Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/10/24 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 24, 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 7 0 Hugh Curtis X 6 1 Hugh Kaptur X 6 1 Peter Koetting - 5 2 Don 'Lawrence X 6 1 Paul Madsen X 6 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 5 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - October 22, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Michael Buccino William Johnson Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Koetting absent) approving minutes of October 10, 1984 with the following substitution under "Administrative Note", page 5: "Chairman explained that the Planning Commission rules and procedures set forth that a quorum is constituted by Commissioners present, not just those voting." That are no Tribal Council comments for the meeting. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA �.. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Koetting absent) taking the following action. CASE 5.0342 - MISC. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a grant application ToF expansion of DeMuth Park (addition of three new softball fields) south of Mesquite Avenue between Mountain View/Vella Road, W-R- 1C Zone, Section 19. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. ) Ordered filing of a Negative Declaration. TPM 20456. Application by HACKER ENGINEERING for D. Knutson for a tentative parcel map to consolidate 3 lots into 1 for a single residence at the northeast corner of Mountain View Place/Mission Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from the environmental assessments per CEQA guidelines.) Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by HEATH & CO. for Lucky Markets for architectural approval of 2 main identification & change of face signs for entrance signs to shopping centers (NW corner of Sunrise Way/Vista Chino and southeast corner of Racquet Club/N. Palm Canyon Drive, R-1-C, C-1 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 2 & 3. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That red-plex be replaced with No. 2380 rust matte finish. 2. That the cabinets be of a dark bronze finish. 3. That the copy on entry monument signs identifying the center be subject to staff review. CASE 3.760 (Minor) . Application by D. MEYER for architectural approval of playground at the Francis Crocker Library site, 2555 North Via Miraleste, "0" Zone, Section 2. Approved as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. The following items were reviewed at the display board at the request of Commissioner Kaptur. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the following cases. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS `�.. CASE 3.317. Application by D. LAWRENCE for architectural approval of revised elevations for single family hillside residence on Hillview Cove, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Planning Director in response to Chairman's questions stated that homes on hillsides are required by the fire code to have spark arresters and one hour roofs. He said the spark arresters can be designed aesthe- tically and design reviewed at the working drawing stage. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That spark arresters be redesigned to integrate with the architec- ture of the residence. Abstention: Lawrence. CASE 5.0308 - PD-155 (REF. TPM 16495)-Revised. Application by C. DUNHAM for architectural approval of landscape and grading plans (portion of final development plans) for single family lots near South Palm Canyon Drive between Kaweh Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 (I.L. ) Zones, Section 34. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That final review of lighting be given after review in the field. 2. That the hillside not be washed with light from the landscape lighting. 3. That final grading plans be submitted for Commission approval. CASE 3.504 (Ref. 7.504-AMM) . Application by J. WOODS for architectural approval of detailed landscape plans for single family residence on S. Tahquitz Drive between Arenas Road/Tahquitz Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.346. Planning Commission determination that a modeling school is an allowable use in the C-1 Zone, citywide. Planning Director stated that the use is similar to an aerobic studio which is an allowable use in the C-1 and C-2 Zones. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) determining that a modeling school is an allowable use in the C-1 Zone. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS 1... CASE 2.659 (Continued) . Application by L. BIALIS for architectural approval of final landscape plans and irrigation plans for Everybody's Village parking expansion located at Indian Avenue/Alejo Road, 110" Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated the Commission had had a tie vote (2-2) at the October 10 meeting, and that the landscape plan had been designed by a landscape architect based on a preliminary staff plan for expanded parking at Everybody's Village. He stated that the Commission was con- cerned originally about access to the parking area and the first recom- mendation was to eliminate the driveway access to Alejo but that in a subsequent meeting the motion was reversed at the testimony of the Traffic Engineer who felt that the access would be an improvement. Planning Director stated that the AAC felt that a parking lot should not be located at the proposed site, but the location had already been approved by the Commission. Discussion continued on the driveway location. Commissioner Lawrence voiced opposition to it because of traffic problems on Alejo which would be caused by the access location. He suggested a right turn only move- ment onto Alejo. Chairman reminded the Commission that the issue is that of landscaping approval, but that Commissioner Lawrence could make a motion that the driveway access not be approved. PlanningDirector stated that the AAC preferred open space without parking at the location, but that the City (which owns the property) wants, expanded parking for Everybody's Village. