Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/10/12 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall . October 12, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 5 2 Hugh Curtis X 6 1 Hugh Kaptur X 5 2 Peter Koetting X 7 0 Don Lawrence X 7 0 Paul Madsen X 6 1 Sharon Apfelbaum 5 1 Staff Present John Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Karl Beckley, Engineering Aide III Vicki Nelson, Economic Development Coordinator Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II . Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - October 10, 1983 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: Sharon Apfelbaum Earl Neel Michael Buccino Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. MSC (Koetting/Curtis; Apfelbaum absent) approving minutes of the September 28 meeting as submitted. • October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0290-CUP. Application by ANGEL VIEW CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION for a CUP to allow a thrift shop use for a charit- able organization in an existing commercial building at 462 N. Indian Ave. between Amado/Alejo Rds. , C-1 & C-1-AA Zones, Section 14. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA Guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve CUP 5.0290 subject to conditions. Chairman stated that he would abstain because of proximity of his parent-in-law' s business to the subject site. After discussion with Commissioner Curtis who was also abstaining, Chairman stated that he would not abstain in order to provide a quorum, since he had no legal or financial conflicts. Planning II presented the staff report. Planning Director stated that staff would add two additional conditions as follows: 1. That the storage sheds in the rear of the property on the north property line be removed entirely. 2. That a landscape plan be submitted for a landscape screen on the south property line to screen the property from the adjacent property. • He stated that the applicant has no objections to these additional conditions. Planner II stated that two letters had been received from neighboring property owners in opposition to thrift shop in Palm Springs. Planning Director explained that the CUP will be reviewed by the City Council and is an interim use of the property for the period of from three to 5 years and would be reviewed by the Commission at the end of that time. He stated that the Angel View Thrift Shop on Amado is closing and that Angel View owns the property of the subject site. In response to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the CUP will expire in five years. He explained that the property is marginal as to landscaping at the present, but that staff felt that with the possibility of assembly into a larger parcel and redevelopment of the site in three to five years, the applicant need do only minor upgrading of the landscaping at the present time. He stated that the applicant has indicated that display windows will be well done, and if the Commission desires, a condition could be placed that only new goods be displayed in the front 20 feet of the window. Chairman declared the hearing open. K. May, 66-310 Granada, Desert Hot Springs, Angel View Business Administrator and Planning Commissioner in Desert Hot Springs, gave a • brief history of Angel View and stated that proceeds allow a high level of care for handicapped children. He stated that the property had always been maintained, and that window displays were of high quality. He noted that it would be a short-term use, since the project is included in the redevelopment area; and that he agreed with staff condi- tions, including the two additional ones. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0290-CUP. (Cont' d. ) There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. In reply to a question from Commission, Planning Director stated that a former application which the Council denied, was for a rummage sale on Palm Canyon Drive. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Curtis abstained; Kaptur & Apfelbaum absent) approving the application based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the sale and storage of second hand and new furniture in conjunction with the charitable organization, is a use of which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the Ordinance. 2. That the use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing and proposed uses. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all yard setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features to address the said use to those existing or proposed uses on the land of the neighborhood. • 4. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and high- ways, properly designed and improved to carry the type and quan- tity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use. CONDITIONS: 1. That parking spaces be striped in accordance with Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and subject to a plan to be submitted and approved by staff. 2. That damaged wall and fencing be restored. 3. That all refuse and immobilized vehicles be removed from the site. 4. That all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, and other commodities which are stored, repaired, offered or displayed for sale or exchange shall be housed in permanent buildings unless being transported. 5. That a landscape plan be submitted and approved for all landscape planters on the property and said landscape plan to be implemented within 90 days of approval of the CUP. 6. That trash enclosures be provided in accordance with Section • 9307.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. That the approval be valid for five years and subject to review by the Planning Commission at that time. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0290-CUP. (Cont'd. ) • 8. That safety lighting be developed on the site (for staff approval) . 9. That the shed structures immediately behind the northerly building be removed. 10. That the landscape plan required in condition #5, include a design for a landscape screen adjacent to the south property line. Commissioner Kaptur entered the meeting. CASE 5.0297-CZ/ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a change of zone from G-R-5 (Guest Ranch) to C-C (Civic Center District) including the development of standards and criteria for a new civic center district zone for property located between Civic Dr./El Cielo Rd. and Baristo Rd./ Livmore Ave. , Section 13. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration; tentatively approve the CUP; and continue • the application to the October 26 meeting. Planning Director stated that the old guest ranch zoning is outdated in terms of development criteria, particularly in building height requirements. He described the area involved in the proposed zone change and stated that the standards for the Convention Center area and Civic Center area are similar. Commissioner Koetting suggested that parking requirements be addressed for the Civic Center site. Planning Director stated that restaurants present no problems, since they would be considered only in conjunction with other buildings, and that the City controls the site. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Lockwood, 215 Airlane Drive, stated he was not opposing the zone change, other than to be kept advised on the proposed uses. He stated that the professional park north of City Hall was supposed to have only airport related uses as a condition of approval , which has not been the case from its inception. He noted that Livmore was originally to be closed off because of the Airport Park Plaza, that residents opposed its closure and it remains open; but that it is narrow, and consideration should be given to increased traffic. He stated also that the uses sometimes are changed, and that he was not sure that the neighborhood was • aware of eventual uses. He requested that the Commission review maintenance of property and consider the traffic problems on Livmore since it has become a route for employees traveling to the Civic Center. He stated also that he was concerned about what was being proposed for the solar project site and its effects on the neighborhood. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0297-CZ/ZTA. (Cont'd. ) • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In reply to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that the traffic circulation has not been proposed for study and that the current traffic pattern emerged from the opposition of the neighbors in the area when public hearings were held on the Airport Park Plaza application. He stated that persons drive across private property to reach Livmore from the Airport Park Plaza complex and that maintenance of the Plaza has been a problem because the company has gone bankrupt. Discussion followed on effects of closure of Livmore. Planning Director stated that the residents opposed the closure of Livmore originally because of the increased response time for emergency vehicles and the proposal could be reviewed again. Commissioner Koetting stated that traffic problems will be taken into consideration on any proposed new facility or expansion. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Apfelbaum absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the application, and continuing the case to the October 26 meeting. CASE 5.0293-CUP. Application by the MILNER CORPORATION for a CUP to modify • conditions of approval for an existing CUP in order to allow use of convention and tennis facilities by other than hotel guests for hotel on Murray Canyon Dr. between S. Palm Canyon Dr./Sierre Madre, R-2 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 35. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA Guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve modification of conditions of approval for existing CUP 5.767. Planner III stated that one letter had been received opposing the modification of conditions because of increased traffic on South Palm Canyon Drive and that wording will be added to condition #2 of the staff report as follows: . . . Prior to major non-hotel related events. (Revised wording underlined. ) He stated that the valet parking program requires resolution with the Development Committee for either Commission or staff approval and for safe access for people and emergency vehicles, and that the Hotel Manager had submitted exhibits on the trash enclosure area. Chairman declared the hearing open. S. Stearns, Vice President of Milner Corporation and General Manager of the Canyon Hotel , stated that he felt that the hotel had been a good citizen in regard to the use of the Convention facility for philanthropic events and that large numbers of people were handled without complaints from the neighborhood. He stated he could not see a tremendous increase in use of the convention facilities since it serves hotel conventions primarily. He explained that the convention center is a commercial venture and has under-utilized parking spaces and ample parking area; that the Tennis Club will be private and limited to 100 members, since the tennis facilities will be used by hotel guests as October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0293-CUP. (Cont' d. ) • well . He requested that the wording "major events" be changed to "local events", and stated that the fire Department is notified in advance of large gatherings. He stated that the valet parking program submitted to staff is the current method of parking employed for large events, that he wanted to place gravel on the east side of the convention facilities since there is no irrigation piping in that location and that better trimming will be done in future. He stated that he was not sure that the condition for a screen wall for the trash/service area is related since it has always been a parking area, but that trees will be added, that the wastewater problem will be discussed with the City, and that striping of the parking lots is taking place presently. He stated that a building permit has been obtianed, for the water retention facility has nothing to do with the conditional use permit. He stated there was no problem with Condition #9. In answer to Commission questions, he stated that there would be approximately only 10 additional outside events per year since there are limitations because of hotel convention usage of the facility. He stated there was no parking problem at the tennis facility, and that the facilities of Canyon Country Club were used for major events. Discussion of use of off-site parking lots followed. T. Kelly of Western Properties, representing J. Needleman, owner of 30 acres within the 400 foot radius stated that there may be sufficient parking, but that a crowd of 1,000 people leaving the convention center • at one time will cause traffic problems. He stated that the Commission has approved seven non-hotel-related events in the past several years which are not many and no complaints have resulted. He stated that the statistical analysis indicates 467 rooms but the Council approved only 416, that the parking deficiency is 362 spaces, and there is still with a deficiency with use of additional parking. He stated that his client is not so much interested in parking as in traffic generation and questioned whether or not the use was in harmony with the General Plan and whether or not the intersection and streets are designed for the increased traffic. He questioned also the reasons for notification of the Polic Department and stated that notification is without a remedy is inadequate. He stated that events will increase and that increased building activity in Andreas Hills also increases traffic. He stated that valet parkers depend on gratuities which in turn depend on speed which is hazardous to the neighbors. He requested that the application be