Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/05/09 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 9, 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 18 2 Hugh Curtis X 18 2 Hugh Kaptur X 17 3 Peter Koetting X 18 2 Don Lawrence X 19 1 Paul Madsen X 18 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 19 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director 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 - May 7, 1984 Earl Neel Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino ABSENT: James Cioffi, Chairman Hugh Curtis William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting) approving minutes of the April 25, 1984, meeting with the following revision: Page 18. 3rd Paragraph, CASE 5.0312-C-MISC. Motion should read as follows: M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Madsen absent) recommending to the City Council that the change of zone not be granted for the property southerly of the access roadway as indicated on Exhibit "A" (on file in the Planning Division) and that 3 times the turbine height setback be maintained on the east property line. May 9, 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 Planning Commission continue the case to May 23 for further staff and City Attorney review and for wording to be developed in response to Commission direction. Discussion regarding off-site real estate signs and definition of a "sign" ensued. Planning Director stated that staff does not recommend any off-site signs and requested direction from the Commission on this unresolved issue. Chairman also requested that a definition of a sign be addressed so staff can develop language in the Ordinance. Planning Director stated that there is a built-in ambiguity in the current ordi- nance which states that anything 3 feet from the window that is intended to attract attention is a sign; and anything else designed to attract attention is also a sign, except for window displays. Commissioner Madsen suggested that the City Attorney review all court cases in which the City has been involved in order to develop language for the defini- tion of a sign. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the current language has been a problem for enforcement officers and that definitive guidelines need to be developed for enforcement inside a store. Commis- sioner Kaptur suggested that anything beyond 1 foot behind the glass be considered an area for -the businessman to do whatever he wanted. Fur- ther discussion followed on the distance behind the windows regarding enforcement. Zoning Officer stated that his preference would be to not have to enforce interior signing except for items affixed to the win- dows, but that the Planning Director has some misgivings about this. Discussion followed on examples of items that could be considered signs. Commissioner Lawrence stated that if there were no violations there would be no need for a sign ordinance and suggested that a formula be developed for signs beyond 5 feet behind a store front window. Commis- sioner Kaptur stated that reality should be faced and over-regulation avoided. Chairman stated that regulation protects the City's aesthe- tics; and that the ordinance could be improved for easier enforcement. Commissioner Madsen suggested that criteria be developed similar to Architectural Advisory Committee guidelines. Commissioner Curtis stated that there should be definitive wording in the ordinance for ease of enforcement. Discussion followed on methods to define a sign. Chairman declared the hearing open and requested input from the audi- ence. N. Taukbaum, 2083 Birdie Way, requested that the Sign Ordinance address the problem of sufficient signage for gas stations and stated that the present 36 sq. ft size is adequate only if price signs are not included. He suggested that an allowance of 50 sq. ft. for a combination identifi- cation and price sign be allowed that split service (full and self) requires signage; and that in his particular case he has only an identi- fication sign because there seems to be no way to place price and iden- tification signage together so that both could be easily seen. He stated that signing for the other gas station in the chain with the com- bination price and identification sign has not been successful . Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the sign's sphere shape is not condu- sive to price signing. i May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) L. Hart, Imperial Signs, Indio, suggested a definition using lighted/unlighted interior distance as criteria. J. Hicks, member of the Palm Springs Project Steering Committee, requested specificity in the Sign Ordinance and stated that the task force also was divided regarding regulation of interior signage. A. Perrier, attorney, stated in response to Chairman's question that he felt that unlighted interior signs would be of less concern. Chairman stated that Day Glow paper glows although not lighted and there always seems to be a way to circumvent the Ordinance. Zoning Enforce- ment Officer stated that judgment calls by enforcement officers lead to inequitable enforcement (which was a main concern of the task force) . Commission Lawrence stated that the main concern with the Sign Ordinance was that enforcement would be fair to all . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed regarding off-site "open house" real estate direc- tional signs. Chairman stated that the vote at the April 25 meeting was 3 - 3 and requested that Commissioner Madsen, who had been absent, com- ment. Commissioner Madsen stated that he was concerned about sign pro- liferation and felt that allowing a condominium an off-site sign was inequitable to single-family homes which are not visible from the street. He stated that he felt that the people usually buy from brokers not from seeing "Open House" signs. Commissioner Kaptur stated that off-site real estate signs are important to the sale of houses hidden from the street. He stated that he felt that there should be criteria for "open house" signage. Commissioner Lawrence stated that there should be a sunset clause to end a trial period. Planning Director stated that there is limited enforcement of signs on weekends and allowance of off-site signs would be difficult to monitor. Chairman stated that allowance of off-site signage to the real estate industry would be unfair to other industries since the real estate industry would be getting a special consideration. M/S (Lawrence/Kaptur) that one off-site arrow "open house" sign and one "for sale" sign be allowed on Saturdays and Sundays, as long as the real estate person is on-site to be removed when the realtor leaves the premises with a one year trial period ended by a "sunset clause". The vote was as follows: AYES: Kaptur/Koetting/Lawrence NOES: Curtis/Apfelbaum/Madsen/Service The motion failed. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur/Koetting/Lawrence, dissented) approving one "open house" sign on-site and no off-site signs. i j May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) Chairman questioned the Commissioners on the definition of a sign. Commissioner Madsen stated that he felt that unlighted signs 5 feet back from the window and unobtrusive should not be considered signs and that even though the 5 foot limit is arbitrary, it is a base from which to begin. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that it was conceivable that the 5 foot distance could help alleviate problems but that every build- ing has a different configuration and small stores sometimes do not have the 5 foot criteria regarding space. Commission's partial consensus (6 - 1; Kaptur dissented) was that the City should control signage inside a store. Discussion followed on the problem of clearer standards for enforcement officers. Zoning Officer reiterated that enforcement is difficult without definitive wording. Commission took a 5 minute break and returned at 3:20 p.m. Chairman stated that there were people in the audience who were present for other projects and suggested tabling the Sign Ordinance to the end of the meeting. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen) tabling further review of the Sign Ordinance to the end of the meeting. CASE 5.0308-PD-155 & TPM 16495-Continued. Application by C. DUNHAM for Plan- ning Commission consideration of certification of the final Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of preliminary development plans for a Planned Development District to allow 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. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recertify the EIR previ- ously approved by the Commission, approve the Planned Development Dis- trict subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee staff and the AAC; and continue TPM 16495 for revisions conforming to condi- tions of approval . Planner III presented the project on the board and stated that the pri- mary impact is visual. He stated that the Tribal Council has noted that the EIR is adequate and has requested an archaeological evaluation on a site specific basis but questions the density transfer and recommends a zoning classification and development standards which are more rational and workable than the "0-20" zoning. He stated that the Vista Canyon Homeowners Association attorney and consulting engineer and a represen- tative from Canyon Heights were in the audience, although the Canyon Heights attorney had to leave. He stated their concerns were of view blockage and that he had received correspondence form area residents ranging from "adequately conditioned" to requesting "no hillside devel- opment". He explained that there are some Cahuilla Hills homes which overlook private areas of Vista Canyon but that the homes are at a dis- tance, and that there is some invasion of privacy with the development of the subject project. In response to Chairman and Commissioner Apfelbaum's questions, Planner III stated that the Commission could require public hearings on individual residences as they are submitted, but it would be a expensive administrative task and possibly over- i May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0308-PD-155 (Continued) regulation. Chairman suggested that notices be sent to the homeowners associations, and that the Planned Development District procedure and density transfer allows 45 acres of undisturbed open space. He stated that the development of Vista Canyons was completed before application was submitted for the subject project and that the project was renoticed originally to inform new homeowners in Vista Canyons. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Dunham, the applicant, stated that the continuance of 2 weeks was to allow him to meet with Vista Canyons homeowners and their attorney to resolve issues. In regard to the issues, he stated that he would reply to the conditions listed in the Vista Canyon Homeowners Association letter as follows: 1. 