Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/10/26 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 26, 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 6 2 Hugh Curtis X 7 1 Hugh Kaptur X 6 2 Peter Koetting X 8 0 Don Lawrence X 8 0 Paul Madsen X 7 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 7 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Brian Mayhew, Operations Analyst Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Allen Smoot, Building & Safety Director Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - October 24, 1983 • James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: William Johnson Earl Neel Michael Buccino Chris Mills Hugh Curtis Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. MSC (Koetting/Curtis) approving minutes of the October 12 meeting as submitted. Commissioner Koetting suggested that when portions of Planning Commission Minutes are definitive, Commissioner' s concerns/statements/replies (negative or positive) should be definitive. • October 26, 1963 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman complimented the Recording Secretary for timely completion of the Planning Commission Minutes of September 28 and October 12, particularly in regard to the fast tracked DeBartolo Project (Case 5.0275-PD-147) . Chairman stated that Agenda items #1 and 2 would be reviewed later in the meeting. CASE 6.338-VARIANCE/3.604. Application by C. MILLS for H. Hampton for a variance to allow a reduced setback against the west side of property and architectural approval of a new residence at 3255 Tigertail Lane, R- 1-A Zone, Section 25. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA Guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve variance 6.338 and Case 3.604 subject to conditions. Planner III presented the application on the display board and stated that much of the sloping lot is undevelopable. He explained the zoning setback requirements and said that two Commissioners had reviewed the site in the field and were concerned about the flushing of loose materials off-site with a fire hose and the closeness of the roof of the • structure to the neighboring higher building pad. Planner III described the configuration of the house on the site plan, and stated that the site looks deeper in the field than is indicated in the site plan. Discussion followed on the second floor footprint. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, stated that the elevation drawings were not as accurate as far as delineation of the slope, but that the slope sections were accurate, that the site appears steeper on-site than it is; and that if the section lines were extended, the stacking of the building would be delineated. He stated that the one-foot distance from the property line on the southwesterly setback is for only a portion of the building, that the area is bedrock, that the adjacent pad is 25-feet above the subject pad, and that because of the site conditions, he felt there would be no problem in view obstruction for the adjacent property owner. He stated in reply to a Commission question that a planter would be required for landscaping, since that area is bedrock, that the site plan for the major slope is accurate, and that the project would be required to be redesigned, if the 6-1/2 foot setback requested were not approved. • Planner III in reply to Commission questions described the methodology for the height determination of 19 feet and stated also that the code allows 30% maximum building coverage. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 6.338-VARIANCE/3.604. (Cont'd. ) Mr. Mills stated that because of neighbors viewing the roof, it would be flat with no roof-mounted equipment, with the finish to be a light tan gravel to match the plastered walls. He explained the glass walled portion of the building on the second story. Planner III in reply to Commission question stated that the house as proposed would be 16 feet from the adjacent higher building pad. H. Hampton, 420 Santa Elena, the owner of the lot, stated that the architectural Committee of Southridge approved the plan and that it is odd that conforming to zoning requirements ( in this particular instance) , obstructs the neighbors view more than his proposed variance configuration. He requested that the guest bedroom and bath area be approved as submitted. (One foot from the property line) because of the proposed lot and adjoining lot configuration. Mr. Hampton stated in reply to a Commission question that the site has had a thorough study and that compaction is excellent, is mostly rock, and that the compacted soil has been in place for several years. He stated that further compaction studies would be done. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that in his first review of the request, he felt that • the Zoning Ordinance limitations were being forced to the limit, but that after testimony and further review at the meeting, he felt that the side yard setback of one foot was viable. In reply to Chairman' s ques- tion, Planning Director stated that staff felt that with only one foot between a structure and the property line, there is no way to move around the structure without being on a neighbor' s property for con- struction and maintenance, that the staff does not want to be in a position where similar properties would be granted such a severe vari- ance, and gave examples of property dedication for setbacks in other instances. Commissioner Koetting stated that his concerns had been alleviated by the sensitivity of the house to the site, except that he was concerned about the closeness of the side yard. He stated that there are problems in the Ordinance which the Commission is forced to address repeatedly. Planner III in response to Commission question stated that he did not know how much of the