Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/01/25 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 25, 1984 1� 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 11 2 Hugh Curtis X 12 1 Hugh Kaptur X 10 3 Peter Koetting X 12 1 Don Lawrence X 13 0 Paul Madsen X 12 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 12 1 Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney John Terell , Redevelopment Planner George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Richard McCoy, City Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - January 23, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: Hugh Curtis Earl Neel Michael Buccino 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 January 11, 1984 meeting as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE. Chairman queried the audience as to those wishing to speak on Case 5.0252-D-E; there was no response, and the Case was continued for review later in the meeting. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CASE 5.0253-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for approval of a revised Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage for the City. (The EIR was prepared and certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. ) NOTE: Written comments were received from the Tribal Council . Recommendation: That the Commission approve amendments to the Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage as designed by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with deletion of the previously approved portion of the plan for specific cost/benefit ratio to be met prior to implementing the plan. Planning Director gave a brief history of the case and stated that there were no significant changes in the plan except for the recommended dele- tion of the cost/benefit ratio study provision and provisions for reten- tion basins (in Ruth Hardy and Victoria Parks, Vista Chino/Farrell Drive, and the southeast corner of the airport) to retain storm water and reduce the size of piping downstream and that some portions of the plan have been added (in the Southridge area) . He stated that staff is recommending deletion of the cost/benefit ratio although the City Engi- neer has completed a benefit study for forwarding to the Tribal Council . He read the Tribal Council comments which included a request that the cost/benefit analysis be addressed before final action is taken on the plan. R. McCoy, City Engineer, stated that in meeting with the Flood Control District priorities for implementation were agreed upon, that one of the issues has been the Tribal Council request for a cost/benefit analysis, that the cost/benefit ratio (BeneVal II) developed, was acceptable to the Tribal Council consultant, and is used to establish priorities in communities. He noted that the document will be provided to the Commis- sioners, and that the City is in two water district jurisdictions (Riverside County Flood Control and Coachella Valley Water Conservation District) , that the boundaries will be changed to consolidate the City into one district. He described financing arrangements for implementing the construction of waterlines, and stated that the cost will be approx- imately $70 million. He noted that the cost had risen from the original estimate because of additional land involved and that retention basins will effect dramatic savings by downsizing of pipes, although it will be an indirect savings. He explained the types and locations of the storm water retention basins and stated that some mobilehomes will be relo- cated to construct a portion of the system, but stated that he did not know the cost of the relocation. In reply to Commission questions, he stated that funding would come from within the districts, although funds can be borrowed from one area to build in another, but the cost must be recovered from the General Fund or paid back into the original district fund. He stated that a backbone system will be developed for long-term conduction of storm waters with minor inconveniences but long-term benefit; that the backbone system will lessen potential liability problems; and that there are several means of funding if funding is not complete at the beginning of the pro- gram. He described the methodology for acreage cost to the developer. Planning Director stated that fees are being charged for subdivisions as well as building permits are obtained for lots of record. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0253-GPA (Continued). City Engineer stated in response to Commission questions that the levee costs are not included since they are the responsibility of the Flood Control District, and that redistricting of boundaries is to have one philosophy regarding flood control channels since Coachella Valley Water Conservation District allows soft line channels, whereas the Riverside County Flood District requires hard-lined ones, and that a compromise could be reached where hard-lined sides and soft bottomed channels can be used. Planner III stated that the BLM is proposing percolation ponds west of Indian Avenue, from 111 north to the railroad lines to retain storm and Colorado River water, although the source of the water was not deline- ated in the application. He stated that the BLM feels that it is a small project. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that adop- tion of the drainage plan would not hinder the development of the con- vention center (which is in the flood control area) . He stated that a master plan can be amended, and there are alternate ways to achieve results without amending the Master Plan. He noted that a debris basin could be postponed, although the City would have the responsibility of protection for itself and those downstream. In reply to Commission question, City Engineer stated that the cost/benefit ratio was developed according to the Tribal Council proposed criteria but on all 41 storm drain lines exceeds 1:1. He stated that the Tribal Council has not responded to the analysis nor has there been communication between the Engineering Division and the Tribal Council, although he understood the Director of Community Development has had contact with the Tribal Council . Chairman stated that a developer on Indian land could appeal drainage fees to the Tribal Council and be absolved which defeats the Master Plan of Flood Control & Drainage. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Tribal Council did not relieve developers on Indian land of the drainage fees but just suspended the fees until the cost/benefit study was completed. Chairman commented that hopefully the Tribal Council will endorse the plan. In reply to Commission question, City Engineer stated that the cost/benefit ratio was recommended deleted because the methodology was inexact for community storm drain systems, although it showed most lines exceeded the ratio, and its inclusion would be a detriment to implemen- tation. Planning Director stated that there is no clear precedent for cost/benefit analysis of different kinds of flood control systems. He stated that the BeneVal II formula is more applicable to large projects such as reclamation of land than for small city projects. He noted that it was difficult to agree on the criteria to be included in the analy- sis. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0253-GPA (Continued). Commissioner Koetting stated that he was concerned about the absolving of fees on Indian land by the Tribal Council . He stated that that problem was not resolved and also that the escalation of costs through- out the years was not addressed. Planning Director stated that fees are revised each year, and also that exemptions from fees might have to be addressed in Court. He stated that in his opinion the Tribal Council would agree to the plan, that the development community will continue to work with the City, and that there had been no recent appeals from Indian land developers. Assistant City Attorney stated that the purpose of the plan is to con- trol and direct flood water, requires participation of the community, and if a particular part of the community would find ways to avoid par- ticipation, the City may be acting improperly to approve projects con- tributing to drainage problems without mitigation. Planning Director in reply to a Commission question stated that there are no significant changes in the plan from that presented in 1983. Discussion ensued on the shortfall in funding in the drainage plan. Assistant City Attorney stated he thought the Indian community would participate in the plan. Discussion followed on the appeal process for rescinding fees on Indian land. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Indians had only suspended drainage fee payments on their lands (in two cases) until a cost/benefit analysis was completed, but that the Tribal Council does have the power not to participate in the drainage plan. He stated in response to Commission question that he did know if a plan would be implemented without approval of the Indians, but that he did not see any indications that the Indians would not participate in the agreement, since the Indians and the rest of the community feel that a flood con- trol program is necessary. He stated that the Indians are concerned that the Master Plan creates more benefits than costs. Commissioner Lawrence stated that a person developing on Indian land would have an advantage if he does not have to participate in the pro- gram and he was concerned that the cost of the program would not be borne by the entire population of the City. Chairman stated that although he agreed with Commissioner Lawrence, the Planning Commission does not address the issue of participation by the Indians. Commissioner Curtis disagreed, and stated that he felt that the Commis- sion could review the problem. Chairman stated that the Commission was voting on the plan, not the financing. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence, Madsen dissented) approving Case 5.0253-GPA per staff recommendations including the deletion of the cost/benefit analysis. Planning Director asked if the three dissenting votes were in opposition of the deletion of the cost/benefit analysis and funding. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0253-GPA (Continued) . The Chairman stated that the dissenting votes were not in objection to the plan itself, but to the deletion of the cost/benefit analysis as a condition of the plan. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "In previous memoranda to the City Council and City Planning Commission, the Tribal Council indicated its concurrence in the concept of the pro- posed revisions to the Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage. It was noted that those revisions which included the introduction of reten- tion basins, update of construction cost estimates, verification of design issues, consideration of alternatives, etc. were consistent with some of the concerns and recommendations previously expressed by the Tribal Council . Separate but related issues that have been raised by the Tribal Council and others in the private sector include: 1. The City Council 's actions in March and October 1981 to begin implementation of the 1967 Master Plan of Flood Control and Drain- age prior to completing the cost/benefit analysis required by City Council Resolution No. 9107. 2. The need to reconsider priorities for construction of drainage facilities based on critical needs and available funding. 3. The need to consider alternatives to excessive drainage fees now being imposed in new developments. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions; 1. As noted above, the Tribal Council has previously concurred in the concept of the proposed revisions to the Master Plan of Flood Con- trol and Drainage. in previous correspondence and meetings with the City, the Tribal Council has also requested that the separate but related issues referred to above with respect to cost benefit analysis, construction priorities, and funding be addressed before final action is taken on the revised plan. Until those issues are fully addressed, the Tribal Council withheld action to approve the Revised Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area as prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis- trict and dated November 1982. 2. The Tribal Council noted its intent to forward a letter to the City Council prior to its public hearing on this matter, comment- ing on the cost/benefit study prepared by City staff and urging the City Council to reconsider construction priorities based on critical needs and funding, and to consider alternatives to the excessive drainage fees being imposed on new developments before action is taken to adopt the revised plan. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE - Chairman postponed the public hearing on Case 5.0280-ZTA to later in the meeting since there was no one in the audience who wished to speak on the zoning text amendment. PUBLIC COMMENTS J. Cioffi, 600 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated he was available for ques- tions regarding Case 3.636/TTM 19651. C. Ealy, 600 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated his client feels that the cost of constructing sewers should be shared on an equitable basis, such as by unit or by acreage, since Section 14 has been rezoned to increase density. He stated that an agreement should be reached between the Tribal Council and the City regarding construction costs on sanitary facilities on Indian lands. He requested that there be a change in the Development Committee condition regarding sanitary facilities and that the condition should read as follows: "That the project upgrade the sanitary sewer system or post a bond to guarantee its completion." He stated that if there is still a problem with the sewer at the time Phase II of the project is ready, the applicant wants to bond. D. Snyder, applicant in Case 3.651, stated that he was present to answer questions. M. Brown, applicant in Case 3.631, requested reservation of time when his item was heard on the agenda. 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 NO. 3.636/TTM 19651. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Watt Indus- tries for approval of a 168-unit condominium project and subdivision for condominium purposes for project located on Amado Road between Calle E1 Segundo and Calle Alvarado, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planner III explained the increased density because of rezoning in Sec- tion 14 and stated that the applicant can construct only 74 units (the orginal density allowance) until the sewer issue is resolved, but that a 74-unit initial development is consistent with the applicant's proposed phasing plan. He described the project on the display board and stated that if night lighting of tennis courts is desired, a conditional use permit will be required since the applicant cannot meet the 60-foot setback requirement for lighted tennis courts. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE NO. 3.636/TTM 19651 (Continued) . �...' Mrs. E. Williams, President of Watt Industries, Palm Springs, stated that a full-time manager will be available to the residents, and that the project will resemble a residential hotel . She stated that the lobby is an office, and that the project is a condominium with hotel type services. She stated that the amenities will be paid by the home- owners' dues, and explained the concept further. Chairman stated that the Commission's concern is parking and density and if zoning requirements are met, the management of the complex is the owner's concern. Mrs. Williams stated that the developers did not want a time-share project and that the condominiums would be for sale and will cost approximately $74,000. Discussion continued on the possibility of the projects becoming a time- share. Mrs. Williams reiterated that the project does not qualify as a time-share but is offering amenities for which the homeowners pay. She stated in reply to a Commission question that the tennis club operation had achieved an 88% occupancy rate during the summer and that the units are mostly one-bedroom units but more two-bedroom units would have been constructed had more parking been available. Planning Director in reply to Commission question stated that a bond is acceptable for sewer completion in concept but that all phases of the project cannot be completed until the cost of the bond is determined. He stated also that the General Plan Sewer Plan requires an amendment but noted that Phase I could be constructed without any bond. He stated that costs have not yet been determined, and that the language for bonding may be developed in a more definitive manner within the next two weeks. Planner III stated that he had just talked with the Director of Commu- nity Development who feels uncomfortable with the bonding provision and that staff probably can develop wording which is supported by the Direc- tor within two weeks. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the applicant upgrades the sanitary system by constructing an 8-inch line or paying into a yet undetermined funding mechanism. City Engineer described the provisions for upgrading the sanitary facil- ities and stated that the City would accept a bond. He noted that there is a possibility the developer would be liable for the cost of the entire 8-inch line. Planning Director stated that there are less onerous ways to resolve the problem but that the developer had offered to provide bonding. C. Ealy, attorney representing the applicant, stated that there is an inherent unfairness in requiring the developer to pay for the entire 8- inch line and that under current conditions the only way the developer can construct Phase II is to pay the entire cost. He stated that the applicant would prefer bonding for Phase II, and that the applicant is concerned that the lenders have some assurance that Phase II can be constructed. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE NO. 3.636/TTM 19651 (Continued) . M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting, Kaptur abstained) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving the application subject to the applicant's bonding for the improvements with the second phase (subject to City Council approval of the arrangement) and contin- ued the Case to the February 8 meeting for further review and final action. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: "It was noted that City staff is recommending a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures that would require the Project to upgrade the City's existing Sanitary Sewer System or restrict the Project to a par- tial build-out of 74 dwelling units (168 being proposed) until adquate sewer capacity is available. In view of the potential adverse impacts, including additional costs and delays, on this project as well as on future developments of Indian- trust lands in Section 14, the Tribal Council withheld comment on this case until the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Con- sultant have received and reviewed the City's sewer study, including the time frame for the proposed General Plan Amendment, establishment of a funding mechanism, etc. referenced in the Environmental Assessment/Initial study dated January 25, 1984. That information was not available at the Planning Department on January 22, 1984. 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. SIGN APPLICATION (Continued). Application by BANK OF GLENDALE for architec- tural approval of revised main identification sign for bank at 901 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-1-AA (I.L. ) Zone, Section 14. M/S/C (Madsen, abstained) approving the application subject to the fol- lowing condition: That the columns line up with the last column of the building. CASE 3.631 (Minor). Application by H. MARTER for architectural approval of revised exterior changes to existing restaurant (Coco's) , 1596 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 and R-2 Zones, Section 10. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen) approving the application as submitted at the 1- 25-84 Planning Commission meeting in response to AAC recommendations of 1-23-84. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 3.512. Application by W. VEITH for F. Matajasich for architectural approval of revised grading and landscape plans for a single-family �.... residence on Southridge Drive between Tigertail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Planner II presented the project on the board and stated that cut, fill, and retaining walls would be required to install the wall . W. Veith, the architect, explained the configuration of the retaining walls and stated that the proposal is a compromise. He stated the cut and fill is not in balance because of AAC recommendations restricting the amount of fill . Further discussion followed. Mr. Veith stated that natural desert vegetation would be used to restore the site. Commis- sioner Kaptur stated that he would support the application if the restoration were done properly. Mr. Veith stated that a condition of approval was that staff monitor the restoration. Discussion ensued on the area of cut and fill. Planning Director stated that the original application was not approved by the Planning Commis- sion, but by the City Council; and that the Council directed that a slope restoration program be developed. Planner II stated that the walls were rock-faced. Planning Director stated that the plan is similar to a plan approved for Atajo, and that staff will review the specific landscape plans with the architect. Commissioner Kaptur stated that staff must make an on-site inspection of the slope restoration. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence, Curtis dissented) approving the revised grading and landscape plan subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variety of native material used in the slope restoration program be increased. 2. That plant locations are subject to staff approval in the field. (The plant list is approved as submitted. ) 3. That the landscape and grading plan meet staff and/or Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy. CASE 3.650 (Minor) (Ref. Cases 5.0148-CZ and 5.0177-PD-131). Application by J. WESSMAN for architectural approval of restaurant in the Plaza del Sol , Shopping Center South Palm Canyon Drive/Belardo Road, C-1 Zone, Section 22. Planner III presented the project on the board. Chairman suggested that the applicant review the well-done Billy Reed restaurant trash area with his client before a final decision is made on the trash enclosure. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 3.650 (Minor) (Continued) . J. Wessman of Rancho Mirage, representing the applicant, stated that trash compactors have been discussed with the applicant and also that a few minor changes will be made on the plan. He explained the outside dining area and wall configurations, and stated that the materials will be authentic Mexican materials (the same as the materials in the rest of the center) . He stated that the wall was moved to accommodate outside dining. M/S/C (Koetting/Curtis, Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. Commission commended Mr. Wessman on this and other fine projects he has constructed in the City. CASE 3.651 (Minor). Application by D. SNYDER for the Estrella Inn for architectural approval of addition for a meeting room at 415 S. Belardo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) approving the application subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That existing signage be reviewed by staff for nonconformity. CASE 3.652 (Minor). Application by W. COLGLAZIER for I . Greenberg for archi- tectural approval of garage at 1011 Cielo Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 3 (Ref. 6.336 -Variance) . T. Essen of Ervin Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that his clients were out-of-state and explained that the client felt that a small garage would destroy the integrity of the house. Commission consensus was that the garage submitted by the applicant was acceptable, and that the AAC recommendation in this case was not the best solution. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen, Kaptur dissented) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. ,. 2. That final grading plans and landscape and irrigation plans be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0303-PD-153/TTM 18370. Application by C. MILLS for J. Temple for reconsideration of roof tile and revised wall for 600-unit condominium project, 18-hole golf course and clubhouse, R-1-C, W-R-1-C & R-G-A(8) Zones, PD-153, Section 24. Planner III presented the wall revisions on the display board and described its encroachment into the setbacks. He stated that staff recommends a 20-foot setback. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the request for a 9-foot wall is for the wall to match the wall on the property to the west, and that the wall be no closer than 20 feet from the property line. Planning Director stated that a 10-foot wall setback on Compadre is insufficient. Discussion continued on the setback requirements. Mr. Mills explained the wall configuration and stated that all grading is required to have a 2:1 maximum slope. Planning Director stated that staff's position is not based on the aesthetics of the wall but the presentation of the project in public hearings and the deviations from the Ordinance and that walls in set- backs are allowed to be 4-1/2 feet high. He stated that the wall is twice what would be allowed at less than a 20-foot setback. He stated that a new public hearing would be required if the wall were approved as built since the Planning Commission would be granting a variance without due process, although there is some flexibility under the Planned Development procedures. He noted that the flexibility should have been exercised at the public hearing stage of the application, not after. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur, Apfelbaum dessented) approving the revised wall application as shown on the revised landscape plans with a 15' minimum setback as shown on a 3' maximum height mound. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen, Service/Apfelbaum/Curtis dissented) approving "S" tile instead of the originally approved barrel tile. NOTE: Commissioner Koetting suggested that the City retain a golf course consultant for review of the golf course plans. Planning Direc- tor stated that the plans would be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA 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. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Koetting absent) 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: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for Jasper's Retaurant for architectural approval of main identification sign for restaurant on East Palm Canyon Drive at Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23 (Ref. 5.0188-CUP) . Condition: That a metal can be used. CASE 3.473. Application by W. THOMPSON for Desert Associates for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for Phase 3 of residential condo pro- ject bounded by E1 Segundo/San Andreas/Alvarado/Amado Roads, R-4 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Condition: That the landscape material, size and location, and density match the existing project. (Staff to confirm in the field. ) CASE 5.0257-CUP. Application by R. GREGORY for Coble-Hampton Development Co. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for a 44-unit residential condominium project on Escoba Drive between E1 Cielo Road/Desert Way, R-1-C Zone (I.L. ) , Section 30. Continued to February 8 at the applicant's request. CASE 3.364. Application by COLUMBIA SAVINGS AND LOAN for architectural approval of landscape plans for branch office on East Palm Canyon Drive between South Palm Canyon/West Palm Canyon, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Restudy noting the following concerns: 1. That shade trees be added in and around the parking lot. 2. That an alternate species to potentilla verna. 3. That annual color be added to the north corner of .the site. 4. That fountain details be submitted with landscape plans. 5. That details of the trash enclosure be submitted with landscape plans. 6. That parking lot light standards be relocated between parking spaces. CASE 3.628. Application by B. PERLIN for architectural approval of landscape plans for Chief Auto Parts Store on Sunrise Way between Desert Park Avenue/Via Negocia, C-1 Zone, Section 2. Condition: That a planter be added in the southwest corner of the building in lieu of pots. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) �... CASE 3.452. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for J. Zarowitz for architectural approval of revised colors and elevations for single-family hillside residence at 563 Fern Canyon Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the satellite dish be screened with a wall . CASE 3.205. Application by C. DUNHAM for S. Appel for architectural approval of revised materials and colors and revised Building "E" elevations for condominium project on Escoba Drive between Beverly Drive/E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Koetting/Kaptur absent) . Condition: That a flash tile with a lighter stain be used. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0253-GPA. (Continued) Director of Community Development stated that he was sorry that he been unable to attend the discussion of the General Plan amendment earlier in the meeting especially since there had been a split vote as a result of not having complete information. He stated that the benefit/cost analy- sis was done in response to a request from the Indian Bureau, and that the cost/benefit analysis is based on data from the Army Corps of Engi- neers and deals with large areas of land such as reclamation areas which are not applicable to small drainage systems. He stated that the ratio would not be used to develop implementation of this system since some of the criteria is not valid and the cost/benefit analysis does not answer the questions. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the Commissioners might want to change their votes. Commissioner Lawrence stated that it would be unfair to Commissioner Koetting who dissented but left the meeting. In response to Chairman's question, Assistant City Attorney stated that anyone voting with the majority can move for reconsideration of action of any vote. M/S/C (Service/Kaptur, Madsen & Lawrence dissented, Koetting absent) to reconsider the original vote. Assistant City Attorney stated that the original motion would be erased. Commissioner Madsen stated that he felt that there should be some kind of benefit study done, and that the project should not be done with less benefit than cost. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0253-GPA. (Continued) In response to Commission question, Director of Community Development stated that there are many small cities that do have a Master Plan of Drainage but none have been found which have done a benefit/cost; analy- sis. Commissioner Madsen stated that staff is prioritizing implementa- tion. — Director of Community Development stated that the prioritizing is not done on a cost ratio basis. Further discussion followed. Director of Community Development stated that priorities are based on flood damage. Chairman called for the question. Kaptur, Service, Apfelbaum, Curtis dissented. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the plan should be viewed as a planning matter and not as a financing matter. Director of Community Development stated that financing could be considered since it is in the document. He stated that the 1:1 criteria was considered as an exercise to satisfy the Indians. Discussion continued on the Beneval II system. Director of Community Development stated that the Commission would probably not have the abil- ity for input into the prioritizing of the project since it changes con- stantly. Chairman stated that the community has certain needs and that cost/benefit of circulation plans and sewer plans are not completed for each project, but that the cost/benefit ratio was developed at the request of the Indians. He stated that staff feels it is a misleading approach for the City's purposes. Commissioner Madsen suggested that the Tribal Council be asked to remove the cost/benefit ratio. Chairman stated that the condition' s deletion from the Master Plan of Drainage would be a first step and a signal to the Tribal Council that the cost/benefit ratio is superfluous, but that if the Tribal Council wants the condition to remain it can discuss it with the City Council . In response to Commission question, Director of Community Development stated that the City Council will not apply an acreage drainage fee inequitably and if the Tribal Council does not approve of the program, the Tribal Council can develop its own services, since the agreement with the City can be dissolved by either party within 30 days. He stated a participation agreement possibly could be reached with the Tribal Council within three weeks and that if the cost/benefit ratio remains, there will never be an agreement reached with the Indians. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Lawrence stated he could not change his vote. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum, Madsen/Lawrence dissented, Koetting absent) approving Case 5.0253-GPA per staff recommendations including deletion of the cost/benefit analysis. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0253-GPA. (Continued) Commissioner Madsen stated that he was not against the plan but the deletion of the cost/benefit analysis. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission is concerned about the sewering of Section 14 and the overloading of that sewer. He stated that it is unfair to make a few developers pay, and there should be some fair way to solve the issue. Consensus was that staff was to resolve the problem. Director of Community Development stated that staff is developing documentation, and that the Indians indicate they will help to resolve the problems, that the capacity will be reached in the future and funding must be resolved before that capacity is reached. He stated that an equitable fee would be one based on acreage and that staff is suggesting a plan that when capacity is reached the project will be required to install lines, but all monies accumulated from the previous projects will be given to them with a reimbursement agreement with the City for the balance of the money. Discussion continued on possible solutions to the sewer line capacity problem. Director of Community Development stated that an equitable solution would be reached. Planning Director stated that many developers on Indian land are not building to maximum zoning and an acreage basis might not be inequitable. Commissioner Kaptur left the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0252-D-E-Miscellaneous. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS to solicit public and Planning Commission comment on the draft Environmen- tal Impact Reports (EIRs) in proposed redevelopment plans for the North Palm Canyon and Oasis Redevelopment Project areas. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue the Case to the February 8 meeting. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hear- ing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen, Kaptur and Koetting absent) to continue the item to the February 8 meeting. CASE 5.0280-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a zoning text amendment to allow banks, health clubs and restaurants as a secondary use in the "P" (Professional) Zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. (Commission response to written comments and final approval . No com- ments received. ) January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0280-ZTA (Continued) . Recommendation: That Commission order the filing of a Negative Declara- tion and approve Case 5.0280-ZTA per staff recommendations. Chairman declared the hearing open, there being no appearances the hear- ing was closed. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis, Koetting/Kaptur absent) approving Case 5.0280-ZTA per staff recommendations and filing the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CC&R's (Continued) Commission review of CC&R's for TPM 18787 on the north side of Ramon Road between Bogie Road/San Luis Rey Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for clarifi- cation of wording on whether or not the City was to be notified of changes in the CC&R's and that this was delineated in another section of the CC&R's which had not been given to the Commission. He stated that staff also developed wording as follows as an additional Planning Divi- sion condition: �-' "That areas not otherwise under common landscape maintenance be main- tained by the individual property owners." M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum, Kaptur/Koetting absent) approving CC&R's for TPM 18787 subject to staff recommendations including an additional con- dition as follows: That areas not otherwise under common landscape maintenance be maintained by the individual property owners. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION BLM Percolation Ponds. Planner III described the development of perco- lation ponds in a triangular area between I-10 and Hwy 111 west of Indian Avenue. He stated that the ponds will contain storm waters and a major flood flow and that the feasibility of a bridge is being con- sidered at the County level on Palm Drive. He stated that the BLM feels that the project is a minor one without significant environmental impacts, and that the relocation of windmills will be a problem because of leasing arrangements. He stated that the Coachella Valley Water Distrct brought the application to the BLM. He also stated that water is a chief constraint on development within the valley but that other water sources may be available. - DWA Opposition to Bottling Plant. Planning Director stated that the DWA is now opposing the previously approved water bottling plant within the City's sphere area because the Agency feels that the water should not be taken out of the valley. January 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION (Continued). Fringe-toed Lizard. Planner III stated that the lizard cannot live in percolation pon ing areas but the Coachella Valley Water District. is proposing establishment of a preserve. He stated that no details are available but will be brought to the Commission when available. Windmills. Planning Director stated that there is a windmill 160 feet high on the Whitewater Ridge. - Pipeline Circulation System. Planning Director stated that burial of million gallon water tanks with inlets for flood waters is an alternate to percolation ponds. Off Road Race. Chairman stated that a major off road race is being planned in the Edom Hill area with the Riviera Hotel as the headquar- ters, and that the BLM has approved it, although staff has not been approached for comments. Parking in the Windy Point Area. Commissioner Lawrence stated that "No Parking" signs were removed and people were parking. - Lizard Habitat/Off Road Vehicle Area. Planning Director stated that another lizard habitat at Washington and 39th Avenue has become an off road vehicle area. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. PLANNIN DIRECTOR MDR/ml WP/PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 8, 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 12 2 Hugh Curtis X 13 1 Hugh Kaptur X 11 3 Peter Koetting X 12 2 Don Lawrence X 14 0 Paul Madsen X 13 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 13 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Ken Feenstra, Redevelopment Director George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Richard McCoy, City Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary . Architectural Advisory Committee Present - February 6, 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 (Curtis/Apfelbaum) approving minutes of the January 25, 1984 meeting with the following corrections: Page 4, Paragraph 9, CASE 5.0253-GPA. Motion should read as follows: M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Lawrence, Koetting, Madsen dissented) approving Case 5.0253-GPA per staff recommendation including deletion of the cost/benefit analysis. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES Chairman introduced and thanked Dennis Ujimori of Word Processing for his timely and accurate processing of material for the Planning Commission and Planning Division.