Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/06/13 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 13, 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 19 3 Hugh Curtis X 20 2 Hugh Kaptur X 19 3 Peter Koetting X 20 2 Don Lawrence X 21 1 . Paul Madsen X 20 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 21 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Margo Williams, Planner II Robert Green, Planner III Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - June 11, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving minutes of the May 23, 1.984, meeting as submitted. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 I ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: - Chairman explained that action would be taken on the Consent Agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioners removed Case 3.568 from the Consent Agenda. M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting) taking the following actions: CONSENT AGENDA: CASE 3.475. Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION SERVICES, INC. for architectural approval of landscape plans for aviation services facility on Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 18. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That palms be field grown Filifera or hybrid (6' minimum height) . 2. That if the final phase of the project is not developed within 6 months, details of a landscape screen on the southern boundary of the "T" hangar site be submitted. CASE 3.518. Application by J. WALLING for the Plaza Hotel for architectural approval of swimming pool on Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.636. Application by A. GUZZARDO for Watt Industries for architectural approval of final landscape plans for condominium project on Amado Road between Calle E1 Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-4 Zone (I.L.), Section 1.4. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That tree sizes be increased whereby 80% of the street trees be 24" box size or greater and 50% of all trees throughout the site be a minimum of 24" box size. (Note: The applicant shall provide some 3011, 36" and 40" box size species.) 2. That substitute species for the following be found: Dietes Vegeta "Johnson", Euryops Athanasiae, Gravilla "Noellii", Phoenix Roe- belinii, and Distictus Buccinatoria. 3. That a detailed exterior lighting plan be submitted and approved prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Abstention: Kaptur CASE 3.650 (REF. CASE 5.0148-CZ and CASE 5.0177-PD-131) . Application by J. WESSMAN for architectural approval of revised elevations for restaurant in shopping center complex on South Palm Canyon Drive/Belardo Road, C-1 Zone, Section 22. Approved as submitted including landscape plan. �`"� Abstention: Madsen June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.675 (Minor) . Application by BLACKMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for addition to residence at 2497 Ridge Road, R1C Zone, Section 27. Restudy for submission of more aesthetically pleasing elevations. CASE 3.676 (Minor). Application by SHELL OIL COMPANY for architectural approval of revised elevations for security booth at gasoline station located at 2796 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That an aluminum fascia to match the existing be used. 2. That clear glass be substituted in the fascia. 3. That aluminum panels be used as noted on the plans. CASE 3.703 (Minor). Application by P. LEE for architectural approval of minor revisions and landscape plans for restaurant at 424 South Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 15. 'i Approved subject to the following conditions: That an alternative species to flax be used j and that all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.704 (Minor) and Sign Application. Application by RAMADA RESORTS for architectural approval of face change for main I.D. sign and trim colors for hotel at 1800 E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.705 (HOA) . Application by H. HIGGINS for architectural approval of wrought iron entry gate for residence at 3232 Mountain Shadow Drive, in Sunrise Norte, on San Rafael between N. Indian Avenue/Sunrise Way, 0-5 Zone, Section 35. (Ref. Case 5.0144-PD-116). Withdrawn at the applicant's request. TTM 15945-TIME EXTENSION (REF. CASE 3.304) . Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for Vista Chino Caballeros Associates for a 12 month time extension for four, four unit condominiums buildings on the corner of Vista Chino/Avenida Caballeros, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval . New expiration dates: 7-28-85. TTM 17430 TIME EXTENSION-(THIRD AND FINAL) (REF. CASE 3.101) . Application by HALLMARK ENGINEERS for Investors Real Estate for a onth time exten- sion for a residential development on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Amado Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, (IL), Section 14. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval . New expiration date: July 1., 1985. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a 1.2 month time extension for TTM 17430 with the understanding that no new conditions of approval are being added." PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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 .) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approved Case 5.0281.