50% wide open space setback with natural plantings. Could be done except that the roadway has been moved 100 feet south and to move any further (to the boundary line) would require the permission of adjoining project owner, S. Platt, but he felt he could work with the Vista Canyon engineer to everyone's satisfaction. 2. Prohibition of street lighting, except for street lights at the intersection of the access roadway in South Palm Canyon, etc. No problem. 3. Prohibition of recreational facilities and other structures on the `�- northeast corner of Lot #10. No problem (and a major concession by the applicant in cooperation with the adjoining project owner) . 4. Drainage plans approval by the Vista Canyon Homeowners Association consulting civil engineer. Not a concern of the applicant on cur- rent drainage since grading is lower than the plans but any future drainage issues will be handled successfully with the cooperaiton of the City Engineer. 5. Residences to be screened from view of South Palm Canyon and rear .yards of Vista Canyon. This is difficult to solve but plantings could be placed along the westerly line with a drip system estab- lished for irrigation. This concern will be reviewed when the individual residences are submitted. 6. Minimize potential grading for future residences and driveways. Under control of the Planning Commission and AAC. 7. Minimization of construction related impacts. No problem. He stated that he was complying with six of the seven requests and asked that his application be approved. Ms. E. Watson, Vista Canyon Homeowners Association attorney, stated that the applicant had been very cooperative and that the neighbors were focusing on a larger concern of opening hillsides for development throughout the City and the associated environmental concerns. She stated that the subject proposal was not significantly different from the one disapproved by the City Council previously and that the home- owners' engineer would address the conditions of concern. She stated I i May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0308-PD-155 (Continued) I that the homeowners are requesting a public hearing on individual homes because of their impact on the Vista Canyons development. R. Catherman of Engineering Technology, Sherman Oaks, representing the Vista Canyons Homeowners Association, thanked the applicant for his cooperation in mitigating six of the seven requests and stated that the property owners desire a sensitive design to the Dunham project, with landscaping and walls, and homeowners' review of the individual homes would be desirable. He stated that the applicant's agreement not to develop the northeast corner of the Lot 10 was appreciated and that the developer would be informed of the homewoners' desires on roadway align- ment. Chairman stated that the City does not delegat to others the approval of a project although private agreements can be made. Mr. Catherman stated that he understood but he wanted the public safety of individuals to include his clients as well. He defined the area of Lot #10 on which the developer is accommodating the homeowners. J. Wessman,. 72200 Clancey Lane, stated that he disagrees with some of the comments of the attorney and that impacts should be mitigated and defined by the City and not by the homeowners and that Mr. Dunham has a legal right to build on the property. He stated that there are several hillside developments in the City. R. McDermott, resident of Cahuilla Hills, stated that he had paid taxes on the road for the past 11 years and was interested in development near his residence, and that he owns some Indian land in the area and requested explanation of the location of Lot #10. Chairman explained that the area south of Mr. McDermott's property is open space. Mr. McDermott stated that he was not opposing the project but wanted to know what was proposed south of his residence. Mrs. E. Boudenhoff, H. Weinberg, Mrs. H. Opassa, Mrs. G. Pickerelli, Mrs. S. Brant, and Mrs. Delores Lloyd of Vista Canyon, spoke in opposi- tion to the porject citing visual , erosion, construction, and ecological impacts, loss of privacy, scarring of the hillside, loss of wildlife and beautiful rock outcroppings, difficulty of construction because of the hard rock surface, continuous construction activity as the lots are sold, and drainage problems caused in a wash through an easement on the north end of the property. Discussion followed on the drainage easement noted by Mrs. Lloyd. Mrs. Lloyd stated that the problem was caused by vehicular traffic during the development of Vista Canyon but that the problem has lessened with the regrowth of natural vegetation, but that she felt that a heavy rainfall would create problems. �..• C. Dunham (rebuttal) stated that outcroppings are being retained and the existing drainage has not been touched by his development. He stated that he felt that the Vista Canyon Homeowners should not have vested interest in development of his property and that the project will be reviewed continuously as individual homes are submitted. He stated that May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0308-PD-155 (Continued) the problem arose when the homeowners were not aware that a project was in the process of being developed when they bought property. He stated in response to a Commission question that the Vista Canyon homeowners had not attempted to purchase his property to retain the open space. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that one of the principal purposes of the Planning Com- mission is to maintain the aesthetics of the community and to recommend project conditions to the City Council, and that the Commission would do everything to protect the interests of the community. He stated that the City in the past has spent $20 million to preserve open space. Commissioner Kaptur stated that much of the hillside is government land and will never be developed, but private lands can be developed unless the City purchases them. He stated that groups are encouraged to pur- chase land to preserve views and that Indian land can be developed as well as private land. At the request of Commissioner Apfelbaum, Planner III presented on the display board the configuration of the retaining wall which is causing a drainage problem. He stated that the developer of Vista Canyon con- structed a low wall to allow maximum views, and that there is no buffer to stop or turn water and it washes over the top. He stated that a simple solution would be to raise the wall height, and that future drainage problems can be resolved by engineering design and eventually by the Master Plan of Drainage. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he understood the concern of the Vista Canyons homeowners but that the "white" report had not indicated the subject development and that a precedent was not being established because hillside development has occurred in the past. He stated that hillside development is reviewed closely by the Commission, that the developer will mitigate 6 of 7 requests which is commendable and that the homeowners' concerns in request #7 are all regulated by the City. He stated that all problems have been mitigated by the developer (except for condition #5) and that he felt the houses should be reviewed indi- vidually by the Planning Commission. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0308-PD-155 (Continued) Chairman stated that the Commission could deny the Planned Development District which was filed for a density transfer but that the City would receive less open space if the density transfer were not made, and that an access road and some homes could be built in any case. i Discussion followed on previous hillside development. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the project could be built anyway, and that the Planned Development District allows more control . In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the City has little funding left to purchase hillside land and that grant funding is not available in large amounts. He stated that the signifi- cant acquisition of hillside land by the City occurred in the late '70s. In response to Chairman's question, Planner III stated that all items of concern have been mitigated in the mitigative measures except the early work permit issue. Planning Director stated in response to condition #1 that hillsides would be maintained in a reasonable condition such as native vegetation. The Planner III stated that there is no intent to have a green belt and that the vegetation would be desert vegetation and boulders. Chairman stated that the letter from the attorney from Vista Canyons homeowners would not be entered into the record as conditions of approval. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence) approving Planned Development District-155 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a detailed slope restoration and landscape plan be developed in conjunction with the final grading plan (details to include cut slope restoration, plant materials, irrigation and lighting and natural stone varnishes in lieu of fill slopes) . 3. That Lot 1 be reconfigured which may affect Lots 1 - 3, whereby access to Lot 1 is not visible from Palm Canyon or the building pad is relocated to minimize the driveway impact. 4. That the Commission recertifies the EIR as previously approved by the Commission. 5. That the standard plans street section (32-foot roadway) be restudied per the following: Reduction of the pavement section, turn-outs for parking, alternatives for standard urban gutter requirements. (The AAC was most concerned about requiring stand- ard street improvements on hillside whereby the rural character is lost. 6. That TPM 16495 be continued for Planning Commission review when the revisions made to comply with conditions of approval are com- pleted. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0308-PD-155 (Continued) 7. That the presidents of homeowners associations affected by the development be noticed when individual homes are reviewed by the Commission. 8. That early work permits are prohibited. Commissioner Koetting suggested that any substantial changes in the con- dominium project be noticed to the homeowners of the nine lots for equity in noticing. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "The Tribal Council considered this case on April 24, 1984 and requested that the City Planning Commission continue the matter for two weeks. In the interim, the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Con- sultant were to review the file on the previous Case (5.0136-PD-111) including the draft EIR, and give further consideration to the proposed transfer of density from the standpoint of its consistency with the intent of the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its prior action of October 12, 1982 (Case 5.0136-PD- 111) to certify the EIR as being complete in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, and with the understanding that a site survey shall be conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU) of the University of California Riverside prior to submittal of final development plans, and that such plans shall incorporate any miti- gation measures recommended by the ARU. 2. Noted that 54.8 acres of the toal 59.6 acres or approximately 92% of the project site is Zoned 0-20 and designated in the General Plan as OPEN-HILLSIDE (1 unit per 20 acres) . The balance of the site (4.8 acres) is Zoned R-2 and designated in the General Plan as RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM (15 units per acre) . 