court had met setback requirements, there would be no need for a CUP. He stated that there are approximately two feet between the guest house and the court, and November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0242-CUP (Cont 'd. ) that the distance had been increased after the drafting error was dis- covered. He stated that under normal design standards the setbacks were not adequate and that it would be more appropriate to have a large area between the court and the guest house for landscaping and buffering, but the impacts affect the owner's guest house only. Mr. Waters explained that there is 1-1/2 feet between the court and the guest house, and that the tennis court is recessed 3 feet. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a 5 foot setback is needed, and that he was more concerned about the sideyard setback, than the setback to the guest house. Commissioner Curtis stated that the application had been sent back by the AAC, and that he could not support the aplication because of the large lot size and the fact that two variances are being requested. Motion was made by Curtis and seconded by Koetting to deny the applica- tion. The vote was follows: AYES: Curtis, Koetting NOES: Harris, Kaptur, Lawrence, Madsen, Service The motion was defeated. . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and carried (Curtis & Madsen dissented) approving Case 5.0242-CUP with the following find- ings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1 . That the tennis court with substandard setbacks is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the tennis court is desirable for the development of the com- munity, is in harmony with General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing or uses specifically permitted in the R-I-B Zone in which the proposed tennis court is to be located, particularly being located immediately adjacent to another tennis court. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in shape to accommo- date the proposed tennis court and all property development stand- ards as recommended herein to adjust the requested tennis court to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed tennis court will not directly affect existing or proposed roadways; however, significant dedications and improve- ments abutting the subject property are necessary to fully imple- ment the General Plan Street Plan. 5. That the proposed tennis court will not adversely affect the General Plan and elements thereto. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 5.0242-CUP (Cont'd. ) CONDITIONS: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be applicable including the requirements for street dedications but deferring the installation of street improvements provided the dedications are made, encroachment permits are granted for the existing struc- tures within the right-of-way, and that a hold-harmless agreement/ non-suit covenant be entered into relative to the right-of-way encroachments. The aforementioned documents shall be provided and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. That there be a five foot setback between the court and the south property line. 3. That all improvements and required landscaping be maintained in a condition consistent with accepted community standards. 4. That final landscape and irrigation plans be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. • CASE 5.0244-ZTA $ MCA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revi- sions to a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code setting forth regu- lations relative to home occupations in residential zones in the City. (Previously given an environmental assessment in conjunction with the original hearing. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the revised Ordi- nance as prepared by staff. Planning Director explained that the Council had reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended two revisions. He stated that the City Attor- ney advises that a provision may have to be added to include a public hearing if a revocation of a permit is required, and that this provision may have to be reviewed by the Commission in the future. He stated no signing will be allowed on houses, nor advertising of home addresses. He explained that revisions to Condition No. 9 does not allow any increases in traffic to the neighborhood, whereas the former wording stated "significant" increases of traffic, and the use would be abated if trucks began coming into the neighborhood to service a home occupation. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Tourtelot, 575 Fern Canyon Drive, stated he was present at the time the home occupation ordinance was reviewed previously and he wanted to • reiterate his support of the two revisions. He stated that home occupations should be allowed for persons wishing to have the home as a base for a business that is away from the home. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 5.0244-ZTA & MCA There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Discussion followed on several provisions of Section 5.22.050. Planning Director stated that Regulation No. 12 addresses prohibition of trucks with signs protruding from the normal profile of the trucks and prohibition of trucks parked to display advertising. Commissioner Koetting stated that the City will not allow signs on homes, yet will allow trucks with signs parked in the neighborhood. Planning Director stated that the regulation would prohibit trucks parked in such a way that the signs directly advertised the home occupa- tion. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he was concerned about the enforce- ment of the home occupation ordinance and hoped the funds from the license will be used for enforcement. Commissioner Harris commended staff for a good ordinance. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried approving revisions to Case 5.0244-ZTA & MCA with the following revi- sions and addition: • ADDITION: No. 5. A permittee of a home occupation shall not advertise that oc- cupation in a manner which encourages pedestrian or vehicular traffic to the premises. REVISION: Original Paragraph: 9. A home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal vehicular traffic patterns for residential zones. Revised Paragraph: 9. A home occupation shall not be permitted if it causes any increase in pedestrian or vehicular traffic. NOTE: All paragraphs beginning with Paragraph No. 6 have been renum- bered to accommodate the addition of a new Paragraph 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman explained that the public may speak during the "PUBLIC COM- MENTS" section of the agenda, and that applicants may speak in either the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" portion or at the time the item is heard on the agenda. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd. ) • The following persons spoke to reserve time to speak when their items were heard on the agenda: D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive (Cases 5.0200-PD-134 and 3.543) . J. Sanborne, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way (Case 3.511 & TTM 18785) . G. Knutson, Cathedral City (Time Extension for Case 5.0074-PD-89) and TTM 15049. Chairman explained that it was not necessary for applicants to reserve time to speak. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0074-PD-89 & TTM 15049. Request by G. KNUTSON for a time extension for PD-89, a PO to construct an industrial condominium on Ramon Road between Crossley Road/San Luis Rey, M-1 Zone ( IL) , Section 20. Planning Director explained during staff research it was discovered that the map would expire November 19 for the last time, and that the City Attorney and Tribal Council Consultant discovered new legislation which allows a third time extension. He stated that staff would • recommend a one-year extension of both the map and the PD. Commissioner Kaptur requested that in the future staff display maps and cases of time extensions. Mr. Knutson explained that the extension was being requested to com- plete the financing package. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried approving a 12 month time extension for PD-89 and TTM 15049 subject to all original conditions of approval with the new expiration date for both to be November 19, 1983. Tribal Council comments: "The applicant's initial request was for a time extension on PD-89 and Tentative Tract Map 15049. Staff report dated November 10, 1982 states that ' in accordance with State law, the current map (TTM 15049) can no longer be extended and a new map must be submitted for appro- val . ' The Staff report indicates that two 1-year time extensions have been granted and that the map will expire on November 19, 1982. Assembly Bill No. 1668 which became effective June 11 , 1982, permits the local agency to grant time extensions on tentative tract maps for • November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0074-PD-89 & TTM 15049 (Cont'd. ) periods totalling 3 years. The Subdivision Map Act had previously permitted a total of 2 years. Local agencies have made this additional 1-year extension applicable to previously approved tentative maps. The new map referenced in the Staff report is required since it covers a portion of the subject site that was not included in Tentative Tract Map 15049. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1 . Approved a time extension for PD-89 for a period of 2 years from the date of City Council approval of the new tentative tract map referenced in the Staff report. 2. Recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council take appropriate action to amend the City's Subdivision Ordinance by extending the time extensions to the maximum permitted by the Sub- division Map Act as amended by AB 1668. 3. Recommended that the additional 1-year time extension permitted by AB 1668 be applied to TTM 15049 due to expire on November 19, 1982. " TIME EXTENSION - TTM 18077. Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for T. Pelton for a 12 month time extension for a map to allow a condominium conversion for an existing hotel on the southeast corner of Stevens Road/Kaweah Road, R-2 Zone, Section 10. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried approving a 12 month time extension for TTM 18077 subject to all ori- ginal conditions of approval . (The new expiration date will be Novem- ber 18, 1983. ) 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 3.520 & TTM 14009. Application by B. Leung for Friedman Ventures for map approval and architectural approval of case for moderate cost residential condominiums on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sun- rise Way, R-4 Zone (IL) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration final case and map approval . No comments were received. ) Discussion: Discussion ensued on the unit size and their cost. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that if the project is "affordable" it is only at the developer's own definition, and that the project does not meet housing element goals with no density bonuses given, but that the density is half that which is allowed in the R-4 Zone. He stated that the approximate price will be $50,000, and the project will be built in eight phases with 40 units per phase. P. Selzer, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing the applicant, stated that the price range will be from $50,000 to $75,000; reiterated that the project density was half that allowed in R-4 Zoning; and that the AAC concerns have been addressed. He stated that the first phase will include 40 units with amenities, and that the phasing will not disturb the previous phases. B. Leung, architect, stated that the utilities will be sized for the total project, and that the phasing is dictated by the lending insti- tuion. He stated that the project has been made as eloquent as possi- ble regarding architecture and landscaping. Planning Director read Planning Division conditions regarding phasing (on file in the Department of Community Development) and stated that the approval of the site plan is conditional upon the property owner acquiring the right-of-way for the cul-de-sac. Chairman