Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/07/25 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall July 25, 1984 .1.:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1.984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 2 0 Hugh Curtis - 1 Hugh Kaptur X 2 0 Peter Koetting X 2 0 Don Lawrence - 1 Paul Madsen X 2 0 Sharon Apfelbaum X 1 1 I 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. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.300. Application by PRIDE LANDSCAPE for Vilisa Associates for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for industrial/commercial building on Montalvo Way between Tachevah/Chia i Drives, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Restudy noting the following concern: 1. That the design concepts be refined to complement the features of the building, i .e. the fountain and entries (avoid screeninq the building completely) . 2. That bottle trees be used in lieu of Silk Oak. 3. That the focal point of Tachevah and Montalvo be enhanced with landscaping. 4. That the design concept be revised to reflect the landscape of the adjoining area and to be cognizant of the function of the building. CASE 3.721. Application by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for architectural approval of landscape concept for Indian Avenue in the downtown area, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued pending presentation by the architect. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: While the Tribal Council does not normally consider Architectural Approval Items, it did review the Preliminary Development Plan for the Indian Avenue Streetscape in the downtown area. The proposed project could be a significant element in the current effort to revitalize the central business district, including the commercial developments on Indian-trust lands along the easterly side of Indian Avenue. 1. Approved the proposed concept for Indian Avenue Streetscape between Arenas Road and Andreas Road. 2. Expressed its interest and willingness to work with the community in the implementation of a final development plan for the project. 3. Urged that the resolution of parking deficiencies in the downtown area be included as a priority item in the revitalization program for the central business district. CASE 3.718 (Minor) . Application by MAR DAV CONSTRUCTION CO. for L. Wyse for architectural approval of second story room addition for hillside residence at 13 Cahuilla Hills Road, R-1-Z Zone, Section 27. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0315-CUP. Application by A. WILKES for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a clock tower and a parapet to exceed the height limit on a hotel at 1100 E. Baristo Road, R-4 Zone, (IL), Section 14. i Recommendation: That the Commission approve CUP 5.0315, subject to conditions. Planner II stated that correspondence has been received from a resident of the area requesting that the tower be disapproved because the hotel should not have been allowed originally, but that hotels are allowed by right of zone on the property. He stated that a condition prohibiting noise from the tower could be added as a condition of approval and that the tower roof will be blue with the roof tile of the main structure being a terracotta glazed mission tile. He stated that the hotel project had been approved without a tower, but that the applicants feel a tower (64 feet high) would be an enhancement to the architecture of the building. Chairman declared the hearing open. A. Wilkes, the applicant and architect, stated that the tower accents the main entrance and that the 64 foot height is a subjective judgment and could be lowered if the Commission desired. Discussion followed on the interior material and molding of the tower. Mr. Wilkes stated that the stucco extrusions could be tile if the Commission desired. D. Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon Drive, requested that the tower element be approved as a design feature of the project. S. Ehrens, 2481 Cahuilla Hills Drive, voiced opposition to the tower, stating that it is a directional sign and a billboard, the clock may not operate; and in response to Commission question that the El Mirador Tower is architecturally honest and belongs on the building. He stated that the clock if approved should be below the roof line and that the tower is a promotional advertising gimmick. Mr. Wilkes, stated that he would not rebut and Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the clock is an architectural element similar to the El Mirador Tower, and that he found the height as proposed by the architect acceptable. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and approving the application with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the tower at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the ordinance. i July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 j PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0315-CUP. (Continued) 2. That the proposal is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the General Plan and is not detrimental to existing or proposed uses in the zone in which it is located. 3. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all of the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to those permitted or future uses on land in the neighborhood. 4. That the structure is decorative only and will have no effect on the streets system. 5. That the structure has been designed by a licensed architect. (An ordinance requirement. ) 6. That the project is exempt from CEQA since it is a minor architectural appendage. CONDITIONS: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That if the time piece becomes inoperable or inaccurate, the element be replace with another architectural element to be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission approval . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the clock tower proposed by the applicant, based on the findings set forth in staff report dated July 25, 1984. CASE 5.0318-PD-157. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for E. Campbell for a planned development district to allow construction of a retail center on Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Chia Road, 0-5 Zone, Section 7. Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application as inconsistent with the General Plan. Planner III presented the staff report, stated that a previous application had been denied by the Commission and that the subject application is very similar except slightly smaller in scope. He stated that if approved, the Traffic Engineer recommends deletion of the northerlymost driveway, since it causes unsafe traffic conditions due to its proximity to the junction of Gene Autry Trail and Vista Chino. He stated that a letter had been received from a neighbor opposing the application since it has not changed from the original denial in 1981, and that staff has suggested to the applicant that a R-IC subdivision with cul-de-sacs of the existing streets would be preferable, but has had no response. He stated that the AAC reviewed and recommended approval of the site plan. I July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0318-PD-157. (Continued) D. Christian, architect and applicant, 1000 South Palm Canyon Drive, stated that the project was oddly configured due to a survey error, that the drainage problems would be solved by openings in the wall which conduct water to Gene Autry Trail . He requested that a specific project be approved by use of a planned development district, but that residential development is not a viable use because future traffic on Gene Autry Trail and because of cul-de-sacs will impact the size of the lots. He stated that the commercial use is more viable and requested direction from the Commission for a specific use. Mrs. E. Rosenberg, adjacent property owner, voiced objection to the project because the residential development of the area is an oasis and needs the open space the property affords to the retain the quality of life of the residents. In response to Commission question, Mrs. Rosenberg stated that the City should purchase the land for a fire station because of the development of Vista Chino, or develop the property as an open area. W. Meyer, 3677 Paseo Parocela, voiced opposition to commercial development of the property and suggested that it be developed as a small office complex which would be compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhood. He stated that there is a large shopping center in the area to serve commercial needs of the residents, and that light industrial uses would not be appropriate because of noise and clutter. B. Nemick, 3695 Camino Rojas, stated that his bedroom is 12 feet from the wall of the proposed project, that the area is noisy presently from Gene Autry Trail , and that the noise will become more intrusive with the development of a shopping center. He stated it is too late in the development stage of the surrounding area for development of commercial uses on the property. Mrs. Rosenberg stated that the survey error was advantageous to the developer. Planning Director stated that it is part of the overall parcel. Chairman noted that the subject is not relevant. D. Christian (rebuttal ) stated that the applicant does not want to build anything that is detrimental to the community, but the problem due to the survey error must be addressed, that any development massing will block the escalating problem of traffic noise. He stated that the open space proposal is admirable but not economically feasible unless the land is purchased by the homeowners or the City, and that the residential subdivision is not appropriate because of small oddly shaped lots. He stated that a commercial use is appropriate and that there are retail facilities that close at 5 p.m. He requested a definition of light industrial , stated that the developer has been successful in similar projects. July 2.5, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0318-PD-157. (Continued) Discussion followed on set-back landscape requirements. Mr. Christian stated that a residential project would back onto Gene Autry Trail . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that the suggestion for a fire station is intriguing and that Gene Autry Trail will be carrying an excessive amount of traffic in the future. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Koetting; Curtis, Lawrence absent) denying the application based on the following findings. FINDINGS 1. That the planned development district application is proper and authorized by the Zoning Ordinance, in lieu of a change of zone, to allow development of a retail/commercial center (given that the proposal does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance designation). 2. That the project site is served by Gene Autry Trail, a major thoroughfare which is adequate to handle the projected traffic increases generated by the use. 3. That approval of the planned development district and General Plan amendment would be inconsistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of Palm Springs by allowing establishment of strip commercial development. 4. That there are practical site design deficiencies in the proposal , including, lack of details for the termination of adjoining streets, residential streets, unsafe locations for driveways. 5. That the physical and land-use context of the site has not changed since the original decision for denial in 1981. 