Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/11/14 - MINUTES I i i 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 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; Koetting & Madsen 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. Page 14, Case 5.0275-PD-147, under "Architecture of Structure", delete �,, Condition #1 regarding beige color for the second level parking lot. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman announced that Commissioner Koetting would not be attending the meeting because he had just become the father of a baby girl. There are no Tribal Council comments for the meeting. CONSENT ACTION AGENDA M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Koetting, Madsen absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.205. Application by S. Appel for architectural approval of roof mounted mechanical equipment screen for 42 unit condominium complex bounded by Escoba Drive, Beverly Dr. , Avery Dr. , R-3 Zone, Section 24.8. Continued to November 28 at the applicant's request. CASE 3.304. Application by A. GUYER for architectural approval of revised elevations and final landscape plans for four, 4-unit apartments on Avenida Caballeros between Vista Chino/Cottonwood Road, R-2 Zone, Sec- tion 11. Approval of elevations subject to the following conditions: <.,. 1. That a two coat plaster with painted finish be used. 2. That the chimney be squared sheet metal with an applied plaster screen (color to match the building) . 3. That glue lam beams be used in lieu of exposed unlaminated timber. 4. That column size be as originally approved. 5. That glass be recessed uniformly throughout. 6. That garden wall colors blend with the rest of the colors of the project. Restudy of the following: 1. Colors (noting that awnings have a solid color and that the color contrast as originally approved be used). 2. Landscaping (noting that sizes, quantities and types of materials should be revised throughout and that special emphasis be placed on street landscaping. Berming should also be included) . CASE 3.582. Application by A. WILKES for architectural approval of revised phasing plans for a apartment/hotel on Baristo Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ., CASE 3.689. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for Fairport Construction, Inc. for architectural approval of working drawings for warehouse/office complex on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Chia Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Approved subject to the following condtion: That detailed landscape plans be submitted. CASE 3.741 (Minor) . Application by J. BUND for Livreri 's Italian Restaurant for architectural approval of final landscape plans for restaurant at 250 to 254 S. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L.), Section 14. Continued for submission of revised materials. Abstention: Service. Note: The AAC suggested that the architect attend the November 26th AAC meeting to discuss the proposed fascia changes. CASE 3.768 (Minor) . Application by THE REGENT HOTEL for architectural approval of awnings and revised exterior material for hotel at 960 N. Palm Canyon, C-1/R-3 Zones, Section 10. Restudy for the AAC to review materials and details with the hotel owner continued to November 28). TIME EXTENSION - TTM 13761 AND CASE 5.0232-PD-140. Request by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for a 12-month time extention for TTM 13761 and PD-140 to allow construction of an industrial complex on Bogie Road between Vista Chino/Chia Drive, M-1-P Zone and W-M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Approved subject to all the original conditions of approval . New expiration date will be December 1, 1985. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by PALM SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK for architectural approval of two main identification signs (on Palm Canyon and Indian Ave.) for banking institution on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Baristo Road/Ramon Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Apfelbaum November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by SUN SIGNS for A to Z Rentals for architec- tural approval of two main identification signs at 4545 Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Restudy. Applicant to consider replacing existing electrical sign with wooden sign consistent with two signs per application. Alternative is to establish all electrical sign program to match existing sign. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for Rare Coin Gallery for architectural approval of gold trimmed cap on main identification sign for business at 201 N. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15 Approved as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by R. LYONS for Ram's Hotel and Restaurant Supply for architectural approval of main identification sign for busi- ness at 4775 E. Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Restudy. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.482-A. Application by PRIDE LANDSCAPING for L. Dischner for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for single family residence at 801 Via Olivera, R-1-B Zone, Section 4. Planning Director stated that the City policy for hillside areas is to not allow recontouring and grading of sites without a plan for a perma- nent structure. He stated also that the applicant is proposing land- scape of lot adjoining a house which he owns. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that a person should be allowed to have the benefits of a landscaped area and that the action would be discretionary with the Commission. Planner III (Green) stated that the AAC was not in opposition to the concept, but felt that it could have a better design. Commissioner Apfelbaum agreed stating that the Committee felt that the landscaping was not in keeping with the native desert environment because regularly placed boulders and snail vines were proposed. Chairman questioned whether or not a legal document could be developed for notification of the City if the lot were proposed to be developed, since the lot will need to have a soils compaction test. Planning Director stated that if the lot is ever proposed for develop- ment, complete design review will be required which includes soil test- ing. Chairman stated that the applicant could design better landscaping, but the concept should be allowed. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 3/492-A. (Continued) M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the concept of a landscaped vacant lot subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscape plan be restudied. 2. That a grading plan be submitted. 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 deny the convenience market portion of the Planned Development District and restudy and resubmit details of the automobie service station under a CUP excluding the convenience market and possibly integrating the car wash facility. Planner III stated that an office building, T-hangars, and a possible restaurant have not been built as shown on the Master Plan of the pro- posal . He stated that the car wash will be limited in scale and size to accommodate rental cars only (not the general public) because the car wash would be considered an accessory use to the terminal . He explained that the application had been continued for the applicant to submit material on accessory commercial uses not connected with the Airport, but that no information had been received. He stated that no definition of convenience stores has been made, although size probably will be con- sidered, and that the access to the proposed market should be the same as the access to the terminal (which is not proposed by the applicant) . Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon, representing JIMSAIR, requested a continuance until the first of the year in order for JIMSAIR to nego- tiate business dealings which may include a restaurant. He stated that the car wash is proposed to be only a small automatic one for rental cars and will not accommodate the public, and explained that redefini- tion of the term "freestanding convenience market" would be addressed by the applicant at that time. He requested a continuance until after 1-85. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed for the November 14 meeting. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Koetting, Madsen absent) continuing the application to January 23, 1985. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0333-CZ AND TTM 20435. Application by V. PIROZZI for a Change of Zone from to "R- -C" or other designation as the Planning Commission deems appropriate on Via Miraleste between Francis Drive/Racquet Club Road, "0" Zone, Section 2. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve Case 5.0333-CZ and TTM 20435 and continue the case to November 28 for Commission response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. Planner II (Williams) gave the staff report. She stated that the prop- erty had been zoned "0" to accommodate a future school and that the library and fire station are located on City-owned property to the south. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Sanborn/Webb Engineering, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing the applicant, stated that the developer concurs with staff findings and wishes to upgrade the property. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed for the November 14 meeting. M/S/C (Curt is/Apfelbaum; Koetting, Madsen absent) ordering the prepara- tion of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving Case 5.0333- CZ and TTM 20435, and continuing the application to the November 28 meeting. CASE 5.0337-PD-71-A. Application by FIRST ALLIANCE CHURCH OF THE DESERT for an amendment of a planned development district to lease space for church services at 2825 Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Civic Drive/Louella Road, PD-71, Section 13. (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with Case 5.986-PD-71.) Recommendation: That the Commission approve preliminary and final development plans for PD-71-A. Planner III (Green) presented the staff report. He explained the condi- tions recommended by staff and stated that a condition #5 would be added as follows: That the dead landscaping in the balcony planters be removed and the plantings replaced. Chairman declared the hearing open. There being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Planner III stated that the hours of operation on Saturdays and Sundays will be from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to accommodate church activities. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0337-PD-71-A. (Continued) M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Koetting, Madsen absent) approving Case 5.0337- PD-71-A with the following findings and subject to the following condi- tion: FINDINGS 1. The church use is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the Ordinance when lcoated on a major thoroughfare. 2. The church is necessary and desirable for the development of a balanced community. The use is in harmony with the General Plan and is not detrimental to existing or proposed uses in the same Zone. 3. The site is adequate to accommodate the use. 4. The site will be adequately serviced by the adjoining thorough- fares of Tahquitz-McCallum Way and Farrell Drive. 5. The attached conditions are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. CONDITIONS 1. The church shall only be open to the public between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. on Satur- day and Sunday. 