Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/06/27 - MINUTES i I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 27, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1.984 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 22 1 Paul Madsen X 21. 2 Sharon Apf elbaum - 21 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director 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 June 13, 1984, 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-". i - June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.300. Application by PRIDE LANDSCAPE for Vilisa Associates for architectural approval of landscape plans for industrial/commercial building on Montalvo Way between Tachevah Drive/Chia Road in Fairport Industrial Park, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Restudy. CASE 3.707. Application by HOLDEN & JOHNSON for D. Knutson for architectural approval of a tennis court on a single-family residential lot at 844 Mission Road between Hermosa Avenue/Mountain View Place, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.737-CUP. Application by M. BUCCINO for K. IRWIN for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for a 75-unit apartment development on Avenida Caballeros between Amado Road/Alejo Road, R-G-A-(8) Zone, Section 14. Continued for a site visit to determine the effect on the architecture of removal of the trees. CASE 3.709. Application by MCKINNEY/BGW, INC. for architectural approval of remodel of commercial building located at northwest corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Arenas Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That a horizontal metal panel be used on the fascia (details to be submitted to AAC for approval) . 2. That the building be a sand color (details to be submitted for staff approval). 3. That the awning to Arenas Drive be revised to match that on the Palm Canyon elevation. Details to be submitted and approved by Planning Commission. Encroachment into R.O.W. will require City Council approval . 4. That landscaping be added to existing planters (details to be sub- mitted for staff approval ) . Abstention: Service. 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. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . Written comments received from P.S. Board of Realtors, Merchants and Citizen Association, Sign Task Force members, and the public. ) Planning Director explained that the revisions recommended at the June 13 meeting had been compiled by staff in a memo distributed to the Commission, that there were some minor changes by the City Attorney's Office; and that the Merchants and Citizens Association had requested continuance (by letter on file in the Planning Division) to develop an Ordinance acceptable to everyone. He stated that the City Attorneys had both reviewed the document and no significant changes should be forth- coming. He discussed a memo dated 6-18-84 (on file in the Planning Division) regarding changes and stated that approximately 49 non- conforming signs will be created by lowering the height limit of free- standing signs to 8 feet, and that the wording on the amortization schedule would revert to the original ordinance wording pursuant to State law. Regarding reader board signage, he stated that any wording that would constitute a sign that would not otherwise be allowed, would not be allowed on a reader board; and that he felt that the case should not be continued at the request of the Merchants and Citizens Associa- tion because the Sign Ordinance will be reviewed by the Council which will be made aware of the Association's concerns. He stated that State legislation states that the amortization of signs could only be done if the jurisdiction that was abating the sign paid for it unless there was an amortization schedule in effect in the community, and City Attorney feels that changing the amortization schedule wording might affect the City's ability to amortize signs. In response to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the degree of "restricted access" to a condominium complex was not specific- ally stated, but that projects with the appearance of being restricted or ones that are actually restricted by a physical barrier or other mechanical device would be included. He stated that staff will recommend to the Council that the restricted access/open house sign portion of the Ordinance be deleted altogether. Commissioner Lawrence stated that staff's definition of "restricted access" was not what he had understood at the June 13 meeting, and that he felt that the ordinance should not be sent to Council unless "restricted access" were clearly defined. Planning Director stated that the issue is not that the Commission would not make the decision but that staff will recommend to the Council that this section be deleted and if the Commission wishes to make it specific, a physical barrier can be the factor determining "restricted". He stated that staff recommends that the extra open house sign on the outside of the condominium not be allowed. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0281.-ZTA-(Continued) . Discussion followed on the definition of "restricted access". Commissioner Lawrence stated that with no physical barrier, judgment would be left to Zoning Enforcement Officers on whether or not a project is allowed a sign. Further discussion followed. Some Commissioners felt that the appearance of being restricted is a viable reason for allowing a sign. Chairman commented that the staff definition tried to satisfy Commissioner Madsen's definition of "appearance of being restricted", but is actually stating that there had to be an actual physical barrier. Discussion continued. Chairman suggested that the term "restricted access - residential complex" be used and that "condominium" and "Planned Development District" be deleted. He stated that the issue will be decided by the Council in any event. Commissioner Lawrence noted that an error was made in adding the term "restricted access" since it is totally unenforceable. Chairman stated that it was unfair to other property owners in the City for only one segment of the populace to be allowed signing and that it is unenforceable and shows favoritism. Discussion followed. Commissioner Madsen stated that people living behind walls do not have the advantage of home buyers seeing their property. Chairman questioned whether or not a mobile home park behind a wall would be able to have a sign at the entrance. Discussion followed. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Rothman, real estate broker and member of the Sign Task Force, stated that in a previous meeting the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to retain the clause on signs on condominium complexes and deleted the clause in the meeting of June 13 which caused concern among the Board of Realtors. He stated that the realtors interpreted "restricted access" as a physical restriction. He presented a letter from R. Fey, President of the Board of Realtors, who requested that signs not be restricted to "gate" guarded condos only since denying the sign is discriminatory and would cause proliferation of signs. Mr. Rothman stated that the reference in the letter to "single-multi-family project" means single- family condominiums in a condominium complex. Discussion followed on real estate terminology. Chairman stated that the confusion in terminology is caused by the real estate industry uses of terms that are defined differently by planners and the Planning Commission. Mr. Rothman stated that real estate terms are those used by the Department of Real Estate. R. Flavin, Vice-President of the Board of Realtors, requested that the wording of two weeks ago be retained. He stated that signing could be allowed on leased projects because each person owns a portion of the June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0281-ZTA-(Continued). leasehold interest, and that multi-family complexes require signing because most prospective buyers will not enter a gate. Discussion followed on the signing for multi-family complexes. Planning Director stated that the proposed Ordinance provides for one sign either at the entry or at the unit. T. Broich, President of the Merchants and Citizens Association, requested that the case be continued for the Association to meet with the Sign Users Council to develop an easily understood Ordinance and that he did not have a copy of the most recent revision. He stated that the Association had just recently become interested in the Sign Ordinance and that the Sign Ordinance Task Force Convener also signed the letter requesting continuance because the additional changes that were made by staff require review. He stated that self-regulation means that the Ordinance states exactly what is required for a sign, and that the attorney for the Sign Users Council agrees with the interpretation. He noted that the Ordinance is not enforceable, and that the City has lost court cases regarding signage. Commissioner Curtis stated that the proposed Ordinance reflects the Sign Task Force's ideas and that the Sign Ordinance should be finalized. He stated that he was not ready to send it Council for different reasons from the Association. Mr. Rothman commented that the Task Force debated the term "self- regulating" but never came to a conclusion; that it is difficult to develop an ordinance which has requirements for every contingency. He stated that the many segments of the community had been represented or had a member on the Task Force developing the ordinance except the Merchants and Citizens Association. He stated that the term "self- regulating" came from a lawyer during the Sign Ordinance review. Commissioner Lawrence stated that several issues were unresolved by the Task Force and the Association represents the minority. There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing. Discussion ensued on "restricted access" terminology. Chairman suggested that the issue be separated from the body of the Sign Ordinance for expedition or that the Council be apprised in a Planning Commission resolution that the issue is unresolved. M/S (Lawrence/Curtis; Apfelbaum/Koetting/Kaptur, absent) continuing the item to July 25. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0281-ZTA-(Continued) . The vote was as follows: AYES: Lawrence NOES: Curtis/Madsen/Service ABSENT: Apfelbaum/Koetting/Kaptur The motion failed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he made the motion because the Sign Ordinance will affect the City for many years, continuance for more input would be valid, and also because three Commissioners were absent. He stated that if the Merchants and Citizens Association did not provide input one week prior to the July 25th meeting, he would vote to approve the proposed ordinance. Chairman stated that there should be a purpose for continuing the case, that there are not many outstanding issues, that the issues could be resolved at the meeting, and that he did not support the Association's request for continuance since it did not serve the public interest. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the Ordinance could be continued to September if necessary, that the continuance would not affect anyone, and that good will will be lost if the Sign Ordinance is passed in its current state. Commissioner Curtis stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Lawrence, and that his reason for continuance was for resolution of 1.7.3(g) regarding "restricted access". Commissioner Madsen stated that it would be difficult to develop an ordinance which would be acceptable to everyone, and that although the Association has criticized the Commission, nothing specific has come from the members. He stated that he would not support a continuance. Chairman stated that matters of public concern have been reviewed by the Commission, and that a self-regulating ordinance is not valid. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he might not vote for the proposed Merchants and Citizens Association ordinance, but that it should be reviewed. Commissioner Madsen stated that the Association will have input on the Ordinance at the City Council level, and that ordinances can be changed. M/Madsen to remove 17.3(g) from the motion was approved by the Chairman. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent; Lawrence dissented) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and approving the Sign Ordinance (with the exception of 17.3.g) including the final comments and review of the City Attorney and staff. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0281-ZTA-(Continued) . M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent; Lawrence, dissented) that the definition of "restricted access" is access by a physical barrier or the appearance of restriction of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he did not understand the motion, and that it was not enforceable. Commissioner Madsen stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer reviews the access as any other person would. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent; Lawrence, dissented) to table review of 17.3.g to the end of the meeting. Chairman stated that the public hearing on the Sign Ordinance was closed. Note: At the end of the meeting, because of the lateness of the hour, Chairman continued portion 17.3.g to the July 11th meeting. CASE 5.0285-CUP. Application by G. MARANTZ for a CUP to allow a recreational vehicle park on the extension of Mesquite Avenue between Belardo Road/Mesquite Avenue, O-ZO (I.L. ) , Section 22. (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny Case 5.0285-CUP. Planner III presented a staff report and stated that the key issue is whether or not the Commission approves of the land use. He stated that correspondence had been received from Ruth Adams, 393 West Mesquite, opposing the project because the land characteristics are not comple- mented by the use, that an earthquake could be disastrous, that traffic would be increased on Mesquite, that fire and emergency access will be difficult and that the project does not add to the permanent population of the community. He stated that the issues are the land use and site deficiencies. Chairman commented that there need not be an environmental assessment unless the project were approved. Planner III stated that the zoning on the park is 0-20 and most of the site is hillside. Chairman declared the hearing open. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0285-CUP. W. McKenzie, 5435 Balboa Blvd. , Encino, California, Engineer for the project, stated that the land use proposed is less intense than the uses allowed under existing zoning and is the only viable use. He stated that there are inaccuracies in the staff report, i.e., 30 acres of which 6 are on a flat portion of the property, that cut material will be filled on the property to create a 6% slope, and that the extension of Mesquite should be constructed easterly of the McGlamary single-family residence, that except for the road there would be no cuts onsite and that there would be substantial fill on site. Planner III stated, in reply to Chairman's question, that the current General Plan designation is Residential High 43. In reply to Commission question, Mr. McKenzie stated that the site is not visible except from the air, and that the residents of Park View Mobilehome Park will be disturbed as little as possible. He stated that there is no view from Park View to the RV park. In reply to Commission question, he stated that he did not understand the AAC's view that the site plan was not sympathetic since because of City requirements there is not much flexibility on the site, and that he has tried to be sympathetic. Planner III stated that the City does not have the ability of turning the General Plan street north at a point east of the McGlamary house and that the site that the street is trying to reach is landlocked if the project is approved. He stated that if the street turned the way the applicant proposes, the City would be required to purchase land, and that if the street were west of the McGlamary house it would reach City owned property, which is a preferable solution. Discussion followed on the extension of the street as the applicant proposed. G. Marantz, the applicant, stated that the land will revert to the Indians if not developed, that his understanding is that the use is acceptable, that Mrs. McGlamary does not want Mesquite to run behind her home, and that she also owns the property to the east of her home. He stated that the General Plan shows Mesquite turning at the applicant's proposed location, that he would not have services available to people coming out of the canyon, and that the project would have security. Planning Director stated that staff did not have documents on anything but the odd shaped 6 acre parcel . Mr. Marantz stated that it was submitted several months ago and that the Council minutes show that if the project were approved he would not have to follow the new standard for R.V. park size, that the Indian landowner has stated he would lease the mountain to Mr. Marantz and that the 22 acres would be deeded to ,�, the City (30 acres documented and 6 acres developable) . i I i June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0285-CUP. (Continued) Planning Director stated that the site had been graded previously and had some damage and it was felt that if the applicant submitted a- high quality project, staff would support it. He stated that the subject property does not meet the RV park standards and that the applicant has been told that the concept of concrete and oleanders would not be acceptable. He noted that the highest and best use would be a project in the low-density residential range such as garden apartments, and that there is not adequate access for a high density project. He