Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/04/11 - MINUTES f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 11, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 16 2 Hugh Curtis X 16 2 Hugh Kaptur X 15 3 Peter Koetting X 16 2 Don Lawrence X 17 1 Paul Madsen X 17 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 17 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 Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - April 9, 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 (Madsen, Koetting) approving minutes of March 28, 1984, as submitted. NOTE: Chairman stated that the public hearing scheduled for the meeting would be heard after agenda items of those persons in the audience were addressed. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 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. TPM 19974. (Cont'd. ) Application by SANBORN WEBB, INC. for Southern Califor- nia Edison for approval of subdivision of land located north of Vista Chino between Indian Avenue/North Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 and C-1 Zones, Section 3. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Planning Director stated that two issues had arisen regarding Indian Avenue dedication wording and that final recommendations had not been made and would be resolved before the map is scheduled for City Council review. R. Hitchcock, local manager of Southern California Edison, 1700 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, stated that expected expenses of the map had been discussed with staff prior to sale of the property so that expenses could be incorporated into the sales agreement and that he was told that dedication on Palm Canyon Drive was not applicable. He stated that he was told by staff that Palm Canyon improvements were not required at a later meeting also and that a design had been submitted for a block wall on Indian Avenue which was an expected expense. He requested a waiver of the Palm Canyon Drive improvements because of the stage of the sale of the property and also requested that the wall on the southern side of the substation not connect to the substation fence for safety reasons. Planning Director stated that there would be no problem in separating the wall from the substation fence, that dedication of right-of-way on Indian Avenue wording would be resolved with legal staffs of the City and Edison; and that the covenant for dedication on Palm Canyon Drive 'is required. He stated that money was the applicant's primary concern because of stage of the escrow with the stroke activity center. Chairman stated that the improvements on Palm Canyon were a cost of doing business, that the Commission could require immediate dedication if it desired, and that a covenant for improvements has always been required. Planning Director stated that he did not remember discussions with Edi- son representatives regarding Palm Canyon dedication requirements as he had done no research regarding dedication which is usually the case because of varied requirements along Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that the Edison staff had indicated that a letter may have been sent to the City regarding this but there was no record of the letter in the files. Commissioners Koetting and Lawrence suggested that a covenant be for- mulated which could be transferred with the land to require improvements in the event the land were sold to a profit-making organization. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 TPM 19974. Cont'd. Commissioner Apfelbaum questioned whether or not the action would be a special privilege. Chairman stated that the dedication and covenant on Palm Canyon should be required so that the City can have the improvements when they are needed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Koetting dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TPM 19974 subject to all recomenda- tions of the Development Committee with the addition that a 5-foot separation be allowed between the screen wall and the substantion fence. Chairman left the meeting; Vice Chairman presided. TPM 19855. Application by B. BILLINGTON & ASSOC. for D. Reed for approval to combine lots on Bisnaga Avenue, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. (Removed from the "Environmental Assessment" section of the agenda because the map is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planning Director explained that the applicant wanted to combine 10 lots into 1 for a garage addition to a residence with a construction over lot lines because of the configuration of the lots. He stated that the vacation of Bisnaga Road was also recommended because the street dead- ended, and that lots which appear to have access to Bisnaga actually have access via a private easement. Mrs. D. Reed, ' 2277 Bisnaga, the applicant, stated that the lots are an arroyo and not buildable. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Service absent) approving TPM 19855 subject to all conditions of the Development Committee. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS STREET DETERMINATION. Planning Commission determination that the vacation of Bisnaga Road is not in conflict with the City's General Plan. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Service absent) determining that vacation of Bisnaga Road is not in conflict with the General Plan. Chairman returned to the meeting. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT AGENDA NOTE: Planning Commission removed all items from the Consent Agenda. 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. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for B. Lewin for two main identifications signs at 210 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Sec- tion 15. NOTE: Chairman abstained because he owns a business within 400 feet; Vice Chairman presided. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign was recommended for a restudy but the applicant requested that it come before the Commission. He stated that the AAC recommended restudy because the letters were at the top edge of the canopy, and that the letters could be mounted flush on the canopy. L. Hart of Imperial Signs, Indio, stated that the fascia was terrazo. W. Sheehy, representing Lewin Galleries at 210 S. Palm Canyon, stated that Mr. Lewin is an award winning designer who is building an important art gallery in Palm Springs. He stated that the sign is elegant and integrated well with the architecture. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the proposal is in conflict with the Sign Ordinance, since signs are not allowed on the top of fascias. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that there have been no applica- tions for this type of sign because there is difficulty in mounting the letters, that the Ordinance prohibits signs on top of roofs but not on top of fascias, and that can signs overlapping fascias had not been approved for a long time. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Service abstained) for a restudy of the sign application. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by S. ROSENBERG for architectural approval of main identification neon sign at 255 South Palm Canyon (The Vineyard) in shopping complex between Baristo Road/Arenas Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15 (Ref. Case 2.960) . M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur dissented; Service abstained) approving the sign application as submitted. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 3.520 Revised. Application by B. LEUNG for Freidman Ventures for archi- tectura approval of revised site plan for Phases V through VIII for residential condominium project on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director stated that marketing surveys found that two-bedroom units were easier to sell than one-bedroom ones and that the applicant is revising the units although the basic configuration is the same. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur) approving the application subject all recommenda- tions of the Development Committee. CASE 3.475. Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION SERVICES, INC. for architectural approval of plans for additional "T" hangars for fixed based operation on Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 13. Planner III stated that the AAC recommended expansion of the landscape buffer to 20 feet adjoining Gene Autry Trail to match the existing land- scape pattern. Planner III stated that the opposite side of the street has a 25 foot buffer (M-1-P Zone) and Jimsair wants a place to store heavy equipment which requires heavy landscape screening. Chairman stated that the City should be a good neighbor to the standards required across the street. Planning Director noted that outdoor uses in the zone can be florist display, outdoor dining, and parking of aircraft, and that Jimsair can- not pile tires or other unsitely materials in outdoor storage. Discussion followed on the sidewalk/landscape configuration. Planner III stated that Jimsair applicants were not present to discuss landscap- ing concerns. M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur) for a restudy of the landscape plan and approval of the elevations of the T-Hangars per the recommendations of AAC as follows: 1. That the landscape buffer adjoining Gene Autry Trail be expanded. 2. That continuity be provided between the form and materials of the landscaping of the proposal and existing northern landscape strip. 3. That the proposed landscaping materials conform to the approved landscape pallet. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 TTM 19544 (Revised) . Application by R. CICALA for architectural approval of preliminary landscape plans for auto center located on the southwest corner of Ramon Road/Crossley, M-1 Zone (I.L. ), Section 20. Planner III described the configuration of the display areas of the pro- posed auto center. Discussion followed on turning movements on Ramon Road. Planner III stated that the Traffic Engineer's intent would be to prohibit left turns on Ramon, although this condition did not appear in the specific requirements, and that turning movements could be reviewed with Cathe- dral City since its city limits adjoin Palm Springs. Discussion followed on landscaping along Crossley Road. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the landscape buffer should be more than 5 feet, and that money spent for increased landscaping would be worth much to the applicants. Planner III stated that the plan submitted would be a plan for future developers to follow, and that the Commission's conditions stated 25 feet of landscaping be provided but did not state a time frame. Chairman stated that he thought a master plan for perimeter landscaping was to be submitted. Planner III stated that it was a reasonable request to require an additional 15 feet of landscaping. Chairman stated that the Commission should take action on whether or not the landscaping was to be installed in the beginning or with the development of the lots. Planner III stated that the ultimate landscaping could be minimal since dealers emphasize the number of cars displayed rather than landscaping. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen) approving preliminary landscape plans subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That there be no left turns on Ramon Road. 3. That the landscape buffer along Crossley Road be increased at the time of development to 20 feet from the property line with the remaining 5 feet to be landscaped when each lot is developed. 