6. That the proposal does not comply with the General Plan. 7. That the proposal does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Commission er.Koetting stated that the property is a difficult one to develop. Chairman stated that applicants can appeal the denial to the City Council . PUBLIC CANTS Planner III stated that R. Ricciardi, applicant in Case 3.711, has requested to speak during the presentation of the case. I July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS CASE 5.0323-PD-158. Application by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY for a planned development district to allow establishment of an institution of higher learning at 2800 E. Alejo between Commercial Road/Civic Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Planning Director stated that the Environmental Assessment is being prepared prior to the public hearing to expedite processing of the university for a September opening. Planner II reported that there no significant environmental impacts. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration for Case 5.0323-PD-158 and continuing the application to the August 8, 1984 meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Cont'd). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance and its inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED FOR A DETERMINATION OF PROVISIONS FOR OPEN HOUSE SIGNS FOR RESTRICTED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS. ) Chairman stated that specific wording is required for "restricted access" complexes and that discussion could be tabled or continued if the Commissioners have not developed any wording. Planning Director stated that some Commissioners feel that restricted access should be a physical barrier and some feel it should have the appearance of being restricted. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that any homeowners whose property if unable to be seen from a major street should be allowed one off-site sign. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested a substantial phrase for staff enforcement, since the "appearance of being restricted" is what persons opposed to the sign ordinance are opposing. Chairman stated that it is not fair to single out certain dwellings as eligible for off-site signing, and that the ordinance should be applied equally to all signing. Commissioner Kaptur stated that real estate signing is historic and similar to gasoline station signing, and that proliferation of signs will not be a problem. He stated that if proliferation causes problems the ordinance can be reviewed at a future time. Commissioner Madsen stated that he urged wider interpretation of "restricted" or "appearance of being restricted" to make the project more fair to all . He stated that he recognized the problem of enforcement and that the question can be sent to the City Council for �,,, review. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued)Hued CASE 5.0281-ZTA (Continued) Planning Director stated that the City Council has scheduled the hearing on the ordinance for September 19 to allow public input and to analyze the draft sign ordinance prepared by the Merchants and Citizens Association, that staff will recommend that the signs not be allowed since enforcement is an impossibility because of staff size limitations. He noted that the real estate industry has a self enforcement type of program in existence, that proliferation of signing is a problem at present, and suggested that the Commission make a recommendation on the matter to the City Council. Commissioner Kaptur stated that although he agreed with the staff, there is an ordinance on record for enforcement, that signs are placed off-site presently, that the real estate industry would be violating the ordinance in the future but should be allowed as a professional group to monitor its own signs. Commissioner Koetting suggested tabling for staff to develop wording. M/S/C (Koetting, Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) to continue the case to August 8, for staff preparation of specific language for open house signs for restricted access condominium complexes. Discussion ensued on sizes of signs on shopping center complexes. Commissioner Koetting stated that staff had been directed to increase the size. Chairman stated that he did not believe the size of a shopping center sign is important, that a more restrictive approach is required, and that shopping center developers will never be satisfied with the size. SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.222 (Cont'd. ) . 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. Planning Director stated that the current ordinance is 25 square feet overall that the applicant is requesting 26 square feet per face, although the proposed ordinance would only allow 25 square feet per face. He stated that the AAC recommended approval with the use of glu- lam beams attached to a footing, and that the beams as designed supporting the sign are not well designed, although the sign itself is acceptable. He stated that staff would recommend 25 square feet per face which would grant a variance from current standards, and that 25 square feet per face is large enough for visibility when there is not sign competition, and that it is double the size currently allowed in centers of at least 10 acres. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the large amount of testimony received from the real estate industry regarding shopping center signs has been ignored. Chairman stated that he disagreed, that real estate industry testimony has received attention, and the size of signs for leasing and construction will be doubled in the new ordinance. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.222. (Continued) Discussion followed on signing at the Plaza Del Sol shopping center on South Palm Canyon Drive. Chairman stated that there are two major signs facing two frontages for the major tenant in the shopping center and that the major tenant is now requesting two more signs. Commissioner Kaptur stated the the developers think the larger signs help business and he feels that the Commission is representing the people. He stated that signing for large shopping centers is too small . Planning Director stated that if signing is increased on the Plaza Del Sol Center, Notice of Public Hearing will be sent to property owners within 400 feet. Assistant City Attorney stated that a motion for the Council to review the ordinance is not necessary since the Commission is recommending that the Council review the entire ordinance. Commissioner Koetting stated that the main identification sign is very important for advertising purposes and suggested that the signs be on a floating scale, depending on the size of the project, or flexible use of credit for sign size when a sign fronts on more than one street. Chairman stated that there is merit to the idea, but that the majority 4... of the shopping centers in Palm Springs face on a major thoroughaf are. Discussion followed on scheduling a joint study session with the Council, and the size of signs for shopping centers. Consensus was that the Council should request the study session. Planning Director recommended that the motion be to allow the variance with the size of the sign to meet the new ordinance requirements (25 square feet per face). M/S (Kaptur/Koetting; Curtis, Lawrence absent) to approve the sign as submitted and grant the variance from current ordinance standards. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Kaptur Noes: Apfelbaum, Koetting, Madsen, Service Absent: Curtis, Lawrence The motion failed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he did not have a problem regarding making findings for the variance. Discussion followed on the sign variance. Commissioner Apfelbaum questioned if there were some unusual circumstances which would merit granting the variance. Planning Director stated that there are no special circumstances of size or topography for the subject site to grant a variance. Commissioner Koetting agreed. Assistance City July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.222. (Continued) Attorney stated that it would be better to remove the application from the agenda, and reintroduce it after the new Sign Ordinance has been approved, and that granting approval of a sign which is larger than that allowed by the proposed ordinance would not be acceptable. D. Baron , of Best,Best & Krueger, Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing the owners, stated that there is a visual problem with the shopping center since most centers have access to streets which the subject center does not because of a drainage channel . He stated that a sixty foot set-back creates a sign visibility problem, and that the request for a 1..9 sq,,,', variance is appropriate and should be approved. He requested that action not be delayed, especially since the sign variance has been before the Commission for two meetings. He noted that the developer will do what is necessary to expedite p ex e i e approval . Chairman Y p pp stated that if there were not a green belt and a flood channel in front of the shopping center, there would have been a frontage road. In response to Chairman's question, Mr. Baron stated that the topography of the center makes visibility from the street difficult, because of the slope and the block wall. L. Hart, of Imperial Signs of Indio, requested consideration of the size of the letters of the "shopping center" be a minimum of 6" and suggested that the sign size be 30 square feet. He described the configuration of the proposed sign and stated that the lettering is as simple as possible for the best visibility and readability. He requested a variance to allow a sign of 26.9 square feet. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that can size becomes the size of the sign and that, for example, the Ralph's Market sign (if the letters were boxed) would be 70 square feet. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she could not support the variance without legal findings, and suggested that the applicant submit a sign after the sign ordinance is approved so the variance request to 26.9 square feet can be considered. Chairman stated that he could not support a variance without findings and that the reasons cited by the applicants apply to many other projects in the community. Discussion followed on whether or not the Commission wanted to address size of signs in shopping centers in general. M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Curtis, Lawrence absent; Apfelbaum dissented), approving the variance subject to the following condition: That the sign size be limited to the sign size allowed in the proposed Sign Ordinance. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) SIGN VARIANCE - CASE 8.222. (Continued) Note: Lengthy discussion ensued after the motion, and the original motion to limit the sign size to 25 square feet per face was amended with the consent of a seconder to state: "size of sign to be limited to the size allowed in the proposed Sign Ordinance". Assistant City Attorney stated that the motion to limit the sign to the proposed sign ordina nce will delay its design until the new ordinance is prepared. After the vote, Commissioner Apfelbaum stated she dissented because the action would not help the applicant. TIME EXTENSION-TTM 17151 & CASE 5.0155-PD-129. Request by M. H. ENTERPRISES, for Cadillac Fairview Homes for a 12-month time extension for a 76 unit condominium project on the westerly terminus of Tahquitz-McCallum Way, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 15. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving a two year extension for TTM 171.51 and Case 5.0155-PD-129 subject to all original conditions of approval with a new expiration date of July 28, 1986. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd). Application by J. WESSMAN for Ralph's Market for architectural approval of revised plans for a monument sign for a supermarket in a neighborhood shopping center on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road/Belardo Road, PD-131 (IL) , Section 22. Continued to August 22 at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting. CASE 3.695. Application by G. ROOS for architectural approval of a restaurant on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That an additional parapet wall be included to completely screen the mechanical equipment per notes on the plans. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the trash enclosures be moved to a location that will not interfere with traffic on North Palm Canyon Drive. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITE14S (Continued) CASE 3.717 and TTM 14899 (Revised). Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval and approval of revised map for an industrial park on Gene Autry Trail between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, "M-1" Zone (IL) , Section 20. Discussion ensued on the approved landscape plan for Gene Autry Trail and paving the access roads. Consensus was that the application should be continued for a complete package to be presented by the applicant. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apf elbaum; Curtis, Lawrence, Koetting absent) approving TTM 14899 (Revised) subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and continuing the landscaping and architectural portions of the case and paving of the access roads for resubmission as a package by the applicant. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that a third and final 1.2-month time extension for TTM 14899 was approved by the City Council on July 10, 1984. 2. Approved TTM 14899 (Revised) subject to the conditions set forth in Development Committee Minutes dated July 6, 1984. It was noted that the Building Division and Engineering Division had "No comments at this time." CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by C. MILLS for J. F. Temple for architectural approval of final development plans (Sunshine Villas landscaping and fence barrier between the bike path and condominiums) for golf course/condominium complex at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C and W-1-C Zones, Section 24. Continued to August 8, per applicants request. CASE 3.573. Application by R. GENTRY for Millers Outpost for architectural approval of elevations for store in Palm Springs Mall on property bounded by Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive/Baristo Road, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, ,Lawrence, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That planters be added on the north elevations. 2. That pots be used in lieu of planters on the east elevation. Commissioner Koetting returned to the meeting. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMAS (Continued) CASE 3.711. Application by R. RICCIARDI for revised elevations for M. 'Hemstreet for architectural approval of a 125 unit hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Planner II stated that the AAC preferred the battered walls of the original submission. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had requested that the architect remove the battered walls because the shape is foreign to the project. R. Ricciardi, the applicant, stated that either design is acceptable to the developer. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving the revised elevations with the original battered walls. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Apfelbaum, Madsen Noes: Kaptur, Koetting, Service Absent: Curtis, Lawrence The motion failed. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent; Kaptur dissented) approving the application as revised with deletion of the battered walls. CASE 3.714. Application by PALM SPRINGS ASSOCIATES for Fuddrucker Restaurant for architectural approval of restaurant at 262 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C- D-B Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained, Vice-Chairman presided. Planner III presented the project on the display board, stated that the present building will be razed and that signs for the project are not included in the application. Discussion on parking ensued. Planner III stated that the parking plan is innovative and uses in lieu, on-site and leased parking. He stated that the leased parking arrangement have a precedent with the previous restaurant on the site, but that the parking arrangement is hard to enforce and that no valet parking is purposed. He stated that leased parking from the City is allowable. Planning Director stated that the parking count is not "grandf athered" from the previous use if the building is razed. J. Terell, Redevelopment Planner, explained the parking arrangement and gave statistics (on file in the Planning Division) . Planner Director in reply to Commission questions stated that the Parking Ordinance is not July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.714. . (Continued) definitive, but tries to create avenues for parking flexibility. He stated that if the parking plan is scrutinized there are difficulties with the arrangement such as signing at one of the leased sites proposed for Fuddrucker's restaurant parking. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the arrangement will impact the parking areas for businesses open at night during the same hours. Commissioner Koetting stated that if the other restaurants downtown have a parking plan, they should not be impacted by the Fuddrucker's arrangement. Planning Director stated that the reasons that similar parking is viable for two other restaurants in the area is because they use valet parking in conjunction with legal parking and that perhaps signs should be developed for parking at Fuddruckers on the leased lots, although the public awareness of the leased parking is the problem. Discussion followed. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that a parking structure will eventually be constructed downtown to alleviate parking problems. J. Terell stated that a major reason for the unorthodox parking plan is because the Redevelopment Agency is encouraging the restaurant to add vitality to the downtown, and that a parking structure is necessary to alleviate the parking shortage in the Old Plaza and Block 9. Commissioner Kaptur stated that parking structures have been reviewed for 15 years and have not been built, and that the restaurant is viable but will create parking problems. He stated that the proposed parking plan is not the solution. I Commissioner Koetting suggested a parking study. Discussion followed on the Commission's discretion in parking arrangements. Planning Director stated that parking is non discretionary except in-lieu in excess of six spaces. He stated that a surety bond in the amount of in-lieu parking is required, which may be discretionary and that staff will explore the possibility. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested that staff develop a comparison sheet between the former restaurant parking arrangements and proposed parking proposal , in order to determine the precedent. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent; Service abstained) for a restudy of the architectural and directed that staff develop a comparison parking study. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.714. (Continued) Vice-Chairman stated that the applicant can explore other means of parking if he wishes. F. Willis, owner of Fuddrucker' s, stated that the parking plan was developed at staff's direction. Vice-Chairman stated that the plan is disparate and that the arrangement should be clarified. Mr. Willis reiterated that Staff directed the development of the parking plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0324-A&B-GPA (Con't) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a General Plan Street Plan amendment as follows: a. Change Alejo Road between N. Palm Canyon Drive/Monte Vista from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street, Sections 10 and 15. b. Change Mesquite Avenue between South Sunrise Way/South Belardo Road from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street, Sections 22 and 23. Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and Improved General Plan amendment 5.0324. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent) ordering the filing .of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0324-GPA with the following findings: a. That the reclassification of this street to a "collector" will not affect substantially the circulation in this portion of the City, and that the precise alignment of the street will bring it into conformance with the remainder of the street. b. That the City' s Street System Element indicated that no additional improvements are required for this portion of Mesquite (provided the remainder of the element is adhered to) for the duration of the study period (year 2000), and their substantial impact upon existing circulation patterns may occur if Sunny Dunes Road is not retained at the minimum as a collector street as required by the Street System Element. July 25, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0324-A&B-GPA (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of July 10, 1984. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Reiterated its action of July 1.0, 1984 to concur with the recommendations for approval of General Plan Amendment CASE 5.0324-A&B as set forth in 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. DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of Sphere Land Use Plan. Planning Director stated that staff has no additional matters to discuss with the Commission unless it wishes to add concerns and that a plan will be prepared with County input for the meeting of or August 22 or September 12. Chairman questioned the appropriate agency to determine water demand in the valley. Planning Director stated that the agencies are Desert Water Agency and the Coachella Valley Water District. He stated that the DWA is reviewing a water conservation plan for landscaping, the use of desert landscape, and recycling of wastewater for irrigation. He stated that the State Department of Water Resources does short-term forecasting, that LAFCO could discuss the water demand but does not have the definitive responsibility, and that a study session could be scheduled for discussion with the DWA for an upgrade of the General Plan in which water is a key issue. He described County land use planning in the sphere area and stated that there is a major RV park proposed between Edom Hill and Desert Hot Springs with a large water use. Planner II stated that the RV park was reviewed by Cathedral City planning staff when she was a member, and that there is a massive use of water. She stated that her recommendation at the time was for a focused EIR. Chairman requested that Planner II contact the County to learn the status of the RV park project. ADJOURNIMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. MDR/ml PLANNING DIRECTOR WP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall • August 22, 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 3 0 Hugh Curtis X 2 1 Hugh Kaptur - 2 1 Peter Koetting X 2 1 Don Lawrence X 2 1 Paul Madsen - 2 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 1 1 Staff Present Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Robert Green, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II Richard Patenaude, Planner II Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer • William Hudak, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - August 20, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills William Johnson Hugh Curtis Sharon Apfelbaum Absent: Michael Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Lawrence, Apfelbaum; Kaptur, Madsen absent) approved minutes of the July 25 as submitted and August 8, 1984 meeting with the following corrections: Aug. 8, 1984, page 13, Condition #2, Case 5.0303-PD-152: Change Site 2 to Site 1. • Page 3, paragraph 3, Case 5.0323-PD-158, delete "realtor". Page 14, paragraph 9 (last motion) Sign Application - Millers Outpost: Add "Curtis" to dissenting vote.