Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/04/25 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 25, 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 17 2 Hugh Curtis X 17 2 Hugh Kaptur X 16 3 Peter Koetting X 17 2 Don Lawrence X 18 1 Paul Madsen - 17 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 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. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.0281-ZTA-Continued. 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 .) Recommendation: That the case be continued to May 9 for a staff report incorporating Commission and public input. Planning Director gave a brief history of revisions to the Sign Ordi- nance (by the Sign Ordinance Task Force, staff and from public input) . He stated that there were several unresolved issues and to allow further review staff would recommend that the Ordinance be continued to May 9. He stated that both the Sign Task Force draft and the staff legislative draft would be presented to the Council for its review. He noted in reply to a Commission question regarding a letter received from the Palm Springs Merchants and Citizens Association that some merchants probably had been involved in the task force and that the concerns of this group regarding clarity of the Ordinance would be reviewed by staff and mem- bers of the group, although the "readability" of the documents seems to be reasonable to staff. Chairman stated that if the Commission can arrive at a consensus, staff would develop wording for review at the May 9 meeting. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Greenbaum, 700 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, Suite D, read a letter from R. Rothman, a realtor and a member of the task force (who was not able to be present) who stated that the Board of Realtors supported the task force recommendations in their entirety and requested relief in "open house" signs for properties not visible from the public right-of-way such as multi-tenanted complexes. He stated that off-site signs for a multi-tenanted complex should not be considered off-site, since the con- dominium owner owns a portion of the open space and requested inclusion of Paragraph 9320.073(g) in the Ordinance. Mrs. M. Perlin, 527 S. Indian; and Mrs. S. Cooney, realtors, stated that they supported the task force recommendations in their entirety. R. Flavin, member of the Board of Realtors, stated that he concurred with Mr. Rothman regarding off-site real estate signs for multi-tenanted projects to create equity in signing. L. Allen, 700 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Suite E, Realtor, stated that "open house" signs attract persons driving by, that large construction signs on new development are a "kind" of open house sign and that the ordinance discriminates against condominium owners behind closed gates. D. Kendzie, Executive Director of the Board of Realtors, Mrs. Florence Brandman, 520 S. Indian Avenue; and J. Miller, 125 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Realtors, stated that they all agreed with Mr. Rothman's letter. H. Untermeyer, realtor of Phase Canyon Estates, stated that sin le- family residences on cul-de-sacs should be allowed dual signing one sign sign should front on the nearest street and one on the property) . April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) L. Hart, 2800 Golf Club Drive of Imperial Signs, asked that the Commis- sion consider a single step approval for signs; that the amortization/ reimbursement of signs should be addressed; requested that attraction board changes be allowed on a 24 or 48 hour time frame on computerized attraction boards. Chairman stated that the Commission was reviewing changing computer boards at 15 minute intervals, that there is nothing in the ordinance prohibiting reader boards, and that there are allowances for marquees on hotels, theaters and nightclubs in the Ordinance. He stated that the Ordinance prohibited selling time on the boards to another business, and j that time and temperature modules are prohibited. He stated that lan- guage for prohibition of time and temperature modules will be clarified in the Ordinance. Mr. Hart requested a reduction to 50 feet between entrances for open/ closed signs and also requested that multi-colors be considered for signs. He also requested allowance of dual-faced or multi-faced signs subject to strict criteria. He asked that the Commission consider signs incorporated into the architecture of new buildings` and some provisions made for signing on existing buildings. He stated that when the com- munity reached a certain size controls begin to break down and that perhaps this is happening to Palm Springs. He requested that the needs of the businessman in a fast-paced society be considered regarding sign- ing. There being no futher appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman summarized Commission concerns as follows: - Whether or not to have a Sign Review Board. - Off-site real estate directional signs. - Definition of signs (what is a sign?) . - Clarification of language regarding signs attached to windows. - Enforcement problems on public event or public promotion signs. - Lease signs. - Reader board/computer signs (interval for changes in the face). - Banners. - Political signs. Discussion followed on the Sign Review Board concept. Zoning Enforcment Otticer stated tha it is another layer in the governmental process. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the AAC has the required expertise, that the Planning Commission should have control of signing and that the present system works well. Planning Director noted that the task force requested that the Commission address the concept of a self-regulating Sign Ordinance. In response to Commission question, Chairman stated that the Commission cannot involve itself in promoting additional per- April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) sonnel in a department. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that most signs are reviewed at staff level. Consensus: That the Sign Review Board concept not be placed in the Ordinance (Commission felt that the current review process is valid) . Chairman stated that the Comission is not trying to encumber the process but is attempting to protect the aesthetics of the City. Discussion ensued on off-site "open house" signs. Chairman stated that some realtors feel that an off-site sign on a condominium property is not technically off-site since condominium owners own a portion of the open space, but it is a hair-splitting distinction. He stated that other realtors feel that an inequity would be created regarding signs for single-family homes not visible from the street. He stated that he did not support the concept of off-site signing for condominiums since it will lead to sign proliferation and difficult enforcement and that the Sin Ordinance g a ce is not in conflict with itself regarding this con- cept. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that off-site signing should be allowed and provisions for controls placed in the Ordinance. Commission Lawrence stated that real estate arrows should be considered with direction on placement and removal and a sunset clause provision for a year trial period. Chairman stated that an inequity would occur for single-family homes with this concept. Planning Director stated that wording could be added to 93207.3(g) as follows: After "per com- plex". . . Add: Units having no street frontages on public streets shall have one directional sign located at the main entrance. Chairman reiterated that signing should be equal . Commissioner Kaptur stated that property not situated on a major thoroughfare should have a sign on the closest through street. Planning Director stated that in theory many neighborhoods are designed to prevent through traffic, that these neighborhoods would require more signing if the concept were approved. He suggested that the final form be reviewed at the May 9 meeting, and that the way the Ordinance is written will allow enforcement, but if realtor arrows are allowed enforcement will be a problem because of proliferation of signs. Com- missioner Koetting suggested allowing signs on Saturday and Sunday, that a sunset clause could be initiated to test the concept, and that only one off-site sign should be allowed. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the off-site sign be allowed only when a realtor is present on the premises. Commissioner Koetting added that one sign should be allowed on the condominium itself. No Consensus: (3 dissented - Curtis, Apfelbaum, Service) that one off- site arrow "open house" sign be allowed and one ":for sale" sign be allowed on the property (if a real estate person is on-site) with the signing to be removed when the real estate person leaves the premises, and a trial period of one year (to be ended with a sunset clause) . Discussion ensued regarding leasing signs. Chairman stated that con- cerns were noted at a study session and a consensus was reached that leasing signs be allowed provided leasing and construction signs during construction periods are incorporated into one sign. Commissioner Koetting stated that consensus was reached whereby a 32 square foot leasing sign on each street frontage could also be provided. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) Consensus: That lease signs should be 32 square feet provided that leasing and construction signs during construction periods be incorpo- rated into one sign and that one sign be allowed on each frontage. Discussion ensued on computer reader boards. Commissioner Kaptur sug- gested a time interval of 15 minutes for changes to the sign. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the size of reader board is based on the number of hotel units. i Consensus: That reader boards be allowed according to allowable size and allowed to change faces no more than every 15 minutes. Discussion ensued on signs attached to windows. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that enforcement is difficult, that anything attached to the window except for small convenience signs such as credit card sign- ing wasnotlegal . Chairman stated that the issue of "what is a sign?" should be resolved. Commissioner Lawrence stated that a menu (which would be allowed under the proposed ordinance) advertises goods; there- fore other businesses such as realtors or jewelry stores, etc. should be allowed signs to sell their "goods". Zoning Enforcment Officer stated that a menu board is an accustomed convenience in the opinion of the task force. Commissioner Koetting stated that credit card signs are proliferating in the City. Zoning Enforcement Officer noted that credit cards are not allowed currently but are proliferating. Commissioner Kaptur noted that two square feet would be allowed on a window in which the merchant can place any information he wants. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that abatement of current signing in this regard would not be a problem. Commissioner Curtis stated that the biggest problem is enforcement and a definitive statement should be made on what is legal and what is not. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that currently the Ordinance defines anything three feet from the window with the exception of merchandising as a sign. Planning Director suggested that a "recipe" be developed on placement of signs in relationship to the window. Commissioner Kaptur stated that it was difficult to enforce the ordinance in interior spaces. Planning Director stated that criteria would be developed by staff regarding placement of signage beyond a cer- tain depth. Consensus: That signage on a window be two square feet to include credit cards, open/closed signs and hours of business and other small convenience signs. Discussion ensued on provisions for banners. Planning Director said that banners are regulated under "special permits" and are reviewed by the City Council which has not approved banners for several years because the list of organizations wishing to have banners became too lengthy and that staff would recommend a use-related rather than an event-related banners. Consensus: Provisions for banners should remain as they are written in the ordinance. i Discussion ensued on political signs. Planning Director stated that political signs can be five square feet. Assistant City Attorney stated that the City could not prohibit political signs and that any sign making a political statement is a political sign but they can be regu- April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) lated if serving a legitimate governmental interest. Planning Director stated that cash bonding had not been required for five years and the provision will be removed from the Ordinance. He stated also that the sections regarding "location in the public right-of-way", or "affixed to trees" and the section on "removal" will also be deleted. Chairman continued the case to the May 9 meeting. CASE 5.0308-PD-155. Application by C. DUNHAM for Planning Commission con- sideration of certification of the final Environmental Impact Report and approval of preliminary development plans for a Planned Development Dis- trict for a hillside development of 9-single family lots for land sale purposes west of South Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 Zones (I.L. ) , Section 34. and TPM 16495 (Revised) . Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for C. Dunham for a combination of parcels on South Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 Zones (I.L. ) , Section 34. (Reference Case 5.0308-PD-155.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission give preliminary approval to the project, recommend certification of the EIR, and approve Tenta- tive Parcel Map 16495. Planning Director stated that the applicant and the Tribal Council are seeking a two-week continuance, but that there are people in the audi- ence wishing to provide input. He stated that these comments could be reviewed and a report given at the next meeting. In response to Chairman's question, Planner III stated that the appli- cant wished to meet with the attorney for the homeowners association of Canyon Vista for an agreement to be reached on conditions or a redesign of the project. He stated that there are minor changes in the project addressing mitigative measures to insure privacy and preserve view cor- ridors. Chairman stated that there are grounds to continue, but that audience input would be taken. Planner III stated that the original project had been approved by the Commission and denied by the Council. He presented the staff report and stated that the staff was in agreement with the AAC conditions and that the only construction would be the roadway and utilities with lot con- struction on hillside areas controlled by strict CC&Rs. He stated that colors have not been selected but that earth tones have been suggested. In response to Commission question, he stated that some lots overlook private pool areas in the Vista Canyon complex. He described the con- figuration of the lots and stated that there was a possibility that Lot #1 could be moved slightly so that there would be no ridgeline condi- tion. Chairman declared the hearing open. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 TPM 16495 (Continued) C. Dunham, 333 Vereda Norte, stated that his map was submitted before escrows closed on Vista Canyon and that he had cooperated with the Vista Canyon homeowners association and with Cahuilla homeowners by deleting two lots and eliminating access from Cahuilla Hills. He stated that a two-week continuance would allow him to meet with the homeowners to resolve problems, but that there had been no secret that his project was in progress, and that the developers were notified by the City. He stated that he was defending himself against the homeowners for a property that is his right to develop; and that the lots are estate size lots, will have AAC review and there will be no lot grading. He stated that he will adhere to City conditions and that he would try once more to resolve differences during the two-week continuance. F. Breswine of Riverside, a prospective purchaser in the Vista Canyon project, stated that the Dunham project may affect his privacy because of its close proximity and the height of the lots. He requested the name of the attorney for Vista Canyon. Ms. E. Watson, attorney representing Vista Canyon Homeowners Associa- tion, stated that she was requesting a continuance which had already been requested by Mr. Dunham because she had received late notice of the meeting and wished to meet with her clients and Mr. Dunham regarding concerns. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Madsen absent) continuing the case and map to May 9. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS (Applicable to both PD-155 and TPM 16495. ) : "It was noted that a previous application for a Planned Development District (Case 5.0136-PS-111) on the subject properties was considered by the Tribal Council, City Planning Commission and the City Council in 1982. The Tribal Council conditionally approved the project on October 12, 1982. Subsequent action by the City Planning Commission to recom- mend approval of the Project was overruled by the City Council and the application was denied. Planning application has been resubmitted in essentially the same form, the primary changes involve the relocation of the access roadway and the elimination of two (2) lots. In view of concerns and actions taken on the previous application, and 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 next regularly scheduled meeting of May 9. The continuance is to provide additional time for the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant to: 1. Review the file on previous Case 5.0136-PD-111, including the draft EIR. 2. Give further consideration to the proposed transfer of density from an R-2 Zone (14-15 D.U./Acre) to an 0-20 Zone (1 D.U./20 Acre) from the standpoint of consistency with the intent of the City's General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 TPM 16495 (Continued) 3. The comments and the Tribal Council 's request for continuance as noted above, also apply to TPM 16495. " CASE 5.0243-CZ. Application by J. WESSMAN for a change of zone from R-G-A(8) Garden Apartments, 8 du/acre) to C-1 (Commercial) for property on Sun- rise Way between Ramon Road/Sunny Dunes Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 23. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the change of zone from R-G-A(8) to C-1. Planner III presented the staff report. He stated the main reason to deny the request was the significant increases in traffic counts. He stated that there had been an Indian Zone change in 1982 and the property west of Alpha Beta was denied rezoning by the Commission but approved by the City Council for a C-1 Zone; and that the land will be difficult to develop since it is a long narrow lot. J. Wessman, 72200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, the applicant, stated that his original zone change application had been approved by the Commission but changed to Professional Zoning by the Council; and that he had with- drawn the application. He stated that the traffic figures were in error since only 30,000 sq. ft. of the property will be commercial , therefore reducing traffic by half and that he had discussed the proposal with the neighbors and found no objections. He stated that 50% of the C-1 land is not developed, and that is why the City Council wants to have Profes- sional Zoning. He stated that if there were a need for "Professional" development, it would have been developed; and that his plans will be for a mixed-use development of retail on the ground floor and offices on the second floor. He stated that the project would be of high quality, and he felt that the City should view it favorably. He stated that he could not develop the property unless he received the zoning he needed. In response to Commission question, he stated that he thought a change of zone was necessary to initiate a General Plan Amendment, that he needed more expanded uses than the Professional zoning allows, and that the project would relate to neighborhood uses. He stated also that the project denied by the Council was a mixed-use project. Chairman stated that what was voted upon was Professional office uses with limited com- mercial uses. Discussion ensued on the action on the original project. Planning Director stated that the previous recommendation was to change the medium density designation to commercial and the Council denied the change. Mr. Wessman stated that the proposed center would be a mixed- use project such as dry cleaning establishments, dress shops, etc. He stated also that he would like to have a gourmet mini-market, but that the use was not valid on the particular property. Planning Director stated that in July of 1979, the Commission recom- mended a General Plan change to commercial and the Council felt commer- cial was inappropriate but approved a Professional designation, but no approval was given for a change of zone opting instead for a Planned Development District and that within the last few weeks the application was amended to a request for a change of zone from P to C-1. He described the various applications submitted by the applicant, stated that the applicant had always wanted a mixed-use type of development on April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0243-CZ (Continued) the property, and that staff would suggest that a mixed-use development be consistent with the "P" underlying zone. Mr. Wessman stated that a mixed use would be a solution to the proper development of the corner. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a specialty shopping center would be the best use of the property, and that he would recommend concurring with the Planning Commission decision of five years ago and send the action on to the Council . Commissioner Lawrence stated that the traffic would be less than staff statistics indicated, since the square footage of commercial would be reduced and that he concurred with Commissioner Kaptur. Commissioner Apfelbaum stating that she would like to see new figures from staff on recalculations of the floor space. Planning Director stated that the Commission could continue the application pending an amendment to the General Plan to Commercial unless Commission found that the mixed use was compatible with land use on the General Plan (which is not recommended by staff) . He stated that the General Plan text does not indicate specialty retail on the property. Commissioner Curtis stated that the project would be viable on that par- ticular corner and that the applicant develops good projects. Discussion