3. In view of the significant diversity in the zoning classifications and land use designations in this particular case, the Tribal Council seriously questioned the proposed density transfer and the use of the Planned Development District to effect such transfer, from the standpoint of the consistency of these actions with the stated intent of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 4. While the question of consistency remains a concern, the Tribal Council felt that the limited number of 9 single-family building lots would be compatible with area development provided the miti- gation measures contained in the draft EIR and all the conditions set forth in the City Staff Report dated April 25, 1984 are fully complied with. 5. As a follow-on action, the Tribal Council strongly recommended that the City Planning Commission consider a more rational and workable zoning classification, development standards, etc., for the "Hillside" Areas in lieu of the rather arbitrary and impracti- cal current zoning classification of 0-20. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 .., Commissioner Curtis left the meeting. I PUBLIC COMMENTS i None i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.342. PlanningCommission determination that a beauty shop is y p an allowable use in the R-2 Zone. (Incorrect number on the Agenda. ) Chairman reminded the Commission that the determination was not site specific but general for all R-2 Zones, citywide. Planning Director gave a brief history of the Ranch Club stating that eventually the request for the use will be heard under a CUP application in conjunction with an application for use of the Ranch Club site. He stated that public hearing information has been difficult to obtain from the applicant. He stated that there is no use allowed in the R-2 Zone like a beauty shop, that the Ranch Club is a unique situation, that the beauty shop proprietors are in the audience, and they wish to speak before the Commission. Chairman reiterated that the Commission should determine whether or not a beauty shop is an allowable use in an R-2 Zone citywide. L. Hart, 2800 Country Club Drive, representing the applicants, stated that the applicants are not ready to defend the use and have made a mistake according to City codes, but that they cannot understand why the structure does not lend itself to R-2 uses; that leaving the building vacant is more detrimental than allowing the use; and that if the build- ing were designated as a clubhouse, the beauty shop use would be allowed. He stated that he felt the zoning is wrong. Chairman requested that the applicant not address a site specific problem. Ms. P. King, 2980 Ranchero Road of European Hair Designs, stated that she thought the Commission would be reviewing the beauty shop use spe- cifically and that the owner of the property had leased the building to her for the shop. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Ranch Club is an inherited problem and some method ought to be devised for uses of the building. Planning Director stated that the Commission had indicated that an office use was not viable without the property meeting R-2 zoning stand- ards; and that staff has been unable to obtain a complete application from the owner. He stated that the beauty shop use could be an acces- sory use to a resort hotel , racquet club or golf club; and that staff May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 DETERMINATION 10.342. (Continued) had urged the beauty shop proprietors to appear before the Commission before the shop opened to determine whether or not the Ranch Club was similar to a racquet club thereby allowing the beauty shop use as an accessory use. He stated that a beauty shop use is not allowed in an R- 2 or P zone even with a Conditional Use Permit. I Chairman stated that the building in question is a free-standing in fee building and there is no relationship between it and the Ranch Club Estados. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the use might be viable in a country club in a R-2 Zone as an accessory use. Chairman commented that the shop would -not have individual signage in that particular case. Commission Lawrence stated that he was opposed to a beauty shop in an R- 2 Zone unless in a resort hotel or country club. He questioned whether or not the beauty shop would be forced out of business if the Commission determination was not in favor of the use in an R-2 Zone. Chairman stated that the beauty shop is out of business now, and the use is not legal . To clarify the situation Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the shop is presently operating which is an illegal use. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a motion could be made that the use be allowed as an accessory use in an R-2 Zone in a hotel or country club. Commissioner Koetting remarked that the Commission could reaffirm the current zoning. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) determining that a beauty shop is not an allowable use in an R-2 Zone. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the public hearing information is being completed by staff and the applica- tion will be on the June 13 agenda. He stated that there is a 10 year sunset clause on the restaurant use currently in operation but staff will review the nature of the extension approved by City Council action. 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. WESSMAN for Ralph' s Market for reconsideration of main entry sign for shopping center on South Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road/Belardo Road, PD 131 Zone (I.L.) , �.., Section 22. (Ref. Case 5.0177-PD-131.) Planning Director stated that the applicant wishes to add the word "Ralph's" to one of the main entry signs to the Plaza del Sol Shopping May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 RECONSIDERAITON-SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) Center, that an additional sign had been granted to the market on a second story tier, and that after the sign being denied by the Commis- sion, Mr. Wessman is requesting a reconsideration. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Wessman, the applicant, 72200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, stated that the market is having financial difficulty and any kind . of signage would probably increase business since the current signing is not visible from cars traveling north on Palm Canyon. He stated that he felt a temporary sign on the south wall would be more visible than adding wording to the monument sign. He noted that he was asking for reconsideration at the request of the market owner. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was sympathetic with the problem and would not want the market to close. Further discussion followed on the feasibility of a sign on the south wall . Chairman stated that the market is a major tenant which is not parallel to the street which was unusual . Planning Director stated that wording added to the monument sign will have little impact, and that action could be taken to allow a temporary sign on the south wall of the market which would be legal until a build- ing is built which will hide the sign. He stated that the Commission action would be for reconsideration and then a further action. Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that the south wall sign would be a mistake, and that the monument sign would be more viable, and that he hoped that the market could remain in business. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission was wrong on the concept of the center, that the market is having financial difficulty, and that the Commission must be more sensitive to this type of project in the future. Planning Director stated that he did not feel that the signing alone was causing the market to have financial difficulties and that other factors probably have come into play as well. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was referring to site design. Commissioner Lawrence stated that although he felt that a sign on the south wall would be better, he had no problem with a monument sign but he did not want the applicant to ask for additional signs in the future. He questioned whether or not Ralph's marketing people wanted the monu- ment sign. Mr. Wessman explained that that what the market desired was a permanent identification sign on the highway. Planning Director suggested that the first motion be to reconsider the sign and then Commission review of the graphics and design. In response to Commission question, Mr. Wessman stated that a sign on the east face would not be aesthetically pleasing because the east face is an architectural feature of the building. He stated that if a sign is approved on the front elevations, Ralph's would have one more sign and that the market faces on two streets. He stated that he would May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 RECONSIDERATION-SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) rather have signage on the gable and would not want to remove the cur- i rent sign which is partially blocked by landscaping on the north. i M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Curtis absent; Madsen abstained) to reconsider the sign denial . Chairman suggested that the Commission continue the item for the appli- cant to resubmit signage. i M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent; Madsen abstained; Service dis- sented) for a restudy of the sign program for Ralph's Market. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the sign be redesigned to indicate that there is a Ralph's Market in the Plaza del Sol Shopping Center, not "Ralph' s Plaza Del Sol". PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0132-GPA (Revised) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revi- sions to the Housing Element of the General Plan to conform the Housing Element to State law. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the General Plan Amendment, and continuing the case to May 23. In response to Commission question, Redevelopment Planner stated that the median age of the population has dropped from 49 to 36, the average family size has dropped 5 to 6 percent, and the major significance is the advent of condominiums. He stated that the median income is about the same as in the original element and is slightly lower than the County average, that the vacancy rate is larger, that there is confusion regarding permanent residents being seasonal because the residents were absent in the census callbacks in July. He stated that the average income is $23,000 to $24,000 and that the median is lower than the County because of the inverse balance curve resulting from an usually high number of high-income residents and the high number of low-income. Chaiman stated also that the census does not survey major assets and that some people have a low income and large assets. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "A copy of the Revised Housing Element was not received prior to the Indian Planning Commission meeting of May 7, 1984. City Staff Report dated May 9, 1984 noted that the current revision is scheduled for environmental determination on May 9 and public hearing on May 23, 1984. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0132-GPA (Revised) (Continued) The Tribal Council continued this case pending the Indian Planning Com- mission's and Tribal Planning Consultant's receipt and review of the Revised Housing Element. The matter will be considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of May 22, 1984. I The Tribal Council has noted all other matters on the City Plan- ning Commission agenda of May 9, 1984, since such matters do not materially affect Indian-trust lands." ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by HEATH AND CO. for Thrifty Drug Store for architectural approval of main identificaiton sign in the Palm Springs Mall, Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Farrell Drive and Sunset Way, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. (Ref. Case 3.573.) M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Curtis absent) approving the sign as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0218-ZTA (Continued) Chairman stated that the proposed ordinance will be even more difficult to enforce because it does not state the definition of a sign. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the "torpedo sandwich" sign is a sign by code definition. Chairman remarked that the Commission needs to know at what point a display becomes a sign, since people who complain are competitors. Commissioner Kaptur stated that it is a sign if it attracts attention from a distance and not a sign if it is giving information. He stated that the size of the letters is the crux. Further discussion followed on the definition of "display". Planning Director stated that a possibility would be to allow letters of one-inch per one foot behind a window although Zoning Enforcement Officer feels a "measuring stick" ordinance would cause problems. He stated that at least a criteria would be specific and that staff would not want to try non-regulation over a trial period to see if it would work. Discussion followed on specificity of signing. Commissioner Madsen suggested that an arbitrary criteria be established even if it is challenged and sug- gested no lighted signs on the interior. Planning Director stated that most interior lighting is from store lighting and that the lights would have to be off to meet that criteria. Further discussion fol- lowed. Zoning Enforcement Officer suggested that staff develop specific wording as a beginning for the Commission to review on May 23. Commis- sioner Lawrence requested that the material be delivered in advance of the meeting. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0218-ZTA (Continued) Chairman stated that Commissioner Kaptur and he could meet with staff to resolve issues if staff requested it, and continued the case to May 23. MISCELLANEOUS SHPERE OF INFLUENCE ITEMS CASE 5.0312-D-MISC. Application for change of zone from W-2 (Controlled Growth) to W-E (Wind Energy) and H-M (Heavy Manufacturing) on property located on I-10 between Indian Avenue and Palm Drive. III Planner III stated that staff would recommend denial since H-M zoning is very intensive. He stated that the County is developing a specific plan for the area. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) recommending denial of the i change of zone to the City Council. CASE 5.0312-E-MISC. Application for change of zone from R-R (Rural Residen- tial) to W-E (Wind Energy) for property located northwest of Snow Creek Road, Section 16. Planner III stated that staff recommends denial since there are no wind ` energy approvals in the area and that a sphere area plan needs to be developed for the area between I-10 and Windy Point. Planning Director stated that WE zoning allows wind energy machines only in that zone and that there is a wind energy application pending in the area. CASE 5.0312-F-MISC. Application by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON for Renewable Energy Ventures for wind energy machines (WECS #24) on property located northwest of Windy Point between Hwy 111 and I-10. Planner III stated that this item could be continued until May 23 for input from the wind energy industry, Southern California Edison, and the County Planning Department at the May 16 study session. He stated that J. Hicks, representing Snow Creek property owners, has stated in a letter that if Snow Creek residents had to make a choice, they would prefer fenced wind machines to off-road vehicles which are destroying the area. He stated that if the Commission wishes to take action, the staff recommendation would be for denial and that staff would suggest a turbine placement in the flood plain to review impacts on the Whitewater River. He stated that Riverside County Flood Control has few guidelines except that they require deeper footings if the machines are placed in the river. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Curtis absent) recommending denial to the City Council regarding 5.0312-E-MISC. and continuing 5.0312-F-MISC. to the May 23 meeting. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0321-MISC. Planning Commission discussion of revised location of communication tower on ridgeline west of Snow Creek Road. Planner III stated that a new Sprint tower is proposed above structures (wind machines) in the area and the area is the beginning of high power lines for Southern California Edison. jPlanning Director stated that Edison is is having to move its high power line corridors because the Morongo Indians will not give the company easements for the high power lines. He stated that staff has indicated disapproval of the corridor to the P.U.C. but Edison is ignoring staff concerns. ! Planner III stated that Edison cannot condemn Indian land. i Planning Director stated that the proposal is the same basic tower but is now proposed on the ridgeline because of interference problems of wind energy machines, some of which will have metal-edged blades. He stated that the tower would not be visible from the highway or freeway but would be visible from Snow Creek Road. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) recommending approval to the City Council of the Sprint tower subject to colors being reviewed by City staff. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.421. Application by LITE MOTIFS for R. Floyd for architectural approval for exterior lighting plan for single-family residence on Chino Drive/Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Continued for receipt of plans. CASE 3.677. Application by I. DAMPF for architectural approval of revised plans for single-family residence at 2301 Araby Drive, R-1-C Zone, Sec- tion 25. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That working drawings be submitted for approval of the AAC and Commission. 2. That a 6-inch recess be provided where the patio roofs meet the roofs on the north elevation. 3. That a rolled and dipped parapet be provided. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for B. Lewin for architec- tural approval of revised plans for two main identification signs at 210 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Removed from the agenda. Approved at staff level. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for Nates Deli (formerly Michael 's)for architectural approval of main identification sign at 100 S. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, Section 14. Removed from the agenda. Approved at staff level. CONSENT AGENDA i (One item remained on the Consent Agenda. ) CASE 3.231. Application by R. GREGORY for SWR for architectural approval of exterior landscaping, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans; recon- sideration of wall material; and revised carport design for condominium complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Sections 29 & 30. M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur; Curtis absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: III 1. That the portions of the landscape, irrigation and exterior light- ing plans behind the perimeter wall adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive are approved. 2. That the street scape be restudied (additional trees, shrubs, annual color, mounds and boulders to be added subject to staff approval. 3. That the revised carport is denied. CASE 3.300. Application by J. CIOFFI for architectural approval of landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for light industrial/commercial complex on Montano Way between Tachevah Drive/Chia Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Kaptur abstained; Curtis absent) continuing the item to May 23 for submission of plans. i May 9, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.8 CASE 7.561. Application by D. ZIESLER for architectural approval of increased entry 9 9 ate height for single-family residence at 478 Camino Sur, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a nine foot wall would set a precedent. Discussion followed on colors and materials. Commissioner Madsen sug- gested of material be made for T-111. gested that a substitution M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Apfelbaum, Service abstained; Curtis absent) for a restudy of the entry gate including material and height. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUEST AND DISCUSSION - Letter from Community Services Commission regarding bike paths on the Temple project. Planner III stated that the CSC staff had not asked the CSC Bike Paths and Trail Subcommittee to review the paths and the com- mittee had been concerned that they had not been asked for review. He stated that he had gone to the CSC meeting and explained the bike path system in proximity to the Temple project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meet- ing at 6:45 p.m. Planning Director MR/ml WP/PC MIN 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 23, 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 - 18 3 Hugh Curtis X 19 2 u Hugh Kaptur X 18 3 Peter Koetting X 19 2 Don Lawrence X 20 1 Paul Madsen X 19 2 Sharon Apf elbaum X 20 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Richard McCoy, City Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 21, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson ABSENT: Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum) approving minutes of th May 9, 198 meetinq with the following revision: Page 13, Paragraph 10, CASE 5.0132-GPA. Change the number 36 to 46. Pages 8 & 9, Conditions for CASE 5.0308-PD-155. To be revised per Planning Commission Resolution #3635 (on file in the Planning Division office) .