2. That 45 spaces shall be allocated for the exclusive use of the church via a covenant during the hours specified in condition #1. 3. That any signs shall be subject to a separate application. 4. That no activities shall take place outside the building without the prior approval of the Planning Commission. 5. That dead landscaping in the planters be removed and the plantings replaced. 6. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0341-PD-163. Application by CDS DEVELOPMENT OF CA, INC. for a planned development district to allow construction of a 120 unit motor hotel on N. Palm Canyon Dr. between Zanjero Road/Via 01ivera, C-1, and RGA(6) Zones, Section 3. A General Plan amendment would be required to facili- tate this planned development district. (Continue for GPA or denial .) Recommendation: That the case be denied or continued for a General Plan `%MWI Amendment hearing. Planner III (Green) presented the staff report. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0341-PD-163. (Continued) Planning Director stated that several developers have expressed interest in vacant land along North Palm Canyon Drive and that the Commission has indicated interest in development of the north end of the City. He stated that zoning and configuration of the property is a development problem since the front 200 feet of the lots is zoned C-1 with the back portion zoned R-G-A(6) . He stated that in actuality the impact would be several hundred units not several thousands as was projected in the staff report because there are only three or four developable sites. He stated also that a slight correction in the number of units on C-1 density is 37 not 34 units. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. B. Rose, Vice President of the CDS group, the applicant, stated that a market study has been completed which indicates that there is a need for medium priced hotel units, and that the proposal will offer 20 full- time positions and create $90,000 a year in transient occupancy taxes. He stated that the project will enhance the area and that staff recom- mendations will be followed if economically possible. N. Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated that the proposal will enhance the area (which is ideal for the hotel). He requested that the Economic Development and Housing Director speak on behalf of the pro- ject, but Mr. Lynch had no comments. Ms. J. Lewis, resident on Via Olivera, requested more information on the project. Chairman stated that the Commission does not determine what is going to be placed on the land, that 33% of the floor area can be second-story, that the site has adequate parking, and that a General Plan Amendment with public hearings will be required for the proposal . He stated that the hotel vacancy rate for the area would not be considered since con- sideration of economics is against the law for the Commission, and that there is no protection for residents of the area against bankruptcy on the project, since a property owner is allowed to develop his property the way he wants. He stated that the Commission reviews intensity, use and configuration of a proposal . Commissioner Lawrence stated that the City's safety and health codes would require property to be secured, if vacant. Ms. Lewis stated that a vacant hotel had been had been vandalized in the area and that the City process to alleviate the situation was lengthy. Mrs. M. Krechevsky, a resident of Via Olivera, stated that the property on Via Olivera is R-G-A(6) . Chairman explained that the first 200 feet on Palm Canyon is C-1 and the rear portion is R-G-A(6) . Mrs. E. Larson, Via Olivera, stated that she wanted to underscore Ms. Lewis' statement and also that the intersection at Via Olivera and North Palm Canyon Drive is dangerous because of a "hump" which traffic coming from the south cannot see and which causes crashes. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0341-PD-163. (Continued) R. Waters, representing the applicant (rebuttal) , stated that marketing studies have been completed and profitability and viability of the hotel are assured. She stated that there will be an interest reserve for one year for "cushioning" the financial aspect of the hotel . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that no alternatives have been explored for development of the property, but that no major complex can be developed unless parcels are combined, and that the area was not approved as a Redevelopment Project Area. He discussed the oddly configured parcels of the area and stated that traffic problems at the corner of Via Olivera and North Palm Canyon can be discussed with the Traffic Engi- neer, and that signalization at Via Escuela possibly will alleviate the situation but that sewer deficiency is the main problem. He noted that residents of the area want appropriate land use. He stated that the proposed use is logical in the north end and that the Council has established a high priority for development of hotels, although possibly not envisioning a $40-a-night type of business. He stated that commer- cial uses would generate more traffic than a hotel , although hotels create a larger problem with sewage, but that studies are not definitive regarding the cut off point of the sewer at this time. Chairman stated that if the R-G-A(6) portion were changed to R-2, the applicants could have only 62 units which is half of what they are pro- posing, that the properties in the area should be reviewed on uses, but that a 300 percent density increase is too intense. He stated that land use and density are the issues. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the Tramway General Plan states that there should be no changes in the commercial uses and that hotel devel- opment should be encouraged. Planning Director stated that zoning patterns should be reviewed in the area for clear direction on development and that the area should be put back into a Redevelopment Project Area to assemble parcels. He stated that the project could be discussed at the study session of November 21. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Koetting, Madsen absent; Service dissented) to continue the case to November 28 with review at a study session on November 21. Note: Chairman dissented because of the proposed density of the project. CASE 5.0343-CZ. Application by EL CIELO ASSOCIATES for a change of zone from R-2 to "P" for 4.22 acres of property on El Cielo Road between Ramon Road/Airport property, R-2 Zone, Section 18. A General Plan amendment would be necessary to accommodate this change of zone. (Continue for GPA or denial . ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application or continue for General Plan Amendment hearings. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0343-CZ. (Continued) ., Planner II (Williams) presented the staff report and stated that no negative comments have been received and no plans have been submitted. Planning Director stated that approval was not recommended on the zone change which should be continued for a General Plan Amendment hearing and that there is no open space requirement in the "P" Zone, although there is a 30 percent maximum building coverage requirement in the zone. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon, one of the owners of the site, stated that several proposals have been made for the property, but none have been developed and that the proposed project is feasible. He stated that the "P" Zone allows more flexibility than the R-2 office uses. He stated that two-story office buildings were approved on the 2 pieces which are now combined. Dr. L. Sotolov, 438 West Bradshaw Lane, representing the homeowners of Pueblo Sands Condominiums, spoke in opposition stating that he was the owner of the land most affected by the project; and that the homeowners viewed the project with displeasure and disapproval . He stated that the condominiums are now well maintained and that the tenants enjoy a quiet atmosphere and a view of Mt. Jacinto. He stated that the purchase of the condominiums was predicated on the fact that the zoning was R-2 surrounding the complex; and that if the project were approved, it would be the beginning of a commercial shopping center. He stated also that there is a plethora of professional buildings in Palm Springs with a large vacancy factor which is indicated by approval of a church use in an office building on the present agenda. He stated, in summary, that the residents of Pueblo Sands are middle-class tax paying Americans who wish to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the proposal will deny them that right. He noted that the residents feel condominiums are a prefer- able use and that one of the owners of the El Cielo Associates is an architectural advisor to the Commission which may indicate a conflict of interest. He stated also that he had a report from an appraiser, D. C. Wong, who states that in his opinion, residential properties located in close proximity to commercial properties suffer from economic obso- lescence due to negative environmental forces outside of the boundaries of the site (such as noise levels and adverse visual factors, and pri- vate loss if commercial property overlooks residential property), and that the residential property will be affected in terms of marketability and value. Chairman stated that if a condominium were built, the view would be negated as well , and that the area is sensitive to noise. Dr. Sotolov stated that there is no mention in his presentation that the condos are sensitive to noise because there is not a high noise level including the airport noise. He stated he was not involved in public hearings of other projects proposed for the site but had received zoning information at the time he purchased his condominium. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0343-CZ. (Continued) Chairman stated that restaurants and offices were allowed in the zone before Pueblo Sands was built, and that the use request is allowable under certain standards in the current zoning. He stated also that serious consideration will be given to the concerns of the Pueblo Sands residents. E. Loiacono, 458 West Bradshaw, gave a brief history of the Pueblo Sands Project and voiced opposition to the subject proposal . He stated that the project has been upgraded with a security system, landscaping, new management and future repaint of the condominiums; and that for the last two years the residents have tried to improve the quality of life which is now threatened by the proposed zone change. He stated that there had been no complaints regarding noise levels, that the existing R-2 zoning should not be changed; and that there is concern about accessory uses allowed in the "P" Zone. J. Lang, 476 West Bradshaw, stated that Ramon Road is heavily congested by traffic with numerous accidents at Ramon and E1 Cielo and that a professional building will create an additional traffic problem. He stated that with a zone change uses such as restaurants would be allowed that are now only allowed under a CUP; and that late night activities are not conducive to a residential environment. He stated that van- dalism and deterioration of property and odors from fumes will become a problem, and that the area has changed to residential uses recently, which is the reason people are objecting. He noted that "P" zoning would require a patchwork type of development because the area is resi- dential and the "P" zoning would not be in the best interests of the community as a whole. C. Mills (rebuttal) stated that "P" zoning has only a few minor uses that are not available under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-2 Zone, and that a restaurant use either in the "P" Zone or R-2 Zone is required to have a CUP and processes the same regardless of the zoning. He stated that he wondered why the Pueblo Sands site was even zoned R-2 because from a good planning standpoint, it is an island, and that the Pueblo Sands site should have been M-1 because it abuts the airport and is in a noise footprint. He explained that the developers are trying to come with the best solution for the site, that the project will be of high quality, and will take into consideration the neighbors to the east. He explained that minor retail uses would be allowed under "P" zoning which is not allowed under R-2. Planning Director stated that neither banks or restaurants are allowed in R-2 zoning even under a CUP, except in conjunction with hotels. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the area is becoming impacted with many uses. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that the property and other property along Ramon was R-4 before 1973 and was to be developed as airport related hotels, etc. , and that the property under Indian ownership was requested for commercial uses, but was discouraged by the then Planning Director. He stated that in the overall rezoning in 1973, the property became R-2 November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0343-CZ. (Continued) ., and the condominiums were approved, and that the project is not in the noise contour of the airport, but is affected by the noise from Ramon Road. He stated that studies were completed under State noise standards and that in 1981 the Tribal Council and Council negotiated land zoning and the land to the east was rezoned M-1 with a zoning buffer of "0". He then described the surrounding zoning, stated that the applicants are proposing a project that would not cause consternation of the surround- ing property owners, and that the "P" Zone is limited in uses. He stated that airport related uses like Combs-Gates Aviation, car rental agencies, hotels under R-4 standards would be allowed north of the airport. Discussion continued on possible zoning of the area. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission should not take into consideration any comments regarding commercial adjacent to residential zoning, since the request is professional, not commercial ; and that Mr. Wong's com- ments were not germaine to Palm Springs conditions. Chairman stated that Mr. Wong's letter should not be considered, although he is correct that poor zoning and planning have resulted in lowering property values where commercial has developed next to residen- tial in other areas. Planning Director stated that the petition presented by Dr. Sotolov is i,n the form of a form letter signed by persons in opposition to the project. Commissioner Kaptur stated that ""R-2" zoning should not have been placed on the Pueblo Sands site and apartments/condominiums should not have been approved there. He suggested zoning of M-1, Hotel , or "P" and stated that the project should be continued for a General Plan Amendment heariang. Chairman stated that every "P" Zone sides or backs (or both) onto resi- dential properties containing single family homes, but hasbeen a good neighbor in the past and that there is no way to determine whether or not the uses are compatible which leaves an issue of compatibility with the neighbors. He stated that if the Commission feels that "P" zoning would be compatible, a General Plan Amendment hearing should be sched- uled and if not compatible, the request should be denied. Commissioner Curtis stated that Pueblo Sands is an island of R-2 zoning along E1 Cielo and Ramon frontages and that the Pueblo Sands project was never reviewed by the current Commission. He stated that "P" zoning is less intense from a use and traffic standpoint and less intense at night; and that uses can be controlled by a CUP. He noted that a "P" Zone is appropriate and the uses of the subject site should be related to the airport. M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Koetting, Madsen absent) to continue the case pending results of a General Plan hearing which will be held on December 12. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS G. Bone, developer representing SWR Development Co. (Case 3.231), requested time to speak when the case is discussed. CASE 3.758. Application by RATTNER INVESTMENT NO. III for architectural approval of 129 unit apartment complex on Farrell Drive between Highway 111/ Sonora Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with TPM 20358. ) Planner III (Green) stated that the AAC conditions listed were not con- ditions but suggestions from the Committee. K. Rattner, 67 Don Quixote, the developer, stated that he had requested a strong design untypical of apartments which is what the architect provided. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he thought the straight line of palm trees proposed by the architect is preferable to clustering as was recommended by the AAC. Planner III stated that clustering was a sug- gestion and not a condition, and that the hip roof suggestion from the Committee was for variety. Configuration of the project was discussed. Chairman stated that the south end elevations need architectural relief, possibly by removing the end unit on the second story. He stated that the tennis court plan is interesting, but requires screening. J. Cioffi, 600 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, the architect, stated that there are constraints of adjacent R-1-C zoning limiting the project to one story on half of the site which concentrates the units in one spot, and that the project would have more variety if the ordinance were more flexible, but he accepted the condition. He stated that removing four units to provide relief on the south end elevations would be very diffi- cult, especially since there is a vast amount of open space, but that he understood the Chairman's concern. Planning Director stated that in the second story tennis court concept, the architect was told that the height of the court fence could be no higher than 15 feet over the adjacent pads and require screening and further review of detailed landscape and grading plans. Mr. Cioffi stated that the open space is 50 percent, not counting tennis courts or paving, and that much land has been dedicated to the City. Planning Director stated that the 50 percent open space does not include the landscaping on East Palm Canyon. Mr. Cioffi stated that the 50 percent open space does include decorative paving, and that the tennis courts may be included in the open space on Palm Canyon which is going to be landscaped and maintained by the devel- oper and is a legitimate open space calculation. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 3.758. (Continued) Mr. Rattner explained that most of his experience was in the upper cost range of housing and that design that lasts is a simple statement. He stated that the site is on a prominent corner and that he wants an award-winning building. Discussion continued on the south elevations facing the highway. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Kaptur abstained; Madsen, Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the south elevations be redesigned to give more variety. 3. That open space calculations meet code requirements. Discussion continued on removal of four units to give variety to the elevations. Chairman stated that he would like to see four units removed, but would leave the decision to the architect regarding variety in the end elevations. Planning Director stated that the site calculations apparently have the City's right-of-way included in the open space requirements which is not the normal procedure and also tennis courts (which may or may not be included), but that the staff will work to resolve the problems with the applicant. CASE 3.711. Application by R. RICCIARDI for M. Hemstreet for architectural approval of minor exterior revisions for 125 unit hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. R. Ricciardi, the architect, stated that the angle of the wing walls is not workable in the construction stage, but that the strong horizontal lines of the elevations have not changed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the applica- tion subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wing walls be changed to a 900 angle. 2. That the batter/chamfer on the balconies be changed to a bull-nose radius of not less than 2". November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.745. Application by FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. (I. MAGNIN) for architectural approval of revised elevations and materials for depart- ment stores at the Desert Inn Fashion Plaza, on N. Palm Canyon Drive north of Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner III (Green) presented the application on the display board. He stated that much effort had been put into development of a contrasting color in the parking structure and the original design was in keeping with the emphasis, and that the AAC denied the requested change. C. Sendlebach, architect for the building, stated that the client has requested that the red travertine marble be changed to a buff color to integrate with the interior colors, since Magnins tries to be a stable operation (not trendy) and feels strongly about changing to the buff color. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Planning Commission approved the red travertine and that the beige will blend into the plaster and will not provide contrast. He stated that the rose colored travertine gives the accent that the large project needs and integrates with the rest of the project details such as the trellises. M/S/C (Kaptur/ Lawrence; Koetting, Madsen absent) denying the applica- tion Mr. Sendelbach stated that he would relay the denial to his client who would live with the condition. Commissioner Apfelbaum left the meeting. CASE 3.771 (Minor). Application by DON THE BEACHCOMBER RESTAURANT for archi- tectural approval of revised exterior colors and change of main identi- fication signs for restaurant at 1101 N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-1 Zone, Section 10. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented the project on the board and stated that a portion of the restaurant had been painted before the work was stopped by the City. 1s. S:.:OMahory of Imperial Signs explained the proposal . She stated that there is a fountain behind the sign area, so the neon tubing cannot be mounted directly into the wall . She stated that the can and boards on the can will be painted the same color as the building, but that the can will extend 10 inches from the fascia in order to house the mechanism of the neon tubing. Chairman stated that neon can be an art form and has been approved during the past four years, but that the Commission does not like glare. He stated that the application seems one that will have glare and that the tubing should be recessed into the shape for glare control . Ms. O'Mahony stated that the presentation shown to the Commission is the only way the sign can be designed, but that the sign is small and high on the overhang and will not be in the middle of the building. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 3.771. (Continued) J. Brand, Imperial Signs, Indio, stated that the glare from the turquoise colored neon would be of minor intensity. W. Howlett, a sign designer, stated that a rheostat to vary the inten- sity of the color cannot be used on red. Commissioner Kaptur stated that his concern was that the Commission did not allow neon signs for many years because of fear of proliferation and that neon is a great art form and should be allowed if part of the design, but now a restaurant with a south seas theme is proposing a neon sign which is incongruous because the Beachcomber is part of an earlier era. Further discussion followed. The Commission looked at a neon light box provided by the applicant to determine intensity of glare of various colors. Mr. Brand stated that part of the tube can blacked out to reduce glare. Chairman suggested a field review for glare intensity and for the sign to be painted to reduce intensity if necessary. Planning Director stated that the sign will not have glare, but that the 10-inch protrusion from the building will be a problem. Discussion followed. Ms. O'Mahony stated that all of the Beachcombers are being remodeled with a slightly different image to be presented. She stated that the tri- angular sign on Via Lola will be flush with the building because there is no problem with the wall behind the fascia at that point. Discussion continued. Chairman stated that some neon signs are very aesthetically designed and some are not. He stated he was worried about one-up- manship in signage by businessess and he was not comfortable with the sign. Discussion followed regarding the recessing the neon tube into the can. Mr. Brand stated it could be done, but that the housing is 10 inches deep. Commissioner Kaptur stated that recessing the tube destroys the value of the neon as an art form, since one of the advantages of the medium is viewing the light strip. Other types of neon signs in Palm Springs were also discussed. M/S (Lawrence/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) approving the sign subject to field approval by the Commission. After discussion, motioner withdrew the motion with the consent of the seconder. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that a condition of the AAC was that the sign facing Palm Canyon be faced with material the same as the siding of the building. Discussion continued. Routing of the wood for the neon tubing was dis- cussed. Chairman suggested an inch deep routing. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Koetting, Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) approving the two signs subject to the following conditions: November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.771. (Continued) 1. That the tubing be recessed by routing into wood to match the fascia of the building one inch. 2. That the neon color be mauve. 3. That the installation be reviewed and approved in the field by staff and the Planning Commission. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by W. HOWLETT for two neon main identification signs Blue Dolphin and The Dugout) for retail complex at 350 to 354 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, Section 14. W. Howlett, sign designer, described the neon signs. Chairman questioned the sign's integration into the sign program, since a former applicant had been denied his sign which differed from the sign program for the center. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that it is a part of the remodel at the center and neon will be in the sign program for the entire complex. Mr. Howlett stated that the sign cans in the center will be redesigned to contain either neon or unlighted signs in an integrated program. Commission consensus was that neon signs should be reviewed at a study session, since there are Commission concerns about proliferation and glare. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Service abstained; Apfelbaum, Madsen absent) approving the sign subject to the following conditions: 1. That the entire sign program be submitted. 2. That until sign faces change, a sign program be submitted with recessed neon on a can with an opaque background and stroke letters as the light emission. 3. That the installation be subject to final review in the field by the Planning Commission. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by S. COWAN for Olive Oyls for architectural approval of awning and sign for restaurant at 394 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-B Zone, Section 15. W. Howlett, the sign designer, described the sign and awning. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the sign and awning application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That staff and the Planning Commission approve the sign in the field. 2. That sides of the sign be opaque d if the glare is too intense after field review. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by W. HOWLETT for Definitions for architectural approval of exposed neon main identification sign for business at 185 S. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. W. Howlett, sign designer, explained the design of the neon sign. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the sign application with the following conditions: 1. That the sign be approved in the field by staff and Planning Com- mission. 