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a decorative surface for the parking area rather than asphalt. Discussion continued on the existing landscaping at the site. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum - seconded for discussion; Koetting absent) that the exit be a right turn only onto Alejo with entry from the west and no left turn. In response to Commission question, Traffic Engineer stated that signs could be erected for no left turn on Alejo for westward moving traffic but could not be enforced and that a right turn exit would preclude any entrance. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he did know why the signing could not be enforced and that enforcement of every traffic sign in town falls in the same category. He stated that if the signing were right turn only he would delete the left turn portion of his motion. After further discussion, Commission Lawrence withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. Motion was made by Lawrence that there be a right turn only movement for exiting to Alejo. The motion died for lack of a second. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Koetting absent) approving the landscaping as sub- mitted subject to the following condition: That traffic turning move- ments be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS .. CASE 5.0317 - PD-159 (Continued) . Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION INC. for a planned development district to allow a freestanding convenience market/gas station/carwash facility adjacent to the Palm Springs Airport on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 18. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 5.0224-CUP.) Recommendation that the Planning Commission continue the application to November 14. Planning Director stated that the applicant is requesting further continuance to November 14 to assemble material describing the state of the art in the development of service stations. He stated in response to Commission question that the application was denied previously by the Commission but that the applicants feel that they cannot develop a service station without accessory commercial uses and desire further discussion in a public hearing. Chairman declared the hearing open. There being no appearances the hearing was closed for the October 24 meeting. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Koetting absent) continuing the application (final continuance) to November 14. CASE 5.0327 - PD-11-A (Continued) . Application by BENEFICIAL STANDARD PROPERTIES INC. for an amendment to a planned development district to allow construction of a 60 foot stucco tower at the north entrance of Palm Springs Mall on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Farrell Drive/Sunset Way, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. (This action is categorically exempt from the environmental assessment CEQA guidelines.) Planning Director stated that the applicant withdrew the application and that a public hearing is not necessary. CASE 5.0330 - PD-160 (Continued) . Application by R. HARRISON for the Church of Religious Science of Palm Springs for a planned development district to allow construction of a church on Racquet Club Road between Farrell Drive/Cerritos Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Commission response to written comments on the Draft Negative Declaration, order for filing, and final approval . Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and give final approval to PD-160 subject to conditions. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS ., CASE 5.0330 - PD-160. (Continued) Planner II (Williams) stated that one letter has been received in opposition to the project stating that it would be disruptive to the neighborhood and lower property value, but that no additional comments were received after staff sent the staff report to the correspondent. Chairman declared the hearing open, there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) ordering the preparation of a Negative Declaration and approving the application with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS 1. That the application for a church under Planned Development District procedures is properly a use for which a Planned Develop- ment District may be considered. 2. That the church facility is consistent with the City's General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size to accommodate a church of the size proposed including adequate parking, setbacks, and land- scaping necessary to adjust the use to the site. 4. That the site is serviced by Cerritos Road, a local street, and Racquet Club Road, a secondary thoroughfare, which are adequately designed to accommodate the type of traffic expected to be generated by this use. CONDITIONS 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be meet. 2. That any outdoor activities occurring prior to 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. be approved by the Commission. 