Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/09/12 - MINUTES I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 12, 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 4 0 Hugh Curtis X 3 1 Hugh Kaptur X 3 1 Peter Koetting X 3 1 Don Lawrence X 3 1 Paul Madsen X 3 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 3 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director 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 John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - September 10, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Michael Buccino William Johnson Hugh Curtis Sharon Apfelbaum Absent: Chris Mills Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the August 22, 1984, will be reviewed at the September 26, 1984 meeting. i September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Motion was made by Apfelbaum, seconded by Koetting, taking the following actions: THIRD & FINAL TIME EXTENSION - TTM 16581. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH, INC. for Desert Dorado for 2-month time extension for construction of residential complex on Racquet Club Road, 05 and N05 Zones, (I.L. ) , Section 22. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval . New expiration date is 9-7-85. (Last extension) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a third and final 12-month time extension for TTM 16581 with the understanding that no new conditions of approval are being added." THIRD & FINAL TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17392 (REF. CASE 3.404) . Application by HACKER ENGINEERING for W. Coble for 2-month time extension for con- struction of condominium project on the southwest corner of Cantina Way/South Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 27. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval . New expiration date is 10-28-85. (Last extension) CASE 5.0321-CUP (Continued) . Application by J. TAMMEN for Balloons Restau- rant for architectural approval of new entry for restaurant located at 440 South Palm Canyon Drive, CDB Zone, Section 15. Removed from Agenda for submission of additional information. & CASE 3.750 (Minor) SIGN APPLICATION. / Application by C. PAOLI for architectural approval of main identification sign and awning as a cover for an outdoor eating area for restaurant at 1211 South Palm Canyon Drive (former Swiss Chalet loca- tion) , C-1 Zone, Section 23. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the awning color be a light beige. 2. That landscape plans be submitted for approval for the front planters. 3. That the grass buffer be removed and replaced with potted vines on the inside in square pots resting on the stone wall . 4. That a new sign program be submitted by March, 1985. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.336 (REF. TTM 16544 & CASE 5.0106-CUP) . Application by MAXWELL STARKMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. for architectural approval for sun control detail for condominium complex on Calle/Encilia, C-1AA and R-V-P Zones, (I.L. ) , Section 14. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.572 (REF. CASE 2.686) . Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for architec- tural approval of working drawings for an addition to the United Methodist Church on Calle Road, R-G-A-8 Zone, Section 14. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Kaptur. CASE 3.642. Application by T. DOCZI for J. Hobson for architectural approval of landscape plans for a 12-unit condominium project on Stevens Road between Kaweah Drive/Via Del Sol , R-2 Zone, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.711. Application by R. Ricciardi for M. Hemstreet for architectural approval of grading plan and wall detail for 125 unit hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Removed from agenda for staff approval . CASE 3.719 - RECONSIDERATION. Reconsideration request by R. ROBERTS for a 10- foot wall on hillside lot at 375 East Portal , R-1-B Zone, Section 27. Restudy for submittal of clearer, more legible drawings. CASE 7.566-AMM. Application J. TERRACCIANO for architectural approval of 42 foot entry wall for single-family residence at on Calle Lileta/Avenida de Elenora, R-1-C Zone, Section 13. Restudy. (AAC recommended that a detailed site plan showing dimensions, colors and materials, landscaping, and evidence that the fence/wall is not located in the corner cutoff be submitted. ) CASE 3.730 (MINOR) . Application by C. MAXWELL for N. Crisafi for architec- tural approval of landscape revisions to existing building located at 4775 East Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Eucalyptus be substituted for palms per notes on the plan. 2. That Melaleuca be substituted for Rhus Lancia per notes on the plan. 3. That the awning be added to only a portion of the northern eleva- tion and a graphic detail (same color as the awning) be added to the remaining portion of the northern, eastern and southern eleva- tions. (See notes on the plan. ) PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0258-PD-145. Application by ANDREAS COVE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. for cer- tification of the Final EIR and preliminary approval of the Planned Development District for a residential development and golf course on the southerly extension of South Palm Canyon Drive, south of City limits (I.L. ), Section 2, Riverside County. Recommendation: That the case be continued to September 26 for further review of conditions by staff and the applicant. Chairman abstained; Vice Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that although staff recommended continuance to September 26 for further review of the conditions, the public hearing should be opened for comment from the public if persons present could not return on the 26th. He stated that staff input would be limited. Planner III (Evans) stated that action will be continued to September 26, that the project is the first phase of annexation (pre-zoning phase) , that the project is subject to the requirements of the Palm Hills General Plan, that hillsides and the wash are designated as a con- servation area, although the hillsides are not proposed for development, and explained configuration of the property development. (Mitigation and recommended conditions of approval are documented and on file in the Planning Division. ) He stated that Fire Department personnel were in the audience to answer questions regarding a possible fire station on the project, that the clubhouse will be adjacent to the possibility of the hillock (a dominant landmark) , that the tennis court should be rede- signed to another location behind a hill for protection and buffering from view (although the applicant will contest the requirement) . Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council reiterated its previous comments. (See below.) Commissioner Koetting stated that he took exception to the Tribal Council recommendation that the sanitary sewer system be designed for excess capacity in order to serve further development and requested staff review as soon as possible. Planner III stated, in reply to a Commission question, regarding to the proximity of the clubhouse building to the hillock, that the hillock September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) will be fenced and will remain undisturbed and is included in the cul- tural resources management plan being developed between the City and the applicant. He stated that the Indian access road will not be a primary roadway. In reply to a Commission question, Planner III stated that concern over the tennis court lighting and location will be relayed to the applicant. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. K. Ryan of San Dimas, representing the Andreas Canyon Club, stated that drainage from the canyon is north (not as depicted in the flood map) and the culvert proposed will not aid runoff because of gravity; that the tennis courts be relocated to development area "R" (typographical error should be "K") with density transfer to another area of the site to leave a buffer to Andreas Canyon. He stated that the intrusion factor of canyon access should be considered in regard to the Bighorn sheep which come to the lower canyon even though they are not often visible and requested that fencing be used during development from areas from construction damamge. He stated in reply to a Commission question that allowing the present tennis court complex to remain vacant as a buffer would intrude less on the biology of the area. Commissioner Lawrence stated that tennis courts would be more intrusive on the environment than residences. Planner III stated that staff would review whether or not residences can be built in the mouth of the Andreas Canyon. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed for the September 12 meeting. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Kaptur, Madsen, Service abstaining) contin- uing the case to September 26. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "The Draft EIR for the Andreas Cove Country Club Project was considered by the Tribal Council on May 22, 1984. The Tribal Council 's comments and recommendations on the Draft EIR were contained in a memorandum to the City Council and City Planning Commission dated May 22, 1984 and a letter to the Department of Community Development dated May 23, 1984. The final EIR was considered by the Tribal Council on September 11, 1984. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the Lead Agency (City of Palm Springs) , concurred with the comments and recommendations of the Tribal Council as referred to above, and that the Draft EIR has been amended where necessary to include appropriate mitigation measures. 2. Noted that the Tribal Council 's concerns and recommendations rela- tive to archaeological and cultural resources, ground water resources, and biology (vegetation and animal habitat) were also expressed by other individuals and/or agencies. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0258-PD-145 (Continued) 3. Strongly urged that certain elements of the project's infrastruc- ture, i .e. the domestic water/fire protection system and the sani- tary sewer system be designed so that they will have the capacity and accessibility to serve the future development of vacant properties that are adjacent and/or "upstream" of the project site. This would include the possible over-sizing of the lines and provisions for on-site easements terminating at the project boundary, and would be consistent with normal practice relative to the planning and engineering of large undeveloped areas such as Palm Canyon and the Palm Hills area. 4. On the understanding that the City Planning Commission hearing on the Final EIR will be continued, the Tribal Council withheld com- ment on the City Staff's proposal to recommend adoption of a specific master plan alignment and road cross section at this time for extending South Palm Canyon Drive southerly of its present terminus, as a public roadway. The Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant have been directed to give this matter further review from the standpoint of the need, alignment and classification of such a roadway. CASE 5.0286-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a amendment to the zoning text for regulation of drive-through facilities for commercial and industrial zones (except CBD-Central Business Dis- trict Zone) city-wide. (Commission response to written comments on draft negative declaration, action for filing, and final approval . No comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve ZTA 5.0286. Planner II (Patenaude) stated that the City presently has no guidelines to review drive-through facilities, especially drive-through restau- rants; that requests for drive-throughs have been received; that other drive-through facilities, although discussed have not been addressed in the Ordinance change, and that drive-through restaurants are being pro- posed under Conditional Use Permits. He described the areas in which the use will be permitted and stated that one area of concern is C-1 Zoned areas along Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that shading of cars and stacking in the driveway areas is a staff concern and in reply to Com- mission question stated that banks have been allowed to have drive- through facilities without regulation except for architectural approval ; that no provision has been made for their inclusion in the Ordinance; and that some of the major City intersections have proper zoning for drive-throughs. Chairman stated that CBD, C-1AA, P and R-3 Zones would not be included. Planner II stated that drive-through facilities could be retrofitted but with current standards would not be a problem, and that drive-throughs would be allowed in C-2 zoning. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0286-ZTA (Continued) Discussion followed on possible drive-through locations in existing facilities. Planner II stated that the three stacking spaces in the draft ordinance will be increased to six and the Ordinance standards will indicate that stacking should not be extended past the property lines, nor be in the right-of-way. Chairman stated that the definition of the term "fast food" restaurant is difficult and if the Ordinance is approved, there could be a drive- through at any restaurant because of lack of definition of the term. He stated that the term "drive-through facility" is generic and could apply to any business. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the City has tried to keep the inner City as a restaurant area, and that the most appropriate area for drive- throughs are in the outlying sections. He requested further review at a study session. Commissioner Apfelbaum agreed, stating that the issue is a philosophical one in which the City should decide whether or not the concept of pedestrian use or drive-throughs are most appropriate. Chairman stated that a Planned Development District process could be required but if the amendment is approved, drive-throughs would be allowed in the zones specified in the Ordinance. Commission consensus was that the Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) requires further review. Planning Director stated that fast food restaurants and banks are pro- hibited in the R-3 Zones. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur) to continue Case 5.0286-ZTA to September 26 with review at the September 19 study session. CASE 5.0329-GPA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the General Plan from Professional to General Commercial or such other designations such as the Commission finds appropriate on the southwest corner of Sunrise Way/Ramon Road, RGA-8 Zone, Section 23. Commission response to written comments on draft negative declaration, action for filing, and final approval . No comments received. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue the case to September 26 for review at the September 19 study session regarding pro- posals that do not fit into zoning and General Plan categories. Planning Director stated that concept approval with a basic direction could be discussed at the study session, as well as the expansion of the General Plan in the "Professional" classification to allow some mixed use commercial which would protect the City from properties reverting to September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS ., CASE 5.0329-GPA (Continued) Commercial if the project were not constructed and would permit the City to approve the concept without requiring a plan. He stated that the details need to be resolved, that the concept has not been explored with the applicant, and that the City Attorney and staff dis- agree regarding allowance of a Planned Development District (PD) without a plan. Commissioner Kaptur voiced concern that the "P" Zones are being allowed semi-commercial uses and suggested that the procedure remain as it is with cases reviewed individually. Planning Director stated that staff is proposing to change the concept of "Professional" in the General Plan to consider expanded commercial and that the concept would be developed for the September 19 study ses- sion. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Madsen abstained; Curtis dissented) continuing Case 5.0329-GPA to September 26 with review at the study session on September 19. CASE 5.0327-PD-11-A. Application by BENEFICIAL STANDARD PROPERTIES, INC. for an amendment to a Planned Development District to allow construction of a 60 foot tower at the north entrance to the Palm Springs Mall located on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Farrell Drive/Sunset Way, CSC Zone, Section 13. This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. (This item will be renoticed for October 10, 1984. ) Recommendation: That the application be continued to October 10 for renoticing. Planning Director stated that the application had been erroneously noticed, would be scheduled for a public hearing at the October 10 meeting, that the applicant is aware of the rescheduling. CASE 6.337 - VARIANCE. Application by K. FLYNN for a variance in set-back requirements to allow a storage building at 1133 Pasa Tiempo between Avenida Caballeros/Calle Rolph, R-1-C Zone, Section 11. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the variance be denied and the structure abated within 30 days. Planner III (Evans) stated that the structure has been built and was listed as a bedroom when the current owner purchased the property. He September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.337 (Continued) stated that the addition was discovered by a Building Inspector in the field. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. K. Flynn, 1133 Pasa Tiempo, the applicant, introduced her husband, A. Kalmanson. Mr. Kalmanson stated that no special privilege would be granted since the request is to use the property the way the neighbors use theirs. He stated that although staff indicates that are no other variances in the area, a drive through the neighbor revealed many violations of which he took pictures and made a list; and that an administrative determination must have been made to allow the variances to exist. He requested the same consideration. Chairman advised Mr. Kalmanson that the Commission is required to make findings to grant a variance, and that other violations cannot be con- sidered. Mr. Kalmanson stated that there are many violations which have been allowed by an administrative determination and which discriminate against him. He stated that findings are insufficient to support denial and that he did not know that the structure was in violation when he purchased the property. He explained that the room is being used as a swimming pool changing area and recreation room, and that the contractor assured him that City requirements were being met for the construction but when the property was cited, the contractor disappeared and the open roof was finished by his family. He stated that the variance applica- tion was made a year ago and there were various problems regarding com- pleteness of the application until recently. Mrs. F. Hendron, 1095 Olive Way, stated that her rear property adjoins the subject property and that the structure is an eyesore. She stated that the building roof had been raised during her vacation period; that the applicants nailed a board on the overhang which extends over the wall , and that additional large plants had to be purchased to screen the unsightly structure. She presented a petition of 26 signatures of neighbors requesting that the variance be denied on the grounds that a permit should be obtained before a building is constructed. She stated a letter in opposition from the Charles Barnett family would be pre- sented and outlined the petition as follows: The structure is a fire hazard to adjacent developed properties; the structure does not meet setback requirements; and it should not be allowed to set a precedence. Mrs. Hendron circulated a picture of the structure and stated that anyone in her backyard can see it. She stated that she had lived in her house since 1970 and that her husband had realized that the original structure had been constructed although it could not be seen from the backyard because it was lower than the wall . F. R. Hendron, 1095 Olive Way, explained the construction of the addi- tion, stating that the applicant had used the walls of the structure as retaining walls to support the roof,. and that the structure is visible and ugly. He stated that he objected to the visual effect. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.337 (Continued) G. Cook, 1090 Marshall Way, stated that nothing had been done by the applicants to improve the property for two years, and that the applicant had built on the structure on Sundays. He stated that a structure cannot rest on a property line. T. Serling, 1164 Linda Vista, stated that requirements should be fol- lowed, that property in Palm Springs is expensive and should not be devalued because of illegal structures, that a neighbor had wanted to build a garage to house a car and was not allowed to do so; that the proposed structure should not be allowed either. He stated that a property representative should consider the buyer and not sell property with violations. Chairman stated that staff would investigate violations in the area. Mr. Serling stated that the Commission should not be influenced to condone the variance because of existing violations in the neighborhood. Mrs. P. Amos, 1086 Marshall Way, stated that there is a house adjoining the rear of her yard which is 5 feet from the property line which has been a problem, and that she is opposed to granting the subject variance which is a reason for her signing the petition. Mr. Kalmanson (rebuttal ) stated that the picture of the structure was taken some time ago, and that landscaping now screens most of the roof area. He stated that the work on the addition was finished on Sundays but that the inconvenience to the neighbors is over; and in reply to Commission question, that the building was re-roofed and is supported by 1 X 12 lumber which is the reason for the roof being higher than the original . He stated that the wall is on his property line and the roof does not encroach into the neighbor' s property, and that he had con- tacted the neighbors originally but had not consulted them on colors which had angered them. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that a non-conforming use never becomes grandfathered because it is illegal , and that a legal non-conforming use caused by a change in law (and depending on the structure and situation) can remain in effect for the life of the building. Planning Director stated that if the structure were built legally in the 50's or 60's, there would have been larger setbacks, and that there is an ongoing code effort by the Building Division to cite violations of this type. He stated that violations will be reviewed as staff has time to investigate. M/S/C (Curtis, Apfelbaum; Lawrence dissented) denying the application for a variance with the following findings: 1. That the subject property exceeds minimum lot area requirements, is somewhat irregular in shape, and has adequate area to provide an addition in compliance with ordinance requirements. 2. That the granting of this variance would constitute a special privilege. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.337 (Continued) 3. That the granting of this variance may be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity of the subject property. 4. That the granting of this variance will not affect the General Plan. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he dissented because he feels that it is unfair to penalize one person when there are many code violations in the area. Discussion followed on citing of code violations. Commissioner Kaptur stated that staff will review them since staff is now aware of the vio- lations. CASES 6.342 — VARIANCE & 3.713 Application by L. STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for a variance in front, rear and side yard setbacks and setbacks from adjacent single story development to allow construction of a two story, 4-unit apartment development on the southwest corner of Avenida Evelita/Calle De Richardo, R-2 Zone, Section 19. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the variance be approved subject to conditions. Planner II (Williams) stated that the renderings on the display board represent the configuration of the project if a variance were granted, and that there are small apartment units adjoining the property. In reply to Chairman's question, Assistant City Attorney stated that physical characteristics of a property which are different from other parcels and preventing them from being developed as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance are grounds for a variance. In reply to Chairman's question, Planner II stated that other parcels in the area are substandand. Commissioner Madsen noted that the applicant would not have setback problems on other properties, and the Assistant City Attorney stated that the point was well taken. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the variance is very similar to Case 6.344 (the following agenda item). Planner II described development on the surrounding properties and stated that they were probably built to older, lesser standards. Planning Director stated that until 1967 R-2 zoning did not allow two- story development. i September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASES 6.342 & 3.713 (Continued) Planner II requested a determination from the Commission on whether or not the setback is to the property line of the adjacent single-story development or to the building face/wall of the single-story develop- ment. She stated that staff has determined that it is to the property line. Chairman declared the hearing open. G. King representing the owner and developer, stated that the project design was researched thoroughly and is sensitive to the neighborhood in placement of windows and balconies. He stated that the rear balconies could be eliminated, although his suggestion would be to raise the wall since there is a service area behind it. He stated that the parking exceeds standards. In response to a Commission question regarding privacy, Mr. King stated that there are no windows facing the property line, and that architectural details obsure the views from the bal- conies. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that two- story buildings are few in the neighborhood because of the 25 foot setback and previous ordinance provisions. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that there seems to be a contradiction between the subject variance and the following variance. Planning Director stated that the applicant in order to create a multi- family residential complex is requesting reduced setbacks because the lot is not as large as a normal R-2 lot, but that a lot that is sub- standard in size is not a basis for over-developing a property. Chairman stated that the property is over-built. Planning Director stated that the applicant is asking for an increase in building coverage over a reduction in open space. Planning Director stated that there is an architectural issue and an issue of a substandard lot, and that the applicant is requesting a normal reduction. He stated that if the Commission feels that a build- ing is too large, it can approve a portion of the variance, deny a portion of the variance or deny the variance and restudy the architec- tural elements. He stated in response to a Commission question that two-story setbacks from single-story residences are different from set- backs to two-story buildings. Discussion followed on similarities between Cases 6.342 and 6.344. Commissioner Koetting stated that the project is 20% deficient in set- backs. Planning Director stated that the project could meet ordinance standards with an AMM by placing the second-story portion (which is the problem portion) back to a 20-foot setback. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that if lots being substandard is a legal reason for granting a variance, he would support the vari- ance. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASES 6.342 & 3.713 (Continued) Assistant City Attorney stated in reply to Chairman's question that the variance is on the land, and that having a substandard lot standing alone allows a variance, although a substandard lot among other sub- standard lots would not constitute grounds; and that a finding of no special privilege cannot be made where the preponderance of the lots are substandard to a similar degree. Planning Director stated that he did not agree with the Assistant City Attorney because there are grounds for a variance and a similar lot would be afforded a similar opportunity. Assistant City Attorney stated that where there are numerous substandard lots in a zoning district, there is something wrong with the Zoning Ordinance and it should be amended to address the problem instead of granting variances which should be granted rarely and because of unusual circumstances. Discussion continued on setbacks on substandard lots and the possibility of granting the variance and changing the Ordinance for the remainder of the area. Chairman stated that the Ordinance cannot be changed for one area only. Assistant City Attorney stated that if findings can be made, the vari- ance can be granted. M/S/C (Curtis; Kaptur) for approval of the variance. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Kaptur, Madsen NOES: Apfelbaum, Lawrence, Service, Koetting The motion failed, thereby denying the variance based on the following finding: That the granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege since there are several substandard lots in the area. M/S/ (Koetting, Kaptur) for the applicant to resubmit plans and an AMM for the second story for a ten foot offset. Planning Director stated that the second motion is not necessary since the variance was denied by failure of the motion for approval . Commissioner Koetting withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. Chairman informed the applicant that he could appeal the denial . ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman requested that staff investigate a residence on South Riverside Drive, west of Hermosa Drive where the front yard is being used as a storage yard. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.344 - VARIANCE. Application by J. CALLAHAN for P. Taylor and K. Luhrs for a variance to increase maximum building coverage for a single family residence at 520 Via Lola, east of Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the variance be denied based on the analysis and findings. Planner II (Williams) presented the project on the display board. Planning Director stated that on the basis of the substandard lot size an AMM could be .. . granted to reduce setbacks (but not to increase coverage) , and that the applicant would have to delete 910 sq. ft. before he would comply with the ordinance. Chairman declared the hearing open. P. Taylor, 34025 Emily Way, Rancho Mirage, the applicant, stated that the area has many substandard lots that are deprived of privileges which are allowed for standard lots but the precedent established, if fair and equitable, should be allowed, and would not be detrimental to the neighborhood since the house will be upgraded. He stated that the lot is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. In response to a Com- mission question, Mr. Taylor explained that the house was proposed to be expanded to fit the needs of a prospective buyer, and that it is being upgraded by a corporation as a speculative venture. He stated that the of po�l will be removed and the proposed one will not encroach into the se bac s. Mrs. M. Culpepper, 540 Via Lola, requested approval of the variance stating that the Callahan firm does good work. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the same points are applicable as in variance 6.342 regarding legal grounds. Commissioner Kaptur stated that it is an improvement to the neighborhood but since there is a legal issue, he would move for denial (seconded by Koetting) . Discussion followed on lot coverage for various residential zones. Chairman stated that the hope is to achieve the most open space and the largest lot size. For reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the lot is substandard even under R-1-B zoning. Further discussion followed. Assistant City Attorney stated that he could not make the variance finding for the Commission, and that the remark regarding privileges enjoyed by surrounding properties since the lots are similar should be clarified since it is different from a substandard lot surrounded by conforming lots. Commissioner Lawrence stated that there is something wrong with the Zoning Ordinance regarding this case. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.344 (Continued) In response to Chairman's question regarding the lot's being the second smallest in the neighborhood, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission would have to find that the denial of the variance would be removing the privilege and that the variance would not be granting a special privilege; and that if the Commission can make the first finding, it can probably make the second. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Kaptur withdrew his motion for denial with the consent of seconder and stated that a finding should be made to provide sufficient reason for the variance to be granted. M/S/C (Lawrence, Kaptur; Curtis, Apfelbaum, Madsen abstained) approving Case 6.344-Variance based on the following findings: 1. That the subject lot is extremely substandard in size and deprives the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood. 2. That the variance request is not out of character with the area. 3. That the proposed expansion meets setback requirements. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be the granting of a sepcial privilege in that other small substandard properties would be afforded an equal review. CASE 5.0325-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the General Plan text allowing hotels, resorts, and the like in resi- dential areas not otherwise specified for such development as long as the General Plan density is not exceeded, city-wide, including all existing General Plan areas. (Environmental assessment; tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve the General Plan Amendment, (GPA), and continue the application to September 26 for response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. Planning Director stated that the amendment was prompted by submittal of recent hotel applications in large tract areas of South Palm Canyon and the Chino Cone and to allow these applications flexibility for develop- ment. He stated that the old General Plan did not allow for low density hotels but since the Council is now encouraging hotel development, the new amendment will aid in development of low density resorts. He stated that the Tribal Council comments on the traffic generation are correct but low-density hotels have less overall impact than condominium com- plexes, and that the hotels will not affect existing neighborhoods since there are no large tracts except in outlying areas with little existing development. He stated that Commission action on hotel applications is September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0325-GPA (Continued) on a case-by-case basis and is time consuming and that the issue could be directed to a study session with the Tribal Council invited as guests. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the number of units allowed on a 40-acre site is not economical for the developer. Planning Director, in response to Commission question, stated that the GPA would allow more flexibility for low-density hotel projects. Fur- ther discussion followed. Planning Director stated that an overlay procedure on the General Plan would require rewriting Andreas Cove con- ditions. Commissioner Koetting stated that residences and hotels are exactly opposite in genre - one is permanent and one is transient. Planning Director stated that he would have to agree (if a hotel were going to be built on a 5-acre parcel) but there is no intrusion into existing neigh- borhoods. Discussion followed on impacts of hotel development on residential neighborhoods. Planning Director stated that the Commission is over- looking the fact that the minimum size is 40 acres and thus no hotel will be built in an existing neighborhood and that there are large parcels on the Chino Cone and in Section 35. He stated, in response to Chairman's question, that the amendment of the Palm Hills and the North- west General Plans only would not include Palm Springs Country Club which is proposing a hotel . Chairman stated that if the two smaller General Plans were changed, it would not be a blanket revision. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Wessman, 72-200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, stated that the GPA is sensible for hotel development in large open space areas. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was not against the amendment, but felt that the public should be aware of the impacts of the proposal . Discussion continued. Chairman stated that the units would number 160 to 240 units on a 40-acre parcel (4-6 du/acre) . Commissioner Lawrence stated that he could not support the amendment unless the three areas surrounded by R-1 zoning were exempt. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that it would benefit developers but not resi den ts. Chairman stated that hotels generate money which benefits residents. Further discussion followed. Chairman stated that hotels should be spread out and developed not in the core of City but in the Chino Cone and the northwest areas. Commissioner Madsen stated he could not see a September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0325-GPA (Continued) detriment in a peripheral area of the City because the guests will spend their money in Palm Springs (not in outlying cities) , and that he sup- ported the proposal . Commissioner Curtis stated that there were only six pieces of land left of the size needed, that he did not understand the confusion, and that staff would haves input on impact in areas of the sizes discussed. M/S/C (Kaptur, Madsen; Curtis dissented) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the Zoning Text Amend- ment (ZTA), and continuing the case to September 26 for Commission response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "In keeping with its policy to consider all proposed amendments to the City's General Plan that could materially affect Indian trust-lands, this case was considered by the Tribal Council on August 7, 1984. Based on the information available at that time (Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 8, 1984) , and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions; 1. Noted that this proposed amendment to the General Plan text would be a very significant change in the City's current land use poli- cies related to hotel developments which were adopted in 1966. 2. Questioned if all the issues that would be involved in this policy change have been identified and/or fully addressed in the analysis set forth in Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 8, 1984. 3. Expressed a strong concern that a Negative Declaration would not be appropriate in view of the potential significant environmental impacts of this proposed General Plan text amendment. 4. Requested that this matter be continued to the City Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of September 12, 1984. The Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant have requested additional time to evaluate and comment on the potential impact of this proposed amendment on existing and future land use matters. This case was considered by the Tribal Council on September 11, 1984. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its comments and concerns as noted in Items 1-3 above. i 2. Noted that the potential impact of the commercial uses normally associated with a hotel , on a residential neighborhood were not addressed in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 8, 1984. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0325-GPA (Continued) 3. Noted that the additional alternative of a resort hotel as evalu- ated in the Final EIR for the Andreas Cove Country Club Project (Section C 6.5) to be considered by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1984, resulted in estimated traffic rates of 10.2 trips/day/room for the resort hotel versus the 5.6 to 8.0 trips/day/room for condominiums, an increase in the range of 27- 82%. There would be a corresponding increase in emissions and air quality degradation. 4. Strongly urged that proposals to develop hotels, resorts and the like in areas not presently designated on the General Plan Land Use Element as High Density, be properly considered as a change in land use and evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the normal pro- cedures of conducting appropriate environmental studies, General Plan Amendments, changes of zone, etc. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION - CASE 10.344. Planning Commission determination that an aero- bic dance studio use is an allowable use in the CON Zone. Planner III (Green) stated that an aerobics studio is not listed in uses permitted in the CDN Zone and that staff feels that the dance studio would serve a larger area than a specific neighborhood despite the fact that it will be a good neighbor. He stated that the use is not meeting the intent of the zoning and should be denied since the CON Zone usually provides retail uses, and that an aerobics studio would lessen the amount of floor space to be devoted to retail uses. He stated that the applicants have asked about a nightclub which is a prohibitive use within the zone, and that the applicant has submitted a dossier of his proposal . In reply to Commission question, Planner III stated that it is a dance use and not a retail use which is the reason for the staff recommenda- tion for denial . He stated that the letter from the Director of Com- munity Development in the report package is included only as a discus- sion item. Discussion ensued on the effects of an aerobic dance studio on the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the facility would help the neighborhood. Planner III stated that the dance studio is proposed in Rimrock Plaza, that the test is whether or not the use serves the neighborhood, and that the use is citywide in character. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 10.344 (Continued) Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that aerobics have become a way of life and respond to lifestyle changes which is appropriate. Planning Director stated that on March 14 the Commission made a deter- mination that a gymnasium is an allowable use in the CDN Zone and that an aerobic dance studio is no different from a gym. M/S/C (Lawrence, Kaptur) that an aerobics dance studio use is an allow- able use in the CDN Zone. Planner III reiterated that a nightclub is a prohibited use. Chairman questioned the point at which a restaurant becomes a nightclub. G. Coxon, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that he is health oriented and developed the concept of an aerobics studio daytime use with a non- alcoholic nightclub use for young people during the evening. Chairman suggested that the applicant submit an application to operate a restaurant. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0312-K-MISC. Application by US WIND POWER for a change in zone (#4302) and WECS #48 for property located south of I-10, east of Whitewater, from Rural Residential (RR) to Wind Energy (WE) , Section 13, Sphere of Influence. Planner III (Evans) described the project with the aid of visuals and stated that the staff concern is that the project is at the crest of an alluvial fan, is on the ridgeline, isIft confidd with the Sphere of Influ- ence plan, and staff's recommendation is for denial or deferred action until the County's sphere plan is completed. Ms. S. Neeland, representative of Wind Power, Inc., gave statistics on power produced by the project and tax money generated. She stated that the project is an asset to the area and requested no action if the Com- mission cannot endorse it. Discussion ensued on the benefits to Palm Springs of the wind energy machines. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the machines do not benefit the City since the electricity generated is placed in the Edison grid system and that the machines are ruining the aesthetics of the desert. M/S/C (Lawrence, Kaptur) denying Case 5.0312-K. CASE 5.0312-M-MISC. Application by IRVINE ENERGY CORPORATION for WECS Permit #51 and setback variance (#1454) (wind access) for property south of I-10 within the Whitewater River, W-1 Zone, Section 20 and portions of 19 and 29, Sphere of Influence. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.03'12-M-MISC (Continued) Planner III (Evans) presented the project on the display board and stated that it is in the center of several BLM wind energy projects, that staff recommends approval of the permit & the variances since devel- opment is occurring on three sides of the project. He stated that the variance requests are minor and that the colors will be gray with a light color on the turbines, and that the County requires colors that are approved by the City of Palm Springs. Commissioner Kaptur commented that there has been no information received on the status of the Sphere of Influence Plan and suggested a moratorium on wind energy applications until the Sphere Plan is com- plete. PLanner III stated that the City Council has recommended to the County that no more applications be accepted in the Sphere, but there has been no response to staff regarding the Sphere Plan. M. Van Nostrand, President of Irvin Energy, stated that the machine color will be earth-tone including the blades and gave statistics of their operation. Chairman stated that the windmills do not show in the visuals as they do in the field, and that there is no resemblance to the original area because construction of the machines requires that the ground be bladed and fenced. He stated that the projects are write-offs and that the bright white color proposed by an adjacent wind energy project makes the windmills more offensive. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there should be a cooperative plan for placement of the machines and questioned the reasons that the machines proposed by the applicantsare Danish;Mr. Van Nostrand stated that the Danes have developed the highest caliber of windmill technology although there are American-manufactured wind machines. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission should be consistent in its position on the machines. Planner III described the few projects that have been recommended for approval by the Commission stating that the Commission has approved approximately half of the projects proposed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that guidelines are needed, and that he would not support the windmill projects until parameters are developed. M/S/C (Curtis, Kaptur; Koetting, Madsen, Service dissented) denying Case 5.0312-M. 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. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) . Application by J. WESSMAN for Ralphs Market for architectural approval of revised plans for a monument sign for a supermarket in a neighborhood shopping center on South Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road/Belardo Road, PD-131 (I.L. ) , Section 22. Planning Director described the sign on the display board and stated that the size had been reduced. He stated that if the words "Offices" and "Shops" were removed, the sign would be within parameters of the new Sign Ordinance which is 25 sq. ft. per face and that signs were approved for the walls but were not erected. J. Wessman, 72-200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, the applicant, stated that it is necessary to have the words "shops" and "offices" because the center is not Ralph's Plaza del Sol ; and that the sign balances more proportionately with the wording. Planning Director suggested that a common background of red tile be used for "Ralph's" and "Plaza del Sol". Mr. Wessman stated that he liked the sign the way it is proposed, and that the wording helps the integration of the development. Chairman suggested that the Commission find that the sign is consistent with the approved sign program. M/S/C (Curtis, Kaptur; Madsen abstained) approving the sign as submitted including the words "offices" and "shops" and finding that the sign is consistent with the sign program of the center. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting. CASE 3.742. Application by H. LAPHAM for the Hilton Riveria Hotel for archi- tectural approval of a swimming pool addition and landscape plans for hotel on the northeast corner of North Indian Avenue/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 2. M/S/C (Curtis, Lawrence; Kaptur abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a covenant for parking be implemented for parking deficien- cies until a master plan of parking is completed. 3. That a detailed landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the AAC and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.744 (REF. CASE 5.0275-PD-147) . Application by SAKS for architectural approval of a department store (addition to approved retail mall) on North Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz McCallum Way, CBD Zone, Section 15. Discussion ensued on the design elements. R. Bridges (project archi- tect) stated AAC had stressed redwood glu-lam beams for the trellis design; that the finish on the frontage is stucco with slightly visible gridlines; and that the manufuacturer's specifications are being fol- lowed for curing the panels. He stated that the clients did not want more show windows than are indicated. Planner III (Green) stated that the sign program has not been submitted. Chairman stated that the trellis element may create problems for signs. Planner III stated that the architects were advised that they would have to accommodate signage. Chairman stated that the trellis design is a poor substitute for good architecture. M/S/C (Apfelbaum, Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That glu-lam beams be used on the trellis. CASE 3.745 (REF. CASE 5.0275-PD-147) . Application by I. MAGNIN for architec- tural approval of construction of department store (addition to approved retail mall ) on South Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz McCallum Way, CBD Zone, Section 15. Chairman suggested that the Saks and Magnin buildings be coordinated. The architect representing Magnin stated that although the buildings are designed by different architects, they will be coordinated. Discussion followed on the materials of the Magnin building. M/S/C (Apfelbaum, Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.645 & TTM 17260. Application by HELTZER ENTERPRISES for architectural approval of landscape plans and deletion of sidewalk for 120 unit condo- minium project on Golf Club Drive between Waverly Drive/Cree Road, R-3 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 29. Planner III (Green) stated that the sidewalk will be deleted with land- scaping placed in the area and that the AAC recommended a restudy of the carports, although the applicant has submitted a revised carport plan which the AAC has not reviewed. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.645 & TTM 17260 (Continued) C. Rollins of Heltzer Enterprises, requested that the redesigned carport be approved since the developer has responded to recommendations of the AAC and because he wants to proceed as rapidly as possible with the project. M/S/C (Apfelbaum, Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the landscaping plan and deletion of the sidewalk on the east side of Cree Road and ordering a restudy of the carport. Commissioner Lawrence left the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. CASE 5.0331-ZTA. Initiation by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a zoning text amend- ment to regulate day care facilities in all zones, City-wide. Environmental assessment. M/S/C (Curtis, Apfelbaum; Koetting, Lawrence absent) ordering the prep- aration of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the case to the September 26 meeting for Commission response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "In keeping with its policy to consider all proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that could materially affect Indian trust-lands, and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions; 1. Noted that the location, control , etc. of child day care centers have to be a considerable degree, have been pre-empted by the state (S.B. 163 adopted September 29, 1983) . 2. Concurred with the preparation and filing of a Negative Declara- tion as recommended in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated August 27, 1984 with mitigation measures to include the addition of conditions of approval on specific projects to the extent necessary and/or permissable under State Law, in ordre to assure compatibility with area development. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, including proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, was not available on Settember 1.0, 1984. Lacking that information, and with the understanding that the City Planning Commission will continue this Case with respect to action to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the Tribal Council withheld further September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM CASE 5.0331-ZTA (Continued) comments pending receipt and review of the Planning Commission Staff Report. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-L-MISC. Application by FLOW WIND CORPORATION for change of zone 4303 and WECS #49 for property south I-10, west of Garnet, Controlled Development (W-2) to Wind Energy (WE) , Section M, Sphere of Influence. M/S/C (Curtis, Kaptur; Service, Madsen dissented; Koetting Lawrence absent) denying Case 5.0312-L-MISC. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the map and the Planning Com- mission discussed and took action on the following parcel map 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. TPM 20161 (REF. CASE 5.0282-PD-150) . Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Palm Canyon Plaza, Ltd. for a tentative parcel map for consolida- tion of two parcels into one at South Palm Canyon Drive/Mesquite Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 23. (Previously given environmental assessment in con- junction with PD-150. ) Planning Director stated that staff recommends redesigning of the park- ing lot to remove parking from the future right-of-way; and that the City Council did not approve the downgrade of Mesquite to a collector in this area; and that staff will work with the Traffic Engineer on the required street section in order to maximize the landscaping buffer. Chairman suggested that a right turn lane be striped at the intersection of Mesquite and Hwy 111. M/S/C (Kaptur, Curtis; Koetting, Lawrence absent) approving TPM 20161 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the sign on the old Hyatt Hotel on North Palm Canyon was approved by staff two years ago and was just recently erected. September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 RESTUDY ITEMS M/S/C (Kaptur, Curtis; Koetting, Lawrence absent) for a restudy of the following cases: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by ABIDING LOVE FELLOWSHIP for architectural approval of a neon main identification sign on the second story of the Sun Center, South Palm Canyon Drive, north of Sunny Dunes Road, Section 15. (Sign not consistent with approved sign program.) CAC noted that the neon sign was not consistent with the adopted sign program for the center and recommended using clear acrylic with painted letters. CASE 3.741 (MINOR) . Application by LIVRERI 'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT for architec- tural approval of remodel of restaurant at 350-354 South Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L.) , Section 13. AAC noted the following: 1. That the awning should be integrated into the fascia. 2. That the landscape materials need more color and that additional parking lot trees should be added to the front of the buildings. 3. That the north elevations need screening and that a gate should be placed at Indian Avenue and a wall along the north property line to screen mechanical equipment and loading areas. 4. That an outdoor dining concept be explored. 5. That the architecture need not reflect the food type, i.e. , the seafood restaurant does not need a nautical theme. MISCELLANEOUS ITEM (Continued) DETERMINATION (Continued) . Planning Commission review of Desert Water Agency Capital Improvement Program. M/S/C (Madsen, Kaptur; Koetting, Lawrence absent) continuing the case to September 26. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSIONS Film_,re: Design of Structures to withstand Earthquake Movements. Chair- man stated that he had seen a film at the Desert Water Agency which showed results of earthquakes on buildings. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for the western states requires standards which allow people to escape from a structure although the structure may be extensively damaged. Chairman stated that the UBC does September 12, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSIONS (Continued) not assure that the buildings will not collapse, but that he felt that the structures could be used for emergency shelters if designed properly and that projections indicate that within the lifetime of presently con- structed buildings there will be an earthquake of 8 to 8.2 magnitude. He stated that the present building codes do not cover horizontal acceleration of buildings during quakes. Commissioner Kaptur stated that costs are a factor in the design of earthquake-proof buildings and that buildings are built not to collapse even if heavily damamged and to allow people to escape, that the UBC continually updates its require- ments as more earthquake knowledge is gained. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. I r P ANN D I R E TMM R-- MR/ml WP/PC MIN 4