Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/05/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 8, 1985 • 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 19 0 Hugh Curtis X 18 1 Hugh Kaptur - 17 2 Don Lawrence X 16 3 Paul Madsen X 17 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 16 3 Larry Lepham X 1 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Emily Perri , Housing & Economic Development Specialist George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 6, 1985 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: Michael Buccino Earl Neel Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were no Tribal Council comments. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) approving the minutes of April 24, 1985 with the following additions (Case 5.0357-PD-167) : 7. That the double carports be separated to introduce planting and light areas between bays. 8. That the northern bank of carports be coordinated and tied to the pedestrian walks. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Commission Chairman welcomed Larry Lapham, a long time resident, and former Commissioner who is replacing Commissioner Koetting who resigned. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that ime period unless extended. M/S/C (Lawrence/Curtis; Kaptur absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.739 (Minor). Application by KENNARD'S AUTOMOTIVE for architectural approval of minor alteration of roof/property line wall at 640 E. Sunny Dunes Road, C-M Zone, Section 23. Restudy: Noting that more detailed plans should be submitted that include structural height and architectural elevations. CASE 3.821 (Minor) . Application by N. SOREF for architectural approval of a room addition at 2743 North Indian Avenue, (Racquet Club Condominiums) , R-2 Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 6X material matching the fascia be used as the connecting trellis. 2. That the trellis be connected under the eaves. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.822 (Minor) . Application by MRS. H. EPSTEIN for architectural approval of room addition at 2743 N. Indian Avenue, (Racquet Club Condominiums), R-2 Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 6X material be used as the connecting trellis. 2. That the trellis be connected under the eaves. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committe be met. CASE 3.832 (Minor). Application by R. BRAUNSTEIN for architectural approval of patio wall extension at 411 and 415 Hermosa (Greenhouse Condos) , R-G- A(8) Zone, Section 14. Restudy: For the wall to be better or equal to the existing (column details and amount of recess) . Continued to May 22 at the applicant's request. CASE 5.0106-CUP/3.336 (Ref. TTM 16544) . For architectural approval of land- scape lighting for hotel on Indian Avenue, between Tahquitz Way/Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1-A-A Zone (I.L.), Section 14 and for 98-unit condo- minium complex on Calle Encilia, C-1-A-A and R-4-VP Zones (I.L. ) , . Section 14. Approved as submitted. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA • 3.833 (MINOR) . Application by J. CUMMINGS for Great Western Savings for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for building at 499 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the fountain be restored to its original color and material so that the blue color will not be reflected. 2. That the Kentucky Bluegrass be replaced with hybrid Bermuda sod oversown with rye. 3. That the Wheelers Drawf be replaced with Stokes Holly. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within thattime period unless extended. CASE 3.827. Application by H. LAPHAM for the Hilton Riviera Hotel for architectural approval of a one-story conference center on East Vista Chino for hotel at 1600 N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. • Planning Director stated that extensive changes have been made to the originally proposed revisions to the hotel , which have resulted in the current proposal to rehabilitate interior rooms and an addition of a small meeting room as an adjunct to the ball- room on Vista Chino, and that although the AAC felt the elevations were acceptable, the committee thought that the relationship between the convention center and the existing architecture was not integrated. He stated that there was a dedication of property in 1974 along Vista Chino and Indian Avenue for street purposes, which left private improvements in the public right-of-way, that staff recommends that the improvements be removed from the right- of-way or full improvements installed on Vista Chino (or a combi- nation of both), and that the improvements be covered by a non- suit covenant or similar document absolving the City of liability. He stated that if parking is removed for the improvements, the parking deficiency will be approximately 200 spaces, although the hotel meets the parking requirements in effect when the hotel was built in 1965. He stated that the parking is linked with that of the Riveria Racquet Club, that the applicant needs to know if the parking is adequate, and that staff will meet with the applicant to review an alternate parking plan which would have developed 700 parking spaces. He stated that the parking meets the code if the single largest use of the facility is considered, and that in 1974 the hotel was remodeled on the front but did not require dedica- tion because the remodeling was not a significant increase in use. He stated