denied. S. Stearns (rebuttal) replied that seven events is an understated number of events since there have been probably 14 or 16, and that the number of events will probably be only one a month. Planning Director stated that the averge number of outside events has been approximately six a year since the commission began allowing them on a case by case basis. • In reply to Commission question Planning Director stated that if there are significant issues such as property maintenance, the Commission is apprised (although the Assistant City Attorney feels that the issue should be resolved by code enforcement action) . October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0293-CUP. (Cont' d. ) Planner III stated that the rip-rap issue of the retention facility was addressed so it would not be returned to the Commission in the future as a separate item. Commissioner Koetting stated that more parking management plans are being seen, and that they are a necessary evil , and that standards should be developed for valet parking. He stated that Condition #9 allows review and revocation of the CUP if problems arise, and suggested that the number of persons in a gathering qualifying as a major event should be reduced to 300 (from 500) . Discussion followed on clarification of the conditions. M/S/C (Koetting, Curtis; Apfelbaum absent)) approving CUP 5.0293 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS 1. That the request for revisions to an existing CUP is authorized by Section 9402.00.G.2. of the Zoning Ordinance and that facilities involving large assemblages of people require a C.U.P. as setforth in Section 9402. 2. That Section 9306.00.D.1.0. of the Zoning Ordinance gives the • Planning Commission the descretion to approve a parking management plan for meeting area parking requirements. 3. That adequate parking facilities are provided for the day-to-day operation of the hotel , food services, and tennis complex without the use of the parking management program. 4. That a more efficient use of the convention and tennis facilities is desirable for the continued development of the community, is in harmony with the General Plan, and with conditions will not be detrimental to existing uses or future uses permitted in the area. 5. That the site is adequate in size to accommodate all Ordinance requirements. 6. That the site is located on S. Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon both of which are designed to accommodate anticipated traffic in the area. CONDITIONS 1. That the convention center and tennis facilities may be utilized by other than hotel guests. 2. That the Canyon Hotel notify the Planning Director, Police Depart- ment, and Fire Department two weeks prior to major non-hotel • related events (300 people or greater) . The notification shall be provided in writing and shall include the date, hours, maximum number of people, and type of activity. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0293-CUP. (Cont' d. ) 3. That a parking management program (valet parking) be submitted to the Planning Director, Fire Department, and Traffic Engineer for approval prior to this revised CUP becoming effective. This plan shall include an accurate site plan which indicates the location of all valet parking areas and adequate access areas for emergency access purposes. 4. That a revised landscape plan be submitted for the parking areas easterly of the convention facility. 5. That the tennis complex trash/service area have a screen wall and additional landscape provided to meet code. One tree shall be planted in the tennis complex parking area. 6. That corrective action be taken to eliminate discharge of waste water into Murray Canyon Drive and to correct waste water problems at the trash compactor area. (Contact Don Immel in the Building Division for further information at 619/323-8242. ) 7. That all parking areas be striped pursuant to Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. That should future problems arise in the neighborhood as a result of the allowances made by this approval , the Planning Commission • reserves the right to review Conditional Use Permit 5.0293-CUP and to alter conditions to correct the problem. CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Application by E. J. DeBARTOLO CORP. & DESERT FASHION PLAZA for review of the final EIR and preliminary plans for a planned development district to allow remodeling and expansion of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza on Tahquitz-McCallum Way/North Palm Canyon Drive and redevelopment in a block north of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza to include the closure of Andreas Road, the development of additional retail space, parking facilities and a 207-room hotel , Section 15. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.0275-PD-147 subject to conditions. Chairman stated that a revised staff report had been prepared just prior to the meeting and that the Planning Director would explain the changes to the report. He stated that the Commission appreciates the level of analysis presented by the staff and the developer. Planning Director stated that the revised staff report was very similar to the original and that revisions to the report were indicated either by hand lettering or by strike-outs. He presented the revised parking statistics developed by staff and the applicant. He stated that revised plans and elevations had been submitted and that the display model was developed on the preliminary landscape development scheme and shows the nature of the mass which has not been changed significantly. He noted that the skylight treatment is a central organizing theme for the internal Mall . October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont'd. ) • Planning Director noted that in light of City Council comments, that some of the hotel rooms overlook the roof, that roof plans should be reviewed very closely. He explained that a Planned Development District (which was suggested by the City) allows an integrated overall center and also allows flexibility in the application of standards, and that the project has specific deviations from the Zoning Ordinance; although the intent of the Ordinance has been met, in most instances, including setbacks and open space. He explained that staff would add the following to finding #6 of the staff report: After "Section 9306.00" add, "unless provisions are made for dual use of parking as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance". He stated that finding #14 should state "6,750 additional vehicle trips, not 6.750 trips and explained the unmitigatable impacts delineated in the EIR. He discussed the "conclusion" and the "statement of overriding considerations" in the staff report, and he noted that conclusion #4a would be deleted. He stated that the following should be added to the statement of overriding considerations: "That other projects which could be proposed on the site, by right of Zone, without discretionary approval would have the same impact without public hearings or an EIR review and that only because of • discretionary PD approval are these actions required." He stated that the concerns have been addressed and discussed. He noted that the following conditions (partially revised) are recom- mended by staff: 1. That all recommendations, as amended, of the Development Committee be met. 2. That Schemes I , II , and III, or any combination thereto, be approved including provisions for parking as follows - a. Scheme I - 1,070 parking spaces minimum. b. Scheme II - 1,120 parking spaces minimum. C. Scheme III - 1,154 parking spaces minimum. d. Other combinations of development than those specifically proposed shall require the establishment of a specific parking provision. 