Davies site is fill, but that the site seems not to have as much bedrock as the subject site. Commissioner Curtis stated that he had concerns about the massing of the house on the property, but that the condition is prevalent in South- ridge. He stated he also had concerns about the sewer provisions for the property. Planner III stated that he had met with the Director of Community • Development regarding sewerage of the area and that a condition of approval is that the house be connected to the City sewer, that an Assessment District is difficult to form because of the cost and diffi- culty of the construction of the sewer lines, that there is no sewer moratorium until the County Health Department completes studies to determine whether or not septic tanks are acceptable. He stated that October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 6.338-VARIANCE/3.604. (Cont'd. ) • the City has been informed by the County Health Department that no septic tanks should be allowed in the area because of the bedrock and possible seepage, although septic tanks have been allowed until/if there is a moratorium, and that the final outcome of the discussion and nego- tiations is not known. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there other instances in which property is built to the property line and because of the configuration of the lot and the mountain, he felt that there would be no problem in granting the variance. Planning Director stated that the City Attorney has concerns about Condition #4 in the Development Committee conditions under "Planning Division", and that this condition should be deleted. (M/S/C Kaptur/Koetting) approving Variance 6.338 (and Case 3.604) the following findings is subject to subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS 1. That the subject property is located in a hillside area, is 25 + feet below the buildable area on the adjoining lot to the west, is 20 + feet above the adjoining lot to the east and is located in a private community. • 2. That the subject lot is irregular in shape; is substandard in lot width and has a limited buildable area due to existing topographic conditions. 3. That the intent of Section 9203.03 of the Zoning Ordinance has been met relative to building height and setbacks in the R-1-A Zone. 4. That the variance request with added conditions, will assure that the setback reduction authorized will not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation placed on properties in the neighborhood. 5. That the granting of this variance with conditions will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighbor- hood in which the property is located. 6. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 7. That existing view corridors are not substantially altered as a result of this variance. CONDITIONS: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee . as amended be met. (Condition #4 under Planning Division shall be deleted. ) 2. That the proposed building height of 19 feet is approved. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 6.338-VARIANCE/3.604. (Cont'd. ) • 3. That the proposed rear yard is approved. 4. That all other Zoning Ordinance provisions of the R-1- A Zone, are all applicable to the subject property. 5. That a 1 foot setback on the southwesterly corner of the property is approved. CASE 5.0296 ZTA. Initiation by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for development of revised standards for recreation vehicle parks, City-wide. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve the zoning text amend- ment, and continue the application to the November 9 meeting for final review. Planning Director explained the background of the proposed revisions to the Zoning text and stated that changes had been made to the draft Ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission at a previous study ses- sion. He stated that the primary change is that of recreation vehicle • (RV) parks beingproposed under a Type 2 CUP with a new section "n. " added to the current CUP Ordinance. He stated that Type 2 CUPs are reviewed by the Council as well as the Commission, and that after review of other types of applications, the CUP mechanism (which is already in existence) would be the most expeditious way to process recreation vehicle parks. He stated that issues are as follows: RV parks and mobilehome parks are dissimilar although the vehicles used are similar; the length of stay should be considered (the City Ordinance now limits length of stay to 30 days); and the TOT should be considered since it is a concern of the City that occu- pancy tax returns to the City be maximized. He stated that the issue of a RV park becoming a permanent residential unit should also be explored and that another issue is the RV park's use compatibility with the General Plan and that staff is recommending one space: one unit. He noted that RV parks would facilitate the tourist industry in Palm Springs and are compatible in general with the General Plan, but that it is necessary to address their consistency with the General Plan. He stated that the underlying Zoning should remain since RV park use will eventually be displaced. He described other "housekeeping" revisions and development standards in the proposed Ordinance (on file in the Department of Community Development, Planning Division) and noted that there are several areas of Planning Commission discretion in the Ordinance for more flexibility. He noted that a letter has been received from Kampgrounds of America requesting an extended . stay for RV' s (beyond the 30 days) for viability because of seasonal resort requirements. Chairman complimented staff on the Ordinance. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0296 ZTA. (Cont' d. ) • In reply to a Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that TOT imposed on time share projects is for occupancy of less than 30 days. Discussion followed on the differences between the recreation vehicle parks and hotels regarding occupancy length. Planning Director stated that revenue is a key issue and that hotel physical appearances do not change with long occupancy whereas RV park spaces tend to deteriorate in appearance with storage areas and other appurtenances. Commissioner Madsen stated that permanent occupancy is not applicable to winter visitors who leave within two or three months and he found staff rationale confusing. Further discussion followed. Planning Director stated that hotels return revenue but that RV parks do not return revenue commensurate with the services provided by the City for visitors to the parks. Commissioner Madsen stated that there should be some better rationale than revenue for length of occupancy standards. Further discussion followed regarding length of stay and possible permanency of the struc- tures with a lengthy occupancy. Planning Director stated that collec- tion of TOT is like that of hotels and that the Ordinance language is broad to cover many contingencies. Chairman declared the hearing open and explained that the Ordinance applies generically, and not to a specific project. H. Staves, representing Kampgrounds of America, stated that his organi- zation desires a location in the Coachella Valley within the next year and that the first preference is Palm Springs. He complimented staff on the Ordinance with its stringent development standards. He stated that the only problem with the Ordinance was in the 30 day length of stay, and that he no problems with the TOT even on extended stays. He noted that he would review the policy of long-term occupancy in the Anaheim RV park owned by his company and requested that the TOT be reviewed as a separate problem. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the occupancy time be on a percent- age basis, and that if transient RV users cannot find spaces, they will park illegally on the street. Mr. Staves stated that in the winter retired persons stay longer than 30 days and that as many spaces as possible would be reserved for less than 30 day occupancy because they are more lucrative. He stated that if the RV park that his organization is proposing is built, it will cost between one-half million and two million dollars and would require 30,000 "camper nights" for economic viability. He remarked that flexibility would be required forlength of occupancy, and that 75% of the site would be required to have occupancy • longer than 30 days to make the RV park economically feasible. Commissioner Koetting stated that there are less RV parks than hotels in the area and if 75% were occupied more than 30 days, few spaces would be left for the transient RV user. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0296 ZTA. (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on the validity of a requirements for percentage of space/length of occupancy stays. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was not in favor of the "big brother" approach of government telling business how to operate, that there is not enough staff to monitor occupancy length, and that the Palm Springs season is the "off" season for most one night RV space users. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman requested that staff apprise Commission of occupancy require- ment for the RV park in Anaheim owned by Kampgrounds of America. He stated that he felt that the Planning Commission should not interfere in the economics of a business, but that the City should maximize revenues. Planning Director stated that the City within the past month has begun collecting TOT on RV spaces limited to a 30 day stay and has found that the 30 day limitation is not policed. Further discussion followed on the economics of a 30 day limitation. Planning Director stated that staff would define the collection of the TOT, and that the Commission could order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration on the case, or it could be reviewed at a study session. Assistant City Attorney stated that the City has the power to impose tax for occupancy of RV spaces independent of the TOT and independent of the time limitations. • Planning Director stated that if the TOT is not the issue, the Commis- sion should address the time limitation issue. In response to Commission question, Mr. Staves stated that a six month time limitation would be acceptable, and that in general a mobilehome park rather than a RV park is suited for residents who want to stay six months. In reply to a Commission question, the Assistant City Attorney stated that the specific Ordinance language could be revised before the Novem- ber 9 meeting. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the application, and continuing further review to November 9, with staff to revise the Ordinance language for review at the November 9 meeting. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: "In reviewing the City Planning Commission Agenda of October 26, 1983, the Tribal Council noted that Item No. 4 (CASE 5.0296 ZTA) could materially affect Indian-trust lands. Since City staff has indicated that this case will be continued, the Tribal Council withheld comments on this matter pending receipts of staff report and Indian Planning • Commission review and recommendations thereon." October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS • J. Cioffi , 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Architect, requested that staff and Commission review the R-2 Ordinance in regard to height limitations since Ordinance does not allow flexibility as is allowed in other Zones, and that there is no provision for an AMM for R-2 Zoning. He stated that this lack of flexibility is creating problems for one of his firm's project in an R-2 Zone, that he felt that by deletion of one sentence in the R-2 section of the Zoning Ordinance flexibility would be allowed, and that a building's height could be reviewed on an individual basis. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that there is no AMM allowed for building height in any Zone and read excerpts from the R-2 Section of the Ordinance. He stated that heights over 35 feet are considered high-rise. He noted that it was difficult to draft legislation regulating pitched roofs and that an AMM is not granted on building height except in hillside areas. Further discussion followed on height allowances. Mr. Cioffi stated that roof height should be discretionary which is the reason for having an AAC and Planning Commission. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence) that height limitations in the R-2 Zone be reviewed at the November 16 Planning Commission Study Session. • Note: Commissioners suggested that allowance for a percentage of the roof being over height limitations be reviewed by staff. Planning Director stated that the R-2 Zone originally allowed one-story buildings only. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting. CASE 3.627. Application by the City of Palm Springs for environmental assessment for cogeneration facility within Sunrise Plaza adjacent to the Community Pavilion, 0-Zone, Section 13. (Action for preparation of draft Negative Declaration. ) and CASE 3.628. Application by the City of Palm Springs for environmental assessment and architectural approval for cogeneration facility located on the south side of E1 Cielo Road between Shorty Way and Airport Park Plaza, G-R-5 Zone, (Proposed Civic Center Zone) , Section 13. (Action for preparation of draft Negative Declaration and tentative architectural approval . ) • Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve Cases 3.627 and 3.628, and continue the item to November 9 for further review. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 3.627 & 3.628. (Cont'd. ) Planner III reviewed the environmental impacts and mitigative measures in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. He stated that the architectural plans for the cogeneration plant at Sunrise Plaza will be reviewed at the November 9 meeting and that there were constraints on the design because of the requirements for storage of water and the large size of the generators. He described the architecture and stated that no plant growth except lawn is allowed over the water storage tank area because plant material mixed with chemicals in the tank would destroy the system. Building and Safety Director stated that the water tank holds chilled water for cooling the Civic Center complex in the summer and that build- ings cannot be built over the top of the tank. He stated also that plantings were not allowed except for grass, but that there is landscap- ing on the perimeter for screening. He stated that there is nothing dangerous around the building and that the building will be securely locked and is a permanent structure. He stated that no more land would be required unless more storage tanks are needed. In reply to Commis- sion question, Building and Safety Director deferred answers on seismic safety to the technical team representing the cogeneration plant developers, although he stated that the facility will probably withstand an earthquake of 8.3 on the Richter scale. Chairman remarked that an earthquake need not be 8.3 in magnitude to • create a disaster. Building & Safety Director stated that the design team indicated that the building could withstand a 7.5 earthquake and that the facility was not a critical one because back-up power can be obtained from Southern California Edison. He stated that there is an emergency back-up genera- tor and that the City Council recently authorized building two cogenera- tion plants. In response to Commission question, J. Moore, Engineering Coordinator for the project, stated that the Air Qaulity Maintenance District (AQMD) has stringent emission requirements and that all emission reports will be submitted to them. He stated that there are offsets to emission pro- duction since the cogeneration facility will replace some existing mechanical equipment and that there is little danger of explosion since natural gas requires containment to explode and there is much air circu- lation throughout the building. He stated that there will be depleting of natural gas but that the City will be replacing electricity and gas use by producing both with natural gas. From Southern California Edison which replaces one-half of that being used currently and consequently less energy will be used. Building & Safety Director, in reply to a Commission question, stated that sinking the building would be cost prohibitive. W. Kleindeinst, architect for the project, stated that berming using . dirt removed during excavation would hide the building height. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Koetting absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving Cases 3.627 and 3.628, and continuing both cases to the November 9 meeting for final review. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 3.627 & 3.628. (Cont'd. ) • Discussion followed on whether or not the proposed structure meets the new Civic Center (CC) District Ordinance building height requirement. Planning Director stated that the facility should meet the new CC height restrictions which should be in effect prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Koetting returned to the meeting. 