Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/07/11 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING M,iNUTES Council Chamber, Cites"Hall 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 j 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. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: M/S/C (Koetting, Madsen; Apfelbaum absent) Re-electing Richard Service Chairman. M/S/C (Madsen, Lawrence; Apfelbaum absent) Re-electing Peter Koetting Vice-Chairman. CONSENT ACTION AGENDA: M/S/C (Koetting, Kaptur; Apfelbaum) absent taking the following actions: i CASE 3.474 (Minor) . Application by SMOKETREE RACQUET CLUB HOA for architectural approval of security gates at 1655 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26. I Approved subject to the following conditions: I 1. That the entry on East Palm Canyon Drive be restudied for the provision of additional landscaping. 2. That the Sunrise Way entry area be restudied per notes on the plan. 3. That additional plant materials be added into a detailed landscape plan to be submitted (1 inch = 10 feet). 4. That existing palms be relocated on site. 5. That staff recommendations as noted on the plan be incorporated as conditions of approval. CASE 3.487. Application by J. CIOFFI for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of room addition for single family residence on private road, 0-20, Section 25. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That support column details be studied in the working drawing stage. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Abstention: Kaptur CASE 3.604. Application by C. MILLS for H. Hampton for architectural approval of revised site plan for single family residence at 3255 Tigertail Lane, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.737-CUP (Cont'd for field review by the AAC). 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. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.737-CUP (Continued) Approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CASE 5.0294-PD-151 (Cont'd. ). Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a PD to allow a recreational vehicle park & apartment complex on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/Tramview Road (extension) , R-1-C Zone, Section 34. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve PD-151 and continue the application till July 25 for written response to the draft Negative Declaration. In response to a question from Commissioner Kaptur, Assistant City Attorney stated it would not be necessary for Mr. Kaptur to abstain on Case 5.0294-PD-151 on the basis of a client's bringing a complaint. Planner III presented an overview of the project in an environmental assessment noting that a school site will be required; that there is no danger to the fringe-toed lizard habitat; that there will be sewer impacts (although disputed by the applicant) ; that traffic will be increased but that mitigation will be required in the form of a signal at Hwy 111 and Gateway Drive. He stated that the number of units of affordable housing (240) cannot be supported without a General Plan amendment, and that a previous application filed by the applicant and denied by the Commission had been reviewed by the State. He stated that the site plan had been prepared prior to the RV Ordinance; that the applicant will revise the site plan (which will be reviewed by the Commission) to conform to the RV Ordinance; and that the project will show a positive impact on the fiscal balance of the City. He stated that the 617 unit figure for RV spaces is a flexible one, that the landscape screen will block much of the view from the highway, and that the tennis courts will be sunken and will have slightly reduced setbacks. In reply to Commission questions, Planner III stated that sewage flows would be equal to those of a mobilehome park because of the length and stay of the RV's and use of restroom and laundry facilities. He stated that the RV portion of the property is independent of the residential portion and that the overall phasing program has not been developed. Discussion followed on definition of the classification of income types. Planner III stated that exact information could be obtained from the Housing/Economic Development Division, if the Commission desired. Chairman stated that he supported the original application two years ago of 544 housing units, but that he could not support an RV Park at the entrance of the City, although the project is well designed. He stated that the project should in another area of Palm Springs, perhaps on Indian Avenue or Gene Autry Trail . Chairman declared the hearing open. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0294-PD-151 (Continued) C. Dauphine, 879 Gateway Drive, a resident living 2 block from the entrance of the proposed RV portion of the project, stated that affordable housing is necessary to house service industry workers in the City and that controls could be established so that slums do not develop j in developments where persons have the same income level . He stated that persons owning expensive RV's need a place to park them, and that the landscape buffer is a sufficient visual blockage of the view of the project at the entry to the City. He requested approval . i C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, gave statistics on sewage usage compared to 1 and 2 bedroom apartment usage, and stated that no City in the country calculated the use on a one to one basic, and that the 740 original spaces was obtained from a 3 to 1 formula; that the developer feels that the General Plan is not appropriate for the area; and that the City is being unreasonable in requiring a one to one ratio. He discussed staff conditions and requested that a rolled curb be allowed, that the centerline radius be reduced, and that the proposed density be allowed for economic viability. He stated that the units will be buffered from the existing single family residences by dense landscaping, that two story units are necessary for economic viability, and requested that grading be allowed during the windy season since there are mitigating measures for blowsand control . He stated that the project is a "high end" park because of its location, that if IS-, located on Indian or Gene Autry the quality would suffer, that the site line shows that the project is hidden by dense landscaping and berming and that the street view will be landscaped similarly to the existing Temple Project on the south. He stated that the setback along the highway to RV spaces is 150 feet and if the property were developed to R-1-C standards it would be less aesthetically pleasing and more dense. He stated that the developer is requesting 14 units per acre, although staff recommends 10. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the applicant redesign the project to separate the two uses (RV and apartments) for a better blend of the two, and that he felt that apartments are needed in the City. Mr. Mills stated that the school site was not shown because it may be relocated to a more appropriate site,will probably not be on the property and will be adjacent to Desert Highlands Park. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the applicant's statement that high density is required for economic reasons is not valid since development of an RV space is less costly than development of a housing unit. Mr. Mills replied that the developer is trying to meet City housing goals, that subsidies may not be available, and that to lower rates the number of units needs to be increased. He stated that the developer is disappointed that the City wants control over only 80 units since 2 of the units should be subsidized to lower apartment rental rates, that the rental rates for the RV spaces will be $18 to $22 a day, and that high interest rates were the reason for not building the originally approved 544 unit project. He noted that although the Commission i July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) CASE 5.0294-PD-151 (Continued) indicated specific areas for RV Parks in a study session, the project was thought to be more viable accessing on a highway with a view of the canyon and with a shopping center nearby. Mrs. Z. Hillinger, 1003 South Palm Canyon Drive, representing 6 property owners in the area, voiced opposition to the project in light of the disapprovals of a mobilehome park in the sphere and the loss of view by Chino Valley residences who will be viewing the project since landscaping takes several years to mature. She stated that RV Parks are not a "class act" at the entrance of Palm Springs, that the use of Windy Point will be increased by RV-towed vehicles, that a bottleneck in traffic will occur, and that the land will be warehoused for future development. She requested that the Commission consider what is good for the City. Mrs. K. Heinrich, 1345 North Palm Canyon Drive, voiced opposition to the project stating that she has a vested interest in the area because of her proposed project on the Chino Cone, which will be a luxury resort, golf course, and spa combination. She stated that the project will cause noise and traffic bottlenecks and that the site will be 75% to 80% concrete which she felt was not indicated in the colored plan on the display board. She stated that she was in favor of an RV Park but not at the proposed site, that the project would not be approved in other valley cities, that the Palm Springs image at the entrance should be one of glamour and luxury, that low cost housing is needed (but not at the entrance of the City) , and that she is developing affordable housing on Vista Chino. C. Mills (rebuttal ) questioned whether or not there was a designation on the General Plan for an "RV Park" on the Chino Cone. Planning Director stated that there was a designation of "resort" not RV Park. Mr. Mills stated that there does not have to be 75% to 80% concrete in an RV project, and that there is 76% open space on the proposed project. He stated that the pioneering north end development begun by the Temple Project is being followed, that the project is less dense and better aesthetically that R-1-C development, and that there are controls due to PD requirements for the project. Discussion followed on the RV space configuration and aesthetics of the project. Chairman stated that if the project is approved, the architect will submit a scaled set of plans showing differentiation between the hard and soft scape, the school site, and other details. He stated that the question is whether or not the project can proceed. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the type of Commission action. Planning Director ,r stated that project should be sent for Council action with the conditions of the Commission noted if the Commission finds the land use appropriate. In response to Commission question, Planner III stated that the view July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) `..,. CASE 5.0294-PD-151 (Continued) from the bridge upon entering the City will be of trees, and that from the purposed Heinrich Hotel and residential units the project could be seen. Commissioner Koetting stated that the use , is adaptable, that the multi- family use should be on Palm Canyon, that the RV use should be less dense and suggested resubmission of a schematic site plan for clarity. Chairman stated that the use is inconsistent with the entrance of the City, that the scale is larger than necessary for an RV Park, that approval of the project in inconsistent with disapproval of a mobilehome park in the area, that there is no validity to the fact that the project should be approved to avoid a less appealing submission, that the property is a major one in size, and that a plan should be submitted that is more in harmony with the City's, entry. He stated that the project will generate traffic and add to problems at Windy Point, and that short term RV spaces are needed in the City, which the project does not encourage since long stays are being sought. Commissioner Curtis stated that he could not support the project because of the mixed use but that the apartments are necessary. M/S (Curtis, Kaptur; Apfelbaum absent; Lawrence abstained) for a denial of the project. Commissioner Koetting suggested a redesign of the project which mitigates Commission concerns and blends with the Temple project across the street. He suggested that the environmental assessment be approved and the site plan revised. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a denial would allow the Council to review the appreciation on an appeal and it could be returned to the Commission if the Council desires. Discussion followed on the land use question posed by the project and action to be taken. Chairman suggested that the RV use be denied and the apartment use approved. Planning Director stated that the applicant would prefer a direction to incorporate the concept and that staff prefers not to remove the 20 acres without a master plan for an overall program. He stated that Commission concensus seemed to be that the RV Park be denied and that the site plan be restudied to incorporate other land uses (specific or not) . He noted that an alternative could be denial of the RV concept and a restudy of the PD. Commissioner Curtis withdrew his motion with consent of the seconder. In response to Commission, question, Mr. Mills stated that the most important item would be the acceptability of the use and questioned whether or not the Commission wished to have the project accessed off Palm Canyon which would have project access through residentially zoned property. Further discussion followed. Mr. Curtis stated that the Commission gave the architect direction at the June 27 meeting and the plan was brought back without change, and that was the reason for his motion for denial . Further discussion on Commission action July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0294-PD-151 (Continued) followed. Commissioner Madsen stated that the environmental assessment and land use issue should be separated. i M/S (Madsen, Koetting; Lawrence abstained; Apfelbaum absent) that the use for an RV Park is an acceptable use (with restraints in the area, but that the subject plan is not approved because of the high intensity of the use. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Madsen, Koetting Noes: Service, Curtis, Kaptur Abstention: Lawrence Absent: Apfelbaum The motion failed. Note: Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the entrance to the project not be visible from North Palm Canyon with the RV portion placed the rear of the project. Discussion continued on Commission action. Commissioner Kaptur stated that perhaps a flat denial would be better for the applicant so he can appeal to the Council. M/S/C (Madsen, Curtis; Lawrence abstained; Apfelbaum absent; Koetting dissented) denying PD-151. CASE 5.0268-PD-146. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for K. Heinrich for a PD to construct a 500 unit, 6 story resort hotel, 300 unit condominium complex, golf course, and related facilities on Hwy 111 between Tram Road/Vinson Road, UR Zone (IL), Sections 4 & 33 (Chino Cone) . Recommendation: That the Commission recommend to the Council that the concept of a hotel/golf course development be approved prior to expenditures for an EIR and that a draft EIR be ordered for the project. Planner III presented the initial study/environmental assessment and stated concerns as follows: Site Grading. Extremely difficult and expensive due to the size of boulders on the property. Moderately high seismic ground shaking factor. Finding: Data in the baseline study to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Additional analysis not required until structural design has begun. Air Resources. Anticipated increase in daily emissions during `..,, construction of the project which are temporary in nature and will not affect long term air quality in the valley. Finding: Data to be incorporated into the draft EIR. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 i PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0268-PD-146 (Continued) Water Related Impacts. City Engineer reviewed data prepared by the applicant and finds that it is adequate for environmental assessment. Existing improvements handle storm flows across the site. Peak use will be 750,000 gallons per day of irrigation water, via installation of wells. DWA states that water use is consistent with its goals and no ground water analysis is required. Findings: Data to be incorporated into the EIR with further review of a consumption use study upon completion of landscape and irrigation plans. Plant and Animal Life. No threatened species or habitats. Findings: Data to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Noise. Construction noise normally associated with development will be mitigated by compliance with existing ordinance. Findings: Data to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Light and Glare. Will be increased and will be reviewed in final development plans. Findings: The impact is not significant and review will be deferred until final development plans are submitted (to be included in the EIR) . Land Use. If Planning Commission finds that the use is consistent with the General Plan, Commission can direct staff to prepare a minor text amendment to the Tramway Area General Plan. Finding: That the EIR contain a matrix projecting land use for the project and existing General Plan designation (a CEQA requirement) ; General Plan text amendment, and a resolution of concept approval . Housing. Unknown number of new jobs will be generated. Findings: Impacts to the City Housing inventory to be evaluated and included in the draft EIR. Transportation/Circulation. Significant impact. Existing documentation to be forwarded to Caltrans. Findings: Data to be submitted to Caltrans with a notice of preparation for