3. That the maximum height of non-hotel structures not exceed 40 feet. 4. That the participation may establish the party of financial responsibility for completion of required conditions. 5. That all recommendations of the RAC be met (although they may be modified by the Commission during the meeting) . Planning Director stated that parking requirements were revised after discussing a parking requirement with the applicant. He noted that there were two major considerations, as follows: October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont'd. ) 1. That the non-leaseable area of the concourse, not be counted in parking requirements (a departure from the typical requirements) ; and 2. Dual parking use allowance because of the nature of the hour of peak parking differences between the hotel and the retail portions of the development, thus reducing parking requirements by 148 spaces. Planning Director described parking Schemes II and III (on file in the Department of Community Development, Planning Division) . He stated that there should not be parking problems with the dual use scheme(s) . The Planning Director described the specific areas of noncompliance which were depicted in Figure 2 of the staff report (on file in the Department of Community Development, Planning Division) . He stated in regards to Development Committee recommendations that in this particular case with the development agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the developer, there was a concern that the conditions be specific and thorough to insure that all aspects of the costs and responsibilities are established at the meeting. Planning Director noted, regarding Building Division requirements, that there was a pioneer aspect, in that the hotel opened into the Mall . • Planning Director stated that in Engineering Division condition #1 the phrase "and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any grading/building permit" will be deleted. He explained that the removal of 1.0,000 truck- loads of dirt from the site are addressed at several points of the Development Committee conditions and that the word "project" is used instead of "developer" and refers to the agreement establishing respons- ibilities. He explained that because of the deviation from the strict Zoning Ordi- nance requirements the phrase "approved plans" has been used in some conditions becoming the specific standard of development. He stated that Planning Division condition #10 should read as follows "that all mitigative measures, as outlined in the attached Mitigation Summary shall be implemented. The Planning Commission may determine equivalent mitigation upon request of the developer should a development hardship exist". He described other wording changes in the Planning Division conditions including #'s 14 & 15 (on file in the Department of Community Development, Planning Division) ." and discussed the "preser- vation program" (Paragraph "A" thru "F") for historic resources which are suggested components of the program and the "Summary of Mitigative Measures" (on file in the Department of Community Development, Planning Division) . He stated that Tribal Council opposes closure of Andreas Road and urges that Parking Scheme I be approved. Planning Director stated that the AAC had reviewed the preliminary 10 following: plans on October 10 and had divided its motions into the following: Site Concept, Architecture and Landscape, Landscape, and Materials and Color. He described the concept on the display model , and stated that the PD will establish a footprint building mass and parking with specific architectural statements on the hotel including the October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont' d. ) trellis structures and that store fronts will be individually submitted to the Planning Commission and AAC. He noted that the skylight develop- ment forms a strong light pattern on the interior of the Mall . Planning Director stated that the AAC had recommended by a 3-2 vote, a restudy of the site concept because of several concerns including the pedestrian area in front of the hotel since the AAC felt that pedestrian movement would be blocked and there was no inducement to travel past the project. He stated that the committee was also concerned with the alignment of the parking lot driveway off Tahquitz; and the concept of a fully enclosed Mall in the downtown. He noted that the hotel elevations and the framework of the Mall are specific with other details to be reviewed individually. He noted also that the AAC felt that the materials could be of better quality and was concerned about the blank facade of the west elevation. He stated that the committee was also concerned about the free-standing gates to the parking area and the large frames which developed a portal theme throughout the complex. He noted that there were also concerns about energy conservation, and that the landscape was recommended for approval subject to conditions. He stated that colors and materials were recommended for approval with conditions, except for the color of the pavers, which the committee viewed as too "yellow". Planning Director showed the environmental sketches on the display board • and explained the trellis structures and the reflected ceiling plan of the Mall . Commission Discussion. Planning Director explained to the Commission that the internal pedes- trian movement through the hotel and at the corner of Amado and North Palm Canyon Drive. He stated also that the free-standing arch at the hotel entry is still in the plan, that the architects have developed some architectural movement along the street with penetration into small boutique areas, and that staff had discussed the pedestrian/vehicle mixing at the hotel entry with the Traffic Engineer. He noted that the AAC recommended restudy of the site concept and made no specific recom- mendations, if the Planning Commission approved the site plan. Hotel valet parking circulation using Palm Canyon Drive was discussed. Traffic Engineer, stated that the 10-foot curb setback would provide an extra traffic lane and that the location matches the existing curb location north of Amado. Discussion followed on the design of the individual shops. Planning Director stated that they will be reviewed individually by the AAC and Commission under architectural approval applications and would not require City Council approval . He stated that he did not know when the Saks' plan would be submitted. • Discussion followed on the material of the arches. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont' d. ) In response to commission question, Traffic Engineer stated that removal of parking on Amado is necessary, since Caltrans requires a right-turn curb line east on Amado, for vehicle stacking. He stated also that the right turn lane will be on Amado from Belardo, west of Palm Canyon Drive, with parking on Belardo to be removed. Planning Director stated that parking for O'Donnell Golf Course members has been discussed and perhaps members may park within the structure. He stated that public parking fees will be structured similarly to the current provisions of the Desert Inn Fashion Plaza, although fees have not been determined. Planning Director stated for clarification, that parking is not being removed on Belardo, north of Amado. Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Brown, Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the position of the Chamber' s Board of Directors and its Economic Development Committee, that the development is important to the overall economic viability of the com- munity and is supported by the Chamber of Commerce. D. Wysocki , Redwine & Sherrill Attorneys representing MDX Drug Store owner, R. Gorney, stated that his client is concerned generically, that • the location of the MDX Drug Store is directly under the proposed Saks store and that the primary concern is one of relocation by way of emi- nent domain, since there are no comparable locations for relocation of the drug store, which is a profitable and successful one. He stated that his client feels he cannot find a comparable location. Chairman stated that the Commission has no jurisdiction over issues of relocation and requested that Mr. Wysocki confine his remarks to the project. Mr. Wysocki stated that his primary point was to register verbal opposi- tion to the project. T. Doczi , local landscape architect, stated that there are basic flaws in the site plan regarding pedestrian circulation at the corner of Amado and North Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that there was no inducement for pedestrians to continue north of Amado, and that in major hotels the drop-off areas are congested, and pedestrian and vehicle mixing is dangerous. He suggested that the hotel entrance be on Belardo since it would have a residential character and reduce the traffic bottleneck on Palm Cayon Drive. He stated that the landscape plan was adequate but more landscaping relief should be provided against the building to draw people through the center. He stated that landscaping should be coordi- nated with landscaping across the street from the hotel and requested that this project be reviewed thoroughly because of its large impact. • C. Mills, 278 N. Palm Canyon Drive, local architect and member of the AAC, stated that the AAC had reviewed the project several times and that from the beginning there was major concern about the site plan. He October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont'd. ) stated that the concerns had been outlined to the developer's represent- ative and that no concerns have been mitigated. He stated that altern- atives should be investigated reflecting some of the AAC input, although the developer seems to have no intention of changing the site plan. He stated that the worst areas are as follows: 1. The north corner of the hotel . Taking foot traffic from the streets into the hotel is a gross error in site planning. Foot traffic should be away from the hotel , since lobbies and porte cochere areas of other hotels are always crowded. 2. Architecture. No different from the existing building, perhaps somewhat more aesthetically pleasing. Trellis structure is not good architecture. 3. Landscaping. May save the whole project, but difficult to rely on landscaping to save poor architecture. 4. Articulation. Straight horizontal lines with movement only in the trellis element in the front. Rear has no entrances and no gua- rantee that the proposed restaurant oriented through to the Desert Museum and sculpture garden will be built. There is a "back door" look to the shopping center rear elevations. • 5. Archways. Serve no purpose but attempt to "spruce up" the area and do not succeed. They do reflect an element that is introduced on the streetscape on Palm Canyon Drive, but are trite. Commissioner Koetting stated that some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Mills were shared by him, but that he felt that the pedestrian flow problem will be resolved by realignment of the sidewalk. He stated that the store fronts will be reviewed individually and variety in store- fronts would enhance the street scene. He noted that there was no single Palm Springs design, since there is an eclectic design of buildings downtown. He noted that a good landscape concept can be integrated, that the Saks store will be reviewed individually, and that the project review had just begun. He stated that the current Fashion Plaza has a "back door" look in the rear, but there will be a sculpture garden to alleviate this look in the proposed plans. Commissioner Lawrence expressed concerns about the pedestrian flow in front of the hotel . E. Strebe, trustee of the Village Theatre properties (Bunker Trust), reiterated his opposition to the closure of Andreas Road and stated that there should be ingress and egress points along the long block. He stated that the Bunker Trust has an easement that goes from Palm Canyon to the foot of the San Jacinto Mountains and that Mrs. Bunker in 1953 gave up an easement from Belardo to the mountains. He stated that if Andreas is closed, the City should make arrangements to support the • abandonment of the easement from Palm Canyon to the foot of the mountains. He reiterated that he felt that closure of Andreas Road would be a sad thing for the City. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont' d. ) • L. Pierce, 433 Burton Way, stated that he came to the meeting to discuss parking and that the dual use parking arrangement will cause problems in the downtown. He stated that the current Ordinance is inappropriate since riding, walking, and parking downtown are difficult; and that it makes no sense to close Andreas Road and build a large structure which will choke the downtown area and ruin that section of Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that hotels are needed but should be one street off Palm Canyon Drive; and that the overpowering multi-story structure is not viable. He stated that something more appropriate should be placed on the property to hold Palm Springs' competitive place in the valley. He stated that parking has been rationalized and that the Ordinance provi- sions should be applied with parking to addressing the square footage. He suggested that the City begin over again, that Saks is not needed and that an attractive, people-oriented downtown Palm Springs is necessary. He stated that an appealing downtown were developed, another developer would be interested who would not be supported by tax funds (robbing the schools of tax money). H. Biel , Vice-President of DeBartolo Corporation of Youngstown, Ohio, stated that a large staff was present including engineers, architects and DeBartolo representatives and, M. Carrel of Central Parking Systems of Nashville, who are leading developers and operators of parking struc- tures for mixed use complexes, and W. Hawks, Executive Vice-President of Greiner Engineering, who are knowledgeable in environmental and engi- neering issues of the proposed project. He complemented City staff for its help and expertise. He stated that the site plan and the City had been studied carefully and the resulting plan represented an interaction between the developer and the City, and the developer's clientele. He stated that this type of interaction was necessary for a successful project, that retail projects are the most fragile of commercial development. He stated that people have said if the developer leaves another will take his place and that is a City decision, but that the DeBartolo Corporation is financially capable and has a good track record. He stated that if the DeBartolo Corporation felt that traffic and parking would not work, the project would not be successful ; but that tenant wishes have to be considered when planning a development. He noted that the project fits into the community, that the project must be of a size to compete with Palm Desert, and that a quality project needs to be built as a key anchor of the commercial heart of Palm Springs. He stated that the pedestrian flow will allow shoppers to move from shop to shop to the porte cochere and then into the cafe on the corner of Amado and Palm Canyon which is an exciting architectural treatment. He stated that at the corner a pedestrian can either cross Palm Canyon or continue to the Amado Center area, that there is no barricade at that point because of the outdoor cafe. He stated that as many conflicts as possible will be resolved and that there are "people places" in the opening of the project with links between the garage and retail uses and the hotel atrium. He stated that the footprint of the hotel is specifically tailored for these activities,and that the restaurant in the rear area is the best use of the space. He noted that • the Museum will be a quality anchor for the project, that Caltrans has sanctioned the circulation plan, and that the circulation plan is sensi- tive to the scale, caliber, and circulation system of the downtown. He invited the Commission to review the caliber of a similar DeBartolo project in Coconut Grove, Florida. He stated that Saks plans will be October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont'd. ) submitted in two months and that, it is hoped, the same time period will be applied to the Magnins' expansion. He described the remaining retail portions of the project and stated that movement will be encouraged west through the project toward the Desert Museum. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Curtis stated that he had learned a lot about the project and felt that the good points outweighed the bad but that he was concerned about the effect of the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on businesses north of Amado Road, although the project will enhance the site on which it is built. He stated that the AAC has some concerns about the project's sensitivity to the village character of the community, and that it should establish a unique architectural level . Commission Kaptur stated that he was concerned about certain exterior areas of the project, such as the entrance of the hotel . He stated that traffic from Palm Canyon entering the garage, will meet traffic coming from the porte cochere going on to Palm Canyon and valet parking going down the ramp. He stated that a loggerhead would be created in traffic circulation and that the area should be restudied. He noted that the developer failed to answer Commission and AAC concerns, and that he was concerned that the problems would not be addressed if the project were approved at the meeting with conditions. He stated that he could not • approve the project until the concerns were addressed. Chairman stated that the Commission would review final development plans later, that the developer would be receiving approval only on what has been shown with any restudies to be reviewed again, and that the developer needs to proceed. Commissioner Curtis stated that some of the major concerns had not been addressed by the developer and that if the project were approved there may be future problems. In response to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the intent of the AAC was to review the working drawings of the individual storefronts as part of final development plans as part of the final approval . Commissioner Madsen questioned a possible procedural conflict, since the AAC had recommended that the site plan be restudied. Chairman replied that the intent of a motion would be to approve the Planned Development District (with conditions including AAC recommenda- tions) #2 (architecture and landscaping) ; #3 (landscape/streetscape) ; and #4 (materials and colors) but not the site plan recommendation. Discussion followed on the site plan. • Commissioner Koetting stated that the language would allow a redesign of the pedestrian area. Chairman suggested that a second motion be made after action on the first motion. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0275-PO-147. (Cont'd. ) • Commissioner Koetting stated that the property north of Amado would benefit by the project because of its acting as an improvement catalyst for the downtown, and that it will be a turning point of a new downtown Palm Springs. Commissioner Lawrence commented that there is no perfect plan to answer all of the downtown problems. M/S/C (Lawrence, Koetting; Apfelbaum absent; Kaptur/Curtis dissenting) to approve PD 147 based on findings and conditions as presented by staff and A.A.C. as follows: 1. That all conditions of the Development Committee shall be complied with. 2. That Schemes I, II, and III or any combination thereof shall be approved, including provisions for parking as follows: a. Scheme I - 1,070 parking spaces minimum; b. Scheme II - 1,120 parking spaces minimum; C. Scheme III - 1,154 parking spaces minimum; d. Other combinations of development than those specifically proposed will require the establishment of a specific parking provision. • 3. That the maximum height of non-hotel structures shall not exceed 40 feet. 4. That the participation agreement may allocate the responsibility for completion of certain required conditions to the Redevelopment Agency. 