Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/05/23 - MINUTES 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 Hugh Kaptur X 18 3 Peter Koetting X 19 2 Don Lawrence X 20 1 Paul Madsen X 19 2 Sharon Apfelbaum 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 the May 9, 1984, meeting 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) . May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES - Chairman was absent for the meeting; Vice-Chairman presided. Commissioner Koetting stated that although it had been a worthwhile experience to serve as a Planning Commissioner, time constraints if his business would not allow him to seek reappointment after his term expires on June 30. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE 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 . Comments received from the PS Businessmen and Merchants Association.) Recommendation: That the case be continued to June 13 for further review and input from the City Attorney' s office. Planning Director presented a brief history of the ordinance to date. He stated that the definition of a sign, which had been a Commission concern, has been developed by staff based on the size of letters in conjunction with the distance of sign placement behind a store front window. He stated that the words "or unlighted graphics" should be inserted after "lighted graphics" in the definition. He requested input on other Commission concerns which have been addressed by staff in the revised ordinance. He stated that staff will research signs on the streets to determine if there are other problems that need to be addressed in the Sign Ordinance. Discussion followed on staff revisions and additions including prohib- ition of home occupation signing, pedestrian traffic, and credit card signing. Planning Director stated that he would review the possibilities of combining convenience signing into one sign and stated that attraction board messages are proposed to change at not less than 15 minute inter- vals and wording on letter height on gas signs has been removed to be consistent with court decisions. He noted that if "vacancy" signs are not allowed, there will be much non-conformity in the community, but that allowance of "no vancancy" signs only will be reviewed; he stated that in shopping centers there is almost always a lease sign and a determination should be made by the Commission on whether or not 12 square feet of signing is appropriate. He stated that no off site real estate signs are allowed in the ordinance and that relative to political signs wording "located in the public right-of-way" will be retained based on a Supreme Court decision but that wording on cash bonds will be deleted. Discussion followed on construction signs. Vice-Chairman suggested that construction signs be called "construction/lease potential signs" so that they can be combined. Planning Director stated that a variance section has been added to the Ordinance. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that regarding service signs on the windows in the "prohibited" section, any sign not specifically authorized in the Ordinance is prohibited. Commissioner Lawrence commented that there will be more signs allowed than in the original Ordinance. Planning Director stated that more signs are specifically allowed in the proposed Ordinance based on past result of attempts to regulate without having guidelines. Discussion followed on combining signing so that windows will not be cluttered. Planning Director stated that owner operator signs are used mostly in the real estate industry to list associate realtors. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the signs could be used in a commercial or retail area where people rent desks and that perhaps the paragraph could be stricken. Discussion followed on the height of freestanding signs. Planning Director stated that the signs are reviewed by the Commission and that the height limits are 8 to 12 feet for flexibility to allow for indivi- dual situations. Vice-Chairman suggested that monument signs only be allowed and a variance procedure be established for special conditions. Discussion followed on sign allowances in shopping centers. Planning Director stated that the square footage is 25 sq. ft. for a main identi- fication sign and in addition, the center will be allowed a leasing sign. Discussion continued. Discussion followed on grand opening signs,, and sizes of these and grand opening signs. Commissioner Lawrence suggested a seven day time period instead of three days for auction signs. Planning Director stated that a permit is required for grand opening banners, and that lease potential signs will be based on the size of the property. Sign programs for multi-tenanted buildings were discussed. Planning Director stated that multi-tenanted building signs are reviewed by the AAC and there is flexibility for minor modifications in the sign programs. Discussion continued on lease potential signs. Planning Director stated that one double-faced sign per street frontage is allowed for one year or until the project is 90% leased. Discussion followed. Planning Director stated that one 32 sq. ft. sign is allowed (without the 20 square foot signs on the frontage which had been allowed previously), in addition to the main sign. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the sign can be repainted for a new sign instead of erecting a new sign. Vice- Chairman stated that grand opening banners and colors would be discussed after the public hearing closed. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Robert Fey, 2000 Madrona, President of the Board of Realtors, stated that the Sign Ordinance was supported by the Board, except that time limits should be established for signs advertising auctions. He stated that the Board felt that paragraph B.2 on page 18 referring to land sub- division should be changed so that property cannot be advertised from May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) signs on other leased land. He stated, also, that the Board of Realtors objects to not allowing one off-site sign at the entrance of multi- tenanted complexes since the gate area is a common ownership and would not be off-site. He requested that paragraph 3.G on page 17 be retained in the Ordinance. Commissioner Lawrence agreed stating that "open house" signs should be allowed at the gate of a multi-tenanted complex. R. Flavin, 477 South Palm Canyon, realtor, stated that Board of Realtors wants a sign at the entrance only when there is a "open house" with the sign removed when the realtor leaves. R. Rothman, 2119 Los Pados Drive, stated that buyers need to see "open house" signs in multi-tenanted projects. Ms. Vicki Doyle, 555 S. Palm Canyon Drive, realtor, requested cost of enforcement of off-site signing. Planning Director stated that it would be approximately $2000 per year in staff time as a rough estimate and 4000 hours a year for all zoning enforcement with a portion allotted (unscheduled) on weekends. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Lawrence suggested a motion be made to allow one "open house" directional sign per complex at the main entrance. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Apfelbaum dissented; Service absent) that one "open house" sign be allowed per complex (latter amended to "shared ownership housing") at the main entrance or other wording developed by staff regarding walled condominium projects. Commissioner Kaptur stated that enforcement officers would have to know the guidelines to enforce this type of signing. Planning Director replied to a question from Vice-Chairman stated that a PUD is a real tor' s term for a postage stamp lot and a common area. In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that if the Commission wants to allow a sign at the entrance of a condominium complex, the Commission can take that particular action. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Service absent) that grand opening signs be per- mitted for seven days instead of three days with a sign permit to be required. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that if staff will be required to approve colors for grand opening signs, the guidelines should be defini- tive. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Service absent) that the time frame for auction signs be a maximum of 30 days from the sign erection to the day of the auction. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Service absent) to continue review of the Sign Ordinance to June 13 for further City Attorney input and to address concerns of the Commission expressed at the meeting. r May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 32-GPA-(Revised) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revisions to the Housing Element of the General Plan to conform the Housing Element to State law. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) ! Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve revisions to the Housing Element. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council recommends approval and concurred with the objective that the primary emphasis and focus of the Housing Element be toward the development and maintenance of low- and moderate-income permanent housing. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Sevice absent) approving revisions to the Housing Element (Case 5.0132-GPA) per staff recommendations. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS It was noted that the Housing Element of the General Plan, adopoted in 1981 and revised in early 1983, is being revised to update background material based on the 1980 U.S. Census, and to comply with 1981 revisions to State statutes on the Housing Element. `-' After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Endorsed the Goals and Policy statements set forth in the Revised Housing Element, noting that the City intends to actively assist private developers by providing incentives, both financial and non-financial, which reduce the cost of housing. 3. Noted that the Element identifies time delays as a contributing factor to the high cost of housing. As a non-financial incentive, the Tribal Council strongly recommended that a priority processing procedure be established, as has been done in other agencies, for affordable housing projects. 4. Concurred with the objective that the primary emphasis and focus of the Housing Element will be toward the development and mainten- ance of low- and moderate-income permanent housing. CASE 5.0258-PD-145. Application by ANDREAS COVE COUNTRY CLUB for Planning Commission consideration of public input on the draft EIR for the project. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue the case for staff response to Planning Commission and public input on the draft EIR (preparation of final EIR) . ti May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) Planner III stated that the EIR outlines impacts in an objective manner, that the project has been reduced by 40 acres, that both primary and secondary impacts have been addressed, that few comments have been received, that the State and Tribal Council have given comment, and that all areas of concern will be addressed by specific responses in the final EIR. He stated that the Director of Community Development has j received a letter from the Tribal Council Chairman regarding cultural resources and that the Tribal Council requests that a tribal member be on site during grading. He stated that Federal and State agencies are involved in the requirement of mitigative measures and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will outline cultural concerns and mitigative strategies, although staff does not have all the specifics at this time. He presented the project on the display board and described circulation patterns, Palm Canyon Wash maintenance, critical Tribal Council areas, and location of the clubhouse. He stated that there would be a public hearing for identification of issues and that the final EIR will be noticed. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Grossman, 73-350 El Paseo, Palm Desert, attorney representing S. Lovekin, an adjacent property owner, requested that some form of access to the Lovekin property be a condition of annexation, since of Mr. Lovekin is understanding that the Planning Commission does not want to landlock properties. Vice-Chairman stated that staff is reviewing the circulation pattern of the area at the present time. M. Peroni of Eisner-Smith Planners, Palm Springs, stated that his firm prepared the EIR, that the design team and environmental consultants were in the audience, and that the mitigative programs developed in the EIR are appropriate. He stated that each phase will require staff and Planning Commission review, and that the EIR stands on its own merits and describes the project entirely. T. Wilkes, architect and representative of the developer and the design team, requested that Planner III show the 40 acres that had been deleted on the display board. Planner III stated that the 40 acres that have been removed are a fee parcel on which the option has not been exercised but affects the project minimally, and that a minor roadway realignment will be required. He stated that access to the Lovekin property will be reviewed. Mr. Wilkes stated that the eight lots deleted were in natural hillside space, that the EIR prepared by ESP was thoughtful and thorough that the major concerns were addressed during the design phase and that the EIR strategies are accepted by the developer and that there are no funda- mental differences between the staff and the developer. In reply to Vice-Chairman's question, Planner III stated that a letter was received from the American Heritage Commission (AHC) as a part of the State review process, that the AHC may not realize that a MOA is May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) being developed, that staff will keep abreast of the situation, that Dr. Bean (Cultural Resources Consultant) was in the audience and could review the letter, and that the developer may not be aware of the letter. Mr. Wilkes stated that the MOA is mandated by Federal law and will develop mitigative processes for cultural resources and that it will be the responsibility of the Federal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, not the City. He stated that the City will not allow any construction to proceed until the MOA is complete. Planner III, in response to Vice-Chairman' s question, stated that the EIR had been given to the Chairman of the Tribal Council to give to the American Heritage Commission, and that comment from the Commission is a typical State comment since there is little communication between the various agencies and staffing problems exist. In response to Commission question, Mr. Wilkes stated that although the eight lots have been deleted, the developer is still seeking development of 900 units, not 892; and that no revised design has been developed at the present time. He listed members of the team in the audience who were present to answer to questions. K. Ryan, 133 West Third Street, San Dimas, California, stated that he represented Andreas Canyon Club, which was established in 1923 as a non- profit organization to preserve the natural state and environment of the canyons and that the club is concerned about lighting of the canyons by the tennis court lighting which would impact the club and the nighttime wildlife in the area. He stated that the lighting would affect the aesthetics of the canyon and that the club was also concerned about the increased accessibility of the canyon to homeowners of the project. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Indians will control their own canyons through the MOA. Mr. Ryan stated that he had graduated in urban planning and his senior project was on the Andreas Canyon area. He listed his concerns on the effects of the development on the wildlife and riparian habitats of the canyon. He stated that his thesis urged the preservation of the mouths of the canyons in particular with open space or buffer zones, and that perhaps land transfers could be made to trade land for development in a less significant area of the City, and a Specific Plan developed within the General Plan guidelines for wildlife, historical , scenic and cultural districts. There being no further appearances, Vice-Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested a field trip with wildlife experts to the site before the next meeting on this project. Planner III stated that a field trip had been undertaken to the site previously. Vice- Chairman directed staff to arrange the trip and summarized the concerns developed during public input. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Service absent; Madsen abstained) continuing the case for preparation of final EIR. The date and time of the meeting to be established and will be renoticed. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS The Tribal Council, at its meeting of May 10, 1983 considered the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for the Andreas Cove Country Club Project, and took the following actions: 1. Concurred with the findings and recommendations set forth in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 6, 1983. 2. Noted that the Tribal Council has been working directly with a cultural resources specialist (Cultural Systems Research, Inc. ) on a comprehensive survey and analysis of the Project' s potential impact on cultural resources. 3. Strongly urged that the Project's potential impact on the quantity and quality of ground water resources be included as a primary impact area. 4. Expressed a concern that the proposed importation of new species of plants and potential impact on plant life native to the area is a matter that should be addressed by a qualified biologist. The Tribal Council has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Andreas Cove Country Club Project prepared by Eisner-Smith and Associates and dated March 1984, and other environmental documentation including certain of the technical appendices to the EIR. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Commended those who have contributed to the environmental documentation for this Project. The documentation was found to be very complete, clearly identifies the potential environmental impact of the Project, and proposes meaningful and appropriate mitigation measures. 2. Strongly recommended that the enclosed report entitled "Andreas Cove Country Club Project", Potential Impacts on Water Resources" prepared by Geotechnical services and dated October 1983, be included as a technical appendix to the EIR. The report is referenced in Section 4.1.8 (a) of the Draft EIR. 3. While generally concurring with the findings and recommenda- tions of the Draft EIR with respect to potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures, the Tribal Council emphasized its concerns with respect to the following specific impacts: a. Cultural Resources - As noted in Technical Appendix I Cultural Systems Research, Inc. "A Study of Cahuilla Cultural Resources in Andreas and Murray Canyons", May 1983) , the Tribal Council does not wish to impede the development of Tribal or allotted lands, however the Council is deeply concerned that the nature of the cultural resources in this Project Area be determined, May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) and that they be fully described, assessed, inter- preted, and properly protected or recovered. The study further notes that the evaluation of the resources found to date demonstrate the significance of the Project Area in terms of archaeological , ethno- graphic, and Native American values, and confirm the early recommendations of the Native Americans and scholars whose efforts led to the area being placed on the National Register. The Tribal Council is taking an uncompromising position in that the follow-on actions, including the design of a cultural management plan, appropriate mitigation measures, etc. as set forth in Chapter IX (Management Recommendations) of Appendix I, and in the "Final Technical Proposal for a Cultural Resource Testing Program at Andreas and Murray Canyons", prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. and dated April 1984, be fully and strictly complied with. A copy of that Proposal is being submitted for inclusion as a technical appendix to the EIR. b. Water - While the report reference in Item 2 above addresses the Tribal Council 's concerns with respect to potential impacts on water recources, the Council is insisting that the following measure be added to the recommendations listed on page 44 of the subject report: 1. Expand the ground water monitoring program to include the recording of ground water with- drawals at the irrigation well(s) and quaterly concurrent measurements of static water levels at the irrigation well(s) and Wells G1 and K1. 2. Laboratory water quality analyses shall include general minerals, general physical , inorganic chemical and organic chemical parameters as specified in current state of California primary and secondary drinking water standards (California Administrative code Title 22, Chapter 15) . 3. Additional studies shall be initiated in the event the drawdown and/or water quality effects exceed those projected in the report. The studies shall focus on the significance of those effects on the ground water basin and possible corrective actions. 4. Observations of the green and fairway areas shall be conducted during site grading to deter- mine that no buried wastes exist on site. C. Biology (Vegetation and Animal Habitat) - The Draft EIR and pertinent technical appendices adequately May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) address the concerns previously expressed by the Tribal Council relative to the impacts upon the biota of the Project site. Since the environmental documentation has noted that the development of the site "will have a profound negative impact upon the j biota of the site, and severe secondary impacts on the surrounding natural environment" the Tribal Council is insisting that the mitigation measures proposed by the environmental documentation, be fully and strongly complied with. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Planner III stated that before review of Case 5.0312-F staff wished the Commission to know that the County continued Ordinance Amendment to Ordinance 348 to June 6, which would require all wind energy projects to receive wind energy zoning before permit is approved and a County Planning Commission public hearing and that staff feels that it is consistent with the City Council policy and that a letter to the County Planning Commission with staff signature had been sent stating that staff supports the amendments. He stated that staff feels that it is a positive ordinance amendment and will regulate locations of the wind energy turbines and focus them in W-E Zones. He requested endorsement from the Planning Commission and stated that the application would be reviewed by the Council on June 6. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Service absent) recommending to the City Council that amendments to Ordinance 348 be approved. CASE 5.0312-F-MISC. Application by RENEWABLE ENERGY VENTURES for wind energy machines (WECS #24) on property located northwest of Windy Point between Hwy 111 and I-10. Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that the applicants have not asked for W-E Zoning because the project is in a sensitive area, and that there will be 80 turbines colored with desert coloration. He stated that although the project seems in conflict with the County' s Zone Change Ordinance, there is a question of whether or not it should be terminated pending County action on the wind energy zoning. He stated that the Commission could find that it was premature to take action and ask for continuance pending review and adoption of the program, or recommend that the County require W-E zoning and process under W-E and WECS permits, or that the Commission could ask for an EIR (which is not appropriate in this case) , and that the County desires specific comments from the City. Discussion followed on Commission action. Planner III explained alter- nate actions, i .e. , approval requirement of a zone change and a WECS permit, continuance for the sphere of influence plan, requirement of an EIR, or denial . May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0312-F-MISC (Continued) G. Stricker, 1301 N. Palm Canyon, #306, stated that the subject site is ideal since it is very windy, and that the machines are attactive and will not be highly visible since the towers are the same colors as the hills with the blades being fiberglass and a harmonious color, that the County will have a visual explanation of wind energy in the San Gorgonio Pass with the subject project in the background. He stated that he was aware of the City' s concern regarding sphere of influence and pass area visual impacts, and that the project will be fenced to prevent use of the area by dune buggies. He stated that project failure is not anticipated since the project does not have a tax credit. He stated that he did not feel that a zone change was necessary since the project is the first in the area and the turbines have been spaced far apart and set back, that if the County required a zone change it would not be problem to submit the application but would make little difference to the project except to add a few more machines, and that a report has been prepared for another project regarding noise and would be given to staff for review by the City Council on June 20. He stated that the project meets noise ordinance requirements and will not create noise problems. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he could not be included in the appli- cant's expression that people find the machine attractive. In response, Mr. Stricker stated that he was a member of the Sierra Club and understood Commission's concern about aesthetics but that natural energy is needed before fossil energy is depleted. In response to Commission question, Mr. Stricker stated that the energy generated by the wind turbines would be put into the Edison grid system and power generated by the project would be the equivalent of enough power for the City of Desert Hot Springs for a year. He stated that the wind would be blowing in sufficient amounts for the project to be economically viable and that Edison is enthusiastic because they do not have the capital for new plants and that capital is more easily raised by private industry. He explained that he would have no objection to an open space easement for a two-third mile setback so the ownership complies with the WECS permit and that there may be some tax advantage to the company to grant an easement. Planner III stated that possibly the company could receive a tax credit through POST (which is a satellite facility for land acquisition) with private agreements to revert ownership back to the City to assure that the Whitewater Corridor is maintained. He stated that the possibility could be reviewed by staff. Vice-Chairman restated the possible Commission actions. Discussion followed on power dissemination of the project. Planner III stated that Edison will have a large power facility in the area. Mr. Stricker stated there will be no above ground wires for the turbine facility. Vice-Chairman noted that the project is the first one in the sphere of influence and Planner III stated that the City Council recom- mended approval of the Windustries project but denied the change of zone request by that company. Discussion followed on continuance of the project for completion of the sphere of influence plan. Planning Director stated that wind energy May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0312-F-MISC (Continued) development will occur in any event. Vice-Chairman stated that the project is the best that can be achieved, meets all requirements and does not require an EIR. He stated that the project could be giving the City guidelines for the future. Commissioner Kaptur commented that before the City approves wind projects, staff should develop with the County an area in which the machines can be erected since they seem to be creeping closer and closer to Palm Springs. Planning Director stated that a sphere plan should be adopted but that the BLM owns land between Highway 111 and the railroad and to Indian Avenue, that the City has no response mechanism with the BLM and the Bureau does not have to adhere to a City plan. He stated that the City would be looking at a three-month program for adoption of the sphere plan. addressing Planner III stated that the County is/placement of turbines only in wind energy zones and committing land to wind energy only, and that the County Planning staff has started a study program to determine location of turbines as a result of seeing wind energy applications where they are not appropriate. He stated that the County wants to know whether or not the City agrees with wind energy projects and that the particular applicant would suffer a financial hardship if his application were continued, since he wants to be operational this year. Commissioner Curtis stated that there is a question of a difference of opinion between the Commission and the staff, that the project will be built in any case, that the City does not have much input into the process, that the project is not visible from Highway 111 and that the Commission is wasting its time except to advise the Council of its feelings. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Service absent; Kaptur/Lawrence dissented) recommending approval of Case 5.0312-F-Misc to the City Council . Commissioner Kaptur stated that he dissented because he wanted develop- ment of a master plan. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Service absent) recommending that a sphere plan be developed immediately. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Service absent) approving the following time extensions: TTM 14899-THIRD AND FINAL TIME EXTENSION (REF. CASE 5.0170-PD-126) . Request y KWL ASSOCIATES o�r Friedman Ventures for a 12 month time extension for a commercial office/warehouse building on Gene Autry Trail/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone (I.L.) , Section 20. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval with the new expiration date to be July 1, 1985. TRIBAL COUNCIL comments are as fol- lows: "After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a 12-month time extension (to July 1 , 1985) for TTM 14899 with the understanding that no new conditions of approval are -being added." May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 TTM 16640-THIRD AND FINAL TIME EXTENSION (REF. CASE 3.337) . Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for D. Johnson for a 12 month time extension for condominium complex on Ramon Road between Warm Sands Drive/Grenf all Road, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Approved subject to the original conditions of approval and a condition added, i .e. , school impact fees, with the new expiration date to be June 3, 1985. TTM 17293-THIRD AND FINAL TIME EXTENSION (REF. CASE 3.386). Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for Vaco Developers, Inc. for a 12 month time extension for a condominium project on San Rafael between Virginia Road/Indian Ave. , R-2 Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to original conditions of approval with the new expiration date of June 3, 1985. CASE 5.0078-PD-91. Request by ERVIN ENGINEERING for M. Dunn for a 12 month time extension for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a 97-unit residential project on 113 acres west of Dunn Road, U-R Zone, Section 32. Approved subject to original conditions of approval with the new expiration date to be June 17, 1985. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. Vice-Chairman left the meeting; Commissioner Madsen presided. CASE 3.683. Application by M. DALTON for architectural approval of a single- family residence on Via Olivera/Tuscan Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Koetting & Service absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape and irrigation plans be submitted. 3. That final grading plans be submitted for approval by staff. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 3.673. Application by R. JOHNSON & L. PAUL for architectural approval of towing service building and towing yard off Del Sol Road, west of Indian Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Note: J. Leonard, representing the applicant, stated he was present to answer questions. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Koetting and Service absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That Brazilian Pepper and/or oleanders be substituted for pyrocantha. CASE 3.684. Application by J. JAKWAY for architectural approval of single- family residence on Rose Avenue/Stephens Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 10. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Koetting & Service absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape and irrigation plans be submitted. 3. That final grading plans be submitted for staff approval . CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. Temple for architectural approval of final development plans for Site IV of golf course/condo- minium project at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C and W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Planner III presented the projection on the display board and stated that a minimum 20 foot setback is recommended by staff on Compadre Road, that some pad elevations have been raised for drainage, and that the AAC felt that the 10 foot and 15 foot setback proposed by the applicant was not significant and recommended approval as submitted. He stated that the applicant desires to narrow some large pavement sections to 32 feet and that staff would recommend that elevations be submitted for Site 3 since the applicant is combining building types. He stated that the landscape program is the same as other phases in concept, and that the Council concerns on access have been addressed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the staff recommendation in setback should be followed since a higher density has been approved and setback requirements should be met. C. Mills, the architect, stated that the setbacks were reduced to open the site and because they are not the full length of the building and the area has dense landscaping. He stated that the wall on Compadre could be moved back to 20 feet but that the project is across from Fairchild's and there is no aesthetic problem. Discussion followed on street widths. Planning Director stated that a portion of the 97-foot internal street/parking width could be deleted for a green belt area and that a 32 foot width will allow parking on one May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Continued) side. He stated that there was no place that has bay parking where there is an island, and that where there are median islands fire lanes are necessary. i Mr. Mills stated that there was no street parking in the plan. Vice- Chairman stated that people park in the most convenient places. Further discussion followed on parking. M/S (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Service absent) for approval as submitted subject to AAC recommendations except that the setback on Compadre be 20 feet. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that staff recommendations be included since there is a site plan design problem and setbacks should not be changed to accommodate the problem. He stated that the Commission has allowed the developer increased density, and the Commission could be criticized for allowing intrusion into the setbacks. After discussion, the seconder withdrew the second and the motion died. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Service absent; Lawrence dissented) approving final development plans for Site 4 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the internal streets be 32 feet wide where there is no center landscape median strip, subject to final review by staff. 2. That the walls be restudied at staff level . 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. J. Temple, the developer, stated there was a January 1 target date for opening the golf course. CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Apfelbaum, and unanimously carried ( Koetting/Service absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.694 (REF. CASE 5.925-CUP) . Application by P. FAIRCHILD for architectural approval of awning for golf course clubhouse on El Cielo Road between Sonora Road/Sunny Dunes Road, W-R-1-C Zone, Section 24. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.300 (Continued) . 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. Restudy. Noting that low maintenance species be used and that land- scaping be introduced curb/street return area. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 2.984-HOA. Application by RIVIERA GARDENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for architectural approval of a glass enclosure of upper balcony for unit of condominium project on Via Miraleste between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, R- 3 Zone, Section 2. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wrought iron pickets be removed from the balcony rail. 2. That the horizontal rail of the fence become a window molding. Fixed glass be introduced below the rail and sliding glass be used above. CASE 3.452. Application by TKD for J. Zarowitz for architectural approval of landscape plans for single-family residence at 563 Fern Canyon Road, R- 1-A Zone, Section 22. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Calliandras be added to the front planters. 