explained that the Commission has expressed no opinion except lack of enthusiasm for the project, and that he did not like the site plan or architecture. He stated that 2/5 of the units are removed from parking, and that these cars will be parked on Amado. He stated also that Hermosa Drive is relegated to an alley. He noted that other projects have produced fine streetscapes and frontages for Alejo Road, but that the subject project is not in the same genre even even though the density is below zoning requirements. He stated that he could not support the project. Commissioner Curtis stated that he did not support the project because it will not be beneficial to the community, especially in the central part of the City. Commissioner Koetting stated that the sales price is related to the square footage and should not bear on the action taken on the project. He stated that he did not like the small phasing which will cause construction problems, and that there was no proper mitigation at this time. He described further concerns such as the outer units, parking, circulation, stated that the AAC may want to review the site plan, and that the architecture could be adapted to the site plan. Commissioner Kaptur stated that Section 14 is a special part of the City and special projects should be built there. He stated that he did not like the site plan or the architecture, and that it is not conducive to Section 14. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Lawrence reiterated the other Commissioners' concerns. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Curtis for denial . After discussion Commissioner Kaptur withdrew his motion wit t e consent of the seconder. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Curtis dissented) for a restudy with Commission direction to the applicant to revise the site plan and to design a more creative project archi- tecturally. Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of Octo- ber 12 and October 26, 1982. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1 . Reiterated its actions of October 12 and October 26 to approve TTM 14009, subject to the conditions recommended in Development Committee minutes dated August 19, 1982, with the exception that action in the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City staff. 2. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measure relative to possible sewer impact ( Item 19. Utilities of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study) to be revised per the deletions/additions proposed by the applicant and noted in Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 27, 1982. This revision to the mitigation measure has been concurred with by Staff and appears to address the concerns noted in earler staff reports. 3. Strongly recommended that the proposed study to update the City' s General Plan Master Plan of Sewers, which was adopted in 1975, be expedited in order not to delay the processing of future projects." CASE 3.542 (Minor) . Application by J. HALL for architectural approval an addition at the rear of a master bedroom at 875 Chino Canyon -Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the expansion is for a private artist' s studio and was not a home occupation. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis and unanimously carries approving the application as submitted. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • CASE 3.548 (Minor) (Corrected from 3.545) . Application by M. BUCCINO for architectural approval of expansion to Jane Augustine Patencio Cemetery on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zone (IL) , Section 14. Planning Director explained that the application has not been reviewed by the Development Committee, and that the Tribal Council recommended continuance for Development Committee recommendations. Chairman continued the application to the November 24 Planning Commis- sion meeting. Tribal Council comments: "Staff report and/or Development Committee meeting minutes were not available at the Planning Department on November 8, 1982. Staff recom- mendations, including conditions of approval , are therefore unknown. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council withheld comments and final action on this case pending receipt and review of Staff report and/or Development Committee meeting minutes." CASE 3.511 & TTM 18785. Application by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for the • Racquet Club for subdivision of land and architectural approval of revised plans for case to allow construction of condominums on the northwest corner of Racquet Club Road/Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 3. (EA previously given in conjunction with Case 3.215; final action on map and architectural case. ) Planning Director explained that the parcel was not incorporated into the site plan until recently, and that the 2-story plans met height requirements for the zone. Discussion: Discussion followed on the patio window elements of the 2-story buildings. Planner II explained that after discussion the AAC eliminated the windows on the patio and replaced them with trellises. Planning Director stated that the AAC and Commission will review work- ing drawings showing the window/trellis detail . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris and unanimously carried approving Case 3.511 and TTM 18785 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the exception that the on-site sewer requirement is no longer applicable. 2. That shade trees be added to patios of the 2-story buildings. !A November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.511 & TTM 18785 (Cont'd. ) . 3. That windows be revised to reduced the amount of sunlight entering the buildings. 4. That details of the carports be included with landscape plans. 5. That working drawings be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. CASE 5.0200-PD-134. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for California Nursing & Rehabilitation Center for architectural approval of final development plans for addition to existing nursing home on N. Indian Avenue between Olivera Road/Via Escuela, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Planner II stated that the review would be of final development plans, not working drawings as indicated on the agenda. He stated that no elevations of the original building were available at the AAC meeting and the AAC continued the application, but that the architect has provi- ded staff with elevations. He noted that staff has no problems with the design. Chairman stated that the AAC did not recommend approval pending receipt of the existing building elevations. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and carried (Harris & Kaptur dissented) approving the application subject to the following • conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That staff confirm that the materials and elevations are consistent with the existing buildings. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by MOBIL OIL CO. for architectural approval of a gasoline rate sign for a gasoline station at 694 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. The sign application was presented on the display board by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. H. Ericksen, Engineer for Mobil Oil and J. Savage, resale manager for the area, appeared to represent Mobil oil Co. Mr. Savage stated that there is a possibility that cash and credit card numbers/letters could appear on gas rate signs in Palm Springs as has been implemented in other areas of California, but that the additions to the signs would be at the Commission' s discretion. He stated that it would be difficult in Palm Springs because of the strict regulations on the size of letters. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously car- ried aproving the sign application with the following condition: That • the sign be placed in a planter. November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 CASE 3.543. Application by WESTAR ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of final development plans for a retail building in PD-113 on the south- east corner of N. Palm Canyon Drive/Racquet Club Road, PD-113, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended a restudy, and that the architect has redesigned the elements addressingTAT concerns. He stated that normally a redesign would be returned to the AAC, and that the case represents final development plans for PD-113. Planner II stated that the AAC felt that the architecture should re- flect details of the existing center. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, architect, stated that the project was designed to reflect that the use is a retail function, not a specialized function, and that the materials will be like those used on the rest of the center. He stated that the elements had been restudied after the AAC meeting in view of the AAC 's concerns, but that the requested revisions seem disproportionate to the small size of the building. Commission consensus was that the AAC should review the revised plans. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Koetting abstained) that the item be continued to be reviewed by the . AAC at its meeting of November 22 (Planning Commission meeting of Novem- ber 24) . CASE 3.547 (Minor) . Application by PALM REGENCY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for architectural approval of garage door relocation for double garage units on condominium project at Amado Road/Hermosa Drive, R-G-A (8) ( IL) , Section 14. Planning Director described problems encountered by the applicants because of a recess to the garage door. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously car- ried approving the application as submitted. Rick Farber, the applicant, stated that he supported the restudy of the site plan and architecture of Case 3.520. CASE 3.381 . Application by DESERT CHAPEL for architectural approval of a revised playground area in conjunction with a private school at 630 S. Sunrise Way, R-1-C Zone, Section 24. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously car- ried approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. • 2. That oleanders be used for the hedge. 3. That the hedge be implemented prior to or concurrently with the installation of any fence on the site. • November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 3.488. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for S. Stokes for architectural approval of minor architectural revisions to a single family residence on La Mirada Road between Ramon Road/Tahquitz Creek, R-1-A Zone, Sec- tion 22. Commissioner Harris stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Koet- ting in his views that minor applications should not be reviewed by the AAC, since the residence is on a hillside. Planning Director stated that the review was discretionary with staff, but since the residence was on a hillside, staff felt that the AAC should review the revisions. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously car- ried (Madsen abstained) approving the application as submitted. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Planning Director queried Commission members on scheduling of the Decem- ber 22 meeting because the recording secretary will be on vacation, and there will be difficulty finding a replacement. After discussion, the consensus was that all members would be available on December 22 and the meeting will be scheduled. - Chairman noted that the following items will be on the November 17, 1982, study session agenda: 1 . Square footage of units in multiple zones. 2. Drive-throughs of all types. 3. Indian Avenue two-way concept. - Commissioner Madsen requested that Section 14 be reviewed regarding the intent to preserve it for hotels. Planning Director stated that there are problems involved with the hotel use concept, and that staff might not be able to review it thoroughly enough to place on the Novem- ber 17 agenda. Chairman suggested that it be reviewed at a future date. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meet- ing at 5:05 p.m. • PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi