Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/01/11 - MINUTES Y PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall w January 11, 1984 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 10 2 Hugh Curtis X 11 1 Hugh Kaptur X 9 3 Peter Koetting X 11 1 Don Lawrence X 12 0 Paul Madsen X 11 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 11 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - January 9, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. MSC (Koetting/Kaptur) approving minutes of the December 14, 1983 meeting with the following corrections: Page 2, Time Extension TTM 18302. Correction: First time extension (delete "third and final" Page 19, Case 5.0257-CUP. Correction: Delete condition #2 (working drawings were approved by the Commission) ; condition #3 should read as follows: That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans are continued for review by the AAC. Page 29, TTM 19544. Add Tribal Council comments as follows: "From discussions with City Staff, the Tribal Planning Consultant understands that this matter involves a revision in the design of TTM 19544 to accommodate a new land use concept for the subject property, i .e. an, auto sales and service center. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 Copies of the revised tentative map and a staff report and/or Development Committee Minutes were not available at the Planning Department on December `.. 12, 1983. The Tribal Council requested that the City Planning Commission action on this matter be continued in order to provide time for the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Con- sultant to receive and review the items referred to above. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES There were no Tribal Council comments for the January 11, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman commended the Recording Secretary for the timely and accurate minutes prepared for the December 14, 1983 meeting especially regarding the fast-tracked Temple project (Case 5.0303-PD-153) . PUBLIC COMMENTS The following persons spoke in opposition to Case 3.392 (single-family resi- dence on Stephens Road between Via Monte Vista and Rose Avenue in Section 10) . F. Wiskowski, 1500 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 5. C. Kaplan, 600 W. Stephens Road. J. Tully, 601 W. Stephens Road. Reasons cited were as follows: Negative economic impact on neighboring properties; unsympathetic treat- ment of the hillside; lack of fair play by the City, especially in median grading requirements; Commission's disregard of neighbors' input; and effect on the aesthetics of the hillside and obstruction of views. C. Millsarchitecit,278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, requested that the Commission reconsider use of "S" the in lieu of the approved barrel tile on the model building in the Temple project (Case 5.0303-PD-153) . He stated that Mr. Temple wishes to install the tile for Commission review in the field and will remove it if the Commission feels that it is inapro- priate. In response to Commission question, Mr. Mills stated that the Royce Hotel on Cathedral Canyon Drive has an "S" the roof, and that the cost of the originally approved barrel the with 60% mortar is prohibi- tive. Chairman stated that the aesthetics of the "S" the do not compare to the originally approved barrel tile, and that the developer should not revise a detail that was approved by the Commission since the architec- ture was approved with a specific treatment. Discussion followed regarding review of the proposed the roof on the building in the field as requested by the developer. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) `• Planning Director stated that when the AAC reviewed the project origi- nally, the barrel tile was considered appropriate but the roof material was not discussed further in the Commission meeting, although the developer and architect had probably discussed returning the roof mater- ial to the Commission for further review. He stated that changing to an "S" the was not encouraged by staff. Further discussion followed with the architect. Commissioner Koetting stated that approval of the barrel tiles with 60% mortar was a condition of approval of the project, and that he had felt that the project was approved without the proper amount of scrutiny, from the beginning. He stated that the Commission can review the type of tile in the field on the Royce Hotel and consider the developer's request at the its January 18 study session. Chairman informed Mr. Mills that the developer's request was understood by the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. CASE 5.0280-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS to amend the Zoning text to allow banks, health clubs and restaurants as a secondary use in the "P" Zone subject to a CUP, citywide. Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continue the case to the January 25 meeting for a public hearing and response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. Planning Director stated that the proposed zoning text amendment had been reviewed at a study session in July and that very few changes had been made. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen) ordering the preparation of the a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the case to the 1-25-84 meeting for a public hearing. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TIME EXT.-TTM 16496 (Reference Case 3.275) Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for D. Bogna and M. Blazevic for a 24-month time extension (2nd & 3rd exten- sions) for a subdivision for condominium purposes at 260 West Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 3. Planning Director explained that the City Attorney advised that once a map has expired no additional processing can take place. He stated the engineer has indicated that that described in the letter had been sent in October of 1982 requesting a time extension but that staff had failed to ..receive it and that the letter is similar in circumstances to those in ale'tter received in 1981 requesting a time extension. He noted that staff was not comfortable in asking for an extension based on the letter. and that the map could be resubmitted. He described the con- figuration of the map and the project on the display board and stated that the architecture still has valid approval . He noted that the City Attorney has indicated that if an expired map is challenged after approval it could be negated. Discussion followed on fees and resubmittal of the map. Planning Direc- tor stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a request for a time extension to be submitted 30 days prior to the expiration of the map. Further discussion followed on the circumstances relating to the request for extension. M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur) requiring the applicant to reapply for the map with submittal fees to be waived. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum) approving time extensions for the following maps with conditions as indicated: TIME EXT.-TPM 14063. Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for A. Yermian for a 12-month time extension for a combination of lots for commercial purposes on the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive/Camino Monte Vista, C-1 Zone, Section 10 (Ref. 3.365) . Approved subject to original conditions of approval and Engineering Division conditions in a memorandum dated January 6, 1984. New expira- tion date: 12-23-84. TIME EXT.-18373. Request by L. ZEHEUSS for E. Schwartz for a 12-month . time extension (2nd extension) for division of one lot into three parcels on the northeast corner of Via Donna/Paseo El Mirador, R-1-A Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to original conditions and Planning Commission revised conditions of January 26, 1983. New expiration date: 3-17-84. i January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CC&R's. Commission review of CC&R's for TPM 18787 located on the north side of Ramon Road, between Bogie Road/San Luis Rey Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Planning Director explained that the discussion would center on the landscape maintenance portion of the overall CC&R's (which the Commis- sion had requested to review) . Commission Lawrence stated that conditions in the CC&R's can be revised after approval by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney stated that language could be placed in the CC&R's so that certain sections are not subject to amendment except by approval of the Commission. Discussion followed on the possibility of adding language to prevent revisions and possible deterioration of maintenance after Commission approval of the CC&R's. City Attorney stated that if the City maintains the property it will be placed on the tax rolls as a lien. Commissioner Lawrence stated that if maintenance provisions were in the CC&R's and not met, the homeowner's association could lien and sell individual properties quickly; and that if a property is placed on the tax roll it will require a lengthier time for expedition. City Attorney explained that the City can maintain property and bill for its costs on the taxes thus allowing the maintenance to be accomplished as it is needed. Although the repayment of the cost to the City could be a lengthy process. Further discussion followed on possible language revisions to the CC&R's. Planning Director stated that other items such as trash removal are covered under Ordinance, but that the City needs a vehicle for common maintenance of Bogie and Ramon Road frontages. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen) that the CC&R's be continued for review at the January 18 study session. Assistant City Attorney stated that any language in the CC&R's must be tailored to the conditions of the map. Chairman directed that the CC&R's be reviewed to protect the City's interest on Ramon and Bogie Roads. Commissioner Lawrence commented that the City can develop provisions for rapid maintenance with the proper provisions in the CC&R's. Chairman stated that he felt uncomfortable with review of the CC&R's since they are prepared by attorneys, but that he would agree to review the subject CC&R's because of the major streets involved. He stated that it was not the Commission's role to review all CC&R's. Discussion followed on previous CC&R review on other projects. Planning Director stated that the concern was that a common vehicle be provided to provide maintenance on multiple properties with a common landscape theme, and that the Commissioners should indicate their concerns regarding landscape maintenance. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 ..,� 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 3.089. Application by R. HARRISON for D. Williams for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for industrial building at Bogie Road/Sunny Dunes Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Discussion ensued at the display board. Roof details and parking on site were discussed. Consensus was that a restudy was necessary on both the architecture and the site plan. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting) for a restudy of the application. Commissioner Madsen left the meeting. CASE 3.250. Application by B. CRAWFORD for M. Badalian for architectural approval of revised colors for 110-unit condominium complex on Ramon Road between Calle Encillas/E1 Segundo, R-4-VP Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. C. Mills, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant desires tan colors rather than grays to be integrated into the stucco of the building for maintenance purposes. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That substitute stucco colors "Bauer #109, Spanish White and Bauer #142, Wheat" be used. 2. That wood and tile colors are approved as submitted. 3. . That accent colors at the base of the building be selected by the architect in the field. CASE 3.512. Application by W. VEITH for F. Matajasich for architectural approval of revised grading and landscape plans for single-family resi- dence on Southridge Dr. between Tiger Tail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) for a restudy of the application. I January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 3.392. Application by M. FIFE for architectural approval of revised grading plans for single-family residence on Stevens Road between Via Monte Vista/Rose Avenue, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director explained the rationale for pad heights on the subject and neighboring properties as being determined on an individual basis. He stated that the subject lot was substandard and that the grading was revised to conduct water back to the street although this is not a man- datory City requirement. He stated regarding "median grade" that the Ordinance was changed in 1981 to allow the Commission to decide height of pads. He stated that drainage problems have been resolved in the area in a variety of ways and described the methodology on the display board. He noted that there was about 8 to 10 feet of fill on the lot as the result of construction of the road serving the area, that the natural drainage flow is to the south and that lowering of the pad would not change the drainage flow. In reply to a Commission question, he stated that the condition stated in Mr. Kaplan's letter from the Build- ing and Safety Director would be met. He also stated that the proposed structure would have to meet the required setbacks in the R-1-A Zone. Commissioner Koetting stated that grading and landscaping problems had been resolved previously by the Commission on the corner property. In reply to a Commission question, Dr. Tully stated that there would be economic impact on his property because the subject residence would tower above it. Commissioner Madsen returned to the meeting. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Madsen abstained because he was not present during the discussion) approving the application subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met including the required ssetbacks and street dedication. 2. That yellow oleander be introduced in groups as substitute for the hedge on the eastern boundary. 3. That the pine trees be restudied - Ficus is suggested. 4. That the landscape be sensitive to the property on the eastern boundary. 5. That a final landscape and irrigation plan be submitted. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 3.573. Application by D. SACHSON for the Palm Springs Mall for architectural approval of final improvement plans (landscaping, irriga- tion and exterior lighting) for Mall on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Sunset Way/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planner III explained the final improvement plans on the display board. In response to a Commission question regarding the Mall remodel time- table, Planning Director stated that the entire front parking lot will be completed before August 1 when the Von's market opens and that the other portions of the Mall are to be remodeled as part of the Von's agreement. He stated that Miller's Outpost is developing its plans at the present time. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen) approving the landscaping subject to the following condition: That there be screened landscaping on the west property line. In response to Commission question, Planner III stated that the Von's market could be completed before any other part of the Mall is finished, that Planned Development District applications will be submitted for the tower detail and the additional height of the Walker Scott building. He stated that no working drawings will be submitted until the tower detail is approved, and that the previous approval had no time stipulation. Chairman noted that the Mall owner did not indicate that the remodeling would be phased. Commissioner Koetting agreed. Planner III stated that he would have to research the files regarding phasing. Discussion followed on phasing of the project. Chairman stated that the former Commission Chairman had warned him that some of the improvements might not happen, and that the owners were proposing to add a Spanish style market to a non-Spanish style of Mall . Further discussion followed on the architecture and phasing. Commissioner Koetting stated that the design of the rest of the Mall centered on the Von's market's Spanish architecture. After further discussion, Chairman suggested that the Commission take action on the lighting and that staff research conditions of approval . M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence) approving the lighting subject to the following condition: That staff approve fixture height on the west side of the facade of the building (12 foot height suggested). CASE 3.582. Application by A. WILKES for architectural approval of working drawings for apartment/hotel (condotel) on Baristo Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis) continuing the application to January 25. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0257-CUP. Application by C. MILLS for Coble-Hampton Development Co. for architectural approval of final grading, landscaping, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for 44-unit residential condominium project on Escoba Drive between El Cielo Road/Desert Way, R-1-C Zone (I.L. ) , Section 30. Planner III presented the project on the display board and explained that the Commission had approved working drawing but that staff had overlooked the fact that there are only five foot setbacks between some of the buildings. He stated that the AAC recommended approval of the five foot setbacks and that it would be difficult to construct pools in the yards but that the CC&R's address that fact and allow removal of the common wooden fences for access. He noted staff's recommendation would be to not allow five feet between the buildings although the grading plan would have to be revised. He stated that the residences are duplexes and not single-family units. Discussion followed on the use of the common area for access and the unusual project which resembles a single-family complex but is not. H. Hampton, the developer, stated that he understood the problem and that it is specifically addressed in the CC&R's. He noted that the homeowner's association will determine whether or not a requested use by a homeowner is feasible and whether or not a temporary fence should be constructed with a bond to be posted as deemed adequate by the associa- tion. In response to Commission question, Planner III stated that the AAC recommendation that the drainage channel have colored concrete is in response to a staff request that the drainage channel be attractive. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That building setbacks are approved as submitted. 2. That the street frontage and internal street system landscaping be increased and designed for continuity. 3. That hose bibbs be added to the irrigation plan. 4. That the drainage channel have native stone rip rap sides and a concrete bottom with stones to have a desert varnish finish - natural or treatment. Note: Commission discussed undergrounding of utility lines. Mr. Hamp- ton stated that the lines are substantial and undergrounding would be difficult. Chairman stated that undergrounding requirements would remain on the project and could be postponed with a covenant but not cancelled. The developer agreed that this was the case. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 8.220-SIGN VARIANCE. Application by THRIFTY DRUG STORES for additional sign for business on South Palm Canyon Drive, between Ramon Road/Baristo �... Road, CBD Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer II gave the staff report and stated that Big 5 Sporting Goods and the Liquor Barn have signs on both Palm Canyon and Indian because they have frontage on both streets. Planning Director stated that the Thrifty Drug frontage on Indian has been usurped by the Crown Book Store and that Crown Books does have a sign on Indian. He stated that many businesses have a similar sign impact. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that applicants have been told they could have a pedestrian convenience 'sign on the parking lot side but have not indicated interest. A. London, attorney, representing Thrifty Drug Stores stated that the business lost its sign when Crown Books was put in but the sign is still needed for identification. He stated that Thrifty Drug had to allow the Crown Book Store sign because Indian Avenue is a one-way street, although Thrifty did not like to relinquish its original sign. He described the parking area for the businesses on the site and explained that there is a 160-foot blank wall on Indian without identification. He showed pictures of the original Thrifty's signing, and stated that it seems lost in the leaves of the trees next to the building. Discussion followed on the signing of the businesses of the complex. Commissioner Kaptur remarked that the building is similar to a corner building which is allowed two signs. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the language of the Zoning Ordi- nance indicates that a situation like the Thrifty's Drug Store is allowed only one sign. He interpreted a portion of the Ordinance regarding signs facing on right-of-ways at the request of Mr. London. He stated that the size of signs is formulated on a 1:1 basis (one foot of lineal frontage equals one square foot of signage) . Mr. London then stated that he felt there were grounds for a variance, that it was an undue hardship on the business not to have a second sign, and if the sign were denied it would be inconsistent with the general purpose of the Ordinance. He stated that there was a special circum- stance applicable to Thrifty since there is no other situation similar to the Thrifty situation which has a 160-feet of building using both streets (Palm Canyon and Indian) but is unable to have a sign on the Indian side. He stated also that there was no special privilege in allowing a sign since Ramon Drug Store has a similar situation and has two signs, one of which is facing Ramon Road. Chairman cautioned Mr. London to speak only on the subject proposal . Mr. London stated that a sign should be allowed which is measured by the 160-foot wall on Indian Avenue, that many forces are taking business away from the downtown, that the area has been improved and maintained, and requested positive action by the Commission. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 8.220-SIGN VARIANCE. (Continued) Discussion followed on the interpretation of Section 8153.02 of the Sign Ordinance which gives the requirements for sizes of signs. Chairman stated that to allow a large (50 foot) sign based on no frontage on Indian Avenue, would establish an undesirable precedent for large signs on Indian. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Kaptur dissented) denying sign variance 8.220 based on the following findings: 1. That the granting of a variance from the Sign Ordinance would be granting of a special privelege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties and businesses in similar circumstances. 