stated that high density wouldn't be feasible until Park View redevelops, which is 40 years. He noted that the pads on the proposed project are 20 feet above the mobile sites in Parkview at the worst case and the view would be of dirt and retaining walls. S. Coos, of Scenic Drive, Park View, stated that he agreed with staff findings, and spoke for the owners of Park View who also oppose the project. Mrs. Sam Hill, 1729 Scenic Drive, Park View, stated that because of the sheer rock face there is flooding in Park View and questioned whether or not studies have been made of the situation. She stated that RV parks create transients, that the use is not compatible with the neighbors, that it is in close proximity to another park. Mrs. Charlotte Graham, Park View resident, asked if the two-lane street between Happy Traveler and Park View would be widened since the traffic moves very fast along the street. Chairman explained that the property owner is responsible for constructing the remaining half of the roadway when his property develops. Mrs. Graham stated that access would have to be on the RV portion of the street during construction and there could be a fire emergency hazard. She questioned access by Park View residents during construction. W. McKenzie (rebuttal) stated that hydrology improvements on the site, direct water to the watercourse which carries a sufficient flow, and that West Mesquite will be improved east of the McGlamary house to the entrance of the subject project's private street. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that the issue is if the land use is appropriate and if it is the project should be remanded to staff for review for it to conform to City standards. He stated that staff feels that it is not an appropriate use and should be denied. Planning Director stated that a PD will assure that the project conforms to City standards but that a General Plan Street Plan Amendment would be necessary for a specific plan to be developed for Mesquite in the area. I i i June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0285-CUP. (Continued) Commissioner Curtis stated that he disagreed with staff that it is a hillside property, that he did not know which use would be the best that the use is intense and insensitive and not acceptable in its present condition, but the use is not totally out of context with the other uses in the area. He stated that there are some conditions in the staff report that are accurate and should be met. Chairman stated that the area is one of the few areas accommodating RV's but should not be expanded because of contributing to trespassing in the canyons. He stated that he could understand the next door neighbor's concerns but that a hotel would have similar problems, that the issue of placing the RV park adjacent to Park View was omitted, and the use may endanger the Tahquitz Recreation Area Plan. He stated that extension of the adjacent use would be more compatible, and that the highest and best use could not be developed for 40 years. Commissioner Curtis stated that he was not ready to support the applica- tion because it does not meet General Plan or zoning requirements. Commissioner Lawrence stated that sensitivity was important as well as the public health, safety and welfare; and the particular use is not appealing but that a PD may be possible if the applicant can meet the requirements. M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Madsen abstained; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent) denying Case 5.0285-CUP. Mr. McKenzie informed staff that the applicant will appeal the action. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "City Staff Report dated June 27, 1984 noted that ' Insufficient detail has been submitted to fully assess the proposal ' . While it appears that the site could be developed so that the proposed use would be consistent with the Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (Residential -Hotel 431 Apartment 21, and Hillside) , and compatible with area development, the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant concurred with Staff's notation based on the review of material received from the Planning Director, i.e. , Staff Report, Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Development Committee Minutes. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council recommended that the case be continued for purposes of the applicant providing City Staff with the appropriate information and detail that would address the environmental issues that have been raised, including mitigation, and that would show compliance and/or intent to comply with the requirements and conditions set forth in Development Committee Minutes dated May 25, 1984." June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0320-CUP. Application by H & G SMITH for a CUP for a restaurant in Rimrock Plaza Shopping Center on East Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Dunn Road, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. (An environmental assessment was previously prepared in conjunction with Case 5.0090-CUP. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the application subject to conditions. Planner III presented the staff report, and stated that if the project is approved, future building on the site will be reduced or additional parking added so there will be no parking deficiency. Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Smith, owner of Rimrock Plaza Shopping Center, requested that condi- tion #3 in the staff report be deleted since there is an existing trash enclosure close to the restaurant which is not being used. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planner III stated that staff recommends a holding area inside the restaurant for trash (to eliminate debris) since the restaurant is not immediately adjacent to the dumpster. He stated that wording could be developed as a condition or in the Planning Commission resolution to require a trash holding area for the restaurant if trash and debris cause a problem. Mr. Smith stated that the condition would be acceptable. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur, absent) approving Case 5.0320-CUP with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That a food service facility is properly a use for which a condi- tional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the shopping center is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed restaurant including the parking necessary to meet codes, and the requirements of the C-D-N Zone. 3. That the use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community; it is not materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. That the circulation system adjacent to the subject property is adequate in size in design and capacity to handle anticipated traffic to be generated by the proposed use. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1.2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0320-CUP. (Continued) CONDITIONS: 1. That 2200 square feet of future building area be deleted from the Master Plan of the site or that 11 additional parking spaces be provided on- or off-site. 2. That a complete mechanical equipment plan be submitted including plans to adequately screen proposed equipment not enclosed or con- cealed by the existing roof structure. 3. That an internal holding area for trash be developed within the restaurant. 4. That detailed plans be submitted to the Fire Department and Building Division for plan check with specific emphasis upon occupant load, existing improvements and exiting requirements. 5. That commercial cooking equipment will require a fixed fire pro- tection system to be installed in conformance with NFPA #96. 6. That portable fire extinguishers will be required in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. 7. That a grease trap will be required. 8. That Riverside County Health Department approve the layout for the restaurant. 9. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0319-CUP. Application by R. WYDER for a CUP for a car rental agency as an accessory use to the Spa Hotel on the northeast corner of Andreas Road/Calle Encilia, C-2 and C-1-A-A Zones (I.L.) , Section 14. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines,.) Recommendation: That the Commission approve Case 5.0319-CUP subject to conditions. Planner III presented the staff report, and stated that it is an accessory use within the hotel with services for rental autos provided off-site. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0319-CUP. (Continued) Chairman stated that a recent application for another rental car agency was denied because of neighbors' complaints, and that the City does not have the power to determine whether or not Cities can or cannot advertise to attract customers. Planner III stated that it is a standard condition of the Zoning Ordinance, although legalities will have to be referred to the City Attorney. Chairman stated that other hotels have businesses such as resort clothing stores which advertise and questioned whether the advertising is legal . Planner III stated that the intent was to limit the scale of the operation but the condition is difficult to administer. Assistant City Attorney stated that a car rental as a accessory use is a service provided by the hotel for its guests, is more like a concession which operates in the hotel , and advertising to the general public is enforceable. He stated that he felt that advertising to the public can be prohibited (and upheld) if the use is an accessory use to the hotel . Commissioner Madsen stated that another rental car agency was not permitted to advertise its location, but the rental agency transported potential car rental customers. Chairman agreed and stated that business is conducted over the phone and the agency answers in the name of the hotel . Chairman stated that accessory uses in hotels are not allowed outside signage, and that public advertising can be prohibited according to the City Attorney. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Wyder, 3131 North Indian Avenue, the applicant stated he was present to answer questions. In reply to Chairman's question, he stated that the way that the staff report reads is the way he views advertising regulation but that renting cars to hotel guests only would be extremely limiting. He stated that Commissioner Madsen had mentioned that using a phone number and transporting those who want to rent cars might be a way that would be acceptable. He stated that service for cars is performed by outside facilities. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated in reply to Commission question that the Zoning Ordinance has restrictions against public advertising for hotel accessory businesses. He stated that there had been no complaints about June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0319-CUP. (Continued) the one agency operating from a hotel in town, and that the applicant and he have met about the site as an i nterim onebefore he finds a suitable site not requiring a CUP. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Kaptur/Koetting/Apfelbaum absent) approving the application with the following findings and subject to the following conditions. FINDINGS 1. That the car rental agency (as an accessory use to the Spa Hotel ) is authorized by a conditional use permit under the Zoninq Ordinance. 2. That the use is desirable for the development of the community since it enhances the tourist function of the City. It is also in harmony with the various objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses, or to uses specifically permitted in the zone. 3. That the parking lot is improved in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the sites relate to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That ancillary commercial uses do not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the hotel (an ordinance requirement) . CONDITIONS 1. That there shall be no advertising which would imply that vehicles may be leased or rented by those other than quests of the subject hotel . 