comment by Caltrans. Draft and final EIR will be sent to Caltrans. Data in the baseline study to be incorporated in the draft EIR and will be refined. Public Services. All public services can be provided to the- site. Fire access is difficult because of height and design of the hotel , but problems will be resolved. Findings: Complete and to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Energy. Analysis of proposed consumption rates completed and to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Utilities. No impacts indicated by the DWA. DWA and CVWD have joint powers agreement designating both agencies as ground water manager; until ground water management is adopted by the manager, a detailed ground water analysis is an excessive requirement except for summary of existing literature and studies. Requirement for amendment to the Master Plan of Sewers (One mile of sewer will be affected by the project) . Findings: That the City Engineer's report and findings be summarized within the draft EIR. I j July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0268-PD-146 (Continued) Aesthetics. Visual impact of the proposed building massing is not adequately addressed on the baseline documentation. Photosimulation to be submitted for hotel massing perspective from various approaches to the hotel. Cultural Resources. No significant impact on cultural resources. Findings: Complete and to be incorporated into the draft EIR. Tribal Council Comments. Tribal Council withholds comment pending further review and recommendations by the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant. Mandatory Finds of Significance. Potential for impact but can by mitigated by project design and review process. AAC Recommendations. AAC felt that a major windbreak system against the mountain would not be appropriate because of the visual scarring and not effective because of the differences between the lower and higher portions of the site. Chairman stated that the Commission would not be approving anything specific, but whether or not the project is appropriate for the area. Planning Director stated that where fire access cannot be provided, fire protection systems are integrated into the building. Chairman stated he questions on the definitions of the word "void" and construction of major flood control facilities which he thought were already constructed. Planner III stated that a bridge would be constructed over the north lane of the Highway 111 Interchange. He stated that the design standards require that the building not fail completely in a 7.0 earthquake and that Zone 2, in which the building in located, has lack of soil stability, voids, and many boulders, and will require heavy expensive structural design. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Cioffi, Architect and applicant, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated that the engineer and the Eisner/Smith representative who prepared the baseline study were present, that the entire valley is in the R-2 Zone, and that the structural requirements are the same throughout the valley. He stated that in a 7.0 earthquake the building would be heavily damaged, but evacuation could be completed before the building collapsed. He requested that a concept approval be given and stated that there have not been changes in the design except for the golf course during the past year since the Commission reviewed the concept at a study session, and that the figures have not changed. He stated that the baseline study, and geotechnical and traffic studies have been completed during this time. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0268-PD-146 (Continued) Commissioner Koetting questioned whether or not the areas of impact will affect the documentation and change the EIR. Mr. Cioffi stated that the baseline study concurs with what has been presented, and that the project can only get better. He stated that the condominiums can possibly be used for hotel purposes and for large groups. K. Heinrich stated that it is necessary to have 500 hotel rooms and that the hotel will be luxurious. She stated that the condominiums are not necessary to the economic viability of the hotel, and that it will be the first European-type luxury hotel in Palm Springs with summer amenities to draw the people to the desert during the hot summer season, and that the exterior will be native aggregate which will complement the site. She stated that the number of condominiums is not important. Planning Director stated that one of the alternatives to be described in the Environmental Impact report is what the General Plan would allow as a maximum use intensity. Mrs. Heinrich stated that fire access should not be a problem with a six story building. R. Mainiero, 777 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way, project engineer, stated that a void is a space between boulders on a cross section, that the intent is to use the boulders on site, that no bridge has been proposed on North Palm Canyon because of an agreement with the former traffic engineer, that the north bound lane will be brought to the level of the southbound lane at the intersection. He stated that there is no difference between the subject site from any other site in town with the same constraints and structural requirements as, for example, land at the airport. In response to Chairman's question, Mr. Mainiero stated that the hotel will be set into the ground of the allevial cone after the rough material on the surface is removed. Commissioner Koetting stated that the applicants have design problems that they will have to resolve. Mr. Mainiero stated that additional studies will determine the design requirements. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Kaptur abstained; Apfelbaum absent) ordering the preparation of a draft EIR, finding that the project is consisent with the General Plan, recommending amendment of the General Plan to add the following: "Land Use": Residential . "That large scale resorts and hotel complexes be allowed within all designated land use areas on a unit for unit basis provided the site is a minimum of 40 acres subject to providing services and facilities to the site." (Page 5. Tramway Area General Plan) ; and recommending to the City Council that the ;� Planned Development District concept be approved. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0268-PD-146 (Continued) . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS While the proposed project does not include Indian-trust land, it was noted that some 500 acres of undeveloped trust land in Section 4 lie immediately South of the duplicate project site. In view of the scope of the proposed project including certain design and environmental considerations, i.e. the utilization of multi-story structures, the proposal to eliminate Chino Canyon Drive (Whitewater By- pass) , a Master Plan secondary highway, and Gateway Drive, a collector street, as public streets, etc. , and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following action: 1. Pending further review and recommendations by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant with respect to project's potential impact on the undeveloped Indian-trust land referred to above, the Tribal Council withheld comments on the environmental assessment and baseline study. CASE 5.0324 A & B-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for General Plan Street Plan Amendment as follows: A. Change Alejo Road between N. Palm Canyon Drive/Via Monte Vista from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street, Sections 10 & 15. B. Change Mesquite Avenue between S. Sunrise Way/S. Belardo Road from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street, Sections 22 & 23. Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve the General Plan amendment, and continue the application to July 25 for written response to the draft Negative Declaration. Planning Director stated that the General Plan amendments are in response to construction of the Jewish Temple and the Crowe Hotel . Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. In response to Commission question, Traffic Engineer stated that the JHK Report indicates four (4) traffic lanes in the corridor. M/S/C (Koetting, Curtis; Apfelbaum absent) ordered the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving General Plan amendment 5.0324 A & B and continuing the case till July 25 for written responses to the draft Negative Declaration. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0324 A & B-GPA (Continued) A. Change Alejo Road between N. Palm Canyon Drive/Via Monte Vista from a secondary thoroughfare to collector street, Sections 10 & 15. B. Change Mesquite Avenue between South Sunrise Way/S. Belardo Road from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street, Sections 22 & 23. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS In keeping with its policy to consider all amendments to the various elements of the City's General Plan, and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the estimated future traffic volumes (JHK & Associates Report adopted in 1984) for the subject sections of Alejo Road and Mesquite Avenue at the full build out of the City, would be approximately 25-55% of the typical design level for 2-lane roadways (collector streets) in urban areas. 2. Concurred with the recommendations for approval of the amendments as set forth in City Staff reports dated July 11, 1984 including the condition to retain Sunny Dunes Road as no less than a collector street between Sunrise Way and Belardo Road. PUBLIC COMMENTS R. Riccirdi, applicant in Case 3.711, requested reservation of time when the case is reviewed. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel maps based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TTM 20168. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES for Desert Isle Associates for a subdivision of land into 3 lots for residential purposes located on Barona Road/Hwy 111, R-G-A (6) Zone, Section 25. Planner II presented the project on the board. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS (Continued) TTM 20168 (Continued) M/S/C (Kaptur, Madsen; Apfelbaum absent) approving TTM 20168 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. In response to chairman's question, R. Mainiero, engineer for the project, stated that the original approval was for one subdivision creating three lots, that the first lot has been built, which left one lot for condominiums and one lot for a restaurant. He stated that one lot is being subdivided into three parcels for condominium purposes, and that there would be only one homeowners association (stated by H. Maxwell, the developer of the map) . i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0312-G-MISC. Reconsideration of application by VAWT MANAGEMENT for 78 wind turbines, north & south of I-10 at the Verbena Street off-ramp, Section 8 (in the Sphere of Influence) ; and CASE 5.0312-H-MISC. Reconsideration of application by ARBUTUS CORP, for approval of 106 wind turbines, west of West Garnet, Section 17 ( in the Sphere of Influence) ; and CASE 5.0312-I-MISC. Reconsideration of application by RENEWABLE ENERGY VENTURES for a change of zone from R-R (Rural Residential ) to W-1 (Wind Energy) north of Hwy 111, south of I-10, Section 14 (in the Sphere of Influence) . Planning Director stated that recommendation for continuation of the Wind Energy proposals was sent to Council which was not in agreement with continuance, feeling that developers already in the application process would be penalized. He stated that the Council recommended a moratorium for projects submitted after June 30. Planner III presented the project on the board, and made the following recommendations: 1. That the Commission not recommend approval of the Wind Energy turbines south of the Highway 11.1. near Snow Creek Ridge because of visual impacts and disruption of the view into the Coachella Valley, and for precedence-setting reasons. 