2. That no special circumstances related to this subject business exists relative to size, shape, topography or location which deprived this business of priveleges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Note: Commissioner Kaptur stated that he dissented because he felt that there was sufficient evidence to allow a sign facing the parking lot since the Commission has discretionary powers for decisions on unclear issues. He stated he felt that the size was probably the issue. Commissioner Koetting stated that the applicant did not want a small sign and that the applicant could possibly work with staff regarding signing. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he felt that the 50 foot sign was too large and was not required on the parking lot side because the sign cannot be seen until a vehicle is near the driveway entrance. Chairman explained to the applicant that he could appeal the decision. Mr. London stated that a different application may be submitted. CASE 5.0188-CUP. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for H. Hupe for architectural approval of revised roof material and revised elevations for restaurant located on E.P.C.D. at Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. Planner III stated that the blue-grey color is in the direction of the AAC recommendation but has not been reviewed by that body, and that the design has been revised to screen the air conditioning equipment. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final colors be approved as re-submitted. 2. That detailed landscape plans explore methods of further screening the air conditioning housing structure. 3. That the grill shown in the east and west elevations be relocated to the north elevation if possible. Discussion followed on recommended height of screening parapets. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0188-CUP. (Continued) D. Christian, architect for the subject project, stated that screening is inadequate for many reasons such as underestimating the size of equipment and different types of configuration in air conditioning equipment. Consensus was that air conditioning well sectionsshould be submitted as part of the application for restaurants. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting) taking the following actions: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BANK OF GLENDALE for architectural approval of revised main identification sign for bank at 901 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-1-AA (I.L. ) Zone, Section 14. Continued pending receipt of plans. CASE 3.439. Application by S. KASSOVIC for J. Cain for architectural approval of working drawings for 54-unit condominium complex on Vista Chino Between Sunrise Way/Vista Chino, R-G-A-(6), Section 12. Restudy - Noting that the working drawings should adhere to the approved preliminary designs. Abstention Madsen. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.647 (Minor) . Application by W. VEITH for B. Lewin for architectural approval of •revisions to exterior of building on the southeast corner of Andreas Road/S. Palm Canyon Dr., C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner III explained the project on the display board and stated that the gallery is expanding into the entire building. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Service abstained) approving application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all window moldings match including the front doors. 3. That a uniform metal type be used on the fascia. 4. That a separate sign application be submitted. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 UPDATE ON 3.573. Planning Director stated that he had spoken with R. Gentry, representing the Palm Springs Mall owners, and the following timetable has been developed by the company: - Exterior changes to Mall west of Von's by August 1, 1984. i - Delivery of remodeled building to Miller's outpost 30 days prior to September 1 opening. - Parking lot started by April 1. Exterior changes started by May 1. He stated that a planned development district application will be submitted for the tower detail and that a letter had been written to Von's stating that the store could occupy the building without the remainder of the Mall being finished because of the separate applica- tions. He stated that it was the Mall 's intent to finish all the improvements basically at the same time. He stated that the parking lot would be finished to Farrell Drive. Chairman stated that he was satisfied that Von's would be able to obtain anoccupancy permit since a store of this type is a pressing need for the neighborhood, but that if there is no further progress on the rest of this type, Miller's Outpost should not receive an occupancy permit. Planning Director stated that Miller's improvements are internal, and that the outside is the responsibility of the Mall owners and is to be finished by August 1. Commissioner Kaptur stated that no occupancy permit should be given until remodeling is complete. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION Proposed Riviera Hotel Remodel . Chairman stated that he had attended a meeting with the new Riviera Hotel owners to discuss future remodeling and expansion to be completed by January 1, 1986. He stated that he had assured the hoteliers that the project would receive expeditious treat- ment by the Commission. He noted that questions of high-rise may be important to the remodel and that a variance or zone change may be requested by the applicants. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission understands what the Council wants regarding high-rise. He noted also that zone changes benefit land speculator. Chairman stated that the hoteliers want to begin improvements in May of 1984. January 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ADJOURNMENT There being no futher business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. PLA NI CTOR MDR/ml I I I i i i i i i