Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/02/08 - MINUTES 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. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0252-D-E-MISCELLANEOUS (Cont'd. ). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS to solicit public and Planning Commission comment on the draft Enrivonmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and proposed redevelopment plans for the North Palm Canyon and Oasis Redevelopment Project Areas. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the EIRs for the Oasis (5.0252-D) and the North Palm Canyon (5.0252-E) Redevelopment Plans be certified and find that the plans are consistent with the General Plan. Planning Director stated that the Commission will provide an opportunity for those who wish to have input on the EIRs and the Redevelopment Plans and will transmit resolutions to the Council regarding these plans. He stated that a resident, J. Crocker, has sent a letter (on file in the Planning Division offices) stating that the EIR fails to satisfy CEQA requirements, that written responses to the letter will be attached as an addendum to the EIR, and that the Case is scheduled for the February 15 City Council Agenda. In response to Commission questions, Redevelopment Director stated that one study has been done on the Indian burial ground and that if a revised proposal would affect the site differently, a new study would have to be initiated. He stated that the studies are adequate and that the Tribal Council did not want publicity in order to prevent excavation in the area. In response to a Commission question regarding the historic value of five properties in the area, he stated that the Winter's home is not historic; that there are no buildings left from the old Desert Inn; and described two other residences onsite, one of which is scheduled for demolition. He stated regarding the role of the City and Redevelopment Agency, that the Agency becomes a watchdog for relocation of buildings, and that more money is available than normal to save items of historic interest and that it is a powerful tool to cause development to occur and to create a system of financing for development. He noted that the normal City process of Architectural Advisory Committee Planning Commis- sion, and City Council review will remain in effect, that the Redevelop- ment document will be in effect for 30 years and does not anticipate all future events since there is no specific plan. Chairman declared the hearing open. The following persons spoke in opposition to the Oasis Plan: J. Crocker, 330 W. Arenas, stated that he wished to make two additional points, in addition to those addressed in his letter. He questioned the following: (1) If there were a special relationship that has not been made public regarding the demolition of the Velour home for a parking structure; and (2) changing traffic patterns. He requested that the report not be sent forward in its present form. E. Doley, 161 S. Cahuilla, stated that the report should be reviewed as insufficient and not specific enough to warrant its being a useful docu- ment. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0252-D-E-MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) Mrs. B. Moore, 645 S. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that the document does not address additional traffic generated by the widening of South Palm Canyon Drive and its effect on local residents in another Redevelopment Project Area. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission does not certify the docu- ment but recommends certification to the City Council and can recommend that the document be returned for further analysis or that it be certi- fied and find that the Redevelopment Plans are consistent with the General Plan. In response to Commission question, Redevelopment Director stated that the Velour home on the corner of Cahuilla and Tahquitz had not been identified for relocation because of a proposed parking structure, that the property had been vacant for three years, and that relocation is spoken of in terms of people not buildings. He stated that the property is scheduled for demolition after the City has waited for several months for a person to move it. He stated that there are adobe homes in the area which the Agency is interested in salvaging if a specific develop- ment takes place on the site, and that the area had been addressed in the South Palm Canyon Redevelopment Project and other projects the City is addressing. He stated that if specific projects are developed, addi- tional environmental assessment can be done. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) recommending to the City Council that the EIR for Case 5.0252-D-E be certified and finding that the redevelopment plans are consistent with the General Plan. CASE 5.0304-CZ. Application by EISNER-SMITH PLANNERS for E. Greenstein for a change of zone from R-1-B to R-G-A(6) on property located on Morongo Trail between Araby Drive/Barona Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Environmental assessment and direction to amend General Plan. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny Case 5.0304-CZ. Planner II presented the staff report. He stated that correspondence had been received both in favor and in opposition to the project had been received, and a petition in opposition to the proposal with 19 sig- natures had also been received (documents on file in the Planning Divi- sion offices) . He stated that the letters cite "spot zoning", increased congestion and noise, the proximity of the zone change to single-family residences, that there is other R-G-A(6) zoning left in the City, that it is inconsistent with the General Plan and the existing properties in the area, and that allowing this zone change would set a precedent. He stated that one letter voiced opposition to tennis courts, but that ten- nis courts had not been proposed at this time. He stated also that staff and the developer differed in their density calculations on a tri- angular parcel near the proposed zone change site. Planning Director stated that a project had been approved on the site for 13 detached homes, and that the CUP for that project is still valid. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0304-CZ (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. Susan Fox of Eisner-Smith Planners, South Palm Canyon Drive, repre- senting E. Greenstein, stated that she would present a case for approval through a series of slides, and that it was not a clearly defined case of a higher density north and a lower density south of the site, but a mixture of development. In response to a question from Chairman, Mrs. Fox stated that the slide presentation does relate to the zone change application. She presented slides showing the existing zoning, land use in the area (a mixture of uses), lot acreage (much dif- ference in acreage), density (all lots exceed requirements of the R-1-B Zone and are calculated at 3.54 units per acre) . She presented photo- graphs showing developments surrounding the zone change area and stated that she disagreed with the staff's location of zoning boundary lines. She stated that the proposed zone change would be a logical one for the area and would benefit both the City and her client, that her client had approval under a CUP for 13 units but could not obtain financing because the selling price of the units was too high for the area. Mrs. S. Logan, 2766 Anza Trail , voiced opposition stating that the vacant land shown in the photographs was actually the property of the homeowners since the lots are very large and that for privacy a hedge had been planted along the chain link fence to the rear of her property which was maintained by her. She stated that the original developer had been apprised of the hedge and had never responded and that the resi- dents want the area to remain as it is without two-story buildings or lighted tennis courts. Chairman requested that Mrs. Logan address the zone change issue only. She stated that she was not opposed to the original 13 unit development since it was in character with the neighborhood: Mrs. Schwartz, 1833 Araby Drive, voiced opposition stating that she was speaking for the Villa Allegria homeowners' association that the pro- posed zone change would not benefit the area; that there is a problem with low water pressure currently; and that she agrees with the reasons given by Mrs. Logan. She stated that she had not signed the petition with 19 signatures but could bring in additional signatures after a homewoners' association meeting which was scheduled for the week of February 13. She stated that there is a condominium project (Coco- Cabana) between her property and the proposed zone change site and that there is a lack of interest by absentee property owners in proposals affecting the area. She stated that the property owners in the Coco- Cabana complex were never notified. Planning Director stated that any apartments in the area were not built with the jurisdiction of the City, but may have been converted and could be nonconforming or illegal . He stated that he could not recall any recent zone changes in the area, that the property owners list shows only one owner - Cococabana in Los Angeles - and that the one owner received notification and may not have notified individual units in the complex. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission does not rezone by market- ing conditions, and marketing is not an element that should be con- February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0304-CZ (Continued) 4� sidered in a zone change. He explained the criteria for a zone change and stated that a condominium is a financing tool not a land use. He (- noted that apartments could be constructed if the R-G-A(6) zoning were approved. I Commissioner Lawrence stated he felt that there was no justification for a zone change and that staff's interpretation of boundaries is accurate. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) denying zone change applica- tion 5.0304 based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed change of zone does not conform with the General Plan which designates two units per acre. 2. That the property exceeds the minimum size requirements of the R-G-A(6) Zone and has suitable access. 3. That the zone change is not necessary and proper at this time and represents piecemeal intrusion of higher density residential development into a single-family zone and could set a precedent for unjustified density increases in the R-1 Zone. 4. That the Chief Engineer recommends that the capacity of the City sewer system will require "examination" if incremental density increases of this kind occur. PUBLIC COMMENTS W. Hird, 2355 Brentwood, Chairman of the street name change committee and representing businessmen and residents along Bogie Road requested approval of the name change to Gene Autry Trail , since it will honor an illustrious resident who has contributed much to the City. She stated that if the name is changed, the postal service guarantees delivery for a year under the name of Bogie Road which should alleviate fears of businesses who have purchased stationary with the Bogie Road address in advance. She stated that "Bogie" has no significance but is a golf term and is an extension of street names in a development which has golf terms as street names, that the street is near the Gene Autry Hotel, and that Mr. Autrey has had nothing to do with the street name change. T. Keiley, 1800 S. Sunrise, stated that he helped to gather names for the petition for the name change and found no one in opposition. He requested approval . February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 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 3.642/TTM 19870. Application by P. BILLINGTON & ASSOCIATES AND C. MILLS for J. Hobson for architectural approval and map approval for a lot con- solidation on the northeast corner of Kaweah Road/Stevens Road, R-2 Zone, Section 10. Environmental assessment/preliminary approval . Planner III discussed the environmental assessment/initial study and recommended the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration. Chairman stated he would not support any AMM's on the project since it looks dense. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon, architect for the project stated that setbacks are large, the density is two units less than the zoning allows and that parking is not tandem parking. Pl.anning Director explained that the apron of the garage is not counted as parking. Mr. Mills stated that there is 9% more open space than is required. He requested that a five-foot sidewalk instead of a eight-foot one be allowed for more open space. Discussion ensued regarding parking, density, and open space. Mr. Mills stated that four parking bays were placed on Stevens Road although not allowed by Ordinance because they enhance the project but if disallowed, the site plan could be modified and a bond posted for parking. I,n response to Commisson question, Planning Director stated that the issue of a five-foot sidewalk had not been discussed previously, but that the condition could be a condition of approval . M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Koetting absent) ordering a preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the project subject to con- ditions (including a five-foot sidewalk or sidewalk matching the adja- cent sidewalk, and submission of detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans) , and continuing the application to the February 22 meeting. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel maps based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. February .8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 TTM 19651/CASE 3.636 (Cont'd. ). Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Watt industries for approva rof a 168-unit condominium project and subdivi- sion for condominium purposes on Amado Road between Calle El Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-4 Zone (I .L. ), Section 14. (Commission response to written comments and final approval . No com- ments received. ) Planning Director stated that the Director of Community Development is hoping to have a solution to the sewering problem for review of the Tribal Council within 60 days and a general agreement had been reached with the applicant's attorney regarding sewering for the project. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Kaptur abstained; Koetting absent) ordered the filing of a Negative Declaration; approving TTM 19651 and Case 3.636 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. Restudy of Accacia Stenophyllis and Grevillia Moelli in landscape plans. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of January 24, 1984. It was noted that the mitigation measures recommended by City Staff would require the Project to upgrade the City's existing sewerage collection system, or restrict the project to a partial build out of 74 dwelling units (168 being proposed) until adequate sewer capacity is available. The staff report indicated that the upgrading of the sewer system would involve an amendment to the City's General Plan Master Plan of sewers. The cost to upgrade the system and a mechanism to' fund such cost were not discussed in any detail. In view of the potential adverse impacts of this recommendation including additional costs, financing considerations, delays, etc. in this project as well as on future development of Indian trust-land in Section 14, the Tribal Council withheld comment on this case pending the Indian Planning Com- mission's and the Tribal Planning Consultant's review and recommenda- tions relative to the issues involved. After review of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 25, 1984 and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Plan- ning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration and the application for construction of a 168-unit condominium project, including TTM No. 19651. It was noted that the proposed desnity of 168 units is approxi- mately 62% of the maximum 270 dwelling units permitted under the existing zoning. 2. Urged that the City Staff expedite the processing of an amendment to the City's General Master Plan of Sewers, and the establishment of a fair and equitable funding mechanism to cover the cost of any upgrading of the sewerage collection system. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 TTM 19651/CASE 3.636 (Continued) In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes of January 25, 95 was noted that City staff is suggesting a funding mechanism that would include monies accumulated for such purpose from previous projects plus a reim- bursement agreement with the City covering. any balance. The Tribal Council would appreciate receiving more definitive information with respect to this concept as soon as possible." CASE 11.17. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for consideration of a proposal to change the name of Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail from East Palm Canyon Drive to Vista Chino. (Adoption of Resolution of Intent. ) Planning Director explained that the Commission procedure would be to: 1. Order a preparation of a Resolution of Intent. 2. Hold a public hearing on the matter on March 14 if there is suffi- cient interest in the name change to hold a public hearing. Chairman commented that perhaps the name change should be sent to the County and to Desert Hot Springs for comment since Palm Drive (the nor- therly extension of Bogie Road) is the main street of Desert Hot Springs. Discussion followed on notification of other entities. Consensus was to change the name only within the City limits. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Koetting absent) for a Resolution of Intent to change the name of Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail and hold a public hearing on March 14. In response to a Commission question Mrs. Hird stated that the Committee wanted to address one government entity at a time regarding the street name change. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENT "It was noted that the major portion of Bogie Road, southerly of Ramon Road, is adjacent to or traverses Indian trust-lands. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council expressed its endorsement of this proposal to change the name of Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail as being timely and appropriate." February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 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 3.439. Application by J. CAIN for architectural approval of revised elevations/site plan for 54-unit condominium complex on Vista Chino between Sunrise Way/Cerritos Road, R-G-A(6) Zone (I.L. ), Section 12. Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that the applicant does not want hardboard as recommended by the AAC. R. McCarthy, the applicant, stated that he would agree to a glue-lam fascia but would like to keep the T-III instead of hardboard. He stated also that realignment of the wall on Vista Chino would depend on the recommendation of engineers regarding the retention of a 100-year storm. Discussion followed on whether or not to continue the application until the problems are resolved. Planner III stated that the application will be reviewed again as fur- ther exhibits and plans are submitted. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Koetting absent; Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the fascia beams be glue-lam. 3. That hardboard be substituted for T-111 4. That the perimeter wall and tennis courts be restudied for better articulation and screening. 5. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 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. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Madsen, 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: February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 3.364. Application by Columbia Savings & Loan for architectural approval of revised 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: 1. That Crepe Myrtles be introduced at the southern entry to the building. 2. That a substitute for Crepe Myrtles and Black Locust be used for shade trees. 3. That palms be located away from the sidewalk and grouped on the property. 4. That Lippia coyote bush and pratia agulata be restudied. CASE 3.582. Application by A. WILKES for architectural approval of revised working drawings for apartment/hotel (condotel) on Baristo Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The architecture is approved as submitted (a C.U.P. will be required for portions of the building over 35' in height) . 2. Landscaping is restudied noting the following: a) That box and material sizes be increased to become compat- ible with the project mass. b) That Pinus Mondale be substituted for P. Halepensis. c) That Refus palm be restudied. d) That irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted with landscaping plans. CASE 3.656 (MINOR) . Application by G. P. GILBERT for architectural approval of revised roof material for addition to residence at 252 Ridge Road, R- 1-C Zone, Section 27. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0211-CUP. Applications by R. GREGORY for Watt Industries for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for 7-unit timeshare/condominium pro- ject located at Baristo Road/Arenas Road, R-2 Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the vertical screen tree be employed on the northern eleva- tion. 2. That the surface of the parking area on the west elevation be revised (subject to staff approval). (Abstention: Kaptur) CASE 3.659. Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of revised main entry for library center located at Sunrise Plaza, Sunrise Way/Baristo Road, 0 Zone, Section 13. Approved as submitted. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. F. Temple for approval of revised colors for windows for 600-unit condominium project located at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C, W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Approved subject to following conditions: 1. That white windows be used in buildings with a tan stucco. 2. That bronze windows be used in buildings with white stucco. CASE 5.0257-CUP (Cont'd. Application by R. GREGORY for Coble-Hampton Devel- opment Co. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for a 44-unit residential condominium project on Escoba Drive between El Cielo Road/Desert Way, R-1-C Zone (I.L. ), Section 30. i Planner III stated that the applicant wants to have the homeowner select backyard trees from the plant list, but the AAC feels that a tree plan should be developed with a common irrigation system. H. Hampton, 420 Santa Elena, the applicant, stated that a tree plan should be developed but to accomplish it is a problem since the rear yards are private restricted common areas, and that a common irrigation system could create problems. He suggested that two trees be installed in the rear yard at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued. He explained the mechanics of the irrigation system and stated that there are firm maintenance guidelines in the CC&Rs, and that the backyards are maintained by the homeowners in accordance with the association criteria and enforced by the association. Chairman commented that a previously understood condition is being modi- fied by the developer. Discussion followed on individual backyard maintenance provisions. Planning Director stated that gross inconsistencies and deficiencies could occur unless a tree program is developed. Commissioner Lawrence stated he felt that the developer should plant backyard trees according to an approved plan. Chairman agreed, stating that neighbors were given assurances that the project would be of high quality. Consensus was that the type of irrigation system was irrelevant as long as an irrigation system was provided. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Koetting absent; Curtis abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That a tree plan be developed for rear yards (east, west and south) and a automatic irrigation system be installed. 2. That the trees be watered by an irrigation system while the units are vacant. 3. That the equestrian easement be reviewed by staff. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 3.559. Application by T. KOEHNLIN for architectural approval of working drawings and final 'landscape plans and revised tower detail for resort hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive between Cherokee Way/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 30. Planner II presented the project on the board and explained colors and materials. He stated that barrel the has been approved for the project and that the applicant wants to keep the existing tower design. He noted that there was a fifteen foot high hedge on the south boundary line instead of a six-foot wall which is required by Ordinance. T. Koehnlein the architect, representing the owner, stated that the hedge was planted by the adjacent trailer park and that cutting it to build a six-foot wall would be upsetting to the trailer park residents. Discussion followed on the construction of the wall. Chairman stated that the wall is for security and noise buffering and the oleanders are to filter the light. He suggested that the oleanders remain and a wall built inside the oleander hedge. Planning Director stated that the responsibility for the wall and landscaping is the developer's, and that the site could be reviewed by staff in the field after the wall has been staked. Discussion followed on the stucco finish for the project. Planning Director stated that the exterior was a shot finish. Mr. Koehnlein stated that he felt the finish was to be a smooth Mexican type of look. Planner II stated that the minutes of the 6-22-83 meeting reflect that a shot plaster was to be used throughout to give a varied texture. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Working drawings are approved as submitted, including the tower which was revised from the original submission. 2. That the plaster be a shot finish with a sample- panel to be plas- tered for staff review in the field. 3. That the wall on the south boundary line be reviewed in the field by staff. 4. That the landscaping be restudied noting the following: a) That the size of materials be increased to be compatible with the mass of the building. b) That Eucalyptus Rudis be restudied (a more decorative form to be used). c) That Queen palms be increased to 30 feet in height. d) That parking lot trees be restudied (suggest deep watered Carobs) . e) That an increased variety of vines and flowering shrubs be used. f) That irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted with landscaping plans. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ADDED STARTERS CASE 3.548. Application by M. BUCCINO for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for existing cemetery facility on Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-1-AA Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. f Planning Director stated that the landscape architect requested that Washingtonia Filifera be used in the cemetery, which is a deviation from the approved street tree plan (Washingtonia Robusta) and that the AAC j recommended approval of the Washingtonia Filifera. Chairman stated that he believes in the street tree plan, and the Plan- ning Commission should not deviate from it. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that because of the cemetery being Indian and a historic site the AAC felt that Filifera should be used. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that Robusta and Filifera were discussed in relation to the Palm Canyon Drive tree scape. Chairman stated that Filifera is indigenous to the area and Planning Director stated that recent plantings on Palm Canyon Drive have been Filifera. M/S (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) approving the application subject to AAC recom- mendations (Filifera). The vote was as follows: Ayes: Apfelbaum/Kaptur Noes: Curtis/Lawrence/Madsen/Service . Absent: Koetting The motion failed. Planning Director stated that the adopted street tree program was adopted by Council Resolution and states that the street tree is Wash- ingtonia Robusta. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Apfelbaum & Kaptur dissented) that the palm trees to be planted in the Indian cemetery be Washingtonia Robusta. Discussion followed on whether or not the City Council resolution was specific in regard to the type of palm tree. Planning Director stated that the cemetery landscape plan states that the trees will be Washing- tonia Robusta and that if there are deviations, a new plan would be required to be submitted. CASE 3.632. Application by R. YOUNG for City of Palm Springs for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for corporation yard on Civic Drive, CC Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the application as sub �.� mitted. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS (Continued) February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 TTM 16478 (REVISED) . Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for Southern California Savings & Loan for Tentative Parcel Map for property between Palm Canyon Drive/Indian Avenue, north of Tachevah Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with the original map approval . ) M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Koetting absent) approving TTM 16478 (revised) subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 10.336-DETERMINATION. Determination by Planning Commission that a church use is appropriate in a C-D-N (Neighborhood Shopping Center) Zone, city- wide. Planning D.irector stated that the Commission can determine that a use is similar to another existing use in a zone and that in the case of a church the use can be justified only as a neighborhood service. He stated that a church can be allowed on a major thoroughfare and could be in a shopping center if the Commission sought higher controls, and that staff felt it could be allowed but was not an economic stimulus for a shopping center. He stated that a PD application could be submitted if the Commission finds that it is not an appropriate use in a shopping center zone. Chairman stated that a church use is out of character with a shopping center and would be detrimental to other shopping center uses requiring liquor licenses since a liquor license cannot be located within 400 feet of a church. Assistant City Attorney stated that the determination is out of the scope of the Planning Commission since the zoning ordinance specifies where churches may be located and a determination that they can relocate in other zones is rewriting the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that a proposed use must be similar to an existing use in the proposed zone so that the use would not do violence to the intent of the Zoning Ordi- nance. Chairman stated that he could not agree with a church use in a shopping center because the C-D-N zoning text is specific. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Koetting absent) determining that churches are not an appropriate use in a C-D-N Zone. February .8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum;Koetting absent) taking the following actions: i CASE 3.655 (MINOR) . Application by RBC DEVELOPMENT CORP. for architectural approval for single-family residence at 1700 Sahara Drive between Vista Chino/Park View, N-R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Restudy of the architecture and landscaping recommending that landscape and sun control details should be revised. CASE 3.657 (MINOR). Application by D. BOHLMAN & A. MACIEL for architectural approval of minor revisions to the exterior of motel/apartment complex at 1830 E. Racquet Club Road, R-1-C, Section 1. . Restudy for submission of better details, upgrading of the landscape, also recommended that the roof material be clay, concrete, or "S" tile. CASE 5.0275-PD-147-. Application by E. J. DEBARTOLO CORP./DESERT INN FASHION PLAZA for architectural approval of final development plans for remodel of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza and redevelopment of the block north of the existing mall to include the development of additional retail space, and 207-room hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continuance to February 22 to address the following: 1. Landscape Concept: a. The existing concept is too formal . b. Increased variety, color, texture and aroma in plants speci- mens should be used. C. It was emphasized that the project is a precedent setter and that an opportunity was presented to inject more color, "life", vitality, variety and "playfulness" of the landscape of the downtown. d. Shade landscaping should be increased. e. Entry areas should be revised to add color and emphasis via landscaping. f. Broader range of species in controlled areas was encouraged - i .e. , the entries. g. Emphasize an inviting pedestrian concept in the Plaza on the western elevation. h. Planters should be utilized against blank walls to break the mass of the building, e.g. the western elevation. i . Berming should be explored against the parking lot wall . j. The applicants were directed to note existing desert land- scape concepts used in the City since 1980 and utilize their themes within the project. 2. Details: a. Substitute Washingtonia Filifera for Robusta. b. Add carobs for shade in the parking lot (deep-watered) . C. Restudy African Sumac (not compatible in form with Ficus used in other areas of the project). d. Restudy Lantana (likely to become unkept). e. Explore clustered tree groups - e.g. Robusta palms. February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued) f. Increase the variety of vines. g. Utilize Wheeler's Dwarf in shade only. h. Increase the variety of types of bougainvillea utilize shrub forms also. i . Utilize Thevetia. j. Utilize matched specimens of Myrtle at the entries with base planting. 3. Lighting It was suggested that custom fixtures compatible with buildings, parking lot, and walkways be used to provide continuity through- out. 4. Architecture and Site Plan It was noted that full details required for the final Planned Development District application shall be submitted prior to final AAC review. 5. Signs and Graphics It was noted that banners should be arranged so as not to inter- fere with pedestrians and that the monument sign be revised (increased in height?) . Full details should be submitted prior to formal AAC review. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION Off-Road Race. Chairman stated he was solicited by an ad taker for an advertisement for an off-road vehicle race to be held at Edom Hill with the Riviera Hotel as headquarters; and that the race had been given a permit by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . He stated that the County and City staffs had not been approached regarding the event and perhaps the Planning Commission should the comment on the race by stating its concern officially to the City Council which can file a pro- test with the BLM. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) adopting a resolution to the Council expressing concern about the off-road race and recommending that the Council express its concerns to the BLM and County regarding environmental impacts resulting from this type of event. Chairman stated that it was his concern that it was not a single event but the beginning of afive to eight major race schedule with many racing vehicles and rivaling the Baja 1000 race. He stated that the Planning Commission must take a stand against the event and that the BLM has not asked for comment from any jurisdiction, has a " do nothing" attitude regarding racing at Windy Point and other areas, and is sanctioning racing permits. Planning Director stated that no plan has been submitted regarding the subject race and that another race is being considered from Palm Springs to Parker which is even more ominous in its potential routing. y February 8, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION (Continued) - Percolation Ponds North of Palm S rin s in the S here of Influence. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she had talked wit a representative of the BLM and that the consensus at the BLM .staff was that the proposed percolation ponds would benefit the valley's water supply. Discussion followed on recharging the water supply with the aid of percolation ponds. Chairman stated that any proposal altering the environment of the valley should be studied; and that a study should be done on percolation ponds and how they will affect blow sand. He stated that when an unsuitable environment is altered for economic deve.lopment and human habitation, the agency which has the jurisdiction should be able to say that the environment cannot be changed. He noted that blow sand is the only natural force keeping people from living in the central portion of the valley and that if the resources (such as subsidizing water) are not provided for expansion, expansion will not take place. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if development is stopped, the economic base of the valley will deteriorate. Further discussion followed on the concept of altering the environment for human habitation. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated she was concerned about the impact of the 1,200 acres of percolation ponds which the Coachella Valley Water Conservation District (CVWCD) is proposing. Chairman stated he would be surprised if an EIR were ever done by the CVWCD. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. e PLA N G D RE OR MDR/ml WP/PC MIN