2. That no more than nine rental cars shall be stored at the site. 3. That total commercial accessory uses allowed within the hotel shall not occupy more than twenty percent of the gross floor area of the hotel building. 4. That there shall be an annual review of the sites by the Planning Division prior to renewal of the business license. 5. That there shall be no repairing or servicing of vehicles at the hotel site. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0319-CUP. (Continued) 6. That there shall be an annual review of the site by the Department of Planning and Development prior to renewal of the business license. 7. That the facilities to be used to service and wash vehicles be reviewed and approved by staff prior to final implementation of the C.U.P. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. For the record, it was noted that the site occupied by the Spa Hotel is tribal property and lessor, the Tribe may receive financial benefit from the car rental agency. 2. Concurred with the findings and recommendations set forth in City Staff Report dated June 27, 1984. 3. Approved the granting of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. CASE 5.0294-PD-151. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a PD to allow a recreational vehicle park and apartment complex on North Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/Tramview Road (extension) , R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Environmental assessment; tentative approval .) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the application to July11 for further review. Planning Director stated that the Indian Planning Commission commented that the location is below the Highway and will be highly visible from the street. Planner III presented the staff report and stated that there is an issue of awareness because the size of the project impacts Highway Ill and the Fringe-toed Lizard habitat. He stated that Caltrans concerns can be addressed in the conditions of approval, and that there is proper mitigation for the Fringe-toed Lizard habitat developed through CVAG and the Nature Conservancy. He stated that the mitigation will be reviewed at the Council level , that the sewerage requirement would be the equivalent of a mobilehome park because of the use of the restrooms and the laundry facilities, that there was incomplete information regarding the projected traffic increase, and that there is a deficiency in setback requirements of approximately 50 feet using R-2 standards, but that a landscape buffer provides a visual break. In reply to Commission June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294-PD-151. (Continued) question, he stated that the initial view would be hardscape until landscaping matures. He stated also that the project can be seen from the Chino Cone, explained that 90 % is open space with 30% of each pad landscaped and that the stay will be longer than one night (the Ordinance allows up to six months) . Chairman stated that the community is fortunate to have an application of the quality of the project but the location at the entrance of the City is unfortunate. He stated that he could not support it in its present location. Planner III stated that the AAC discussed moving the apartment structure to the front of the property as a visual barrier. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon, the architect, stated that the project was developed before the RV Ordinance and the problems with the Ordinance were not intentional . He stated that moving the apartments to the frontage was considered, but it would not be desirable for the RV' s to provide the buffer between the project and the existing single-family residences, that a hardline effect has been avoided by landscaping and there is a possibility of moving the Whitewater Irrigation District Reservoir toward the front which would enhance the project. He stated �.. that the park would be of high quality with long term leases and asked that the requirement for centerline reduction of 50 feet be deleted. He requested a roll curb and flexibility on the 617 space density since the applicant feels that an RV unit does not generate the amount of sewerage as a single-family complex. He also requested exemption from the R-2 standards for a 150 foot setback to allow building of more affordable apartments since there is a dense landscape buffer. He requested exemption from the cul-de-sac requirement as not appropriate in the area and requested that grading be allowed during the windy season subject to the mitigative measures proposed by staff. He stated that if the project were single-family and built to R-1-C standards, the setbacks and overall landscaping would be far less, and that there is a forest-type windbreak. Reverend Rollins, 303 Avenida Circle and minister of the First Baptist Church, requested approval since the neighborhood needs affordable apartments for young people. C. Dauphine, 879 Gateway Drive, Realtor and former City Commissioner, stated that although there is view obstruction and some traffic problems, the project is viable. He stated that affordable housing is needed for moderate income families. Mrs. K. Heinrich, realtor and developer, stated that although the park is well planned, it is impossible to have dense landscaping because of recreation vehicles being towed by the RV's, that RV parks are basically all concrete, that there is doubt whether or not this type of park is June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294-PD-151. (Continued) needed, and that the park should not be built at the entrance to the City. She stated that she is developing property adjacent to the proposed park as a hotel-golf course-condominium-spa resort and that hotel guests would be viewing the RV park which is not desirable. She stated that the hotel project would be a better entry to the City and would enhance the image of Palm Springs. She noted that other areas are better suited to an RV park and that a well planned RV park was developed in Indio and not leased for 4 ,years because the owner wanted to upgrade for long-term leasing. C. Mills (rebuttal) stated that the forest referred to is the wind break system portion only, that RV tourists should be treated as well as the buyers of the adjacent condominium project, that the project proposed by Mrs. Heinrich will be required to have a wind break which will help shield the RV park, and that there is no view from the Heinrich project toward the RV park. He stated that the RV project should not affect the Heinrich project, that the RV park is of high quality and that the project is a good one and helps to fulfill City housing needs. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Apfelbaum/Koetting/Kaptur absent; Lawrence - abstained) to continue the project for further review to July 11. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "While this case does not directly involve Indian trust-land, it was noted that the project site has frontage on the main entry road to the City (Hwy. 111) . It is highly visible since the ground elevation is considerably lower than Hwy. 111, and is located within the corridor where the City has expressed strong concerns with the visual impacts of other projects, i .e. wind energy developments. The Tribal Council strongly recommends that the Planning Commission carefully consider the suitability of the proposed use in this location from the standpoint of its possible adverse visual impacts." PUBLIC COMMENTS None. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0312-I Application by RENEWABLE ENERGY VENTURES for a change of zone from R-R (Rural Residential ) to W-E (Wind Energy) , north of Highway 111, south of I-10, Section 14. Chairman stated that the project should be continued until sphere planning for the location is developed. Planning Director stated that the council will be meeting on wind energy policy at its June 27th meeting, and that the Commission previously is approved WECS Permit No. 24 which is a portion of the Zone Change application. He suggested if it is approved there is a caveat that if the council delays wind energy applications, the subject applicant is included. He stated that the council will be taking action for a moratorium on future projects, not projects in progress, and that the Commission felt in its original action that the subject project was reasonably screened and not a problem. M/S/C (Mad sen/Lawrence/Apfe1baum/Kaptur/Koetting absent) continuing the application until a county sphere plan is developed. CASE 5.0312-I-MISC. (Continued) . Planning Director stated that the Wind Energy applicant wished to provide input. �-- G. Stricker of Renewable Energy Ventures, the applicant requested consistency with proposed City Council action that projects before the City will be approved with future projects to be delayed until the sphere plan is developed. And as a recommendation to the other governing bodies. Chairman stated that staff has advised the commission that projects should not be reviewed on a one to one basis and should be delayed until the county sphere plan is developed. Mr. Stricker stated that the moratorium causes problems for the industry and will cause alot of rushed projects. He stated that tax credits for shelter will expire soon. Consensus was that the previous action not be reconsidered. 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. r June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued CASE 3.568-(REF. CASE 3.421 - Continued) . Application by R. FLOYD for architectural approval of landscape plans for single-family hillside residence at 555 N. Patencio Road, R1A Zone, Section 10. Planner III stated that the AAC feels that the palm trees are not appropriate, and that a native species should be used such as Palo Verde or Mesquite, which are less formal and unobtrusive to the view. He stated that the lighting plan has been approved by the commission previously. J. Schlecht, attorney representing the applicant stated that his client did not realize the City disapproved the palm trees until after they were installed, and that the applicant would have applied to install the trees since he feels they add to the site aesthetically and are not objectionable. He stated that if height is a problem, the applicant could execute a deed restriction for removal beyond a certain height (perhaps 40 feet) . Commissioner Curtis stated that the applicant knew from the beginning that the trees and the light sources shining up the trunks were a problem. He stated that the trees did not belong in their present location and will grow much larger than 40 feet, and difficult to remove. Chairman stated that he wanted to reiterate concerns on the high blue hued light level which the applicant cannot enjoy but is lighted only to make the property visible at night. He stated that the palm tree installation is an expensive mistake. Mr. Schlecht questioned whether or not the prohibition of palm trees was a policy decision. Chairman stated that the commission approved a landscape plan which was not followed, and that the AAC feels is inappropriate. Commissioner Curtis stated that the AAC and the Planning Commission had discussed the trees within the last year and site line and visual problems were mentioned. He stated that it would be unfortunate to have to remove the trees but they are not visually appealing and that the second story addition is not sensitive to the hillside. He stated that everything about the house and the trees has been a problem. Mr. Schlecht stated that the addition had been revised by the applicant. Planning Director stated that the original landscape plan had no palm trees, and African Sumac and Palo Verde were commented on as part of the plan, although the applicant may not have known about the landscape requirement and thought that the formal entrance was satisfying. Planner III stated that in March and April of 1983 conditions of landscape review were approved by the commission. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.568. (Continued) Discussion followed on the lighting. Planner III stated that the lighting plan could be reviewed to see if it is in the conformance with the approved plan and that the trees in question are those on the driveway only. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Koetting, Kaptur, Apfelbaum absent) taking the following action: 1. Lighting. Approved previously as follows: Subject to the light source not being visible off the property at a normal viewing angle. 2. Landscaping. Denied the double row of palm trees along the driveway. (A clustered native species is more appropriate to the hillside. ) CASE 3.678 (REF. CASE 5.0128-PD-107)-(Continued for Architectural Review. The public hearing was closed at the June 13 meeting.) Application by DESERT ISLE ASSOCIATES for a restaurant within a previously approved Planned Development District (PD-107) on East Palm Canyon Drive between Barona Road/Araby Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25. Chairman stated that the AAC recommended the restudy. R. Johnson the architect stated that the AAC members were divided on the design ... concept, gave no directions for restudy, and suggested that the design be discussed with the Commission. He explained the revisions to the project. Chairman stated that the success of the project may be endangered by blending it in with the Desert Isle resort although signaqe may help. Mr. Johnson stated that a departure has been made with the building materials. Chairman stated that it so subtle that the average person may not detect it. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Madsen dissented; Apfelbaum, Kaptur, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the revisions made on the plans. Note: Commissioner Madsen dissented because he felt the revisions should be reviewed by the AAC. CASE 3.505. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATES for Palm Canyon Associates for architectural approval of revised tile for a 180 unit condominium project on the northwest corner of East Palm Canyon Drive/Cherokee Way, RGA-8 Zone, IL, Section 30. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Kaptur absent) continuing the application till July 11, 1984, for the applicant to discuss the restudy recommendation with the Commission. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.702. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Peri-Mel I for architectural approval of an 118-unit condominium project on Avenida Caballeros between Arenas Road/Saturnino Road, R-4 Zone (I.L.) , Section 1.4. M/S/C (Lawrence, Curtis; Apfelbaum, Kaptur, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That site plan, elevations, and preliminary landscape plans are approved as submitted. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the elevated tennis court area will be included in the open space calculations because of the integration of the tennis court space into the second floor open space network. . CASE 3.707 (Continued). Planning Director requested that the case be discussed since it is a new concept. Chairman stated that the question is whether or not elevated tennis courts with underground parking can be calculated as open space. Planner II presented the project on the display board and stated that tennis court fence at the AAC meeting. there was no discussion on the en .g Chairman requested that plants to cover the fence be reviewed when landscape plans are submitted. Consensus was that the previous motion still expressedthe Commissions attitude. RESTUDY ITEM The following item has been recommended for restudy and will not be scheduled for Planning Commission review until new plans have been submitted. CASE 3.692. Application by H. LAPHAM for E. Yoder for architectural approval of an 80-unit apartment complex on Indian Avenue between Francis Road/Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis/Apfelbaum/Kaptur/Koetting absent) for a restudy noting the following: 1. Revision of the site plan to provide parking in smaller peripheral lots, relocation of structures around a central common green space, and combination of the pool area, retention area and open space for a usable open space. 2. Provide more overhang on the units (up to 3 feet) . 3. Introduction of screened walls, shown on the front elevations, on the rear elevations. June 27, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at T:00 p.m. A A/1 JZLA� G �--> PLANNING D RECTOR I MDR/ml WP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City4Hall July 11, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 1 Hugh Curtis X 1 Hugh Kaptur X 1 Peter Koetting X 1 Don Lawrence X 1 Paul Madsen X 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 0 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - July 9, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills William Johnson Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Absent: Sharon Apfelbaum, Earl Neel , Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the June 27, 1984, meeting will be reviewed at the July 25 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall July 25, 1984 �. 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 7.984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 2 0 Hugh Curtis - 1 1 Hugh Kaptur X 2 0 Peter Koetting X 2 0 Don Lawrence - 1 1 Paul Madsen X 2 0 Sharon Apfelbaum X 1 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - July 23, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills William Johnson Hugh Curtis Sharon Apfelbaum Absent: Michael Buccino, Earl Neel, Hugh Curtis Alternate: Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving minutes of the June 27 and July 8, 1984, meetings as submitted.