followed on the possibility of taking action on a PD. Chair- man stated that the Commission could change the application to a PD and proceed for an environmental assessment based on the PD application. M/S (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Madsen absent) approving a PD in lieu of a change of zone for mixed uses and finding mixed-uses on the property consistent with the General Plan. Discussion followed on whether or not the above action would be legal and the types of uses that could be allowed. Mr. Wessman stated that the motion was similar to what he had already received from the Council but that he wanted more expanded uses and requested a change in the General Plan to Commercial for legality and to allow him to build under a PD. Assistant City Attorney stated that if the proposed use is not con- sistent with the General Plan, the General Plan would require changing and if the underlying zoning is residential , it is necessary for a change of zone. He stated that the Commission cannot completely depart from the zoning. Commissioner Lawrence withdrew his motion with consent of seconder. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Madsen absent) to continue the application to July for initiation of a General Plan Amendment. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS W. Kleindienst, 3963 Calle San Antonio, stated that the Commission had not wanted a gas station use with a convenience market in the past and that there was a change in marketing attitudes indicated in a document which he would distribute for Commission information and further judg- ment. W. McGill, 668 Bedford Drive, requested that blowsand from the Temple Project be abated since it is inundating his home, yard, and cars. He requested action from the Commission to have the project planted or other measures taken. Chairman stated that the Commission would direct staff to investigate conditions on the property. 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. RECONSIDERATION-SIGN APPLICATION. Request by J. WARREN for Planning Commis- sion reconsideration of interior lighted main identification sign for business on East Arenas Road (former Aaron Bros. location) , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained, Vice Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that the application is being requested for reconsideraiton of the AAC recommended and Planning Commission approved conditions. J. Warren, the applicant of Mages Sporting Goods, stated that the sign- ing has been reduced from Mages Sporting Goods to Mages Sports Arena since the business is on Arenas Road and will have an "arena" theme. He stated that the letters will be on a concrete wall. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the canopy would be blocking the sign and that the applicant will be asking for another change because people cannot see it. He stated that the awning should be removed. Zoning Enforcement Officer noted that the awning should stay as dis- cussed with applicant who is aware that the sign is not visible from certain views, and that the applicant can have a pedestrian sign. He stated that the signing proposed (backlit channel letters against the stucco wall) could be the new alternate sign program for the complex. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he did not like to see changing the original but the business needs a sign and the canopy was not strong enough to support the letters. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 RECONSIDERATION-SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Service abstained; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That 12" channel let- ters located under the quadrafoil be used in one continuous line. Commissioner Curtis stated that he had voted against the proposal at the AAC meeting but voted in favor at the Planning Commission meeting because the landlord is the problem, not the tenant. He stated that the j landlord does not want to develop a good sign program and leaves the tenant in limbo. Commissioner Koetting stated that the landlord should be aware that the sign approval is the prototype for a new sign program. CASE 3.089. Application by R. HARRISON for D. Williams for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for industrial building at Gene Autry Trail/Sunny Dunes Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the mass of the pilaster be increased to 30" throughout. 2. That the parapet be revised as noted on the plans. 3. That working drawings of the fascia be submitted. 4. That street landscaping conform with the Commission approved plan for Gene Autry Trail. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.669. Application by A. CRIST for architectural approval of a single- fa mi y hillside residence on Vista Drive between Via Lavornia/Via Olivera, R-1-C Zone, Section 3. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 2. That the front yard be retained as a natural landscape area. 3. That details of sun control on the south and east elevations be submitted with working drawings for AAC and Commission approval . 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CONSENT AGENDA M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Madsen absent) taking the following actions for items on the agenda. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. NELSON for W. Sessoyeff for architectural approval of canvas awning and painted sign for business at 1068 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Condition: Approved as submitted. i SIGN APPLICATION. Application by A. SPIERINGS for architectural approval of awning and sign for restaurant at 641 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That a 20-inch non-scalloped valance be used and that the second awning over the parking lot entry is denied. 