Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/02/22 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 22, 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 13 2 Hugh Curtis X 14 1 Hugh Kaptur X 12 3 Peter Koetting X 13 2 Don Lawrence X 15 0 Paul Madsen X 14 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 14 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Ken Feenstra, Redevelopment Director George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Vicki Nelson, Economic Development Coordinator 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 Absent: James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel William Johnson Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The minutes of the February 8, 1984 meeting will be reviewed at the March 14 meeting. P' February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None 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. TTM 17260-REVISED & CASE 3.645. Application by HELTZER ENTERPRISES for archi- tectural and map approval for 120-unit condominium project on Golf Club Drive between Waverly Drive/Cree Road, R-3 Zone (I.L.) , Section 29. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) Planner III stated that the AAC recommended restudy of the site plan and expressed concern of the overall perspective from the street which is rigid and has limited distance between the buildings. He stated that the AAC suggested interspersing single-story and a different unit type and that the density has increased from 76 units to 120 units (maximum allowable is 158 units) . He explained that the proposal would extend Cree Road which would allow more site for two-story development and will allow also for better traffic circulation. Discussion followed on the AAC recommended revisions and the massing and configuration of the project and its repetitive elevations. The following persons presented an overall view of the project: C. Rollins of Heltzer Enterprises, the applicant, introduced team mem- bers who have worked on the project. R. Cochran of Maxwell-Starkman Architects, stated that the project had been studied for a year and a marketing analysis done and that the cus- tomers wanted the privacy of a small building and a private atrium entrance which the pinwheel design allows. R. Chase of Maxwell-Starkman stated that the elevations have movement are dynamic and have integrated landscaping and that privacy has been maximized with windows of the units facing blank walls of other units. Mr. Rollins gave a statistical report of the project from a handout sheet (on file in the Planning Division offices) and stated that the project was less dense than allowed by zoning and meets code require- ments. Chairman stated that there was a long standing concern on the AAC regarding linear repetitive flat buildings on major or secondary tho- roughfares, that there is an attractiveness in the sense of community developed for the project by the atrium entrances which also are a safety feature but that the elevations are repetitive and that he under- stood the AAC concerns. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 TTM 17260-REVISED & CASE 3.645 (Continued) Discussion followed on the repetitive nature of the elevations. Chair- man stated that when viewed by people passing by the project would be repetitious and that open space between the buildings is unusable. He stated that he did not understand the extension of Cree Road. Commis- sioner Lawrence requested that the architect explain the configuration of the units. Mr. Chase showed the differences in the elevations on the display board. Planner III stated that the Cree Road widths coincide with Cathedral City street widths since Cree Road is on the boundary between the two cities. Discussion followed on review of the plans by Cathedral City. Planning Director stated that plans are reviewed between the two cities on a cooperative basis. Discussion ensued on covered parking spaces, size of units, open space between the buildings, patio area, curb breaks on Golf Club Road, fenc- ing, configuration of the project, and previous uses of the site. Com- missioner Curtis stated that the project lacks relief along the street scape and in height and suggested that single-story units be introduced to open the site since the site seems dense. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) for a restudy based on AAC recommendations which included restudy of the site plan, open space, landscaping, distance between the buildings, streetscape, building height, and configuration of the elevations. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the site should be open, that the covered parking spaces on the perimeter lack appeal , that the internal environment will not be pleasing, that the buildings should be clus- tered, and that the plan although meeting ordinance requirements does not seem to be viable. He stated that he disagreed with the AAC regard- ing acceptance of the elevations since they seem to accentuate the buildings' height. Planning Director stated that a draft Negative Declaration could be ordered prepared with the project to be reviewed at the March 14 meeting which would save the applicant's time. He requested that the Commission clarify the definition of space between the buildings as a courtyard or not. Commissioner Apfelbaum asked if it were a common procedure to average distance between buildings, and Planner III stated that the City has not used this method. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and adopting staff's methods of defining courtyards, i .e. 30 feet minimum distance between buildings. In explanation, Planning Director stated that staff believes that the area of the balconies and windows are courtyards, and the distance should be 30 feet. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 TTM 17260-REVISED & CASE 3.645 (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "It was noted that a previous proposal for a 76-unit condominium project on this site was considered by the Tribal Council on March 24, 1981. (CASE 3.378/TTM 17260) . After consideration of the recommendations of the Tribal Planning Con- sultant, the Tribal Council concurred with the staff recommendation that a Negative Declaration would be appropriate, and approved TTM No. 17260." TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Com- mission 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 sig- nificant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TTM 19870 & CASE 3.642. Application by P. BILLINGTON AND ASSOCIATES AND C. MILLS for J. Hobson for architectural and map approval for lot consoli- dation for condominium purposes on the northeast corner of Kaweah Road/Stevens Road, R-2 Zone, Section 10. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and final approval . No comments received. ) C. Mills the architect, 278-C N. Palm Canyon Drive, requested that the sidewalk be reduced from 8 to 5 feet since there are no abutting side- walks and requested a retention of the existing curb on Kaweah. He also requested retention of bay parking on Stevens Road because it enhances the project, although it does not meet Ordinance requirements. Planning Director recommended that there be no bay parking on Stevens Road and stated that the curb situation could be reviewed with the applicant. Commissioner Lawrence left the meeting. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) ordering the filing of a Nega- tive Declaration and approving the case and map subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the exceptions that the staff and applicant resolve the sidewalk and bay parking issues. Note: The curb is to remain in its present location. Commissioner Lawrence returned. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 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 3.657 (MINOR) . Application by D. BOHLMAN & A. MACIEL for architectural approval of revised plans for minor revisions to the exterior of motel/apartment complex at 1830 E. Racquet Club Road, R-1-C Zone, Sec- tion 1. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Koetting dissented) approving the application sub- ject to the following condition: That a revised end column mass be used to integrate the facade with the existing building with details to be submitted for staff approval . CASE 8.221 - SIGN VARIANCE. Application by G. MALOOF for a sign variance for a pedestrian sign for business on South Palm Canyon Drive between Arenas/Baristo Roads, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained, Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that the sign program was for pedestrian signs under canopies but that the applicant feels that people are not aware of his shop, that there is an illegal sign painted on the glass and that the applicant wants an additional pedestrian sign on the plaster ele- ment. He stated that staff cannot make findings for the sign variance request and recommends denial . G. Maloof, the applicant, described the remodeling of his building, explained that people cannot find his location and that there should be a sign on the north end of the building. Vice-Chairman stated that he was surprised that no one could find the business since there is a main identification sign on Palm Canyon Drive. Mr. Maloof stated that the sign on the end of the building would attract customers and break up the mass of wall. Commissioner Kaptur stated that sign consideration should have been made at the beginning of the remodeling and that granting the sign would set an undesir able precedent. Mr. Maloof stated that there are no other circumstance similar to his and that the pedestrian sign cannot be seen a block away. Discussion followed on the options regarding signing that were available when the remodeling was begun and the signing presently on the building. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he felt he could support the variance since a sign at the end of the building would not be offensive and that he would have no trouble supporting a variance for a one foot by three foot sign under the canopy. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 8.221-SIGN VARIANCE (Continued) Commissioner Madsen stated that he did not feel that there were special circumstances to allow a variance and Commissioner Kaptur reiterated that a special privilege would be granted if the variance were approved. In response to Commission question, Mr. Maloof stated that the tenants have one 1-foot by 3-foot double-faced sign and one main sign in front of their businesses. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that a simi- lar request was denied by the Commission recently and commented that the applicant would be allowed two signs if he reduced the size of his existing sign. Mr. Maloof stated that there is an existing plastered can already recessed into the building, that a sign face could be inserted into the recessed area and that originally he did feel that the choice of signing would affect his business, but it has. Discussion followed on whether or not the present signing could be seen and the applicant's variance request. Vice-Chairman stated that vari- ances are difficult to address but that findings must be made in order to grant them and that the findings in the staff report appear accurate and correct as follows: 1. That the granting of a variance from the Sign Ordinance in this matter would be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties and businesses in simi- lar circumstances. 2. That no special circumstances related to the subject business exists relative to size, shape, topography, or location which deprive this business privileges enjoyed by other properties and businesses in the vicinity. 3. That the applicant has been advised that he would be entitled to a double-faced sign if he were to reduce the existing pedestrian sign by three square feet and utilize that three square feet on the reverse side of the existing location. 