2. That a third 36" box tree be added to the street elevations recommending Brazilian Peppers instead of Bottlebrush trees. CASE 3.645. Application by D. HAMILTON for Heltzer Enterprises for architectural approval of preliminary landscape development plans and revised elevations for condominium project on Golf Club Drive between Waverly Drive/Cree Road, R-3 Zone (I.L.) , Section 29. Approved as follows: 1. Elevations approved subject to the elimination of the rounded columns on the ends of the building, revision of the overall elevations (rooflines) in compliance with the preliminary approvals. The single-story elevations as previously approved are to be used with the revised overhang detail . 2. Building materials are approved as submitted. 3. Landscaping is approved, subject to the restudy of the date palm tree layout of the project. CASE 3.669. Application by A. CRIST for architectural approval of working drawings and final landscape plans for single-family residence on Vista Drive between Via Lavornia/Via Olivera in R-1-C Zone, Section 3. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the citrus be a five-gallon size. CASE 3.675 (Minor) . Application by BLACKMAN CONSTRUCTION CO. for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for addition to residence at 297 Ridge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. 1. Landscape approved, subject to the following conditions: May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.675 (Continued) a. That the oleanders be 5-gallon size. b. That a substitute species for cypress be found. C. That native species be used in front of the wall . (Details to be submitted for staff approval for "a" thru "c". ) 2. Restudy of the architecture noting: a. That the height of the center entry element be increased and framed out from the face of the building. b. That the front elevations be unified by the fascia line. CASE 5.0277-PD-149. Application by J. DAMERON for St. Theresa's Church for architectural approval of final development plans for multi-purpose building at 2800 E. Ramon Road between Compadre Road/Farrell Drive, R-1- A Zone, Section 13. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That Petite Oleander (Salmon and/or single yellow) three feet on center be introduced to the north of the fence which forms the boundary with Vaquero Road. 3. That red dirt be substituted for bark in the planters. 4. That details of the perimeter wall and landscaping to Compadre be submitted with Phases III and IV. CASE 3.373. Application by S. HAVENS for architectural approval of revised material and sample board for an 11-unit condominium complex on Vista Chino between Chaparral/Cottonwood, R-2 Zone, Section 17. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.669 (Minor) . Application by M. BATAGLIA for architectural approval of exterior paint and awning for restaurant at 150 E. Vista Chino, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Continued to June 13 for submission of plans. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Service absent) to reconsider action on Case 5.0277, PD-149. After discussion Commission consensus was to allow the previously approved conditions to remain. ADDED STARTERS SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of main identification sign for business at 1109 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Zoning Enforcement Officer described the sign application on the display board and stated that the odd movement of the lettering was the company' s logo. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Service absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sign be centered between the vertical rails on the fascia. 2. That the color of the cabinet match the fascia. Commissioner Madsen left the meeting. CASE 5.0282-PD-150. Application by PALM CANYON PLAZA, LTD. for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for a hotel on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Planner III described revisions to the project on the display board. He stated that the increase in meeting room and ballroom space has resulted in a 50% parking deficiency but less room to add the spaces and that the final site plan should address the parking deficiency (perhaps by removing a tennis court) . He presented the staff report and stated that staff could work with the developer to resolve the problems. �--' Commissioner Kaptur stated that the project will require a major restudy and should not be reviewed at staff level only. S. Crowe, the applicant, requested direction from Commissioner Kaptur since he stated that the hotel operator feels that the revised plan is superior to the original in terms of the site plan and for operational efficiency. He requested that the project not be delayed (because of financial problems which would result) and stated that the design staff has tried to make a good project. He requested that the Commission discuss areas of concern and stated that he did not see many problems except for a parking shortage and requested direction from the Commission. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there is a 15% parking deficiency and impacted landscape areas which have not resolved the parking problem. He stated that two or three tennis courts may have to be eliminated to develop adequate parking, that there should be a freer exit leading out to Mesquite, and revision of the elevations per AAC recommendations. He stated that he could not approve a project which was 25% to 30% unresolved, and that he felt that the Commission was being pressured to approve the project. Planner III stated that a restriction could be placed on the parking that the facilities not be used for separate functions at the same. He stated in response to Vice-Chairman's question that this arrangement could be an enforcement problem. In response to a Commission question, Planner III stated that if the General Plan Street Plan is not amended he will have to redesign the project. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 5.0282-PD-150 (Continued) Planning Director, in response to Commission question, stated that general plan amendments are brought to the Commission four times a year. He stated that he did not believe use of the meeting spaces at the same time by one group would have enforcement or management problems. Planner III stated that the applicant is willing to pursue the design that is shown and risk the General Plan Amendment and that the City Council has stated that it did not favor a General Plan Amendment and that the building meets full right-of-way requirements although the parking as designed intrudes into the future right-of-way if Mesquite is widened. Vice-Chairman stated that both an alternative site plan and right-of-way should be reviewed, that the parking is disturbing along Palm Canyon, and that two tennis courts should be eliminated or relocated to address the parking deficiency. K. Boyle, resident of the area adjoining the proposed project, stated that he had appeared before the Commission in opposition and became a liaison between the applicant and the neighbors. He stated the applicant has been cooperative and responsive and that some design features have been changed and now there is no opposition from the neighbors to the project. He stated that the neighbors wished to express the point that the applicant can be trusted and will do what he proposes and that the neighbors are afraid that if there are delays, the `,.