2. That the colors be submitted for staff approval. CASE 1.514. Application by R. GREGORY for T. STYKES for architectural approval of final landscape plans for single-family hillside residence at 2321 Araby Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That desert landscaping be utilized in the front yard adjacent to the retaining wall. (Details shall be submitted for staff approval . ) 2. That staff examine the palm trees located in the rear yard and report to the AAC if significant concern exists. (The concern is view blockage from the neighbors and a commitment to the adjacent property owners to not obstruct views significantly as well as safety related to utility lines. ) CASE 5.0128-PD-107. Application by DESERT ISLE ASSOC. for architectural approval of second story office addition to hotel/time share complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 25. (Reference Case 5.0128-PD-107.) Restudy. The AAC felt the proposed office building was inappropriate as it was designed. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 3.676. Application by SHELL OIL COMPANY for architectural approval of addition to gasoline station at 2696 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Restudy noting the following: 1. That a design sympathetic to the building be explored. 2. That the applicant provide photos of the existing facility. Chairman left the meeting; Vice Chairman presided. TTM 17260 (Revised) . Application by WAGNER STANFORD CONSULTANTS for Heltzer Enterprises for tentative tract map for condominium purposes on Golf Club Drive, north of Highway 111, R-3 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 29. (Refer- ence Case 3.645. ) Environmental Assessment previously given in conjunction with the origi- nal map. 'i Planner III stated that staff would recommend two additional conditions in response to a request from Cathedral City as follows: 1. A street overlay of nine feet on approximately 200 to 300 feet of �- roadway to provid e a 29 to 30 foot acc ess. 2. A minimum 10 foot setback in the phase lines to improvements in Phase I and lot line adjustments as the map proceeds. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen, Service absent) approving TTM 17260 (Revised) subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and the two additional conditions as stated above. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: TTM 17260 was previously considered and approved by the Tribal Counci in connection with Case 3.645. City staff has noted that the map is being revised to conform with the approved site plan. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0312-B-(MISC. ) . Commission review of application by WINDUSTRIES for a change of zone from W-2 to W-E for property and approval of the project application (south of I-10, east of West Garnet) in the sphere of influ- ence. Planner III described the proposal on the display board and stated that the turbines will be approximately 100 feet high. He stated that the applicant is also requesting a zone change to a wind energy zone; if the zone change is granted more turbines will be allowed; and that the applicant is requesting two motions. Chairman returned to the meeting. Planner III stated that changing the colors of the turbines to desert tones would be difficult according to the applicant. No noted that there are many wind energy projects in the approval process along the Southern Pacific Railroad of which this project is one, and that setback requirements on the project are being met. Commissioner Koetting requested that the applicant explained bonding for removal of the turbines. S. Blake of Burlington, Iowa, stated that a bond will be provided in the amount of $100 for removal of the concrete; and that the above ground structures will be removed by scavengers for their value. Commissioner Kbetting stated that he was afraid that that would be the answer, but he had assumed that the applicant would remove it. Mr. Blake stated that the County has not involved itself with the issue of removal, but the land owner wants the structures removed if they deteri- orate and that the County is operating under the same philosophy. He stated that there is 10 year guarantee on his machinery and that a positive evolution is occuring in the industry. He stated that the ultimate development will continue. Commissioner Lawrence remarked that the investor has nothing to lose and that the City and County could have nothing but steel structures. In reply to commission comment regarding the small amount of cash bond- ing, Mr. Blake stated that removal costs are low on his machinery because there are screw anchors holding the structures to the concrete. He stated that the wind turbines manufactured by his company would oper- ate in 40 to 50 mph winds because there is a blade feathering mecha- nisim. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence; Kaptur, Apfelbaum dissenting; Madsen absent) recommending approval of the project application and zone change with the recommendation to the County to increase the bonding for removal of the structures if the project is abandoned. CommissionerKaptur stated he dissented becaused the wind turbines are inpacting the desert scenic corridors. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she felt that the turbines were in too close a proximity to the town of West Garnet. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0312-B (Continued) Planning Director explainedthat the motion included the approval of the application and the zone change. Planner III stated that Mr. Blake would be attending a future study session as the representative of the wind industry since he has been in the industry for many years. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. F. Temple for architec- tural approval of final development plans for Phase III for golf course/condominium project at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C and W-R-1- C Zones, Section 24. Planner II presented the project on the display board. He stated that the setbacks have been reduced to 10 feet between the columns and the structure that were originally approved at 20 to 25 feet; and that some j of the stand of Palo Verde trees have been removed. He stated that the applicant has indicated a tree restoration program will be submitted to the Commission; and that the Director of Community Development has indi- cated that the 10 foot setback is acceptable as far as staff is con- cerned. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the setback was not acceptable. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, stated that a wall would separate the Church parking lot from the condominiums. He stated that there are existing trees which have become a problem regarding setback requirements. Chairman stated that the tree situation was known at the onset of the project. Mr. Mills stated that the only trees that were removed were dead and removed under the direction of a landscape architect. Discussion followed on the condition of the trees. Mr. Mills stated that nothing was removed that was living. Planner III dissented. Mr. Mills noted that he did not have the tree survey when the plan was laid out; that the plan was changed against the configuration of the golf course and that the 10 foot setback between the buildings is from balcony to balcony not building to building. He stated that the same situation occurs on the west property line and that the Director of Com- munity has indicated that there was no problem with the reduced setback. Planning Director in response to Commission question stated that pads can vary, but that the concerns of staff are that the project is out of control to a degree. He stated that staff finds out about revisions after they have happened. He noted that the biggest problem is the inflexibility of having 600 units, and that the architect could remove some of them to obtain the required setbacks. He stated that staff had overlooked the 10 foot setback change at the April 11 meeting because of inadequate time to review. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) Discussion followed on action regarding setbacks. Planner III stated that the architect could revise the buildings, and Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the Commission insists on meeting code requirements, some units would be lost. Planner III stated that the wall does not have the depth of the other walls since it was changed in response to the site change. Mr. Mills stated that he had called the project site to see about the complaint received from Mr. McGill (at the meeting) regarding blowsand; that every fire hydrant is metered for project use, that the pond in the wash has been used and is now dry; and at Site 4, sprinklers are installed for operation on 4-26 at 6 a.m. Chairman stated that area was bladed weeks ago, and the applicant is making an enemy of the neighbors. Mr. Mills stated that the applicant will help the gentleman who had a complaint regarding blowsand. Planning Director stated that the applicant will help the man who had complained and staff will check the streets for cleanliness. Mr. Mills stated that no amount of water will help at this time of the year and that the grass needs to grow and be irrigated to keep the dust down. Planning Director stated that the time of year was something that had already been discussed by the Commission. He stated that the plan on the board what was approved by the Commission but the staff had not had time to review the plans totally to check their compliance with the preliminaries and that there are two areas of deviation regarding set- backs which the Director of Community Development has approved. He stated that the plans were presented to apprise the Commission of the situation. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission is approving the project too fast. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the developer had promised to change anything the Commission did not like; and that the buildings should be moved to the required setback. Mr. Mills stated that in defense of the applicant the setbacks from the street are twice and three times the required distance, that reducing the setback against the parking lot is more sensible than "cramming" the structures on the street. Commissioner Kaptur stated that Mr. Mills was correct but the plans should be presented at the beginning for Commission reaction and that the project is being built before preliminary plans are submitted. Chairman stated that he was very offended by the applicant's not follow- ing the plan, but that the ten foot area would not be used for any use. He stated that the Commission is saving trees, and that the Commission continues to be offended by the way the project is proceeding. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) i� Mr. Mills stated that Site 4 plans will be presented before anything is constructed. Commissioner Koetting requested that the developer come to the Commis- sion at the next meeting and explain what is happening on the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Lawrence to approve the final develop- ment plans subject to conditions; the motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he would like to have the project con- tinued to apprise the developer of the Commission's concern. Planning Director stated that the flow of information has stopped because with approvals being given by the Commission, the impetus from the developer to finish everything has stopped. M/S (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Madsen absent) to continue the application to May 9. The vote was as follows: AYES: Apfelbaum, Kaptur, Service NOES: Curtis, Lawrence, Koetting `—' ABSENT: Madsen There was a tie vote; therefore no action was taken. Mr. Mills stated that future plans will not be presented in the same manner as previous plans had been. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Madsen absent; Koetting dissented) approving plans for Phase 3 subject to the following conditions: 1. That final grading plan for Phase 3 is approved as submitted. 2. A ten-foot setback to property line is approved on the west property line. 3. That the minimum setback between buildings is approved. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Mr. Mills stated that he would discuss the Commission's concerns with the developer. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-C-(MISC. ) . Commission review of application by W. ADAMS for a change of zone for wind machines on Whitewater Hill , north of Interstate 10, west of Highway 62 in the sphere of influence. Planner III stated that the proposal will set a precedent on land use decisions and staff recommends that three times the height of the tur- bine setback east of the property line be required to protect single- family residences. He stated that staff would recommend denial of the proposed application and that the applicant has filed a lawsuit against the City because of the City/County suit which he indicates has resulted in a $1.5 million loss to him on delay of his project. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) recommending denial to the City Council of the requested zone change. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) RECONSIDERATION-SECURITY GATES (CASE 3.474) . Request by SMOKETREE RACQUET CLUB HOA for reconsideration of security gates for Smoketree Racquet Club located at 1655 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26. Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Madsen absent) for a restudy of the following cases: CASE 3.672 (Minor) . Application by C. HARRISON for Worldwide Group for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for exterior remodel at 1900 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Restudy noting that the proposed changes did not enhance the building and suggesting that the applicant consider a minor remodel incorporating structural corrections and repainting of the building. CASE 3.677. Application by I. DAMPF for architectural approval of single- family residence at 2301 Araby Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 25. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the garage doors be recessed into the door jambs by increas- ing the mass. 2. That the eastern elevation be revised, whereby the guest house and arch are recessed a minimum of two feet from the plane of the garage doors. 3. That the pitched roof element on the north elevation be pitched back whereby it becomes flush with the building (change in overhan on the ends) . April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 3.677 (Continued) 4. That matching tile roofs materials be used with 60 percent exposed mortar. 5. That working drawings be submitted for AAC/PC approval. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) ADDED STARTER - DISCUSSION. Planning Commission consideration of request to amend the Oasis Redevelopment Project Area. (Case 5.0252-D-MISC. ) Redevelopment Planner stated that the legal standing of the applicant is somewhat less since the applicant has requested deletion of the prop- erty; and that staff feels there is no specific reason for the request. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Madsen absent) approving the request to amend the Oasis Redevelopment Project Area. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.243. Application by ROSE GARDEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for architec- tural approval of revised landscape plans for condominium complex on Tiffany Circle, R-G-A(8) Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that the landscape architect who has walked the site indicates that the landscape materials are overplanted and some should be removed since the trees are crowded and stunting each other's growth and should be larger than they are. He stated that one owner has objected to the removal of the trees. I. ! M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to supervision of tree removal by the landscape architect of record. CASE 3.680. Application by DANSK/WESTAR ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of retail building on North Palm Canyon Drive between Racquet Club Road/Cortez Road, PD-136, Section 3. M/S/C (Curti s/A felbaum; Koetting abstained; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to t following pp � he of owing condtions: 1. That the property line wall be removed in order that the curved portion of the building be exposed to Palm Canyon Drive. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the minor wing wall that encroaches into the right-of-way be eliminated. 4. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved. April 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 3.681 (Minor). Application by B. WEIN for architectural approval of awning for business at 160 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That a curved awning be used as submitted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Planning ire for MDR/ml WP/PC MIN 2