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 5.0106-CUP & 3.336. Application by M. STARKMAN ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised site plan, and architectural elevations; & D. JUNG for architectural approval of preliminary landscape plans for hotel and condominium complex on S. Indian Ave. between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Arenas Rd. , C-2, C-1-AA Zones, & R-4VP (I.L.), Section 14. Chairman abstained; Vice Chairman presided. • Planner III reviewed the project on the display board and stated that the applicant has brought colors and materials to the meeting which have not been reviewed by the AAC. Planning Director stated that a Commission concern was the hardness of the north elevation which has been softened by landscaping and that the ramp area has been softened by plantings which is indicated on the model but not on the site plan. L. Slayten, Western Ventures, 10787 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles, the applicant, stated that all concerns of the Planning Commission and AAC have been addressed and a finer product has resulted. He stated that the colors (3 shades of mauve-tan) should be acceptable. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Service abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a revised color and material board be submitted. 3. That a revised sun control detail be submitted for the lobby area of the Villas. 4. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be • submitted. CONSENT AGENDA October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0106-CUP & 3.336. (Cont'd. ) The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.373. Application by R. YOUNG for S. Havens for architectural approval of revised elevations for condominium complex on Vista Chino between Chaparral/Cottonwood Rds. , R-2 Zone, Section 11. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0218-CUP. Application by C. G. DUNHAM for review of working drawings for a condominium complex on Mesquite Ave. between Cerritos Rd./Sunrise Way, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zone, Section 24. Approved as submitted. • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd.) ADDED STARTER CASE 3.452. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for M. Zarowitz for architectural approval of as built colors and elevation for single-family residence at 563 Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Planner III stated that the home had been approved differently from what was built since many revisions had been made in the field and that the current architect has changed the character of the front through a revi- sion to the original landscape concept. In reply to Chairman' s question, Mr. Kleindienst, the architect, stated that the client likes gray and that he has been trying to soften the appearance of the residence. He stated that if what has been submitted is not satisfactory the only recourse is to remodel the newly con- structed residence. He stated that he had found the warmest gray for the wall and had suggested a red tile cap to soften the bleakness of the grey wall, but the suggestion was not accepted by the applicant. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the wrought iron fence should be painted gray and accents should not be used. Further discus- sion followed on the color used on the residence. Mr. Kleindienst stated that the owner has indicated she would retain a landscaper, that the house is not occupied currently, and that the occupancy depends on . the Planning Commission's approval . Further discussion followed. Consensus was that the Commission should order a restudy. Mr. Kleindienst stated that the house is a cold gray color with no articulation to the facade. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 3.452. (Cont'd. ) • M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting) for a restudy of the landscaping, the color, and the front elevations of the home. Note: Commissioner Koetting stated that the house would be acceptable except for the color scheme. 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 . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the case to November 9 for further staff review. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed and further review continued to November 9. 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./Livmor Ave. , Section 13. Recommendation: That the Commission file a Negative Declaration and approve CASE 5.0297-CZ/ZTA subject to conditions. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the distance requirement to single-family resi- dences abutting the Civic Center District Zone. Planning Director stated that it is 20 feet (the same as commercial and professional zones) with no yard requirements abutting a Civic Center use or non- residential use. He stated that there is a 20 foot setback for second story structures to R-1 zoning and that there is no living condition where someone is viewing a backyard in any of the Commercial Zones. Discussion followed on setbacks to residences where there are second- story structures. Planning Director stated that he had no particular problem with any current or future proposal for the Civic Center site except in a small area between Andreas and Livmor where the new CC would abut a residential area. He stated that the parking requirements for the CCD would be included in the parking section of the Zoning Ordi- nance. • M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and giving final approval to Case 5.0297-CA-ZTA based on the following find- ings: October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0297-CZ/ZTA. (Cont' d. ) 1. That a new Civic Center District (CC) Zone is necessary and appro- priate at this time to implement the General Plan including the orderly development of the Civic Center. 2. That the standards for development as contained in the proposed ordinance are necessary and desirable to adjust the proposed zoning to the surrounding uses and neighborhoods and will facili- tate compatible developments. 