3. That a detailed landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plan be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the sidewalk along Racquet Club Road and Cerritos Road be reduced to 5 ft. 5. That final development plans be submitted within two years from the date of City Council approval . CASE 11.18. Initiation by the City of Palm Springs for consideration of changing the name of Tahquitz-McCallum Way to Tahquitz Way or other street name which the Commission deems appropriate from E1 Cielo Road westerly to the base of the mountains, Sections 13, 14 & 15. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 11.18. (Continued) Recommendation: That the the Commission not change the name of Tahquitz-McCallum Way. Planning Director stated that the matter was instituted at the request of the Tribal Council and that a letter received from a business person on Tahquitz-McCallum Way suggested that the name be changed to Tahquitz Way or Tahquitz Drive. He stated that staff does not support the name change because the issue has been fully aired and discussed and a compromise reached and the current name has not generated problems except with the Tribal Council. Chairman requested that the Commission consider the fact that the street was named after a Palm Springs pioneer (Judge McCallum) and perhaps con- sideration should be given to changing the name of another street to include the name McCallum. Planning Director stated that no comment had been received from the McCallum Foundation although the street name change was posted along Tahquitz-McCallum Way and in apartment buildings with the Tahquitz- McCallum address. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Milanovich, Chairman of the Tribal Council, representing the Agua- Caliente Indians, stated that Judge McCallum was not held in high esteem because he refused to allow Indians access through his property to the Indian burial ground, and that to have the McCallum name on the street in front of the Indian cemetery is not acceptable. He stated that he had not found a compromise solution to the multiple named street as indicated by staff. Planning Director stated that he did not indicate that the Tribal Council agreed to the proposed compromise but that there are letters of support for the name change. Mr. Milanovich stated that his own preference for the street name would be Tahquitz Drive although Tahquitz Boulevard was suggested to him. Mrs. V. Ortner-Kubler, 2182 Toledo Road, gave a brief history of the street and stated that Judge McCallum was not well thought of by the Indians, and that she had requested that the Indians not ask for a name change while she was a member of a City governing body. She requested that the City change the name and noted that the Indians have the final approval on the street name change. She stated that either Tahquitz Way or Tahquitz Drive would be acceptable as long as the Tahquitz name is retained. Planning Director stated that letters had been received urging the name change from several prominent Indian residents. M/S (Kaptur/Lawrence ) approving a street name change for Tahquitz-McCallum Way to Tahquitz Way. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLPC HEARINGS .,.� CASE 11.18. (Continued) Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that Judge McCallum should be remembered as well and asked if Commissioner Kaptur would include changing another street to McCallum Way. Mr. Kaptur declined stating that his research indicated that Judge McCallum was not a favorite of the Indians. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Koetting absent) to approve a name change from Tahquitz-McCallum Way to Tahquitz Way. /Curtis dissented M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Koetting absent) to honor the McCallum name by renaming El Cielo Road McCallum Way (later amended to approval of a Resolution of Intention setting a public hearing on December 1.2 for renaming E1 Cielo Road to McCallum Way) . CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a planned development district to allow a 400 unit apartment complex on 20 acres of an 84 acre parcel on North Palm Canyon Drive/Tram View Road (extension) , R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Previously given environmental assessment on the original application. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission send the project back to the applicant for a restudy. Planning Director stated that the staff recommendation for restudy was not a consensus since the Director of Community Development feels that the concept is valid if the development plan meets overall criteria, housing goals, etc. He gave a history of the project and stated that the second proposal submitted by the applicant was not supported by Commission and Council because of the RV park portion. He stated that the Director of Community Development and he disagree on the balancing land use concept, and discussed the remaining findings in the staff report, and presented conditions of approval if the Commission were to approve the project. (Conditions and findings are on file in the staff report in the Planning Division office. ) Redevelopment Planner stated that the percentage included in the staff report regarding subsidized units are no longer valid since they were based on development of 60 acres and that the Economic Development and Housing Division recommends 20 to 25 percent subsidization City-wide. He stated that the project is surrounded by a redevelopment project area composed of property owners and business people who are trying to build a bridge between the community and the City and are sensitive to walling in of their area by projects, although they feel that apartment construction will be beneficial to the neighborhood. He stated that the community wants a connection between the existing neighborhood and the Broxmeyer project, and that the applicant has indicated that he will discuss this concept with the residents. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. (Continued) In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the applicant is willing to add 7 acres to the site and to relocate the road for more open space. He stated that the site plan issues include intrusion into the 150 ft. setback for parking; and that straightening the road would increase traffic speed. Discussion continued on the street configuration. Commissioner Madsen stated that approval could not be given at the meeting since there are so many conditions of approval, he stated that he would rather resolve the issues before approval of the project. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278 C North Palm Canyon Drive, project architect, stated that he would make comments on the staff report as follows: 1. Background. Density of 20 dwelling units per acre was discussed by Council as a trade-off for setbacks on Palm Canyon Drive. Project density is only 17.4 dwelling units per acre. 2. Analysis. (Construction of low and moderate income housing in an already impacted neighborhood). Discussed at AAC and final question was locations available for affordable apartments. Project is economically borderline, although the applicant is in a unique position since he has owned the property for years. To construct the project in an area where land costs are higher would make it economically unfeasible unless more units were allowed. Project will not impact the neighborhood and will set a standard for the north end of town. 3. Relocating High Density Housing Stock Away from Concentrated Service and Commercial Areas. Project has been approved at 544 units in virtually the same area. Not reasonable that 400 units will impact the area more than the originally approved 544 units. 4. Juxtaposition of High and Lower Density Uses. The applicant is aware of the problem and proposes a wind break. Also the project is 110' from the R-1 area rear property line. 5. Lack of Response to Wind Conditions. Although not shown, a future wind break is proposed which was originally included in the RV park portion) . 6. Lack of Response to a Security Design. Solution can be reached and could be addressed in the final development plans. Redevelop- ment Planner indicated that residents in the existing neighborhood do not want to be walled in, but applicant has been requested to construct an 8 ft. wall along the back by the Police Department, which is sensible, although the wall could be built on the street. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. (Continued) FINDINGS 6. Variance. Applicant wants variance included in the Planned Development District (which was recommended by the Planning Director) . 9. Balanced Land Use. The applicant feels that he does not know what will be developed in the area and much depends on the development of the project north of the site (the Heinrich Hotel) and the possible expansion of the hotel golf course. Applicant is aware that only 144 additional units will be allowed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IF COMMISSION APPROVES PRELIMINARY PLAN 1. AAC Conditions. There was a tie vote so applicant does not know what conditions are applicable. 2. R-2 Standards for Apartment Project Design. All standards meet the R-2 standards except for 150 ft. setback from R-1 Zoning. No opposition voiced by the neighborhood residents in three public hearings. 3. Single Story Adjacent R-1 Properties. Minimum parking abutting rear year of R- properties. Not acceptable for construction of an affordable housing project. 8. Cul-de-Sac Provisions. Will cause problems with the site plans. 9. a) No Grading Permits during Windy Season. Not equitable if mitigation measures are met by the applicant. d) Perimeter Wall Installation at the Beginning of Project. Not acceptable, walls should be constructed with each phase. 15. & 16. 200 ft. Wind Buffer for the Entire 84 Acre Site. Wind break will be planted on the former RV portion. Applicant wants to retain that plan. 26. Screened Recreational Vehicle Park Areas for Each Phase. Too expensive a requirement for the type of project. 29. Disposition of Vacant Portion Determined Prior to Approval of Final Development Plans. Already spoken to. 30. General Plan Amended to Reflect Specific Density Proposals Reflected in Final Development Plan. General Plan amendment and project should be processed concurrently. Mr. Mills stated that the Tramview extension between the R-1 portion and the apartments could be considered and the units would then back to the second portion of the property. He requested approval and stated that a denial would be preferable to a continuance. Discussion continued on the configuration of the street. Mr. Mills stated that if the street were moved there would be a wide open space to be maintained which is economically unfeasible. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. (Continued) Commissioner Madsen indicated that with the added space more units could be constructed resulting in more revenue. Mr. Mills replied that 400 units are all that are feasible, stated that single family homes are not feasible, and that the alignment of the road allows the developer to solve the requirements of a low/moderate cost apartment complex. Commission Madsen stated that if the road configuration shifts slightly with some portions in the setback the site could be averaged and not use much space. Mr. Mills reiterated that the landscaped area would then have to be maintained and maintenance costs defeat the purpose of affordable units. Mr. Madsen stated that if the project does not meet economic guidelines it would not be constructed. Planning Director stated that the AAC had two different opinions about the amount of openspace versus the need for affordable housing. In reply to Commission questions, Mr. Mills stated that the 544 units originally approved were not built because of financing constraints. He stated that the developer wants to build a viable project with wind breaks constructed for each phrase. He explained that the condominiums are located in their present locations because of City requirements for the "window"on North Palm Canyon Drive, for accessibility to the sewer, and for natural separation from the uses on the other side of the high- way. Chairman stated that the applicant had moved the originally approved area for multi-family housing which was next to Highway 111 to an area adjacent to an existing single family residential area and crowded the units into a small site with large acreage left. He stated that he felt the applicant knew what would be developed on the vacant property. Mr. Mills stated that when the first application was made there was no hotel proposal on the northwest side of the Broxmeyer property, but with the application for a hotel, constraints had been changed, and that placing the apartment units where originally approved would not be a aesthetic window for the City. He stated that only 120 apartment units have been added to the originally approved 280 units. Chairman stated that only 25 percent of the units of the proposed complex meet City affordable housing goals, and that the proposal needs design refinement. He stated that the Commission is concerned about the site plan, space concept, and lack of community integration, and if the project were denied or restudied the applicant could appeal to the Council. Mr. Mills stated that additional acreage is not acceptable because of maintenance costs, although additional open space would allow a better site plan. He stated that placement of non-controlled rental units adjacent to controlled rental units is not compatible, but the uncontrolled units will be reasonably priced, and that the applicant feels the total project is affordable. He stated that adding another October 24 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. (Continued) 144 units of the same type as proposed will not make the project any more economically feasible, and that the project is phasing for 400 units as a maximum. He stated that a 144 unit motel might be a possibility. Planning Director stated that no density transfer was being requested of which he was aware, although the applicant may have discussed the project with the Housing Division, and that the applicant feels that Municipal Bonds would not help the financing. Mr. Mills stated that the applicant is working with the City for Municipal bonding and Assessment District for sewer and off-site improvements. S. Broxmyer, 685 Asher, Palm Springs, stated the following: That developer J. Temple will build the project, it will be built at cost and have no land costs. He stated that the purpose of the project is for a tax shelter over a 15 year period, that the project is needed, that it must be economically viable, and that it will be similar in design to Temple Project No. 2, which is a viable project and maintained properly. He stated that the plan was developed because of the hotel proposal after a conversation with the Director of Community Development and if the golf course is not constructed a hotel of 144 units can be built. He stated that the RV park proposal in the second application was at the recommendation of staff and seemed to be a sensible approach. He noted that in the current project there is no thought of impacting a small area, that Mr. Temple requires 20 dwelling units per acre for economic reasons, and that he (applicant) would manage the property. Mrs. C. Hutchins, 1790 Oasis Road, Secretary to the Highland/Gateway Estates Association, stated that the community concerns were that of the high fence and separation from the community. She stated that the project should blend with the surroundings and accommodate the surrounding areas and the redevelopment area coordinated with the project. C. Dauphine, 879 Gateway, long-time resident living adjacent to the project, stated that proposals have been made for affordable housing in the area, but a security gate card and fencing are not feasible and although security is desirable it will be added to the cost of the rentals. He stated that the project should blend with the community. Chairman explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that there be a 150 ft. setback