that Vista Chino is as wide as it will be, that the bicycle path should be completed to Sunrise on Vista Chino, and that parking on Indian will not be affected since the improvements May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEM CASE 3.827 (Continued) will not end at the full width. He stated that there is some justification for completing the improvements, and that there is a master lease which covers both properties (Hotel and Racquet Club) under one owner. He explained that removing two tennis courts and replacing them with parking would be reviewed and described the mechanical building, patio, and fountain area locations on the site plan. H. Lapham, building designer, stated that the two subject properties are owned by one person on a long term lease, and that there is adequate open space on the site. He stated that the ten foot dedication required when the streets were upgraded previously caused the nonconforming use at the present time, but that the hotel will sign the necessary docu- ments for hold harmless or similar agreements with the City. He explained that the meeting room is necessary to keep the hotel solvent, suggested that since there is a difference in opinion on parking,that calcu- lations be submitted for staff review. He requested that the same lowered parking requirement consideration be given as was given the Doubletree Hotel/Convention Center and also requested consideration of a waiver of improvements because of the cost. He stated that some tennis courts can be replaced with parking, and that the restudy recommended by the AAC is acceptable. He explained that bay parking on Grass Crete could be considered on the street side, that the conference center will • be used only for valet parking for hotel guests, and reiterated that there is enough parking on site. T. Gowman, Hotel Manager, stated that the hotel owner will sign any agreement that the City requires to allow the hotel to build the conven- tion center and that Planning staff has been consulted regarding upgrad- ing of the landscaping. He stated that the owners have determined that with the construction of new hotels in the Valley and the growth of condominiums, the originally proposed five-star hotel is not needed but that a convention hotel is, and to obtain reservations a convention center is necessary. He stated that there is adequate parking, especi- ally since employee parking is never full , and that the hotel provides room tax money to the City. Planning Director stated that staff recommends a non-suit covenant, encroachment permits for hotel improvements in the right-of-way, and direction from Commission regarding parking requirements. He stated that 36 parking spaces would be removed if improvements are required on Vista Chino and recommended a two week continuance to develop a parking program with the applicant. Commission concensus was that the non-suit covenant is acceptable, but that the parking should be restudied and revised plans submitted. M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Lapham abstained; Kaptur absent) to continue the application to May 22 for a restudy of the parking and the architectural • elevations. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued). Application by WARMI NGTON/STAHL DEVELOPMENT CO. for review of revised site plan for a Planned Development Distrct to allow construction of an apartment complex (with density bonus) on North Palm Canyon Drive, between Cortez Road/Alvarado Road, C-1 & R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. (Final approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission give final approval to Case 5.0359-PD-169. Planning Director stated that several property owners are opposed to the project, and that the Commission has expressed concern about traffic impacts. Planner (Williams) showed the project on the display board and stated that the AAC recommendations have been addressed regarding distribution of building heights, screening of carports, and setbacks along Alvarado. She stated that the ninety unit density meets 25% density requirements, and that the traffic engineer has found that the project will not generate an unmanageable amount of traffic. She stated that the project will be required to improve its own frontage only unless the hydrology (sewer) study requires other streets to be improved to carry water. Discussion followed on traffic routes around the area. Traffic Engineer • stated that the project will have a direct access to Palm Canyon and to Racquet Club for cars traveling east and south with a maximum traffic of 900 vehicles per day which does not warrant a traffic signal at Alvarado and North Palm Canyon. He stated that there is no particular problem with this section handling that amount of traffic and that there is good visibility in making a right turn onto Alvarado at Palm Canyon. He stated that any improvements in the street system would be beneficial , although there is no significant problem with the configuration of the intersection, and that commercial development, i .e. , a hotel , allowed by right of zone would create more traffic at the intersection than the subject proposal . Discussion ensued regarding percentages of C-1 and R-G-A-6 land and traffic generated by uses allowed by right of zone. Planning Director stated that State guidelines although mandating density bonuses, give no particular guidelines; and that the granting of a density bonus is discretionary. He stated that the Commission could recommend