4. That the granting of this variance would not materially be detri- mental to the public, health, safety, convenience, welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. . M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Service abstained; Lawrence dissented) denying the request for sign variance based on the above findings. Note: Vice-Chairman stated that the Mr. Maloof could appeal the deci- sion to the City Council . February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. Temple for architectural approval of golf course, maintenance building, and clubhouse building for golf course/condominium project at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C, W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Planner III gave the background of the project and its current status and stated that the background of the Tahquitz Creek Scenic Recreation Plan had been given to Commissioners for review. He stated that most of the golf course plan had been submitted and that the maintenance build- ing had been moved and could not be seen (except for the roof) because of the heavy landscaping and berming. He stated that noise from the buildings would be minimal and that the clubhouse building has been moved to the east. He stated that the applicant is proposing that the bikeway be moved to Ramon Road but that staff feels that it should remain in its original approved location between the golf course and the condominiums and that the AAC recommended conceptual approval of the grading and landscape plans and of the clubhouse and maintenance build- ing locations. He stated that he had reviewed other golf courses and that fairways are very close to roads and no insurance claims have been received from the City regarding damage from golf balls. He discussed other aspects of the project and stated that some have not been addressed at this time; that riprap rock will be used on the channel, and that flood control will not allow bridges in the wash. He stated that the applicant is requesting final approval on the grading plan and that the maintenance building location has not changed measurably except that mounding and screening have been added. He described the mainte- nance building and stated that new noise abating equipment will be pur- chased by the developer and that maintenance workers could start working in the early morning but that there are no noise level statistics on the equipment. Further discussion followed on other aspects of the application. Plan- ner III stated that the clubhouse location is final subject to resolu- tion of details. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon, the architect described the location and noise and visual attenuation of the maintenance building. He stated that there will be more noise generated on fairway maintenance than from the maintenance building area and that every effort had been made to buffer the noise. He stated that any access point that is required by Sunshine Villas will be provided in the wall between the two projects and that grading would not be done in the natural , or flood control areas without written flood control approval . He stated that the intent was to have the golf course open by September of '84, that the approved location of the bikeway is unsafe, and the proposed location would be more viable. Discussion followed on the location of the clubhouse and maintenance building. Chairman stated that the project was approved contingent on alternating site studies for maintenance and clubhouse locations. Mr. Mills stated that alternate locations had been reviewed but that the buildings could not be moved if the length of the golf course is to be retained and flood control requirements met. In reply to Commission question, he stated that a maintenance building/clubhouse combination could not be achieved unless the golf course is shortened and that the maintenance equipment could be stored under the clubhouse if height restrictions were revised. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) .,� Discussion followed on the bike path location. Mr. Mills stated that alternate locations for proposed buildings and tennis courts are diffi- cult because of opposition by neighboring residents. B. Stamps, golf course Architect, stated that nine people will be work- ing on the course and explained the types of equipment and chemicals to be used in conjunction with course maintenance. He stated that ferti- lizer would be stored inside the maintenance building; and that the smaller pieces of equipment are transportable. P. Seltzer, attorney representing several adjacent homeowners, stated that the minutes of the last meeting indicated that the maintenance building was to be moved and this has not occurred. He stated that noise, odor, use of Cerritos, lighting, and servicing by large vehicles will impact the neighborhood and that a combination clubhouse/mainte- nance building is a good idea and would cause less impact to the neigh- borhood. He stated that the lease the applicant wants contains a clause that the maintenance building cannot be constructed in the lease area unless approved by the Sunshine Villas homeowners, that the homeowners have not approved the lease; and that to approve the project without a lease may not allow a maintenance building at all . Chairman stated that the Planning Commission was not interested in pri- vate agreements. Mr. Seltzer stated that he was aware that situation but to proceed with approvals on a piecemeal basis is a mistake on the part of the City; and that no specific plan for a maintenance building or tennis courts have been submitted; and that the area will be noise generating and that the adjacent neighbors will be impacted by the noise every day since the equipment will leave from the maintenance area daily. He requested that the developer return with an alternate location. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Seltzer stated that 36 homeowners have signed a petition that the maintenance building not be allowed and a specific location has not been presented to the homeowners. He stated that the homeowners have been unable to obtain a quorum in order to act on the lease. Chairman requested that Commissioners address planning matters only. Commissioner Lawrence stated that a quorum can be obtained by proxy, and that he felt that it was a planning matter. R. Leonard of Sunshine Villas whose home is 200 feet from the proposed maintenance building read a petition in opposition to the tennis courts and maintenance building, citing noise pollution in early morning hours, tennis court noise, storage of fertilizer, allergy problems, devaluation of property values, deterioration of the maintenance facility and area, security problems, and invasion of privacy. He stated that five of seven board members are in opposition to the maintenance building loca- tion, and that only one person has not signed the petition. He noted that after hours socializing of workers will cause problems, and that people use the sidewalk constantly, and berming as a noise buffer would block his view. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Seltzer stated that the leases signed in October and December by Sunshine Villas were incorrect. Chairman stated that if there is no lease there is no project. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) R. Fixa, 567 Sunshine Circle, stated that people were not aware of the maintenance building on December 12 when the lease was prepared, that the residents of the condominium complex want a golf course but question the reasons for the developer's placement of the tennis courts and main- tenance building on Sunshine Villas lease property and not on the devel- oper's property. He stated that he felt the maintenance building and yard would devalue his property. He also questioned the number of main- tenance workers since other courses have more than nine maintenance people. He requested that the maintenance yard be removed from the Sun- shine Villas area and that the buildings in the proximity to the resi- dents be reduced to one-story in height. Mr. Temple declined to rebut. Planner III stated that the AAC recommended conceptual approval and asked for direction from the Commission on the many aspects of the pro- ject. He stated that the bikeway location must be resolved in conjunc- tion with the grading plan, or there will not be room for the bikepath. Commissioner Koetting suggested that a golf course architect be retained by the City to review the golf course plans to achieve a good course and stated that the plans presented are preliminary. Further discussion followed on final plans of the golf course and the bikepath location. Commissioner Curtis stated that he felt pressured by the developer, and that AAC did not have sufficient information on the Tahquitz Regional Park Plan in relation to the bikepath. Further discussion followed. Chairman stated that the bikepath should stay closely aligned to the original proposal along the wash. Chairman stated that the developer has not completed details of the project and questioned reasoning behind placement of maintenance and tennis court areas on other than the developer's land. He stated that there must be a place for the maintenance building elsewhere on the 170-acre site but that he could not comment on golf course design or flood control com- ments. Discussion followed on the location of the bikepath. Commissioner Law- rence stated that the bikepath would be viable on Compadre and Ramon because of the beautiful open space area that it would traverse. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the Temple plan does not conform with the Tahquitz Creek plan in its dramatic open space concept and read a portion of the plan to the Commissioners. Planner III stated that the bikeway in the Tahquitz Regional Park was built with a grant, that the money might need to be refunded if the path was moved, and that Mr. Temple has agreed to replace the funds. He stated that after much discussion the AAC recommended that the bikepath be kept in its original location. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Kaptur/Lawrence dissented) approving the fol- lowing: 1. Concept approval of the grading and landscape plans. 2. Approval of the alignment of the bikepath along the wash. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) 3. Submission of final development plans including grading, landscap- ing, irrigation, lighting, fencing, section, details and bikeways. 4. Submission of golf course plans at 1:10 scale. 5. Restudy of maintenance building and clubhouse locations. 6. That recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Discussion followed. Commissioner Koetting stated that preliminary approval only was being given to the project. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and haev 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 Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.373. Application by R. YOUNG for S. Havens for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for 11-unit condominium complex on Vista Chino between Chapparral/Cottonwood, R-2 Zone, Section 17. Continued to March 14. CASE 3.474 (MINOR) . SMOKETREE RACQUET CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for archi- tectural approval for revised plans of security gate for automobiles at 1655 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26. Restudy of layout (detail and function) . CASE 3.626. Application by W. KLEINDEINST for the City of Palm Springs for architectural approval of landscape plans for cogeneration plant on E1 Cielo Road between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Bombero, CC Zone, Section 13. Condition: That the color of rock work match the existing building. CASE 3.627. Application by W. KLEINDEINST for the City of Palm Springs for architecitural approval of landscape plans for cogeneration plant at Sunrise Plaza, located on Sunrise Way between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, "0" Zone, Section 13. Approved as submitted. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by E. WELLES for architectural approval of main identification sign for Aida Grey, 707 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way (Courtyard/Bank of Palm Springs Center) , R-4-TP & C-1-AA Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14 (reference CASE 3.309) . M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur; Madsen abstained) continuing the sign applica- tion pending a receipt of a sign program for the Tahquitz-McCallum Way frontage from the owners of the Bank of Palm Springs Center. MISCELLANEOUS ITEM DETERMINATION 10.337. Request for Planning Commission determination that a golf club repair shop is an acceptable use in the C-B-D Zone. Removed from the agenda. (Applicant has found another location.) ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis) approving the following: CASE 3.364 (Continued) . Application by COLUMBIA SAVINGS AND LOAN for archi- tectural 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. Condition: Approved subject to revisions noted on the plans. CASE 3.655 (MINOR) . Application by RBC DEVELOPMENT CORP. for architectural approval f revised plans for single-family residence at 1700 Sahara Drive between Vista Chino/Park View, N-R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Conditions: 1. That Eucalyptus Polyanthemus be substituted for Eucalyptus Rudis. 2. That the trellises extend from the existing wooden fascia elements (suggested 4 x 12 inch horizontal members with 2 x 6 inch slats) . 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Commissioner Madsen left the meeting and returned before the review of the DeBartolo project. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS (Continued) TTM 15827 (REVISED) . Application by HALLMARK ENGINEERING for Palm Canyon Associates for approval of a lot subdivision for residential condominium purposes on East Palm Canyon Drive between Seven Lakes Drive/Cherokee Way, R-G-A(8) Zone (I.L. ), Section 30. (Given environmental assessment previously in configuration with origi- nal map approval.) M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following condition that all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "It was noted that this matter was previously considered by the Tribal Council . The request for a second one-year time extension was approved by the Tribal Council on March 9, 1982. After consideration of the recommendation of the Tribal Planning Consul- tant, the Tribal Council approved TTM No. 15827 (Revised) ." ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. - V-k� PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml Att: Minutes of 2-22-84 re: Case 5.0275-PD-147. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued). Application by E. J. DEBARTOLO CORP./DESERT FASHION PLAZA for architectural approval of revised 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 a 207-room hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the project was reviewed by the AAC in a marathon session on February 21. Planner II noted that the final development plans are in compliance with the preliminary plans but that there have been revisions including the following: - Lowering of massing of mechanical roof element. - Clerestory element revised to stucco finish and includes skylites. - Increased decoration to the fascia of elevations on Palm Canyon. - Revised proportions on the hotel with the addition of the Clere- story element (hotel). - Revised glass wall element. - Solar collectors on the south faces of some elements. Addition of a Cafe on the northern end of the hotel site. - Nine foot wall enclosing the pool deck to the rear which was pre- viously a 4-1/2-foot wall . - Solid stucco balconies changed to open metal frame with wooden handrails. - Four-foot sandblasted concrete wall screening the parking lot. - Treatment of existing walls will be stucco over existing block and facia to make a single plane and painting of details to match the stucco. Question of western elevation of the existing mall, greenhouse details will be installed if restaurants are proposed; otherwise alternate elevations will be used. Discussion followed at the board with Planner II and Commission. Planner II stated that the AAC recommended that balconies and windows be eliminated on the north elevation adjoining Amado and a smooth surface achieved. He stated that the design of Sak's has not been established. He described walking bridges between the fifth and sixth floors and stated that mechanical equipment will be placed around skylight ele- ments. He discussed recommendations of the AAC regarding landscape revisions and stated that the pedestrian patterns which had been of concern to the Commission were indicated by herringbone tile, that the landscape theme is uniform with palm trees and trellises and that stacked bond tile will ATTACHMENT February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES emphasize entry and seating areas. He described other details at the board including the interior of the mall and stated that phasing and temporary parking provisions are still unresolved, although phasing will be approximately as follows: 1. Demolition; construction of the new hotel and new mall . 2. Removal of the parking and construction of deck and subterranean parking. 