for a two-story building adjacent to a single story building so that it will blend. He noted that the Commission is con- cerned about compatibility or impacts on the surrounding area. He explained that only 100 units will be controlled rentals, and suggested that the remaining units be priced for those at the lower economic level. Mr. Dauphine stated that the wind does not blow in the northern end of the City as it once did, and that property maintenance and rental agreements on projects prevent slums. He said that placing of people of one income group in an area does not lead to slums, that October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0294 - PD-151. (Continued) the project is needed, and noted that support services are available. He requested approval of the project and replied to Chairman's question that the rent should be in the $400/month range. Mr. Broxmyer stated that one bedroom units will rent between $400 to $425 a month, and two bedroom at $500. Chairman commented that the rental range is not going to be afforded by many people. Redevelopment Planner stated that the rental ranges can be afforded by a majority of the people in the community, that the rents are comparable to those of major complexes in the City, that it is market rate unit and meets market but not specified need. He stated in reply to Commission question that 100 units for low and moderate income persons will not be subsidized, but the concept is that through incentives the project is providing affordable housing without a subsidy. He stated that the units could qualify for the Section 8 program if any Section 8 housing units became available. Redevelopment Planner stated that a survey indicates that most of the major complexes that have amenities are full . He stated in clarification of staff discussion with the community that people do not want a walled off or fenced off project and would like to see interconnecting streets to make the project an asset to the area. There being no further appearancesthe hearing was closed. Chairman stated that there are concerns to be resolved, but that the project is desired by the community, and that the applicant should address concerns of the community and the neighborhood. Commissioner Madsen stated that the site plan should be adjusted to resolve the problems, and that the project is premature. He stated he could not vote positively on a project with 30 or more conditions and that staff has recommended a restudy. Motion was made by Madsen for a denial. The motion died for lack of a second. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis (withdrew second and Service seconded the motion) ; Kaptur/Lawrence abstained; Koetting absent) approving the concept of the project with a restudy of the application addressing concerns of the community design, density, setbacks, and lack of open space. Chairman stated that the applicant could address the concerns including the number of units. Chairman in reply to a question from the Planning Director stated that the Planned Development District would not be sent to Council for action until the concerns are resolved. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 i PUBLIC HEARINGS .�, CASE 5.0275 - PD-147 (Continued) . Application by HKS ASSOCIATES for E. DeBartolo Corporation for architectural approval of revised plans for parking structure for mall (Desert Inn Fashion Plaza) and hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-D-B Zone, Section 15. Planner III (Green) presented the project on the display board stating that the applicant has addressed concerns of the Commission including a planter added to the second story of the parking deck, landscaping (trees) added to the ground floor, planters added to the second story ramp, and free standing elements developed for the exhaust fans. He presented the elevations on the board. G. Osborne, Project Manager, reiterated that several significant revisions have been made to the plan. Planning Director stated that the Commission can require landscaping in parking structures if it deems necessary to fit the structure into the surroundings. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the top floor of the parking structure have improved aesthetics within the space as is required on street level parking lots. Chairman stated that neither the Commission nor the Council have seen plans for the parking structure, but that he had told the Council that the Commission was trying to resolve the problems. D. House, HKS Architects, stated that the top deck was not all asphalt. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that planters be added to the top deck. Mr. Osborne repeated that the parking structure is critical to the business agreements of the corporation and other objectives and is necessary for parking requirements of the project. He stated that approval of the project was also critical to the construction schedule and that all concerns have been addressed. Discussion continued regarding the south wall of the structure. Commissioner Kaptur stated that colored decking would be a simple under- taking but with the cost involved did not know how much improvement it would be. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: Architecture of Structure - approved, subject to: 1. That the second level parking lot concrete surface be beige. 