2. That the Commission approve conditionally a zone change from RR to W-1 (not W-E) and to maintain the approved configuration of the WECS Permit H24. 3. That the Commission recommend that portions of the Wind Energy projects north of I-10 be reviewed because of their visual impacts and noise, as a policy of wind energy machines not being appropriate in the area. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-G-H-I-MISC (Continued) i j M/S/C (Koetting, Lawrence; Apfelbaum absent; Curtis dissented) taking the following actions: CASE 5.0312-G-MISC: Recommended denial of machines south of I-10 noting that machines on the north side are out of the City' s Sphere of Influence. CASE 5.0312-H-MISC: Recommended approval , but recommended County review of area north of I-10 because of its high visibility. CASE 5.0312-I-MISC: Recommended conditional approval of W-1 to maintain the approved configuratio of WEC's Permit #24. NOTE: Commissioner Curtis dissented because he disapproved of wind machines in general. DETERMINATION 10.343. Planning Commission determination that a micro-brewery is an allowable use in the M-1 Zone. Continued to September 26, at the applicant's request. DISCUSSION Planning Commission discussion of Sphere Lane Use Plan. Continued to July 25. Commission Madsen left the meeting. SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.2222. Application by L. SMITH for a sign variance to allow a larger main identification sign for a shopping center on E. Palm Canyon Drive, between Gene Autry Trail/Dunn Road, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented the sign variance request on the display board and stated that the current ordinance allows up to 25 square feet including a double faced sign and that the applicant is requesting 30 square feet. He stated that the new ordinance allows 25 square feet per side and that the AAC recommended a restudy. L. Smith, VRG, shopping center developer, stated in order to reduce the sign the letters would have to be reduced which would reduce the sign's visibility since the project sets back from the street. He stated that the sign was being redesigned per AAC recommendations. Chairman stated that all shopping centers are set back, and that he did tom, not understand why the applicant needs a sign variance. Mr. Smith stated that he needed the sign because of the setback that the 12-inch high letters are a necessity, and that the merchants in the center are requesting the words "shopping center" on the sign. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) i SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.2222 (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur stated that the area is in the process of growing and it will take time for the shopping center to become known. Mr. Smith stated that his current sign is difficult to read and that he needs a readable identification sign. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the center is not readily visible as a shopping center because of the rapidly moving traffic, but that he was not sure that one sign could make a difference, and that he did not want to adopt a new sign ordinance and then change it. Discussion followed on whether to change the dimensions of shopping center signs in the Sign Ordinance. L. Hart, of Imperial Signs, Indio, stated that he had attended several meetings of the Planning Commission, in which the Sign Ordinance was discussed but was absent at the last one, and that Mr. Smith had a identification problem at the shopping center. He stated that apartment complexes are allowed 100 square feet of signing, whereas a shopping center is only allowed one identification sign, and that the shopping center sits far back from the street, which is heavily traveled, that that center is dark at night and the individual signs for businesses are not visible (including the market sign) . He stated that the developer could propose 150 square feet on three signs under the new ordinance and that there are enough reasons for a variance, and that it seemed inconsistent to allow staff discretionary approval of a sign up to 30 square feet but allow only 25 square feet for the shopping center sign. He stated that by following AAC recommendations there would be a readability problem. He then described the configuration and colors of the sign. Discussion followed on sign wording. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted four words - "Rim Rock Plaza Shopping Center". Commissioner Koetting stated that the grounds for a variance are not present, i .e. the technical problems can be resolved, there is a signal to stop traffic at the intersection, and parking lot lighting can be upgraded. Mr. Hart stated that he applied for a variance because the Commission indicated that there were ample grounds, and that he though that 50 square feet per frontage would be allowed under the new ordinance. He stated that possibly three signs of 50 square feet on a single face could be allowed, and that he was requesting only one sign of 35 square feet per face. He stated that he felt the Commission was being very discretionary against shopping centers and not encouraging them. Mr. Smith stated that he understood what the Commission desired, i.e. 25 square feet overall, that the criteria would be met but would require a variance from the present ordinance. Chairman stated that the Commission will review the sign per the requirements of the new ordinance. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.2222 (Continued) Planning Director stated that at 9+ acres for the shopping center, at 5 square feet per acre, the sign could be 45 square feet totally. M/S/C (Curtis, Koetting; Apfelbaum and Madsen absent) for a restudy of the sign to address the stucco element portion's appearance of being too large and heavyfor the support columns and for the support columns to visually appear to be able to support the sign, and for the sign to be reduced to 25 square feet per face. 