3. Parking for Museum court and deck plan. 4. Reroofing of the mall and the revision of the exterior of the mall . Planner II noted that staff is concern that there will be adequate park- ing provided to the existing mall during construction. Since there are 427 spaces currently and the first parking plan shows 390 with the second showing 362. He stated that staff feels that offsite parking should be provided if there is inadequate parking onsite during con- struction. He reviewed AAC minutes regarding materials and colors and stated that a small portion (Palm Canyon side, south of the porte cochere) of the hotel was recommended for restudy. He reviewed the status report (on file in the Planning Division offices) and stated that in many cases the conditions will be made at the final development stage but many of the details cannot be resolved because no contractor has been retained, although details are to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. He noted that the irrigation concepts, sign program and some aspects of the construction implementation program, historic site preservation, parking phasing, and tree preservation onsite still need to be submitted. He noted that the sign program submitted is only preliminary. Planning Director stated that there was no significant departure from requirements in the preliminary sign concept. Chairman stated that items would be addressed as follows: 1. Site plan. 2. Exterior plan. 3. Parking and drives. 4. Landscape walks and lighting. 5. Sign program. Site plan Access behind the Bank of America and the alignment to Belardo of the driveways were discussed. D. House, Harwood K. Smith Associates (HKS) of Dallas, Texas, the archi- tect, stated that the alignment was developed at the request of the Traffic Engineer and that the access (two entrance and two exit drives) behind the Bank of America were for service only which would be limited to the hours of between 7 and 9 a.m. ; and that the drives are necessary because the height of the deck does not allow access for some vehicles. He stated that the drive is wide enough for two lanes in the future if necessary and that a traffic signal would be constructed at the time there is demand. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Traffic Engineer stated that the signal is under design currently at the intersection of Belardo and the entrance and can function as a two-lane access to the street to clear the parking lot. Mr. House stated that the service entrance behind the Bank of America also has pedestrian access, but that the main pedestrian access is through the sculpture garden. Chairman stated that the original conditions of approval required that the developer align the main entrance to the parking lot with Belardo Road. Mr. House stated it was discussed, but it was decided that it was not the best location for the intersection. Discussion followed with the Traffic Engineer. He stated that the solu- tion reached was the best for the convenience of the people using the lot and that conceptual drawings for the signal design have been received in his office. Mr. House reiterated that it is necessary to have a service entrance because there is an overhead height clearance condition. He stated also that there is no parking or loading along Palm Canyon. Discussion followed on the driveway alignment. Traffic Engineer stated that the signal at the drive entrance and Belardo is treated as one intersection. Commissioner Koetting stated that Belardo is a bottleneck now and will become more important and he thought there was more room for a buffer than is indicated. Mr. House stated that there would be ample parking room for several service vehicles. In response to Commission questions, Planning Director stated that a cafe element has been introduced in the hotel outdoor dining area and the wall height around the hotel pool increased from 4-1/2 to 9 feet. He stated that there were hydrology problems with containment of water causing elimination of light wells in the underground parking area, and that the architect did not design additional light wells. Chairman commented that the service site plan shows the service point for the southern section of the hotel in the parking area and that even though it was red curbed it would not keep trucks from parking and caus- ing circulation problems. Planning Director stated that the parking eliminated north of the Museum belongs to the Desert Fashion Plaza. Commissioner Lawrence expressed concern about the nine foot wall and stated that it should be lowered. Mr. House stated that it was for pri- vacy for hotel guests using the swimming pool . Exterior elevations Commissioner Madsen questioned the reflective bronze glass on the south side of the hotel . D. Compton of HKS stated that the inside face would have a reflective surface and that it is not double glazed. Mr. House stated that if energy calculations indicate that the four percent reflective bronze glass is insufficient, a better type of glass would be installed. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the rear area of the hotel had lost its design detail and that the 9-foot pool wall should be reduced to four feet. Discussion followed on the wall height. Mr. House stated that the view from the pool should be of the pool area or the mountains instead of the outside traffic. Chairman stated that where there had been a cafe on the corner of Belardo was now a blank wall , that the pool which originally showed a low wall with breaks and umbrellas and shade structures was now a 9-foot wall and very cold in feeling and that where there were trellises and landscape there are now garage doors. He stated that the skylight ele- ment is hidden from view and there is now one single mass of building height and that Belardo resembles a back alley and has no character. He noted that the Commission was told that details would come back and in an improved manner but whatever character that had been in the original plans was now lost and that Belardo has suffered dramatically. Commissioner Kaptur stated he felt that the original submission had more substance and quality and that a study session would have been the place to review the many changes although he realized the project was being processed rapidly. Mr. Compton noted that the flatness of the plan regarding the elevations is deceptive and that the garage doors referenced by the Chairman are actually a redwood trellis. Mr. House stated that French doors and windows in the hotel would be wood. Commissioner Koetting requested that Phase 4 be moved to Phase 2. D. Curl of the DeBartolo Corp. , Youngstown, Ohio, stated that the schedule calls for remodeling of the existing project