to the Council that a financial incentive be given rather than a density bonus or could find that the granting of the density bonus could have infrastructural problems such as traffic and sewer impacts which require mitigation before a density bonus can be granted. (He stated that staff would be required to find a financial incentive to off-set the density bonus elimination.) He noted that the one and two story Racquet Club development (a neighboring project) has only fifteen • units per acre. He stated that if the density bonus is not granted the project would contain 72 units, and that the project could possibly be constructed as all moderate income units under equivalent incentives. In reply to Chairman's question regarding not allowing incentives, May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) Assistant City Attorney stated that once a developer meets the require- ments of low/moderate income housing, the density bonus or other finan- cial incentives must be granted; and once that density bonus is requested, at least 25% of the units must fall within the catagory, but if more units fall within that category no increase in the bonus is required. He stated that the developer has the right of zone for construction and the City cannot dictate a certain type of housing for a certain market, and also that the City cannot impose a greater restric- tion on the developer. Discussion followed on financial incentives in lieu of density bonuses. Assistant City Attorney stated that the City would be required to develop an incentive that would be of equivalent financial value to the developer if the bonus were not given. Discussion ensued on bond financing. Planning Director stated that financing is another type of incentive which is addressed in another section of State law, that the density bonus for the project is being addressed, and that additional incentives require additional require- ments. Discussion ensued on definition of low and moderate income. Planning Director stated that low income is 80% of the median income and moderate is considered between 80 and 100% of the median income. He stated that Housing and Economic Development staff would monitor the 25% low and moderate housing allotment for the project, and that there is also a local mechanism for monitoring of projects that are for sale. He stated that second sales as well as first sales can be controlled. Housing and Redevelopment Specialist stated that there is an enforcement mechanism built into the system since the City monitors the rent struc- ture, and if the developer does not comply, the bonds become taxable (thus losing benefits of tax exemption). She stated that the project is requesting both financing and a density bonus, that rents would be $372 per month for a one bedroom apartment and $434 per month for a two bed- room apartment, and that the income for the rental would be $31,200/year for a family of four. She stated that low income would be $13,000/year for a family of four, and that the affordable apartments must be equal in terms of facilities and must be distributed throughout the project. Discussion continued on the affordable housing portion of the project. Housing Specialist stated that the City does not dictate market rates but only the rates for affordable units. She stated that the project without the mortgage revenue bonds status could be monitored, but tax exemption bonds would not be used as an enforcement measure, and that in the subject project the bonds are a basic requirement for the project' s being built. She stated that perhaps staff could build in safeguards with the help of the City Attorney' s office, and that she did not know what the developer is receiving as an incentive from the State, but that the City' s imposition of affordable units allows the project to be just economically feasible. She stated that the developer has always . requested a density bonus, and that she had not seen the developer' s proforma on the 72 unit basis. She stated that the mortgage percentage rate would be 9 or 10% at a fixed rate and 7 or 8% at a variable rate (depending on the period of time with which it varied) , and the rate May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) will not be known until the bond program for the development is struc- tured. She stated that commercial loan rates are approximately 14%. Chairman declared the hearing open. G. Paulus, 37711 Peacock Circle, Rancho Mirage, stated that a repre- sentative from the architectural firm was present to answer questions, and that the one and two story units have been distributed throughout the site with the concentration of one story near Sundance Villas as a consideration for the residents of the project. He stated that the two story units are at the closest a hundred and sixty feet away from the property line (to alleviate concerns of privacy from Sundance Villa homeowners) , that section studies have been prepared showing the view into the carport areas, and that the bonus density question is being answered. He stated that both the tax exemption and the interest rate are advantageous. K. Ray, 203 North Golden Circle, Santa Ana, the architect, stated that the traffic problem has been adequately addressed, and that the proposed use is less dense than the zoning allows. He stated that due to con- sideration of the neighbors, the two story units are in the center of the project which allows for a pleasing streetscape. R. Pugh, 400 Alvarado, who lives directly across from the