-ZTA per staff recommendations. Planning Director stated that the final draft has been prepared by staff in response to input from Planning Commission, staff and the public; was organized and structured by staff at the request of the Sign Task Force; l and that further input will be taken from the public at the Planning Commission and Council levels. He stated that the Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the draft, that changes have been made per his recommendations, and that staff concurs with the City Attorney's revisions. He stated that the definition of a sign, which has caused concern, has been addressed and that he had attended a meeting of the Palm Springs Merchants and Citizens Association which has had concerns over the definition because of the need for zoning enforcement officers to enter stores to measure distances for signs and cause a disruption and invade the privacy of the stores. He stated that staff has tested the definition on a limited basis by field work and finds that the definition is workable and removes a judgment decision by the Zoning Enforcement Officers. He explained City Attorney and staff changes as follows: Page 5: Minor changes in main sign wording. Page 6: Revisions to wording of height on signs. Pages 7 & 8 "Public Pricing of Merchandise on Display" has been deleted. Assistant City Attorney felt language should be less Page 8: Y Y specific regarding attraction boards. Staff prefers "entertainment" to "attraction" as a description of the boards. Word "attraction" also to be changed on page 11, V. Attraction boards are allowed in addition to signing, and Ordinance changes restrict usage of the signs. Page 9: Gas price sign wording deleted. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) Page 10: Minor change in wording (delete "right-of-way" and add "street frontage") . Staff recommendation is to add "per face" at the end of paragraph 14.3. 25 sq. ft. would allow potential use of the sign allowance without sign being dominating. Minor changes on freestanding signs in paragraph 15.4. Page 11: Time interval of changing copy on the face of computer signs was rewritten by the Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the sign height be 8 feet on free- standing signs and eliminate wording "not to exceed 12 feet". Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that there could be a problem with pedes- trians walking beneath an overall eight foot high sign because of lack of clearance. Commissioner Koetting suggested that a variance applica- tion be submitted in individual cases if there are problems. Discussion followed. Chairman stated that he would prefer the height at eight feet with a mechanism to allow individual height differences. Planning Director stated that under the variance section, the Planning Commission grounds for granting a sign variance will not be same as the grounds for a property variance. Chairman reminded Commissioners that when a motion is taken, Sections 3 and 4 on page 10 should be brought into conform- ance. �-' Page 1.2: "Condominium complexes" wording added to A.1 and some changes in A.1., .2, .3. Page 13: Elimination of former Paragraph "C" per Assistant City Attorney request to avoid information limitation. Staff is rewriting the B.4.1.b section regarding intervals of change in copy of an attraction board; and #3 regarding rate signs is deleted. Planning Director stated that "attraction" board is a better term than "entertainment" board for hotels. Chairman remarked that it is impossible to regulate content on attraction boards and in a worse case the City would have no authority to rescind content unless a CUP were required or restrictions such as a sunset clause. He stated that an entertainment board is different since the content requires changing as events are scheduled. He stated that monitoring of attraction boards is necessary; (possibly throuqh a CUP) and that unless there are controls, an attraction board can have any type of content (which is not the intent of the City) ; and that in some cities the size of the boards are large. Assistant City Attorney stated that Commission remarks regarding procedural aspects of the CUP are accurate such as imposing conditions on a CUP with revocation if conditions are violated, but control of content would not be any more permissible with a CUP than without. He stated that an obtuse method cannot be used to attain a result that can be attained straightforwardly, that a city is not absolutely prohibited from controlling content, but that a governmental entity has the burden to show regulation is necessary to control a substantial governmental interest (and is the least drastic means) . He June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) stated that the courts have made a decision regarding non- commercial and commercial speech and what constitutes a sub- stantial governmental burden is greater for non-commercial than commercial speech. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he would support a CUP as a tool in order for the City to have some control of content, even though it could be challenged. Planning Director stated that the CUP requires lengthy processing and an $800 fee and perhaps there is another way to attain control . Commissioner Service noted that other Commissioners may not share his concern and that perhaps the Ordinance should not allow a 15-minute copy change which would force manual changing of letters (thus reducing the number of copy changes) . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she shared Chairman's concern and suggested a sunset clause or a CUP only for computer attraction boards. Chairman stated that perhaps the City should not approve easily changed boards but this would possibly prohibit a future art form and requested that Lee Hart of the Imperial Sign Company, who was in the audience, give suggestions. `-' Lee Hart of Imperial Sign Company, Indio, stated that some of the computer sign technology is more aesthetically pleasing than current attraction boards but that it is difficult to regulate taste. He stated that there are types of graphics ten feet behind windows that are offensive to everyone. Chairman stated that the concept of the computer board could be eliminated and the reader board idea kept; and that a computer board can give 96 messages a day if copy changed every 15 minutes. He stated that the copy could be regulated to activities on the premises to the extent that that .the board does not advertise off-site activities. Assistant City Attorney stated that off-site signing directs attention to merchandise and services other than on the site on which the sign is located. Chairman stated that a resort hotel can have ancillary businesses and use a computerized board to advertise the businesses and that is not the intent of the Sign Ordinance. Discussion followed on attraction board copy and the length of time between message changes. Commissioner Koetting stated that changing the length of time to 2.4 hours defeats the purpose of the board and that advertised activities should be on the premises even though the concept may be challenged. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the regulation must be designed to protect a governmental interest. Commissioner Madsen stated that if an ancillary business to a resort hotel is advertised on a computer board, the ancillary business receives a sign to which it is not entitled. Assistant City Attorney stated that in his opinion if a hotel chooses to advertise a barber shop, for example, on- site there would be no governmental interest being served to prohibit the advertisement. He stated that the Commission could not restrict the advertising to non-commercial , on- site, and informational although he did not have a ready answer to the question. Chairman suggested that computer signs be eliminated. Planning Director stated that language could be developed that no graphic configuration can be assembled which is otherwise prohibited by the Ordinance which may be broad enough to be dealt with on a broad basis. Chairman stated that he would support the concept, and that �— the City Attorney can review the concept which will be sent to City Council in the final document. Page 14, Section C regarding rate signs. The entire section deleted. Vacancy signs Section B.3 reconfigured. Section C.5: Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that the height of freestanding signs was excessive and was inconsistent with other signs in commercial zones and that most of the new hotels have monument signs. He stated that hotels are allowed 12 to 20 feet in height whereas restaurants are only allowed 8 foot high signs. Commissioner Lawrence agreed that there was an inequity between the sign heights which should be made consistent. Chairman also agreed that the section on freestanding signs should have heights of eight feet. Page 15: Minor change on 1.d. Commissioner Koetting stated that there was an inequity between paragraph "a" page 15 and paragraph "5" page 18; and at one time there was a consistency between both allowing a 20 ft. square sign. Planning Director explained that it was a limited temporary sign on page 18, although staff feels that most projects with multiple tenants will almost always have a sign. Discussion followed on staff revisions. Planning Director stated that in the 1-18-84 draft, the sign size was recommended by the Task Force and is now 32 ft. sq. Page 16, d: Minor wording changes. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) Page 17: Planning Director stated that "per approval of the Director of Community Development was removed from 3.g. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the intent of 3.g was to allow one "open house" sign per complex at the main entrance with monitoring by the real estate industry. He stated that the realtors had eliminated numerous other requests. Chairman stated that most of the condominium projects do not have main entrances and most condo projects are on public streets, not private streets. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the intent was to have one sign per complex at the main entrance, but that if there are additional entrances he did not know what interpretation could be made. Commissioner Koetting suggested stating "one sign per complex". Commissioner Kaptur stated that the wording would be unfair to single- family subdivisions which are walled and have a gate. Commissioner Lawrence reiterated that the real estate industry is only asking for one sign. Commissioner Madsen suggested that the word "main" be deleted with one sign per complex allowed in any location. Planning Director stated that the original intent of the Task Force was for signing for restricted access complexes with the sign to be located adjacent to an entrance. Commissioner Lawrence stated that one sign per complex is acceptable but will cause enforcement problems. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that restricted access complexes are not always on private streets, and that it is an enforcement problem and should be stricken from the Ordinance. Chairman stated that he was in favor of deleting 3.g, since it is unfair. Commissioner Kaptur stated that signing is important for single-family residences as well, and the Board of Realtors has deleted the request. Commissioner Lawrence stated that many realtors were also surprised about the deletion. Discussion followed on the original intent of the Commissioners. Partial consensus (4-3) was to add the words "restricted access" to the beginning of Section 3.g. Planning Director stated that the complete wording would be as follows: "Restricted access residential complexes shall be allowed one "open house" directional sign per complex located at the main entrance." June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) Commission took a 10 minute break. Other changes proposed in draft were; Page 19: Delete reference to bonding and retain Section 1.0 regarding restriction of