4. That final landscape plans include materials of increased size. Chairman stated that Crossley Road landscaping only was addressed because landscaping can be deferred on other streets because of lack of traffic. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. WARREN for architectural approval of interior lighted main identification sign on E. Arenas Road (former Aaron Brother's location) C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoining Enforcement Officer stated that the sign is lighted but is not a neon sign; and that the applicant wants a visible sign since he is the only tenant in the building who is open at night. He also stated the sign was not consistent with the sign program for the building. Discussion followed on the problems of righted signs in canvas canopies. Planning Director stated that another material such as wood would be different from the rest of the sign program on the building. J. Warren, 2371 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, the applicant, stated that he decided to remain in Palm Springs, that the sign proposed is acceptable to the Palm Springs Mall (his present location) and on his store in Palm Desert, that placing a sign on the building is acceptable and placement on the canopy is not because of lack of visibility. He stated that there should be an alternative sporting goods store in the City and that staff has not presented a better idea for the sign even though it has been reviewed. Commissioner Koetting stated that the canopy could be made more rigid and a lighted sign could be placed on the canopy for more visibility. Mr. Warren stated that the procedure sounded expensive. Commissioner Koetting explained that staff would discuss making the canopies more rigid and safer with the owner of the property. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the sign could be seen whether it was located on the canopy or just above it; and that the signage should be in the parameters of the sign program of the complex although a lighted sign would be permissible; and reinforcing the canopy would not be as expensive as removing the window. Commissioner Koetting stated that the owners of the complex should be required to reinforce the canopies since they are unsafe. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Service abstained) approving a lighted sign subject to the following conditions: 1. That it be mounted on the canopy flush with the canopy. 2. That the awning be retained. 3. That the details be submitted for staff approval . Discussion followed. Mr. Warren insisted that the sign could not be seen and was not adequate for his business. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that a pedestrian sign on the window would be allowed. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 3.671 (Minor) . Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for architectural approval of revised elevations for restaurant in shopping center on the northwest corner of Ramon Road/Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Kaptur abstained) approving revised elevations and site plan and subject to the following conditions. 1. That the architectural details are approved. 2. That the signs are approved as amended on the plans subject to the plastic having a matte finish. 3. That the site plan was approved subject to recommendations of staff. 4. That a detail landscape and irrigation plan be submitted and approved prior to occupancy permits. CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. F. Temple for architec- tural approval of site plan for Phase III and clubhouse elevations for golf course/condominium project at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C & W- R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Planner III presented the project on the display board. He stated that the Development Committee has not reviewed final development plans and the Traffic Engineer has not reviewed turning movements. Planning Director stated that action could be taken on the architecture, although final site approval for Phase IV should be withheld until reviewed by the Development Committee since the equestrian and bike trail areas have been narrowed. He stated that there was concern about placement of an equestrian trail on another adjacent property without a pre-easement. Planner III stated that the Community Services Commission was becoming concerned about the future of public amenities such as trails, and that staff would be meeting with them and would apprise the Commission of Community Service Commission input. C. Mills, 278 N. Palm Canyon, architect, stated that the clubhouse park- ing requirements have been discussed with staff. Planning Director stated that the applicant is meeting the clubhouse parking requirement (not a freestanding restaurant requirement) . Discussion followed on parking requirements. Commissioner Koetting stated that the parking uses overlapped and should not be assessed on a restaurant parking requirement basis. Chairman suggested that if there is sufficient dual parking a landscaped area be set aside on Farrell Drive and Mesquite Avenue for future parking. In response to Commission question, Mr. Mills stated that the golf cart storage area is roofed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence) approving the site plan for Phase III and the clubhouse elevations subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ADDED STARTER DETERMINATION 10.341. Planning Commission determination that a beauty college is an appropri- ate use in a C-1 Zone. Planning Director described the location of the C-1 Zones in the City. He stated that a beauty college is an expanded beauty parlor with a higher intensity of persons and requires twice the amount of parking of retail stores. Discussion followed on inclusion of other types of schools. Commis- sioner Kaptur suggested that beauty colleges only be addressed. M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur) determining that a beauty college is an appro- priate use in any commercial zone with the exception of C-B-D and C-1-AA Zones. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0252 D & E-(MISCELLANEOUS) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for Planning Commission review of the final Environmental Impact Reports (EIRS) for the Oasis and N. Palm Canyon project areas. Redevelopment Planner stated that in February of 1984 the Commission received drafts of the EIR and written comments from Palm Springs resi- dent J. Crocker with responses by the Planning Director which are included in the EIR. He stated that the County of Riverside had com- ments challenging the reasons for establishing a redevelopment area but that this was not in the purview of the EIR. He stated regarding the J. Crocker letter of February 8 that: 1. Inadequacy of the EIR. Personal opinion since each area is spe- cifically addressed 'in the overall document which includes all five areas. 2. True and Complete Report. Similar to item #1. 3. Oasis Project. Not discussed because it is not an area of environmental concern. 4. Relocation of Houses. Study was conducted based on the best know- ledge of staff at the time and discusses a group of properties identified as hotels and perhaps operated as permanent residences on a month to month basis. They were listed as hotels at the time of the study. The impact will be mitigated whether or not they are hotels and relocation assistance will be provided. 5. Noise from Construction. Identified as a potential impact with the specific mitigation in the initial study regarding mitigation �..., of construction impacts on a case by case basis and not identified in the EIR. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0252 D & E-(MISCELLANEOUS) . (Cont'd. ) 6. Archaeological Significance. Studied in previous report in con- 3unction with Cadillac Fairview Project and included by reference in the EIR. Cemetery was not stated in the document itself. 7. General Deficiencies. Document meets all State statutes. Redevelopment Planner stated regarding the County's comments that justi- fication of blight is required for adoption of a redevelopment area not in an EIR, was done in a report to the City Council and in the redeve7-- opment plan, and this has been done. He stated that the 20% housing set aside provides for a beneficial impact which was included as a mitiga- tive measure for the other three redevelopment areas. He noted that State law requires an area be developed and both areas are developed , ' to that percentage. It is not in the EIR but something -the City has to do. Redevelopment Planner stated that the next public hearing would be in July before the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency and that the Highland Gateway area which is also included in the EIR is still under advisement to a community group and would be reviewed by the Commission as a final new redevelopment area. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that an EIR is an informal document (not an action document) and should answer ques- tions of the Commission to test its sufficiency. He stated that if there were many questions each time an EIR came to the Commission for review, insufficiency would be suspected but there are very few ques- tions raised by the Commission. Redevelopment Planner stated that a redevelopment area is a specific project and is required to adhere to the existing General Plan so devel- opment will occur with the General Plan and is an implementation device, not an actual physical project. He stated that he responded to County comments and a copy was sent to the County offices with no comment received from County staff, that the County Planning Department deals specifically with the EIR and County wide impacts, and County comments should be received through the administrative officer not the County Planning Department. He stated that responses were given to the County Planning Department but that he had been in contact with administrative staff and no comments had been made. Planning Director stated that the County has never responded to planning cases, is referring to blight which is not addressed in an EIR and County staff probably needs education in the EIR process for redevelop- ment projects. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Crocker, 330 W. Arenas, stated that he wished to rebut regarding population, employment, and housing and was cautioned by Chairman that comments only, not rebuttal , would be allowed. Mr. Crocker stated that he questioned the statement that there was no need for discussion on housing since it was discussed in other areas of the EIR. He questioned the validity and basis of blight which he felt was created by the City of Palm Springs when a downtown property was April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0252 D & E-(MISCELLANEOUS). (Cont'd. ) offered for parking for the McCallum office building by the Redevelop- ment Director. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that the problem has been dealt with before and the redevelopment project is not proposing anything specific to change the area but is creating an environment for change with impacts to be reviewed as development occurs. Assistant City Attorney stated that there is an existing environ- ment, and when a project is proposed the effect of the project on the existing environment causes an EIR. Planning Director stated that any future features differing from the General Plan may be reviewed in an subsequent EIR. Redevelopment Planner stated that any project with major environmental impacts will be reviewed separately from the redevelopment EIR document since it is a blanket, not a specific, document. M/S/C (Koetting/Curtis) recommending certification of the EIR to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council . I April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0313-GPA. Adoption by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a technical appendix to the General Plan Street Plan (JHK report) developing a forecast of traffic growth. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the JHK report "Review of Street System Element of the General Plan" as a technical appendix to the circulation element of the General Plan. Planning Director stated that the document had been in development for two years and discussed during several study sessions, that the JHK firm is a computer traffic forecasting firm, and that statistics were taken from the 1978 land use, traffic and population figures to develop a com- puter model forecasting future street traffic patterns in the City. He reviewed the document highlights with the Commission. Traffic Engineer stated that the report was valid and was developed by a reputable firm. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council had recommended a two week continuance for review of the funding mechanism, but since the document will be reviewed by Council, the Council can interact with Indians, and that staff would recommend that it not be continued. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that although the Planning Commission is not involved in financing personal opinions can be given and areas of concern noted to the Council . M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and adopting the JHK report as a technical appendix to the circulation el- erhent of the General Plan. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "In reviewing the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 1984, it was noted that the purpose of adopting the JHK report as a technical appendix to the General Plan Street Plan is to allow the report to serve as the basis for traffic forecasting and possible alterations to the Circulation Element. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council requested that this case be continued to the City Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of May 9, 1984. The Indian Planning Commission has requested additional time to review and comment on the proposed transportation improvements and the sug- gested mechanism for funding the estimated shortfall of some 14.1 mil- lion dollars which must be provided by the City of Palm Springs." April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0314-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to t e eneral Plan Street Plan by deleting Sunny Dunes from Compadre Road to Sunrise Way as a collector/secondary thoroughfare; deleting Cerritos Road from Mesquite Avenue to Camino Parocela as a collector street; and deleting Compadre Road from Mesquite Avenue to Sunny Dunes Road as a collector street, Section 24. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Case 5.0314-GPA. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. In reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the Com- mission should adopt a specific equestrian plan following the alignment of Compadre. He stated that an equity problem might develop regarding the ', Fairchild/Temple properties since the amenities on the Temple project are becoming eliminated. He stated that problems may arise if Mesquite is extended to E1 Cielo, and that the general method would be to wait until a permit is requested but that the easement is on Indian land with no provision for construction of the improvements; and that it would be difficult to obtain the easement because it would disrupt a use and would be costly and possibly have reparation costs. He stated that there is difficulty in the language of the agreement with the Indians and ', it may not be a straight forward easement even though the CUP �✓ requirement is for dedication and installation. He stated that staff recommends that a certain amount of land be given to the equestrian easement along a specific alignment. M/S%C (Koetting/Kaptur) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and ', approving Case 5.0314-GPA per staff recommendations. NOTE: Planning Director stated that a letter had been received from a Dave Brown objecting to the bikepath location 10 feet directly in front of the condominiums in Phase I of the projects. Tribal Council Comment: "In' its consideration of Case 5.0303-PD-153 on December 13, 1983, the Tribal Council had noted that the design of the proposed project involved the deletion of the subject streets from the City's General Plan Street Plan. The Tribal Council withheld final action on that case pending receipt and review of the JHK report (Item No. 1 above) . In the interim, construction of the project was commenced. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council continued action on this case pending com- ments and recommendations from the Indian Planning Commission on the JHK report dated January 1984." April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES planner III distributed the Andreas Cove Country Club EIR (Case 5.0258- PD-145) . Chairman adjourned the meeting to 6:30 p.m. for public input into the Sign Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 5.0281-ZTA-Continued. (Heard at 6:30 p.m. ) Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance and its inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission receive public input on the revised Sign Ordinance and continue the item to the April 25 meet- ing. Chairman stated that public input was welcome and staff would summarize the background of the Sign Ordinance. Planning Director presented the background of revisions to the Sign Ordinance and stated that the task force had spent many months on review ' and revisions with changes in many areas, no discussion in some areas, and debate in some areas, all of which are indicated in the staff draft of January 18, 1984. He stated that the revised ordinance is easier to read and to understand and described the major revisions in areas of non resolution. He stated that ordinance self regulation was not resolved nor was establishment of a sign review board or offsite real estate signs. He stated that staff's recommendation recommends continuance for two weeks to receive input with revisions to be reviewed at the study session of 4/18 with final Commission review on 4/25. He stated that the Ordinance would go the City Council on May 21. Chairman stated that input would be received but that there would be no debating. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign review board concept was considered to expedite the processing of signs and for a fuller review by a board of specialization. Chairman stated that questions would be recorded for review at the end of the public testimony. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Gattuso, 119 S. Indian Avenue, stated that the sign review board con- cept was reviewed by the Sign Ordinance Task Force and parameters were established, i.e. five person board, established by the City Council with two 2-year terms with review by the AAC, Planning Commission and City Council -if appealed. She stated that signs to be reviewed would not be on new development or construction, and the intent would be to alleviate the lengthy meetings and expedite the process. She noted that i April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT ES Page 15 5.0281-ZTA. (Continued) there are some unexplored and some unresolved areas such as gasoline rate signs, that the task force felt that the sign review board concept should be considered. Chairman stated that gasoline rates signs should be reviewed. In response to Commission question, Mrs. Gattuso stated that areas of review which are not addressed well in the current sign ordinance included cards in merchant windows, and self-regulation of the sign ordinance. In response to Commission question, Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that regulation of interior signs and signs affixed to the window is discretionary; and that he had urged the task force to develop wording for enforcement but that the problem was never resolved by staff or the task force; and that feelings of persons in the audience regarding this should be heard. He stated that regulation of political signs is in the present ordinance and that there was no precedent setting case regarding signs in windows. Discussion followed on the problem of determining the time that an advertisement becomes a sign. Discussion ensued on real estate sales signs. Zoning Enforcement Offi- cer stated that real estate signs have a definite size and distance for i placement. In response to Commission question, Mrs. Gattuso stated that a member of the task force recommended that a certain percentage of window space be allocated and limited to a certain number of signs. She stated that a motion regulating size and placement of the signs did not receive a second at the task force meeting. R. Bertrand, 700 N. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that he felt that there should be not be political signs (except for campaign headquarters) cluttering the City. He stated that a banner concept was appropriate. Assistant City Attorney stated that he was not familiar with any state law regarding political signs but there was a wealth of case law stating what could or could not be done. Chairman suggested that the Assistant City Attorney review political signage before the April 25 meeting. Dr. Bertrand stated that vehicle signs cannot be regulated because vehi- cles are personal property. L. Best, leasing agent, requested that lease signs for new buildings and construction be given the same consideration as trade construction signs which can be 32 sq. ft. , since he felt visibility of leasing signs for drivers would bring business to the community. He stated also that major tenants in a complex should be allowed free standing monument signing. In reply to Chairman' s question, he stated that the sign could be incorporated into the main sign or separate. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 5.0281-ZTA. (Continued) Miss S. Yavitz, Project Manager for Carver Companies, requested that larger lease potential signs be allowed with this type of signing allowed before certificate of occupancies are issued. She stated also that she felt leasing available signs for building pads that had been sold should be allowed. She requested a resolution to the question of whether or not "leased" means "occupied". J. Stiles of Smoke Tree Realty, 1130 Deepwell Road, requested that larger but fewer leasing signs be allowed. He stated that there is little signage on the Ralph's shopping center on South Palm Canyon Drive because of the window configuration, but the lack of signage has had a negative impact on space leasing in the complex. He stated that a sin- gle large sign would not be readily visible from behind to a prospective customer and a more viable solution would be to have a few large signs in the store fronts. C. Huff, 1700 Tamarisk, stated that offsite real estate signs encourage lookers not buyers since qualified buyers are most often found through media advertising. He stated that a proliferation of real estate signs causes ineffective monitoring and maintenance, and suggested striking the paragraph regarding real estate signing for multi-unit condominium complexes. D. MacDonald of the Monkey Tree Hotel, Racquet Club Road, stated that "Vacancy/No vacancy" signs destroy the character of a