proposed project, stated that he had purchased his home for retirement, that there is a race track on Palm Canyon, that making a left turn on Alvarado is dangerous, and that he has difficulty in finding a straight route to his home because of the street configuration. He stated that the project is only 50 feet from his property, and that there is no requirement to grant the density bonus or to grant both the bonus and lower interest rates. Chairman cautioned Mr. Ray to direct his remarks to the subject project. Mr. Ray stated that his residents of the project have no control over who moves into the affordable housing and questioned who would be responsible for paying for damages and the additional signal light on the corner of Alvarado. He stated that visibility is poor for turning left or right onto Palm Canyon because of palm trees. Mrs. F. Lightfoot, 255 Cabrillo, stated that the area is being upgraded by its residents and that it is disheartening to find that the project is a possibility. She requested that she be allowed to show pictures of her house during its remodeling process, but Chairman stated that the Commission understands the pride taken in the neighborhood and was present to discuss the subject property only. Mrs. Lightfoot stated that major work undertaken on the homes in the area is relevant. She noted that traffic on Cabrillo is heavy, that Cabrillo is in a state of • disrepair, and that the two exits to Palm Canyon in the area are Cabrillo or DeAnza. She requested consideration of the residents' attempt to stabilize the area. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) Chairman stated that Cabrillo and Cortez would be doubled in width and improvements completed before the project is occupied. herself and M. Kramer, 250 Cortez, representing/her parents at 280 Cortez, stated that her concern was that the present state of disrepair of Zanjero and a large bump on the street causing traffic to crash into her fence. G. Fredrickson of Sundance Villas, questioned responsibility for sharing of the street improvements. Chairman stated that the developer will pay for the improvements with the residents responsible for maintenance except for the scheduled slurry seal program of the City. Mr. Fredrickson stated that it is difficult to turn left or right onto Palm Canyon from Alvarado and that the residents have bought property for peace and quite. He stated that the project defeats that purpose and also that security costs will rise for Sundance Villas because of the high density of the proposed project. A. Ruddy, Sundance Villas, spoke of traffic problems in the area and stated that psychologically people leave Palm Springs at Racquet Club Road and begin speeding at that point. He stated that the renderings of the project were well done but do not show the four to five hundred people and the 150 cars which will be on-site. He stated that the homes in Sundance are second homes, and he would not have believed that he would be living across from apartments. He stated also that he had a wife and child who stay alone when he is away, and he fears for their safety. C. Ardigo, 350 Dominguez, stated that the residents want to feel safe and secure, and that he objected to the project. W. Dunnigan, 378 Cabrillo, stated he was instrumental in building Sundance Villas and sold the condominiums to affluent people with affluent friends which is a positive image for Palm Springs. He explained he does not exit on Alvarado because of the impossible left turn situation, and that a red light at the intersection would stack traffic to Racquet Club Road. He stated that he has had an application approved for a second Sundance Project, but possibly would not proceed with the project if the subject proposal is approved. M. Smith, 365 W. Cabrillo, stated that there is high volume of traffic on Palm Canyon, and that there is no traffic comparison between Indian and Palm Canyon. He stated that Alvarado traffic is impossible, that he was concerned about crime in the neighborhood, that Sundance has heavy security at the present time, and that low income people will add to the crime rate. He also expressed concern regarding Cabrillo. • Planning Director stated that Cabrillo will not be changed but that Alvarado and DeAnza will be doubled in size. He stated that Cortez has been eliminated between DeAnza and Palm Canyon. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) Mr. Smith stated that traffic will be tripled and will become dangerous, and that the condition of the road is poor. He requested that the project not be approved. K. Moran, 777 E. Tahquitz Way, attorney representing Sundance Villas Homeowners Association, cited a case in which disapproval of a project was upheld by the courts because of citizen opposition, even though the project was proposed by right-of-zone. He stated that the Commission can deny the proposal . (Planning Director stated that in the cited case the project proposed was a 7-11 store) . Mr. Moran also cited sewer capacity, and the possibility of accidents leading to City liability because of increased traffic and lack of visi- bility. He stated that increasing the size of Alvarado will lead to increased traffic and stated that the City is on notice regarding the accidents and its liability if the project is built without signaliza- tion. He stated that there have been complaints in the shopping center at Racquet Club and Palm Canyon regarding unruly youths and the inci- dents will increase when more low income