in the summer of 185. Commissioner Koetting stated that the street and the store front should be done early and in the off-season if possible. Mr. Curl stated that he did not know when Sak's would be submitting elevations but it should be within a month. Planning Director stated that the architect has contacted staffregarding the Sak's building. Commissioner Koetting stated that the 9-foot wall should have ornamenta- tion. Mr. House said that the wall could be reduced to 6 feet. Parking & drives. Planner II stated that the parking count had not been reduced below pre- liminary approval but that staff is concerned that there is enough park- ing during construction to all elements of the building that will be open. Mr. Curl explained the parking plan during construction and stated that a contractor's expertise is required to phase parking. He noted that an access from the new parking lot during construction needs to be resolved and that the entire project will have validated parking system which allows easy circulation. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he felt that small merchants will be adversely affected by lack of parking during construction and that the merchants have not been apprised of this parking shortage. Discussion followed regarding the parking shortage. Redevelopment Director stated that the merchants will be meeting weekly regarding the status of the February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES hotel and will be apprised of parking space scheduling and that offsite parking areas are available to the developer. Chairman stated that if a motion were on the floor he would dissent since the developer has not supplied enough information and no enhance- ment of the design. He questioned whether or not action could be post- poned. In reply to a question from Redevelopment Director, Planning Director stated that the revisions (pool area, loading dock, service area, screening details, and general elevations along Belardo) have not been well received by the Commission but that there were no new ques- tions on the issue of onsite circulation. He stated that the ticket booths and validation system plans have not been -submitted, and that the Commission "concern is for all rof the areas that have.°been changed. ' He stated that staff was not comfortable with the changes. Commissioner Lawrence stated that shortage of parking was a new issue. Planning Director stated that the parking issue was addressed fully in the environmental impact report and that parking plans would be approved before building permits were issued and that the plans could be brought back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Lawrence commented that he felt that there was economic impact, and that provisions have not been made for the downtown mer- chants. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that several required documents have not been submitted as indicated on the status sheet (on file in the Planning Division offices) . Planner II stated that aspects of the landscape and lighting plans are incomplete. Redevelopment Director requested that bid portions be approved so that the developer can proceed since April 1 is a target date to begin con- struction. Chairman stated that he did not have good feelings about the project, since the Commission voted on the preliminary plans thinking the plans would improve which has not occurred. In answer to Commission question, Mr. Compton stated that the footprint had not changed. Commissioner Koetting noted that the developer needs to have preliminary items approved so that he can proceed (with the details resolved gradu- ally, perhaps at a study session) . Commissioner Kaptur agreed that the project should be reviewed in a study sesson and suggested that some approvals be given so the developer can proceed. Discussion followed on the type of action to be taken. Planning Direc- tor stated that a plan needs to be developed for Council action, that the Council appointed review subcommittee could review the project and that a condition could be made that the final details of the elevations, lighting, and landscaping be reviewed by the subcommittee prior to Com- mission approval with these recommendations sent to the Council . He stated that other issues including construction implementation program, sign program, historic site preservation parking, phasing, and tree preservation onsite should be reviewed by the Commission. He suggested' that conditions/concerns be developed and sent to Council for its review in order to allow the project to proceed. February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Discussion followed on the proper type of action. Assistant City Attor- ney stated that the meeting could be adjourned to a selected date although he did not know the time restraints of the Commission and Coun- cil . Chairman cautioned that the project will change the history of the down- town and that the Commission should not feel pressured. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the developer be allowed to proceed on demoli- tion, excavation and grading with the details to be resolved over six months. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence) tabling the review of the landscaping, build- ing elevations, specific details, paving and parking locations until further study and to allow the applicant to proceed with excavation, grading and demolition and to begin that portion of the development which fits the site plan originally approved. Commissioner Koetting stated that he eliminated a continuance on his montion deliberately but the project could be scheduled for the March 14 meeting if the details could be submitted by the developer by that time. He stated that the Commission recommendation goes to Council for that body to review Com- mission concerns (which may be resolved in the near future) . Mr. Curl stated that the developer was in a critical timeframe and wanted to begin the project on April 1. He stated that he was concerned about the scope of the changes requested by the Commission. Chairman stated that the concept was approved preliminarily but revi- sions have been made which need resolution, and that Commission could ` review details if the developer understood that the approval would be by a minority. He stated that a review of the street scape as it relates to underground parking is necessary since changes have been made and the natural light has been eliminated which is dangerous to those using the underground facilities. He noted that underground parking is a new con- cept in the desert. Mr. House requested that the developer be allowed to present the project to the Commission. Discussion followed concerning scheduling of a study session. Mr. Curl stated that some of the conditions may delay the project if they effect structure and foundations. Further discussion followed. Planning Director stated that he was concerned about what was being presented to Council on February 28 and requested that a list of conditions be devel- oped by the Commission. Chairman suggested that the remainder of the agenda be addressed and the DeBartolo project delayed for conditions to be developed after action on the remaining agenda items. Commissioners agreed. City Attorney recommended a motion to table. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur) tabling the DeBartolo project until the remainder of the agenda had been addressed. i y t February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued) . The review of the case continued after the remainder of the agenda had been acted on. In response to Chairman's question, Mr. House stated that there are many restrictions on plantings and trees in the parking lot islands above ground and that the additional trees do not reduce the parking count. Mr. Compton stated that the tree requirement of the City has been met. Further discussion followed. Chairman stated that the concept of trees in the desert is to prevent car interiors heating in the summer. Lengthy discussion followed at the board. Representatives of the devel- oper described the entire project and the revisions to the Commission. Mr. Compton reminded the Commissioners that they were viewing a non- dimensional set of plans. Planning Director requested that a list of concerns be developed for presentation to the Council . Chairman noted that a major concern was that there was no setback and a 60-foot mass and that the problems havenot been addressed by the developer who has added vertical lines and removed horizontal ones. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Koetting withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum) approving revised final development plans for Case 5.0275-PD-147 subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. That all recommendations of the AAC be met as follows: a) Architecture 1) Details of sun control for greenhouse elements be sub- mitted. 2) That balconies and windows on the north elevations of the hotel adjoining Amado be eliminated. 3) That the ground floor east elevation of the admini- strative offices of the hotel be restudied. 4) That all details for the above conditions be submitted for staff approval . b) Materials Approved subject to: 1) Submission of a material sample of the terra cotta pots. 2) The stucco finishes be as suggested examples, i.e. , smooth (Bank of Glendale) ; rough (Palm Springs Vil- lage) . c) Landscaping Approved subject to: 1) That an alternate species to Lantana be used (substi- tute with a species that provides a longer term color) . February 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2) Explore the use of Asparagus Fern in balcony planters. 3) That vines be utilized to drape over walls on the sub- terranean entry to hotel from Palm Canyon Drive. 4) That the existing palms remain as the street tree theme for Tahquitz-McCallum Way and that Ficus be interspersed along the street. 5) That irrigation details be submitted with deep irriga- tion concepts to be explored. 6) That details are to be submitted of the above for staff approval . 2. That the tile band on the hotel be 12 inches. 3. That the hotel pool wall be lowered six feet and include zig- zagging or other design treatment. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That the loading area on Belardo be restudied along the lines of the preliminary approval including colors and landscaping. 6. That a landscaped setback be provided along Amado Road on the northern elevation of the exterior cafe. 7. That the Cafe element be restudied including location, colors and materials. -' 8. That the front elevations of the Palm Canyon frontage including the trellis be submitted with the sign program. 9. That additional shade trees be provided in parking areas. 10. That a restudy of the underground parking areas in regard to light wells be made. 11. That the balconies on the east and north faces have solid walls. 12. That all concerns be reviewed by the City Council-appointed study committee for review and comment prior to being presented to City Council . 13. That other requirements of the Planned Development District, i.e. , parking, phasing, construction implementation, tree preservation program, and historic site preservation program be approved prior to building/demoliton permits. 14. That Phase IV (remodel of existing buildings) be moved up to Phase II construction if possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall • March 14, 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 14 2 Hugh Curtis - 14 2 Hugh Kaptur X 13 3 Peter Koetting X 14 2 Don Lawrence X 16 0 Paul Madsen X 15 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 15 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - March 12, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Curtis absent) approving minutes of the February 8, 1984 meeting as submitted and the February 22 meeting with the following correction: Page 4, Paragraph 9, TTM 19870/CASE 3.642. Add to the motion: "Service dissented". •