• project will not be built and the present eyesore area will remain longer or a less sensitive developer will propose another project. He urged that the Commission approve the project. Vice-Chairman stated that Mr. Boyle should have more confidence in the Commission. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Lawrence abstained; Madsen & Service absent) to restudy the project to address Commission concerns. Planning Director stated that the issues voiced by the Commission might have to be addressed at the Council level . Commissioner Curtis stated that he was absent at the study session on the revised project but he thought the project was good originally. He stated that he did not like the revised plans which lost its sensitivity and that the parking change was a mistake. Vice-Chairman requested that staff help the applicant to resolve problems. Commissioner Kaptur left the meeting. CASE 3.568 (Ref. Case 3.421) . Application by R. FLOYD for architectural approval of landscaping and exterior lighting for single-family hillside residence at 555 N. Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested continuance of the landscape and review of the lighting. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 3.568 (Continued) J. P. Shoptaw of Light Motifs stated that his objective was to address the site, the building and the natural environment and building structure as subtley as possible. He stated that low wattage light will be place on the driveway to eliminate view of the light source. In response to Commission question, he stated that five test lights were lighted on the driveway of a total of 30, that up lights on the deck and in the olive trees are on a dimmer switch and turned off in the early evening. Planning Director, in response to Commission question, stated that there is no specific lighting philosophy for hillsides except to keep light sources hidden from light pollution in street lighting and to eliminate unnecessary street lighting. He stated that ambient light levels with- out street lighting may not be achievable at this point, and that there are parking light standards. In response to Commission question, Mr. Shoptaw stated that the lighting of the house below the subject house is of concern since there is a massive wall without relief of rock formation or landscaping. M. Brunelle of Light Motifs stated that the lighting on the house below the subject house has been discussed with the owner. Planning Director stated that the house below has not received final approvals. MSC (Appelbaum, Curtis; Madsen, Kaptur, Service absent) approving the lighting subject to the condition that the light sources are not visible at a normal viewing angle and that a restudy be made of the landscape. Particularly the double row of palm trees along the driveway. The Commission and AAC recommended clustered native species as more appro- priate to the hillside. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel maps based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TPM 16495 (Revised) . Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for C. Dunham for a combination of parcels on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2, 0-20 Zones (IL) , Section 34. (Ref. Case 5.0308-PD-155.) Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that line of site studies have been done on Lot 1 showing that foreground ridgelines break the view of a structure 15 feet high. He stated that the AAC recommended that the Lot 1 building pad not be approved pending May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 CASE TPM 16495 (Continued) receipt of specific house plans. He stated that the remaining building pads are consistent with what the City is trying achieve in not breaking the ridgelines. F. Ervin, Engineer, 940 Vella Road, stated that he felt that Lot 1 should be a designated building site since it is under AAC and Planning Commission review and to remove it would be inconsistent with the map. He stated that the building heights could addressed through the CC&R' s with Lot D noted. Planner III stated that the CC&R's require City approval and amendments by the homeowners association would require further approval . Mr. Ervin stated that he would agreeable to removing the pad as an identified building site. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur, Madsen, Service absent) approving TPM 16495 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and AAC. CASE 3.691 (Minor) . Application by PALM CANYON INN for architectural approval of decorative lattice and wood screening on lounge in 1400 block of N. i Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 10. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur, Madsen, Service absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That a revised planter detail be submitted. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 3. That a revised detail of the lattice as shown on the plans be submitted subject to staff approval of construction details. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Field Trip to San Andreas Cove. Vice-Chairman directed staff to schedule a field trip on a Friday morning at 7:00 a.m. (Case 5.0258-PD- 145) - One Day Seminar and Field Review of the Coachella Valley Blowsand Region to be held June 4, 1984. Meet at the DWA on Gene Autry Trail for a field review if weather permits; otherwise slides, maps, aerial photos and other exhibits will be shown at the water agency. May 23, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ADJOURNMENT v There being no further business to discuss Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. WgFhn—ing Director MDR/ml