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. CASE 3.505 (Cont'd) . Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for Palm Canyon Associated for architectural approval of revised tile for 180 unit condominium project on the northwest corner of E. Palm Canyon Drive/Cherokee Way, R-G-A (8) Zone (IL), Section 30. Planning Director stated that a new owner wishes to change the approved barrel tile to an "S" the as was approved by the Planning Commission for the Temple project, and that previously the former owner had wanted to change the wood framed windows to aluminum, which the Commission denied. D. Mangano, the contractor, stated that the AAC recommended a restudy for Commission review and that the proposed tile is Spanish in theme, durable in nature, terracotta in color, and will resemble a 2 piece clay tile. He stated that he wanted to receive approvals before the project proceeds further, and questioned whether or not the difference between the "S" and barrel tile is obvious to the Commission. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission is aware of the difference between the tiles and that the tiles adn the wood-framed windows were discussed with the former owner. Mr. Mangano, stated that barrel tiles were mentioned in the minutes but were not specified. He stated that a sample had been submitted for Commission approval. Planning Director stated that the change of barrel tile to "S" the was done at the working drawing stage and that the working drawings show texture changes not obtained with "S" tiles. Chairman stated that barrel tile is formed on the leg of the person molding it, is not simulated by "S" the and that working drawings were reviewed to be certain that details were not lost i'n the construction process. Discussion followed on the type of tile originally approved. Planning Director stated that on July 4, 1982, a motion was approved for barrel tile and that working drawings were to be submitted. Mr. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) ,., CASE 3.505 (Continued) Mangano stated that requiring barrel tile will be a economic disadvantage to the developer. Chairman stated that he would not make the same mistake twice and could not support the "S" tile. M/S/C (Kaptur, Lawrence; Apfelbaum and Madsen absent; Curtis and Service dissented) approving concrete "S" tile. Partial concensus was that the tile would not affect the project one way or the other. CASE 3.692 (Cont'd) . Application by H. LAPMAN for E. Yoder for revised elevations for an 80 unit apartment complex on N. Indian Avenue between Francis Road/Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. Planner III presented the project on the board and stated that staff recommends that there should be a concrete apron in the trash bin area for the movement of the bins. M/S/C (Curtis, Kaptur; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) approving the following: 1. That the architecture site plan, and preliminary landscaping plans are approved. 2. That a concrete apron be provided in the trash bin area. 3. That all the recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.711. Application by R. RICCIARDI for M. Hemstreet for architectural approval of a 125 unit hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. Planner II presented the project on the display board. Discussion ensured at the board regarding the lineal look of the elevations and the lack of integration of design elements. Mr. Ricciardi, the architect, explained what his team had designed to break the monotony and to integrate the elements of the design. Chairman suggested that the application be approved, subject to review of revised elevations on July 25. The developer, Mr. Hemstreet, requested that concerns be specific and possibly resolved at the meeting to allow the project to proceed. Planning Director stated that the AAC had a 2-1 vote and expressed concerns similar to those of the Commission. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.711 (Continued) M/S/C (Koetting, Curtis; Madsen, Apfelbaum absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That revised elevations be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review for the July 23, AAC and July 25, Planning Commission meetings. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.715 (MINOR) - RECONSIDERATION. Application by G. SALTS & ASSOC. for architectural approval of an automatic teller machine in an existing Bank of America Branch at Tahquitz-McCallum Way/N. Palm Canyon Drive, C- B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner II stated that the applicants wish the Commission to reconsider the original application for a Versateller automatic teller on the east elevation of the building on Palm Canyon, although the Commission had originally restudied the location because of traffic problems at the corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz-McCallum Way. He stated that a revised location had been approved on the west side of the building with the Versateller logo removed. Planning Director stated that there was no place to park on Palm Canyon and that the location is not recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Planner II stated that the bank had a liability for a machine on the west side of the building. M. Walterscheid, Bank of America Representative, stated that the bank policy is to have the machines in the front of the building for security of the customers and that foot traffic on Palm Canyon is heavy during the hours of operation of the machine from 6 a.m. to midnight which is a protection for the customers. He stated that an alarm system in the machines connects to a computer in Pasadena, which then calls Palm Springs police, but it will eventually be integrated into a local alarm, that it could not be placed in the vestibule in the front of the building because of structural difficulties and that the machine cannot