2. That the proposed trees be designated by height rather than box size. The height shall be equal to the proposed trees on the adjoining portion of the project (as shown on submitted elevations). October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITETURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0275 - PD-147. (Continued) 3. That a continuous planter be added to the second level western elevation of the structure. 4. That 6 trees be planted on the western boundary of the structure at street level . 5. That the grade level perimeter wall at the northwest corner of the site be inverted and the resulting pocket of land be landscaped. 6. That the planter islands at the western end of the 2nd story ramp be expanded (eliminate 2 spaces on deck). Trees and ground cover islands. these to e shall be added 7. That landscape be added to the 2 planters flanking the ground floor entry. Lighting of structure - approved, subject to: 1. That six freestanding centrally-placed fixtures 18 feet high to match the remainder of the project be used. 2. That ground-floor fixtures shall be angled to illuminate the interior of the structure only. �.. 3. That up-lighting for landscape be included. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Chairman stated that when the Hess Project which had underground parking was approved there was a concern about the noise produced by squealing tires on the ramps and that a solution of some type was reached. Commissioner Madsen stated that the solution was to roughen the ramps. Planning Director stated that the noise sensitivity issue was higher because of the proximity of the Hess Project to a single family home and that a broom finish will stop the noise. Mr. House stated that he would review the specifications for the finish of the ramps and the top, bottom, and aprons of the ramp will be broom finished. CASE 3.231 (Continued) . Application by SWR DEVELOPMENT for architectural approval of revised building elevations for condominium project on East Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 30. Planning Director stated that the developer did not maintain the approved design and described the "bandaid"approach to the details of the project. lengthy discussion followed at the board. Chairman suggested that elevations seen from East Palm Canyon and Gene Autry Trail have acceptable materials. Further lengthy discussion followed. October 24, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITETURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.231. (Continued) M/S (Lawrence/Apfelbaum) that the elevations be finished on Highway 111 and Gene Autry Trail as originally approved with the remainder of the details to be painted, and with the details to meet all other approvals. Planning Director stated that the developer was told that the project was not being constructed as approved and that new plans needed to be submitted, and did not follow staff's advise. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that copper be used to improve the appearance of the elevations replacing the exposed wood as shown on the pp p 9 p plans. Consensus was that the builder should construct the details as originally approved. Commissioner Lawrence withdrew his motion with the approval of the second. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Koetting absent) ordering that the developer follow all original conditions of approval for details of the project. COMMISSION REPORT & DISCUSSION Developments in the Sphere of Influence. Planning Director stated that �--� several Wind Energy Project have been denied south of I-10 by the County Planning Commission. He stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that there be a moratorium on new approvals south of I-10. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Koetting absent) recommending to the Council that there be a moratorium on new approvals south of I-10 until the City/County Sphere Plan is adopted. AAC Membership. Planning Director stated that the AAC members serve for three years and terms have expired for two members (Cioffi and Mills) on July 1, 1984, although they can be reappointed. Chairman stated that the current members should be retained for continuity until July 1 and directed staff to contact them to see if they can remain until at least July 1, 1985. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. c PLANN DIRECT MDR/ml 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall November 14, 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 8 0 Hugh Curtis X 7 1 Hugh Kaptur X 7 1 Peter Koetting - 5 3 Don Lawrence X 7 1 Paul Madsen - 6 2 i Sharon Apfelbaum X 6 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner III Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Margo Williams, Planner II George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - Tuesday, November 13, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Absent: Michael Buccino Earl Neel William Johnson Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; KW,tt-i-rtg....8r,---M-ad-sen absent) approving minutes of October 24, 1984 with the,..following corrections`:` Page 8, Paragraph 2, Case 11.18. Delete last sentence. Substitute the following: Commissioner Kaptur stated that another street should be named "McCallum" since the McCallum Foundation has been instrumental in City 'improvements, and that he would support another motion for a street named after Judge McCallum. Pa e 14 Case 5.0275-PD-147, under "Architecture of Structure", delete Condition #1 regarding beige color for the second level parking lot.