2. That the applicant be made aware of the one inch recessing of neon tubes into the fascia of the building. CASE 3.231. Application by SWR DEVELOPMENT CO. for architectural approval of revised carport and chimney cap for a condominium complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 30. G. Bone, the developer, stated that he was present to help resolve problems of the complex. `... Planner III (Evans) stated that the applicant wants the Commission to reconsider its motion to return to the original design which resulted from the meeting of October 24 regarding the window detail on the corner unit, since returning to the original design will be uneconomical and very difficult. He stated that from a distance the "plant-ons" are acceptable, but when viewed closely they look like "plant-ons" and are roughly finished. Chairman expressed concern over the future deterioration of the appli- qued details. Planning Director stated that the "plant-ons" are bolted into the windowframe. Mr. Bone stated that the lumber is #2 grade cedar which is used fre- quently in the desert on his projects and stated that the former builder did not understand the plans, made errors, and did not understand the ramifications of a departure from the original plans. He stated that wood is not the best material for the desert because it warps. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the "plant-ons" will be a problem later because they will pull away from the building and that he could not support the proposal unless the condition were noted in the condo- minium "white papers". Discussion followed on the liability of the developer for future repairs. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the developer is liable for only two years and Commissioner Lawrence noted that there is a new liability law which is effective, but that developers often are not available when the problems begin. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 3.231. (Continued) Planner III stated that the on-site job superintendent knew that the original plans were not being followed at the beginning of the construc- tion and he proceeded in spite of a "red tag" stopping the construction. Mr. Bone requested that the Commissioners meet with him in the field. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Service dissented; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the revised carport, restudying the chimney cap, and delaying the "plant-ons" concept until November 28 for field review by the Commission and staff. Chairman stated that review in the field will not solve the problem of future deterioration and that the wood "applique" is the issue. Commissioners Kaptur and Lawrence stated that they wanted to review the details in the filed. CASE 3.487. Application by ACTFAP for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of revised exterior color for single-family residence on a private road, southwest of Smokewood Road/Stagecoach Road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. Planning Director stated that the interior designer, Steve Chase, sug- gested earth tones for the exterior of the residence. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Apfelbaum, Koetting, Madsen absent) approving the revised color, "Beaver", as submitted. CASE 3.231 (Continued) . Chairman stated that it is not equitable that a Planning Commission member cannot represent a client before the Commission while an AAC member can. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the applicant may have to determine the price of metal trim on the windows instead of wood. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission should not consider the cost of metal to the developer, if metal trim is necessary. CASE 3.709 (Minor). Application by MCKINNEY-BGW INC. for architectural approval of revised elevations and architectural details for commercial building on the northwest corner of Arenas/S. Palm Canyon Dr., C-B-D Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Apfelbaum, Madsen, Koetting absent; Service abstained) approving the revised application as submitted. November 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 COMMISSION, REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Neon Sign Controls. Commission requested that staff develop controls For neon signage. Sign Ordinance Task Force Meeting with City Council . Planning Director stated that the Sign Task Force reconstituted itself after the Ordinance had been approved by the Commission and had concerns about the defini- tion of a sign and made other changes to the Ordinance not considered before, including increasing sign area allowance by 50% for commercial structures and signs half the height of the building. He stated that staff will return the Ordinance to the Commission for another review; and that he was told that the Palm Springs Project requested that the Task Force start again, but that there were only four voting members r present at the meetings. He stated that the members were not present during the previous public hearings because they were not interested in the commercial aspect of signing, and that the Sign Users Council also became involved with the reconstituted task force. Discussion followed. November 21 Study Session. Commissioners present, except for Commis- sioner Kaptur, indicated that they would attend the November 21 study session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meet- ing at 6:40 p.m. PLANN DIRECTOR MDR/ml WP/PC MIN 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall • November 28, 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 9 0 Hugh Curtis X 8 1 Hugh Kaptur X 8 1 Peter Koetting X 6 3 Don Lawrence - 7 2 Paul Madsen X 7 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 7 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 Allen Smoot, Building and Safety Director Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner • Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - November 26, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: William Johnson Earl Neel Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Lawrence absent) approving minutes of November 14, 1984 with the following correction: Page 11, Case 5.0343-CZ, Paragraph 5. Rephrase as follows: "Planning Director stated that neither banks nor free standing restaurants are allowed in R-2 zoning, even under a CUP." There were no Tribal Council comments.