be seen in that location. He stated that the corporate security department of the bank found the original location approved by the Commission not acceptable, and that lighted signage indicating the machine will not occur at the proposed location. Chairman stated that Traffic Engineering concerns are valid and that an attractive nuisance will be created which will obstruct traffic, and that the machine could be put in the vestibule area. Discussion followed on the mechanics of installation of the machine. Commissioner Lawrence stated that a traffic problem will develop if a machine is allowed in the front. M/S/C (Kaptur, Lawrence; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) for a restudy of the location of the machine, or location per the original approval in the rear of the building, or in the vestibule in the front of the building. July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. F. Temple for architectural approval of final development plans for agolf course at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Planner III stated that the applicant is proposing a concrete pilaster and a anchor chain because of maintenance problems of a split rail fence. Discussion followed on fencing materials. Discussion ensued on the applicant's proposal to place turf within the Tahquitz Channel east of the clubhouse. Planner II stated that the AAC recommended reviewing alternative solutions for flood control , since the proposal is inconsistent with the preliminary design concept and not I protective in a large scale storm. C. Mills, the architect, stated that in addition to the turf, the applicant is proposing 150 yards of riprap along the entire curb. Commission Koetting stated that if there is major damage because of use of the turf, the developer will restore the area. He stated that he thought a split rail fence would be more acceptable. Mr. Mills stated that split rails require constant maintenance and are easily dismantled, and that the project is already have security problems. He stated that wood in the desert is not appropriate. Planner Director stated that the pilaster/chain fence was a suggestion of staff as being less obtrusive around the golf course and for a fence which would keep vehicles out of the golf course area. M/S/C (Lawrence, Kaptur; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent; Koetting dissented) approving the clubhouse, the chain/pilaster fence, and the turf subject to City Engineer approval and a restudy of the barrier between the buildings and the bike path. M/S/C (Lawrence, Koetting; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) approving the maintenance building and its landscaping, fold course landscaping, and a restudy of the landscape area adjacent to Sunshine Villas. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that Sunshine Villas' landscape was originally approved with native plants. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. WESSMAN for Ralph's Market for architectural approval of monument sign for a supermarket in a neighborhood shopping center on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road/Belardo Road, C-1 & R-3 Zones (IL) , Section 22. Planning Director stated that the sign was oversized even per the new sign ordinance. Discussion ensued on the visibility of the shopping center. Commissioner Kaptur stated that it takes time for a project to become recognized. Planning Director presented the original and new signs on the display board. He stated that the signs in the center were not approved by the Commission, that the Commission approved the signs on the walls, that July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) the applicant is asking for a 35 square foot sign (per face) , and that staff is recommending reduction of the sign to 25 square feet (per face) . Chairman stated that he could no longer make allowances for the project, and that Ralph's Market has two identification signs currently. He stated that the proposed sign is out of character. J. Wessman, Rancho Mirage, developer of the Plaza Del Sol Shopping Center, stated that the sign did have approval as a separate item, that the proposed sign could be scaled down, but that the 25 square foot limitation is extremely arbitrary. He stated that he would agree to continuance of the sign for redesign. Discussion followed on whether or not 25 square feet for a sign is large enough for a large shopping center. Planning Director stated that the Commission should change the ordinance if the square footage is not considered large enough. M/S/C (Koetting, Kaptur; Madsen, Apfelbaum absent) to continue the sign application to July 25 for redesign. Commission Curtis left the meeting. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) - ADDED STARTER CASE 3.680. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for Dansk/Weststar Associates for architectural approval of landscape plans for business on North Palm Canyon Drive between Racquet Club/Cortez Road, PD-136, Section 3 (Ref. Case 5.0209-PD-136). M/S/C (Kaptur, Lawrence; Koetting abstained; Apfelbaum, Madsen, Curtis absent) approving landscape plans subject to the following conditions. 1. That the Washingtonia Robusta and the Coco Palms be replaced with Washingtonia and Filifera. 2. That a revised entry area landscape plan be submitted for staff and informal AAC approval . July 11, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0281-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance and its inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. (CONTINUED FOR A DETERMINATION OF PROVISIONS FOR OPEN HOUSE SIGNS FOR RESTRICTED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. ) M/S/C (Kaptur, Koetting; Curtis, Madsen, Apfelbaum absent) continuing discussion on "restricted access" complexesto the July 25 meeting, due to the lateness of the hour. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss. Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Planning Director MR/m