main sign and requested that these signs at a certain size be allowed in office win- dows rather than on the main sign post. He also requested double-faced hotel main identification signs for more motorist visibility and less disruption of the aesthetics of the community. Miss P. Marshall, 187 S. Palm Canyon, owner of Nature's Own, requested that there be clarification as to placement for non-profit organizations of posters and other non-self-serving signs in merchant's windows. L. Hart, Imperial Signs, Indio, requested that computerized reader boards be reviewed. He stated that the older reader boards with plastic letters invite vandalism and that the plastic letters are blown away by the wind. He stated that the tram has been interested in a computer reader board signing. He also stated that the City should review expediting the appeal process so that businessmen are less affected by sign approval , and that it is impossible to please everyone's aesthetic taste in signing. In reply to Commission question, he stated that a one-day appeal process would be preferable. Commissioner Koetting remarked that 90 percent of the signs are reviewed by staff only and that the Commission receives only a very small percentage. In response to Commission question, Mr. Hart stated that moving or non- moving computer signs would be allowed at the discretion of the City but are more aesthetic than the "theater marquee" type of signage. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the sign approval process is usually three days and that a restudy is a polite way of denying a sign without the applicants' paying another fee. I I , April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 5.0281-ZTA. (Continued) Mr. Hart stated that sometimes signs are delayed several times which may mean that the businessman may not have a sign for several months. He stated he realized that the Planning Commission cared about the appearance of the City. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Discussion ensued on areas of concern noted by the public, including interior signs, real estate signs, signs in multi-unit complexes, political signs, and double-faced signage. Chairman suggested that the concerns be identified and discussed at the April 18 study session. In response to Commission question, Mrs. Gattuso stated that amortiza- tion does not provide for compensation when signs are abated. Planning Director stated that a bill -in the State Senate regarding amortization did not pass in its original form since it now states that a City with an amortization schedule can maintain it. Mrs. Gattuso stated that the ordinance does not provide variance provi- sions and requested that the amortization schedule be studied further. Planning Director stated that in comparison to 1967 when the amortiza- tion schedule was formulated there were several thousand non-conforming signs but there are very few at that present time in the City. Mrs. Gattuso stated that temporary signs should be issued, and improve- ment or refurbishing of the old be required before issuance of a new sign permit. Discussion followed on the size of commercial leasing signs versus trade construction signs. Commissioner Koetting stated that the size require- ment is inequitable. He stated also that pole signs should not be allowed since the City is becoming more oriented toward monument signs. Commissioner Kaptur stated that decisions will have to be made regarding the ordinance. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission is concerned with mitiga- tion of abuses of the Sign Ordinance, and understanding is needed from everyone involved. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that some applicants are frustrated when given no direction on signing and that within the City process there should be a determination that more direction be given. Chairman stated that two different concepts are in opposition - some applicants feel that the City should give more help in designing signs; and some feel that the City gives too much`' �irection. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the Planning Commission reviews only signs of over 30 sq. feet or that are controversial; and that these types of signs already have problems when they reach the Commission. He thanked the people in the audience for participating and stated that the proposed ordinance is easier to enforce than the current one. April 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 5.0281-ZTA. (Continued) Chairman reminded the audience and staff that the Commission would �.✓ review the Sign Ordinance further at the April 18 study session. I'I M/S/C (Koetting/Curtis) continuing the Sign Ordinance review to the April 25 meeting. NOTE: Planning Commission will review the Sign Ordinance at a study session on April 18 in the Small Conference Room in City Hall from 3 j p.m. to 5 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Planning it ctor MDR/ml ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 25, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Planning Commission Present Pres xcused Absences This_ Meeting eting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X Hugh Curtis X 17 2 Hugh Kaptur X 17 2 Peter Koetting X 16 3 Don Lawrence X 17 2 Paul Madsen 18 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 17 2 18 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 Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - April 23, 1984 . James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Hugh Curtis Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m, Minutes of April 11, 1984, were approved as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES Chairman, in recognition of National Secretary's Week, thanked the secretarial staff for work performed for the Planning Commission. •