3. That the uses proposed to be allowed are generally similar to those currently allowed except that guest ranches would no longer be allowed by right-of-zone. 4. That the GR-5 zoning designation and standards are no longer adequate to facilitate the orderly development of the Civic Center. CONDITIONS That setback requirements be 150 feet from any R-1 zoned property for building heights in excess of 15 feet. • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17392 (Ref. Case 3.404) . Request by HACKER ENGINEERING for W. Coble for a 12-month time extension for condominium purposes on the southwest corner of Cantina Way/S. Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 27. Planning Director stated that the sewer requirement has been deleted because sewer capacity is available on South Palm Canyon Drive and that the applicant is requesting a time extension for economic reason. M/S/C (Curti s/ADfelbaum) approving a twelve-month time extension for TTM 17392 subject to all original and amended conditions of approval with the new expiration date to be October 28, 1984. DISCUSSION - Planning Commission review of experimental palm tree lighting fixtures. Building and Safety Director stated that the lighting concept evolved from an attempt to light the palm trees, sidewalk and a portion of the street for greater protection for vehicles and pedestrians and still retain the palm tree ambiance which distinguishes the City. He stated he was interested in the Commission's reaction to the light from the fixtures fastened to the palm trees in front of the Ramada Inn. Discussion followed on areas lighted by the tree light. • Commission Lawrence stated that he felt the lighting pattern destroys the shadow of the trees. He stated that he felt that it focused atten- tion to the light, not on the trees, and that perhaps too much was trying to be accomplished. He stated that the mystique of the City with the palm trees should be retained. October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17392 (Ref. Case 3.404) . (Cont'd. ) • In response to Commission question, Building and Safety Director stated that the design criteria for the lighting was established by the Council as a policy, and is in response to liability concerns. He noted that the timing would be to obtain approval for the fixtures for inclusion in the 84/85 fiscal year budget. Commissioner Apfelbaum also stated she felt that the lighting drew attention to the lighting on the street and away from the palm trees. Building and Safety Director stated that there are standards of lighting in the streets for municipalities, and that juries question municipalities if lighting does not meet standards. Discussion followed on Council reaction to the experimental lighting project. Planning Director stated that one of the Councilmen felt that the tree lost its light and shadow pattern because of the lighting. Consensus was that the item should be continued to November 9 for further Commission review in the field. . ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.621. Application by R. CARVER for architectural approval of single- family residence on Stevens Road between Vine Street/Via Monte Vista, R- 1-A, Section 10. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the back of the home did not compare to the front in design and materials. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur, Koetting, Lawrence dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a minimum of 60% of tiles have mortar added. 3. That the plaster finish be smooth. 4. That detailed irrigation, exterior lighting and landscape plans be submitted. CASE 3.617. Application by JOHN 0. ROCCA for architectural approval for construction of a single-family residence at 2061 Liliana Drive, R-IB Zone, Section 27. Discussion followed on wall setbacks and height, turning radius, and • gate. Commissioners expressed concern that the wall height would obscure the view for accessing the property. M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Kaptur, Service dissenting) approving the appli- cation subject to the following conditions: October 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.617. (Cont'd. ) 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the east wall be firred out by two feet to provide sun pro- tection. 3. That the west overhang be three feet. 4. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. Note: Details are to be submitted for staff approval . CASE 3.573. Application by McCLELLAN, CRUZ, GAYLORD for Vons for exterior lighting plans at Palm Springs Mall , CSC (PD.11) , Section 13. Discussion ensued on the lighting fixture design. Consensus was the the application be continued forresubmittal by the applicant. Planner III stated also that the lighting plan would be reviewed at a future meeting. (Chairman continued the application to November 9. ) CASE 3.392. Application by MICHAEL FIFE for architectural approval of revised elevations for single-family residence located on Stevens Road west of Camino Monte Vista, R-1-B Zone, Section 10. M/S/C (Koetting/Curtis; Kaptur dissented; Madsen abstained) approving • the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BANK OF GLENDALE for architectural approval of main identification sign at 901 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, C-1-AA Zone (I .L. ), Section 14. Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. CONTINUED ITEM CASE 3.291. Application by MILNER CORPORATION for architectural approval of a drainage facility/landscape area for hotel on the southeast corner of Murray Canyon Drive between S. Palm Canyon/Sierra Madre, R-3 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 35. Continued to November 9 at the applicant' s request. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at • 5:15 P.M. "PLAN cDI ER CTORD_ MDR/m ---