5. That the conditions of the AAC be followed with the exception that the preliminary site plan is approved subject to further study of the hotel entry area to resolve conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. M/S/C (Koetting, Lawrence; Apfelbaum absent) that the area in front of the hotel be revised to accommodate easier pedestrian movement, and that the entire area be reviewed for integration of pedestrian with vehicular movement. Commissioner Kaptur noted that he would have voted in favor of the first motion if the second motion had been included. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENT "The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of September 13, and 27, 1983. At its September 27, meeting, the Tribal Council requested • that the preliminary development plans for this planned development district address the closure of Andreas Road and the parking deficiency, i.e. the plans to reflect and appropriate alternative to the closing of Andreas Road and mitigation measures with respect to the parking deficiency. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 5.0275-PD-147. (Cont'd. ) • After consideraiton of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission. The Tribal Council took the following actins: 1. Noted that the preliminary site development plan received from City staff on October 10, 1983, does not reflect an alternative to the closing of Andreas Road in that it does not provide for direct ingress and egress to the Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert Museum from Andreas Road. It was further noted that Andreas Road, extending easterly from North Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way is shown as a secondary thoroughfare on the City's Master Plan street plan and would be a major East-West traffic artery serving the proposed Convention/Cultural Center in Section 14. The continua- tion of Andreas Road westerly on North Palm Canyon Road would provide badly needed circulation for this area of the City. 2. For the reasons noted above, the Tribal Council strongly urged that an appropriate alternative to the closing of Andreas Road be fully considered before preliminary development plans for this project are approved. 3. In view of the projected deficiencies in off-street parking for "Scheme II" and "Scheme III" computed on the basis of Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and/or the Urban Land Institute Study of Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, the Tribal • Council concurred with staff recommendation that only "Scheme I" be approved at this time. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA AND MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Koetting and Apfelbaum absent) approving the following cases, subject to conditions as noted and continuations and restudies as applicable. CASE 3.568 (Ref. 3.421) (Cont'd. ) . Application by R. FLOYD for architectural approval of a revised lighting plan for hillside residence at 555 N. Patencio Rd. , R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Restudy of following areas of lighting - the drive, the frontage of the house and the hillside. Note: Lighting should not be installed outside the property line and should be designed not to shine outside the property line. The lighting for the gate area, the pool , and the area of the house deck visible within the property is approved. (AAC will review portable • lighting in the field. ) October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 • CASE 3.586 Minor (Cont'd. ) . Application by T. SKORMAN for architectural approval of revised awning details on front elevations of business at 310 N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Removed from agenda at the applicant's request pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.373. Application by R. YOUNG for S. Havens for architectural approval of revised elevations for condominium complex on Vista Chino between Chaparral Road/Cottonwood Rds. , R-2 Zone, Section 11. Restudy noting the following concerns: Plaster surround being substituted for wood trim on the windows; the carport design to be integrated with the building design; increased use of sun control to be explored; elevations be revised to provide articulation. CASE 3.392. Application by M. FIFE for architectural approval of revised elevations for a single family residence on Stevens Rd. between Via Monte Vista/Rose Ave. , R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Restudy noting the following: Patio cover design shall relate to the design of the house; increased • height to be employed; articulation of the elevations be explored; and continuity be provided throughout the design. (Abstention: Madsen) CASE 3.487. Application by ACTFAP for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of revised entry & landscape plans for single family residence on private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.599 (Minor) . Application by MORROWS NUT HOUSE for architectural approval of storefront awning & front elevations of business at 222 N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by P.B.S. SIGN COMPANY for architectural approval of revised gas rate sign for Shell Station on the NW corner of Ramon Road/Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14. (Ref. Cases 5.0229- CUP/6.326-Variance) Restudy noting the following: Removal of the first two courses of block on the monument sign; the width of the sign exceeds the block at the side elevation, section • details to be submitted to show side elevations; and inner sheet metal on face of sign to be eliminated. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 • SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. McBRIDE for Bearsville & Dollsville for architectural approval of main neon identifi- cation sign at 373 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.520. Application by FRIEDMAN VENTURES for architectural approval of carport design for 320-unit condominium project on Amado Rd. between Ave. Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Restudy of the carport details or use of original design is required. Note: Submitted details of metal carport should be employed. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION. Planning Commission determination that the vacation of a portion of Andreas Rd. is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Section 15. Planning Director stated that a requirement of state law is that before any street os vacated, the Planning Commission transmit to Council a determination that the street vacation is in conformance with the City's • General Plan Stree Plan, and that Andreas between Palm Canyon and Belardo was eliminated from the General Plan Street Plan recently at the recommendation of the Commission. He stated that the portion of Andreas west of Belardo was not on the General Plan Street Plan so that the Planning Commission should find that vacation is consistent with the General Plan Street Plan in order for the City Council to schedule public hearings. He stated that the vacation would be from Palm Canyon to Museum Drive. D. Wysocki , Redwine & Sherrill Attorneys, representing MDX Drug Store owner, R. Gorney, spoke in opposition to the determination to vacate the street. E. Strebe, 1350 Tachevah, asked when would there be another hearing on the vacation. Planning Director stated that there would be ahearing at the Council level which will be published in the newspaper, and the property will be posted. He stated that staff would notify Mr. Strebe of the Council hearing date. Mr. Strebe requested that the street not be vacated, since it has been on the General Plan Street Plan since 1913. L. Dobbin, 588 Mel Avenue, requested that the street not be vacated, since it is an important part of the circulation pattern for the downtown and carries a similar amount of traffic to Sunny Dunes, Tachevah and Amado. He stated that there was a high traffic count in • front of the museum because that street is part of an escape valve from Palm Canyon traffic and that the former Traffic Engineer informed him that Tahquitz-McCallum has a high traffic count and is a difficult corner to control . October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 • PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0272-ZTA (Cont'd. ) . Initiation by the City of Palm Springs for amendments to the C-B-D Zone, Section 15. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval . ) Recommendation: That the case be continued to October 26. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed and the case continued to October 26 for further staff review. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) TIME EXTENSION - TTM 18216. Request by HACKER ENGINEERING CO. for Ichi Associates for a 12-month time extension for a map to allow condominium conversion on the northwest corner of E. Palm Canyon Dr./Sagebrush Rd. , R-3 Zone, Section 23. Planning Director stated that the requirement for school impact fees which had been stated in the staff report, would be deleted. • M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Apfelbaum, Koetting absent) approving a 12-month time extension for Tract 18216, subject to all original conditions of approval , except that drainage fees and school impact fees are not required. The new expiration date will be March 17, 1985. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0173-PD-127 (Ref. TTM 18370) . Request by P. TRENCHARD for a 12-month time extension for a PD to allow construction of a golf course on E1 Cielo Rd. between Sonora/Ramon Rds. , R-2, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones (partial I.L. ) , Section 24. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Apfelbaum absent; Madsen abstained) approving a time extension to April 6, 1985 for submittal of final development plans to correspond to the expiration of companion Tract Map 18370. Tribal Council Comments: "After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a time extension for submitting final development plans for the subject project to April 6, 1985, being the expiration date for related TTM 1,8370. DETERMINATION. Planning Commission determination that the vacation of a portion of Cortez Rd. is in conformance with the City' s General Plan, Section 3. Planning Director stated that a portion of Cortez, between Palm Canyon • and Alvarado, was deleted prior to the approval of the shopping center on the northeast corner of Palm Canyon and Racquet Club Road. He stated that the northerly half of the street had been dedicated and improved and that the other half is not necessary and staff is recommending that it be vacated. f October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 • DETERMINATION (Cont' d. ) M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Apfelbaum absent; Koetting abstained) that the vacation of a portion of Cortez Road between N. Palm Canyon Drive/Anza Road is in conformance with the City's General Plan. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. CASE 2.805-HOA. Application by CANYON SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for archi- tectural review of wrought iron patio enclosure at 2099 Caliente Dr. , R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 26. Planning Director stated that the grill work was not approved by the Homeowners Association which is taking separate action for its removal , but that the AAC recommend approval subject to conditions. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Apfelbaum absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the wrought iron fence be lowered to the height of the surrounding patio walls. • CASE 3.480. Application by S. MARLOWE for architectural approval of revised - as-built elevations for single family residence on Dunham Rd. between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Rd. , R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Planner III stated that redwood siding was originally approved but that a decision was made in the field to revise the materials. M/S/C (Madsen, Kaptur; Apfelbaum absent) approving the elevations as built. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.617. Application by J. ROCCA for archiectural approval of single family hillside residence at 2061 Lilliana Dr. , R-1-B Zone, Section 27. Restudy noting there should be sun control on the windows, that the size of the olives be increased to 36" box size and that maintenance of the landscape in the right-of-way is to be the applicant's responsibility. October 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 • COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Zarowitz house on Fern Canyon Drive (Case 3.452) . Planning Director stated that it was recommended for restudy by the AAC, is bankrupt, and the Building Division is trying to finish its construction. Discussion followed on compromise procedures. Planning Director explained that a certificate of occupancy is required based on Commission approvals prior to occupancy, and that staff would investigate reports of people moving into the house. Joint dinner meeting with AAC and City Council, October 17, at the Canyon Hotel , 6:30 p.m. Chairman urged all Commissioners to attend. Mayor' s breakfast (change in format) . Breakfast to be held at 7:30 a.m. , Friday, October 14, on the City Hall steps for the Commissions of the City. Planning Commissioners will be introduced. Ramada Hotel palm tree lighting. Commission requested by staff to review the fixtures, their quality, and light direction for input to staff. • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. /\/ka(%PLAN IN DI ECTU �v� OR MDR/m