signing in the public right- of-way to trees or utility poles. Pages 20 & 21: Minor wording changes. Page 22: "Period for Removal" deleted by City Attorney and amortization schedule added. Page 23: Revisions by City Attorney in Paragraph 4, Variance section added (W . Page 24: No additional changes. Page 25: C.3 deleted, regarding signs, marquees, canopies because they are addressed in other sections of the Ordinance. Page 26: 4.E. retained per City Attorney recommendation. Planning Director stated that the changes described were all that had been made since the May 23 meeting; and that Lee Hart of Imperial Signs had distributed a proposed Ordinance which created a different type of organization. He stated that the staff had attempted to organize the ordinance according to type of use for easier reference. At the request of Commissioner Lawrence, Chairman repeated Section 3.G on page 17 and stated that restricted access means a barrier at the entrance of a project. Discussion followed on the term "restricted access". Commissioner Kaptur stated that when only there is only one entrance to a project, it should be considered restricted access. Partial consensus (4-3) was that "restricted access" would include projects with only one entrance. Discussion continued on "restricted access". Commissioner Curtis stated that he thought that "restricted access" is through a guard gate. Commissioner Kaptur questioned the definition of "limited access". Chairman declared the hearing open. �u J. Wessman, 72-200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, stated that he felt that the definition should not be so restrictive in the Ordinance, that the general public has difficulty finding homes without "for sale" signs on them, that some cities have "open house" signs on major thoroughfares or primary collector streets and "open house" signs on the corners without June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) realtors names and "open house" signs on the street with the realtors names on them. He stated that there should be some kind of visible access signing (with color and size restrictions) or no signing at all . L. Hart, Imperial Sign Company, Indio, stated that he had distributed copies of his proposed ordinance to the Commission and was prompted to redesign the ordinance when he was attempting to design a sign for a restaurant in Rimrock Plaza Shopping Center. He felt that the ordinance could be simpler and that he had reduced the wording 2.5% except for the section on real estate signs. He stated that he felt that shopping centers should be given some equity with apartment houses regarding size of signing and that he had divided the ordinance into types of signs. He stated that in developing sign programs, consideration should be given to potential needs of users like compatible lighted and unlighted signs. L. Smith, Vice President of VRG and owner of Rimrock Plaza, stated that signing should be considered in conjunction with acreage and square footage and that maximum square footage should be equitable with apart- ment signing allowances (up to 100 sq. ft. ) . He stated that he needed identity for his shopping center. Chairman stated that an apartment complex receives its identity on its signing, a shopping center receives its identity from tenants-all of whom have signs-and that there is little need for out-of-town residents to know the name of shopping centers although it would be helpful for local residents. Mr. Smith stated that at his location traffic travels very fast, that he needs identity with a large sign and requested consideration of his sign's exceeding the proposed criteria. Chairman stated that additional square footage has been added to the ordinance for commercial properties due to staff concern. L. Hart stated that double faced signs should be considered as well since only one sign can be seen at a time. Commissioner Madsen stated that there are variance procedures to allow for special circumstances. Mr. Hart stated that he felt that sublessees and lessees should be given an impetus to participate in sign programs. He requested that the Commission read his proposed ordinance, and stated that he was present to answer questions. J. Wessman requested the current shopping center sign criteria. Planning Director stated that signing is 25 sq. ft. per frontage. Chairman stated that the proposed ordinance would double the amount of square feet. Mr. Wessman stated that if a sign is designed properly, it becomes a design feature. Chairman stated that not all shopping centers have Mr. Wessman's aesthetic values. Planning Director explained the measure- June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) ments for the sign that Mr. Wessman is proposing for his complex on South Palm Canyon and explained that the PD for the shopping center allows flexibility. Chairman stated that if the sign program is changed it will be reviewed again by the Commission. Mr. Wessman stated that the 25 square feet was not enough space to do a sign properly and that 32 or 36 sq. ft. would be more appropriate. Chairman stated that main complex signs have no competition from other signs. Commissioner Koetting suggested a flexible scale for signing for shopping centers. Commissioner Curtis left the meeting at 4 p.m. i' Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he was requested by the Merchants and Citizens Association to ask for a continuance based upon the Association's meeting with the Sign Users' Council of California. He stated that the businessmen and merchants are concerned about the 1 inch to 1 foot criteria for signs behind windows. He stated that he felt that the association should submit a written list of concerns four days prior to the June 27 meeting. Discussion followed on continuance of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Koetting stated that he wondered why no input had been received from the Merchants and Citizens' Association until recently. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he was concerned that the Association was not present but felt that dissatisfaction would be lessened if the case were continued for the Association's input. Commissioner Koetting stated that meetings have been held both during the day and at night and the Association had not appeared, and that he did not feel like starting all over again. Discussion followed on whether or not to continue the case to June 27. Chairman stated that he felt that there was no justification for a continuance since the Association could express its opinion at the City Council meeting. Planning Director stated that no additional night meetings have been requested by the Association, but that the Chairman had requested a copy of the final signed draft which was not available to the Association until June 12. He stated that the Association wished continuance for a review of the latest draft ordinance by the Sign Users Council . June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) CASE 5.0281 (Continued) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that one representative of the Association had been present but had left the meeting. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the focus of the Association seemed to be on two items and that he felt that it was not unreasonable to have a two week continuance. He stated that there may not be problems with the Ordinance as far as the Association is concerned. Planning Director stated that the Sign Users' Council is a proponent of proper signing regulation, do not like discretionary approvals, and that the Council is a lobbying group for the sign industry. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was supporting the continuance because he was not comfortable with the Ordinance and he was reluctant to send a Sign Ordinance to the City Council which has concerns in several areas. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Curtis absent; Apfelbaum/Service dissented) to continue the case to June 27 for further review and revisions and to allow the Palm Springs Merchants and Citizens' Association to submit a j written list of its concerns four days prior to the meeting. I Chairman requested that staff prepare an addendum noting commission concerns for Commission review on June 27. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Review of PALM SPRINGS BAPTIST CHURCH outdoor activities (church located on on northeast corner of E1 Cielo/Escoba Drive) , Section 19. Planning Commission stated that a neighbor of the church was complaining about outside church activities at night and had sent a letter to the Commission which was the culmination of lengthy correspondence between the City and the neighbor who feels the City should not allow the outdoor uses (which the neighbor feels are not a normal accessory use for the church) and which have created a public nuisance. He stated that the neighbor is requesting that action be taken by the Commission and noted that a letter been sent by staff which had stated that in investigating the complaint staff had found that the outdoor use was normal and a customarily incidental use (which occurs in the evening on two evenings a week on the parking of the church) . He stated that out- door activities had been conducted since the early 70's, predate the construction of the adjacent tract and that staff had indicated to the June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DISCUSSION. (Continued) neighbor that if she wished to exhaust her administrative review, she should request that the Commission set a new public hearing with renoticing of the neighbors and possible new conditions of approval . He explained that the Commission should decide on whether or not to pursue the action or to agree with previous staff recommendations. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission should determine whether or not youth or congregational activities on the outside of church facilities are incident or require special provisions. Ms. S. Millard, 3508 Escoba Drive, adjacent to the church property, questioned whether or not the church should have been placed at its location in a single-family (R-1-C Zone) and stated that she felt that it was an error to grant a Planned Development District (PD) for the church use. She said that she felt that an error is being compounded by allowing intensified use of the property, and that the secular community cannot place a playground nor could a school be built on the property. She stated that a PD is granted because of mixed zoning that the property does not have mixed zones and was built for worship purposes and uses should not be expanded. She stated that she was unaware that there were evening childrens' activities when she purchased her home and that when the public hearing was noticed for the expansion of the building, it stated that the use was for a multi-purpose building but that the church has night time Bible classes and hopes to expand its �-- youth program. She remarked that City staff feels that two nights a week for night time activities is not excessive, but that the noise prevents her from hearing television. She stated that staff informed her that she would have to prove that the activities are a nuisance, that the church feels that the activities are normally incident to the main use, that the City Attorney also feels that the use is normally incident to the main use, but that the Supreme Court has disagreed with that interpretation and that a church should apply for a permit from the Planning Commission and allow her to come to a public hearing to oppose it. She stated that she was disturbed that she was required to become the complaint instead of the church's asking for a permit. She stated that staff had given her two different answers regarding a proposed bazaar to be held on the parking lot, that she wondered who had the authority to make the decision regarding the outdoor use, and that she felt that the church should appear before the Planning Commission or City Council . She noted also that she felt that the neighborhood was losing its residential character because of the granting of PD's in the area. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the church application was submitted as a PD and approved in 1971 and that there is a category in the PD section of the Ordinance which allows churches on major or secondary thoroughfares in the R-1 Zones. He stated that the Zone was R-3 before a zone change to allow the residen- tial project west of the church. Commissioner Koetting stated that a CUP should be required to hold a bazaar because of parking. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DISCUSSION. (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that no churches have applied for a CUP for a major event, and that he could not remember a fund raising for a church although the events are usually held indoors. He stated that fund raising groups are required to file a request for a fund raiser with the City Clerk's office and Fire and Police Departments are notified of the events, and that large assemblages of people require a CUP. In reply to Commission questions, Assistant City Attorney remarked that he had discussed the legal aspects with Ms. Millard and that an impasse had been reached. He stated that the activities are occurring and may constitute a nuisance, but that for the City to take action for abate- ment, there is a requirement for the nuisance to be of such magnitude that it is a public nuisance (affecting the whole neighborhood or a significant number of people) , that he had talked with people in the neighborhood, found that the activities affect only Ms. Millard and one other neighbor substantially. . He stated that in his 'opinicn Ms-. Millard may have a course of action as to nuisance but since it As not a public nuisance, the City has 'no authority to act. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission does not usually become involved in minor interpre- tations of the Ordinance, and that the complaint was the first that he had heard in fourteen years. He stated that if there were a regularly scheduled basketball program the impact on the neighborhood would be j greater, and that Ms. Millard wished the Commission to determine that the outdoor activity use is not a normal community standard. He stated that the representatives of the church had been told that if the nuisance aspects are not eliminated, other alternatives may be imposed by the Commission and staff was told that the church would do what it could to eliminate it as a nuisance but the activities have been going on for a long time and there have not been many complaints. He stated that Ms. Millard is sensitive to the issue, and the church has not been willing to move the activity to a location such as E1 Cielo Road beside the multi-purpose building which would be buffered by a wall and the building. T. Robinette, Pastor of the Palm Springs Baptist Church, stated that the activities occur from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays and on Wednesday night and that volleyball had not been played for several months. He stated that the children are reminded to be quiet on a regular basis, that the activity may be moved, but that there are neighbors on the other side of the building as well . He asked the extent of the problem and stated that he had understood that a Commissioner was going to review the problem and monitor it to see what could be considered a nuisance, but that he doubted that there was a serious problem. In reply to Chairman's question, he stated that the building is a multi-purpose building and is used often by pre-schoolers through junior high aged children but that there is no outdoor activity after 9 p.m. M/S (Koetting/Lawrence; Curtis absent) that any outdoor activity such as church bazaars or major events on premises of a church require a CUP and that future recreational outdoor activities resulting in a public nuisance be reviewed by appropriate authorities. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DISCUSSION: (Continued) Pastor Robinette stated that the complaint was the first in fourteen years and requested that the Commission consider the implication of its motion. Commissioner Koetting stated that his motion was for any and all church activities. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission was not a proper forum for the motion, and the motion should be clarified by another motion on whether or not a public hearing should be held on the issue. Commissioner Koetting stated that he was referring to any major outdoor activities not excluding recreational activities that the smaller outdoor activities may be times a public nuisance. Assistant City Attorney stated that the CUP has requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and should be followed, and that the Planning Commission does not have the power to expand or delete the requirements. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission could say "with activities requiring a CUP" but withdrew his motion. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) that limited outdoor recrea- tional activity of the type described is a normal incident to a church (later amended to include "the Commission will not hold a public hearing regarding outdoor activities at the Palm Springs Baptist Church") . CASE 5.0312-G-MISC. Application by VAWT MANAGEMENT for 78 wind turbines, north and south of I-10 at the Verbena Street off-ramp, Section 8, in the Sphere of Influence. and CASE 5.0312-H-MISC. Application by ARBUTUS CORPORATION for approval of 106 wind turbines, west of West Garnet, Section 17, in the Sphere of Influence. Planning Director described the projects on the board and stated that the City has been concerned regarding placement of wind machines south of Highway 111 and staff would recommend that machine placement not be south of I-10 and 111 until the sphere area plan is completed and that the City does not oppose wind energy machines north of the freeway. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a moratorium on placement of wind energy machines until a Valley General Plan is established. Planning Director stated that the Council would react favorably to the recommendation. J. Leonard of Krieger & Stewart, 3602 University Ave. , Riverside, attorneys, stated that Highway 10 is higher than the turbines located in the area and requested a timeline for the City study. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-H-MISC. (Continued) Planning Director stated that this sphere land use plan would be reviewed by the Commission in late July and August and sent to the County for adoption in September. Mr. Leonard stated that the company wastryingto meet a deadline for tax advantages, that the project is a viable energy producer, and that the delay would affect processing of building permits and construction of the project. In reply to Commission question, he stated that numbers were available on the energy production of the machines, that there have been mechanical problems with some of the units (it is a new industry) , and that it is not necessary to operate the machines 100% of the time to produce energy efficiently. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he seldom sees the machines in opera- tion, and that the applicant should not approach the Commission regarding a tax shelter problem. He stated that he would not rush into approval of the project because of the tax shelter problem. Mr. Leonard stated that the problem was a financial consideration. Commissioner Curtis stated that he felt a moratorium was necessary in the City sphere until the Valley cities and the County designate certain areas for the machines. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the County is working on a plan to designate areas for the machines at the present time. Planning Director stated that the County plan involves a community plan for the eastern and western valley areas as an overall extension of the County Master Plan with cities' sphere areas to be approached by individual cities. He stated that the BLM is interested in wind energy and has encouraged it as revenue to the Federal government, that the County study would have the limits of the use, with resource issues explored and some limitations in terms of area of conflict. He stated that the County's recommendation is that large areas of wind machines be limited to a certain area, and that the City and the County have come to an agreement on wind energy zoning and standards, and that denial would be premature until the study is complete. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent) to continue the applications for receipt of a County study. Planning Director suggested that the Commission go to Dillon Road when the wind machines are operating. He stated that the noise is much more obtrusive than the decibel level indicates, and that areas zoned for wind machines will preclude residential uses within one-half mile. 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. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0282-PD-150. Application by PALM CANYON PLAZA LTD. for architectural approval of revised site plans and revised elevations for hotel on South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Planning Director presented the project revisions on the display board and stated that the AAC commended the architect for revising the plans per its recommendations. He stated that the parking count almost meets Ordinance requirements, that a condition will be developed whereby the small meeting rooms will not be used except by groups using the large meeting rooms (which is a common condition) . He described the interior space between buildings as open space with green areas and areas of cascading water and stated that Health Department requirements for public pools prevented the sand and preformed treatment originally suggested. He stated that a General Plan Amendment for Mesquite Avenue would not affect the project except to bring the street closer to the buildings and that the meandering wall was not considered a weak element by the AAC. He noted that Flood Control has approved the project concept. J. Wessman, contractor for the project, stated that the plans show plans ill t final developmentan w stamped enriched concrete but that hep show that the element has changed. He stated that the Commission can review it with the final development plans, and that colors for the hotel had not been chosen but that white would be too stark. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that in changing and mixing colors, care be taken. Mr. Wessman stated that Mexican roof tile will be used if it can be obtained. In reply to Chairman's question, S. Crowe, the applicant, stated that the only significant change is moving the parking from underneath the tennis courts which is acceptable to the developer. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Curtis absent) approving the revised application subject to staff recommendations and the following conditions: 1. That final development plans be submitted including details of enriched concrete areas. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That Mexican roof tile be used. Planning Director stated that the revisions to the project had been reviewed as an architectural case rather than a public hearing because the revised project had less impact on the neighborhood than the original . He stated that the change in the enriched paving materials described by Mr. Wessman was not reviewed by the AAC nor staff and might change the character of the project. He requested that final approval not be given until the Commission reviews the final development plans which would include the paving areas. Discussion followed regarding revisions to the enriched concrete areas. Mr. Crow stated that because of the expense, stamped concrete would not i i June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.8 i PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0282-PD-150. (Continued) be used in the valet parking areas although a final determination had not been made of the placement of the enriched concrete. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the Commission review the concrete in the final development plans. CASE 3.568 (REF. CASE 3.421) . Application by R. FLOYD for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family hillside residents at 555 N. Patencio Road, R1A Zone, Section 10. Continued at the applicant's request to June 27, 1984. CASE 3.678 (REF. CASE 5.0128-PD-107) . Application by DESERT ISLE ASSOCIATES for a restaurant within a previously approved plan redevelopment district (PD-107) on East Palm Canyon Drive between Barona Road/Araby Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25. (This case is being noticed in response to a condition of approval of PD-107) . (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with PD-107.) Chairman stated that the project was recommended for a restudy and declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was �-' closed and Chairman continued the item for a restudy noting the following concerns: 1. That screen landscaping be added to the western elevation. 2. That architectural elements of the proposed restaurant relate to the existing adjoining building. 3. That harmonization of the two structures may be achieved with color. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.689. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of warehouse with offices on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Chia Road, MIP Zone, Section 7. Planning Director stated that one member of the AAC felt that the project needed enhancement and dissented. Discussion followed at the board. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the building was monotonous. Planner III stated that the driveway issue is being studied for a possible combination of two driveways. June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.9 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.689. (Continued) Chairman stated that Gene Autry Trail will not be a bypass if many curb cuts are approved, and that traffic problems will develop. Planning I Director agreed. Chairman suggested that the driveways be combined if possible. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis absent) for a restudy noting Commission concerns. i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DISCUSSION. Request by DESERT WATER AGENCY to review initial study for advanced wastewater treatment facility and distribution system for property located adjacent to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, Section 19, O-Zone. In reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that reclaimed water will be used at the Mesquite Country Club. He stated also that staff was recommending a negative declaration for the advanced waste- water treatment facility and distribution system for the DWA. M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Curtis absent) recommending that a negative -` declaration be prepared by the Desert Water Agency. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION i Study Session Date Change. Planning Director stated that he cannot attend the study session in June if it were scheduled on its regular June 20 date. After discussion, consensus was that the date would be changed to June 19 from 2 to 5 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Planning Positions. Planning Director stated that Margo Williams, Planner II, began working in current planning on June 4; that Planner III, Doug Evans will begin working in future planning and sphere area planning, and a Planner I position will be filled after July 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/m June 13, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ADDENDUM - Architectural Approval Item CASE 3.677 Application by I. DAMPF for architectural approval of working drawings for single family residence at 2301 Araby Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 25. i Approved as submitted. I k y PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 27, 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 20 3 Hugh Curtis X 21. 2 Hugh Kaptur - 19 4 Peter Koetting - 20 3 Don Lawrence X 2.2 1 Paul Madsen X 21 2 Sharon Apf elbaum - 21 2 Staff Present I Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director I. Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II Robert Green, Planner III Richard Patenaude , Planner II John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - June 25, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills William Johnson Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Absent: Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen) approving minutes of the une 13, 198 meeting with the following corrections: Page 5, last paragraph, line 22 should read as follows: result that cannot be attained straightforwardly." Page 19, last line: Delete "Vice-".