persons are introduced into the area. He stated that building with the existing zoning and continuing with commercial would be a more acceptable idea, that the signalization at Racquet Club Road is an example of the reasons for having a signal for better traffic control , and that a lower court has not passed on the issue of density bonuses so the idea is open to interpretation. W. Warmington, of Costa Mesa, the applicant, stated that he was con- cerned about two statements as follows: 1. Mr. Moran' s statement regarding a lawsuit with the City being named; and 2. Mr. Dunnigan's statement that there would not be new development of Sundance if the project were approved. Chairman stated that he did not understand the comments, but presumed that Mr. Warmington wanted them in the record. G. Paulus (rebuttal ) stated that there is a definite need for apart- ments, that there are only nine low income units and 14 moderate income units in the project, and that zoning on the property was in effect long before Sundance was built. He questioned the City's receiving room tax from the Sundance project and asked if there is a rental pool or if the project is for second homeowners. He stated that if the hydrology (sewer) study warrants, the project will be lowered in unit count and that a 30% moderate income level (earnings of over $31,000) has been requested from the beginning. He stated that bond financing has been requested and that the project is probably not feasible unless there is a density bonus. He stated that the applicant would review bearing the • cost of improving Zanjero as a connection to Racquet Club Road and that rents would be approximately $700 or $800 for non-moderate income families. Housing and Redevelopment Specialist stated that they would be lower than that-probably around $475 to $575. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) There being no futher appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Apfelbaum read from the Housing Element stating as follows: Page 35, Objective A allows the City to provide financial incentives for low income units for project feasibility. Paqe 37, Objective C indicates the City will consider affordable housing within any zone within the City. Page 39, indicates the City should take its fair share of moderate/low income housing, and Page 34, indicates the City has three of the seven goals mentioned-that of equal opportunities in housing, range of housing types, and assurance of housing opportunities. Commissioner Curtis stated that in a meeting with the Council in the past, areas for apartments were discussed, that the subject site is one of the few parcels large enough to accommodate a large apartment complex, and that the area has been set aside for apartment needs. He stated that the policy was to encourage a combination of parcels to assemble enough land for a large size apartment complex. Chairman stated that he had contacted a local real estate broker who is on the President' s Housing Commission and who has been taking testimony on housing problems and situations, and she has stated that she could not remember a case involving inclusionary housing which became a problem as opposed two typical government-sponsored projects. He stated that the Building Industry Council in Sacramento also supports inclu- sionary zoning. He stated that public housing projects are feared by the property owner, but that it is difficult to believe that eighteen low cost units out of ninety will ruin a neighborhood. He stated that ninety units will increase traffic but that any other projects possible on the site would also cause traffic congestion and disruption of peace and quiet, and will cause other impacts of in-fill . He stated that it is unrealistic to believe that if the project is denied the land will stay idle, but that the north end of Palm Canyon is a high speed high- way, and that he was concerned about Alvarado and Palm Canyon. He stated that there should also be a second exit from the neighborhood which is properly planned and approved, and that the developer should participate in a signal at Alvarado and Palm Canyon. He suggested also that if the architecture is Spanish in feeling there should be barrel tile instead of "S" tile. Commissioner Lapham stated that the project is well designed and should cause less density than building by right of zone, and that the rent structure will not create social problems because the rent is fair. He • stated that the concerns of the neighbors is understood, and also that he would not automatically vote for a 25% density bonus. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) Chairman suggested that the Commission recommend that the project receive either a density bonus or bond financing, not both. Commissioner Madsen stated that sewer capacity is a concern, but that the developer will be required to remedy the situation or the project cannot be built. Commissioner Curtis stated that sewer impact is a problem, but that the project blends into the neighborhood, there is no conflict in the usage, and that traffic problems are also a concern. Chairman stated that if signalization is required, the project can be reimbursed at 50% when other projects in the area develop. Commissioner Curtis suggested that the requirement for signalization be left to the Council . Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission could make a motion recommending that the developer do everything in his power to signalize the intersection of Alvarado and Highway 111, even though it is a State Highway, but that CalTrans has the ultimate authority. Traffic Engineer stated that although CalTrans has the ultimate power of • signalization of highways, there have been instances where the developer has installed signals on State highways if they are already funded by the developer or the City. In reply to Commission question, he stated that he would prefer that there were two exits/entrances for the project. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent; Lawrence abstained) approving Case 5.0335-PD-169 with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the Planned Development District is appropriate for consider- ation for this proposal . 2. That a density bonus of 25% (18 units) is in harmony with the elements of the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project. 4. That the site is served by North Palm Canyon Drive, Alvarado and DeAnza, which are adequate in size to serve the project with some improvements necessary to limit the impact on the • neighborhood , specifically, street improvements and signalization improvements. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0359-PD 169 (Continued) CONDITIONS: 1. That revised preliminary plans be submitted to the AAC for their review prior to submittal of final development plans. 2. That all recommendations of the AAC and Development Committee be met. 3. That barrel the be used instead of "S" tile. 4. That the Commission recommends to the Council that a traffic signal be installed with a demand activation at Alvarado and North Palm Canyon, with the developer being required to pay 50% of the cost, OR 5. That Zanjero be improved between Alvarado and Racquet Club with the cost being borne by the developer. CASE 5.0360-PD 170. Application by R. P. WARMINGTON for Planned Development District for a 187-unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, between Camino Real/Arquilla Road, R-2 & R-3 Zones, Section 26. (Final approval .) Recommendation: That the Commission give final approval subject to conditions for Case 5.0360-PD 170). Planner (Williams) presented revisions to the project on the display board and stated that the applicant has submitted a revised plan since the Monday AAC meeting, and that the AAC has not reviewed the new plans. She stated that two letters have been received in opposition - one objecting to the parking proposal on Twin Palms and also to the setbacks; and the other requesting that no outdoor paging be permitted. She stated that the columns of the porte cochere have been thickened to three feet per Planning Commission recommendations, and that parking standards have been met since the beginning of the proposal . Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Sakahara, of Costa Mesa, the architect, explained revisions stating that the recommendations of the AAC have been addressed, and that the three story units are in the interior portion of the complex. He stated that parking has been dispersed so that there is a green belt along Palm Canyon and El Camino and that barrel tile, trellises, cupolas, and low garden walls have been added to create a playful elevation. He explained that the balconies give an undulating effect along the fascade and described the placement of the one and two story buildings. He stated that the eastern most building is no longer stepped back but could be changed if the Commission desires. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0360-PD 170 (Continued) Commissioner Curtis stated that the revisions presented on the board were made at the direction of the AAC. Y. Dennebeim, 973 Twin Palms, requested that the Commission consider the safety factor for pedestrians because of high speed of cars along Twin Palms. He stated that an exit and entrance on Twin Palms will encourage more traffic and requested that the parking for the hotel be removed along Twin Palms. He stated that the other two hotels along the street have guests loitering and playing along Twin Palms, and requested again that parking be hidden (perhaps in the back of the hotel ) . Mr. Sakahara (rebuttal ) stated that there is only one curb cut in line with Aquanetta Street that is perpendicular, that the lineal parking lot has been replaced by pockets of parking, and that there are no restau- rants or banquet rooms which would draw vehicular traffic along the streets. M. Noringa of Warmington/Stahl of Costa Mesa, stated that the hotel is heavily landscaped and the developers would not be adverse to heavily landscaping the parking lots. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director stated that one parking space per unit has been required by the lenders desire to see that ratio of parking, but that it is not necessary in Palm Springs because of the type of hotels, and that some of the parking could be put into a landscaped parking lot concept. He stated that some of the units are not desirable because the rooms overlook the parking lot and mechanical systems building, that the configuration of the rooms could be reoriented to north/south and stepped back for a sense of view over the entry. He described other changes to make the hotel more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Sakahara stated that Building "D" is the maintenance and housekeep- ing building and will have trellises for a more pleasing visual aspect. Discussion continued regarding aesthetics of the project. Chairman stated that the design is bland, and that he did not see that it is necessary for hotel guests to use Twin Palms. He stated that the exit on Twin Palms could be closed. Planning Director stated that the Fire Department and Waste Disposal Services trucks can adequately circulate without access to Twin Palms. Chairman suggested that a berm wall along Twin Palms would help aesthet- ically for homes overlooking the parking lot. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the buildings be shifted north to obtain more land for landscaping. it Planning Director stated that the project could be sent to Council by approving the site plan and building mass with the architecture to be reviewed at the final development plan stage. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0360-PD 170 (Continued) Mr. Noringa stated he was puzzled because he thought that although there were comments made to design three story elements thdt other elements of the elevations were fairly well received. Chairman stated that the applicant has heard repeatedly that the design is monotonous, flat, and lineal and should be made more interesting. He stated that the massing, however, is acceptable. Mr. Sakahara stated that he thought the direction from the Commission was that the elevations were well received except for the lack of dimen- sion for the porte cochere columns. Planning Director read minutes of the April 24 meeting which gave direc- tions to the applicant. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he felt that the project should con- tinue to process and direction given to the applicant for revisions to the exterior. Commissioner Lapham stated that the roof line should have more charac- ter. Discussion continued. Planner stated that the revisions recommended by the AAC have been • completed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that traffic should be restudied. M/S (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) for approval of the architecture and site plans subject to the recommendations of the AAC with a traffic study regarding access on Twin Palms Drive to be done. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Apfelbaum, Lawrence Noes: Curtis, Lapham, Service Absent: Kaptur M/S/C (Madsen/Lapham; Kaptur absent) approving Site Plan #2 dated 4-19- 85 and massing of the buildings Case 5.0360-PD-170 with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the hotel use applied for is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by this ordinance. 2. That the proposed use is a necessary and desirable use for the Community. 3. That the proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and its . elements. 4. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0360-PD 170 (Continued) 5. That the surrounding streets are of a capacity to serve the site. 6. That the conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. CONDITIONS: 1. Final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements within two years of the date of approval of the preliminary plans by the City Council . 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee dated April 18,1985 be met. 3. That the lobby, center, and left rear buildings be three story and the remaining buildings two story. 4. That the building to the east of the lobby be reduced in units and tied architecturally into the lobby building. 5. That the southwest corner of the site plan be restudied to increase landscaping and eliminate the driveway onto Twin Palms Drive. • 6. That the landscaping on Twin Palms be restudied to develop a broader landscaped area. 7. That a revised architectural concept be submitted as part of the final development plans. Note: Commissioner Lapham reiterated that the roof line be restudied except for the main building. CASE 6.347-VARIANCE. Application by PALM SPRINGS FLORIST for a variance from setback standards to allow construction of a 20-foot wide addition on the future right-of-way line at 894 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) That the Planning Commission deny the application based on findings in the staff report. Planner (Vankeehen) presented a project on the display board. She stated that an application had been previously approved which required • that the building meet setback requirements, but that the applicant feels that the setbacks of the building on Palm Canyon create an unusual circumstance for his property. She stated however, that the buildings in the setback were built prior to the current Zoning Ordinance and that May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 6.347-VARIANCE (Continued) staff recommends denial . She stated also that the applicant brought in a plan before the meeting which has not been reviewed, but perhaps the architect could explain it. Planning Director stated that the plan meeting the code was the one approved previously, and that the staff report outlines the findings for denial . Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, the architect, stated that the application addresses staff findings one and two and is a valid reason for support- ing the variance. He stated that there are special circumstances for the variance, that the zoning has not changed (only the ordinance) , that all the buildings on the block are in the 50 foot future right-of-way, that the space for the subject addition is the only unused space in the entire block and that the display window for his client would be totally obscured by the wing wall of the adjacent building. He stated that the applicant' s proposal does not propose any problems for future construc- tion and is a creative use of the ordinance, that if the wing wall were set back five feet there would not be a visual problem and the applicant would not require a variance "as much". He explained that the building with the wing wall has other problems which will have to be resolved • with the owner. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion ensued regarding requirements for the subject proposal . Planning Director stated that the City cannot require removal of the wing wall , but that the applicant and the owner of the building could meet to resolve the problem. Chairman stated that none of the requested changes affect the location of the curb or the carrying capacity of Palm Canyon. Planning Director stated that if the variance were approved. the building would be on the fifty foot future right-of-way line and there would be all sidewalk and no landscaping. He stated that the ordinance was amended in 1976 to afford C-1 Zoning more landscaping and setbacks, and if the variance were approved a precedent would be set for other C-1 properties. He explained that the wing wall would not be an illegal concept if it were not in the right-of-way and also that citrus trees on the subject site have been removed. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the concept, if approved, is prece- dent setting and other businesses in C-1 Zoning along Palm Canyon would be asking for similar consideration. Assistant City Attorney stated that a legal non-conforming building cannot be used as the basis for granting a variance, and if this concept is the only one used for findings, the variance cannot be granted. • Chairman suggested that common sense should be considered. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS . CASE 6.347-VARIANCE (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Service; Kaptur absent; Madsen/Lapham dissented) continu- ing the application to May 22 for staff to develop findings for approval of the variance. CASE 6.349-VARIANCE. Application by B. CANNON AND R. SAUR for a variance for a freestanding garage addition with reduced front yard setbacks for a single-family hillside residence at 600 Panorama Road, R-I-B Zone, Section 3. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendaition: That the Commission approve the variance application based on findings. Planning Director stated that the case is a classic one in which a vari- ance may be supported and that the site was the dumping place for boulders when "Litte Tuscany" was built. Chairman declared the hearing open. . R. Sauer, 600 Panorama, the applicant, stated that because of changes in the topography the location proposed is the only one in which the garage may be located, that staff has been helpful in the solution and that he would comply with all recommendations. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) approving variance 6.349 based on the following findings: 1. That the site is a boulder strewn hillside site, topography of which limits practical solutions to attaching the garage to the main residence. 2. That street dedications of 33 feet from the west and south property lines will reduce the property in size by 32%. 3. That the existing guest house structure is set back from the new property line approximately 16 feet. 4. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detri- mental to the surrounding properties and will have no negative impact on the neighborhood. • 5. That the granting of this variance will not represent the granting of a special privilege as similarily situated parcels could be granted an equal consideration. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 6.349-VARIANCE (Continued) CONDITIONS: Staff recommends approval of the free-standing portion of the request and recommends a setback of 15 feet subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing carport shade structure be removed as a condi- tion of issuance of building permits for the garage. 2. That the garage tie in architecturally to the existing structures and be submitted to and approved by staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS R. Mainiero, 777 East Tahquitz Way, requested that the time extension for TPM 18787 be withdrawn since the applicant wishes to resubmit a map application and not extend the life of the map. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA CASE 3.814 (Minor) (Continued. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of landscape plans for Excalibur Motor Car Co. at 335 E. Sunny Dunes Road, C-M Zone, Section 23. Planning Director stated that the applicant feels that a 16 inch wall would be less attractive then the cars, and that the AAC felt that good landscaping and a vertical element in front of the column would be appropriate architecturally. He stated that the applicant feels that the wall precludes easy maneuvering of cars, and also that the project is in a redevelopment area in which major changes will be made in the future. In reply to a question of D. Christian, the architect, Planning Director stated that construction on the proposed shade structure can begin as soon as the application is approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman stated that he felt that the Commission should not be extending a non-conforming use in a redevelopment area, and that the dealership will be in a substandard building. He stated that because of Vintage Autos across the street, which was not required to have adequate standards, the theme will be perpetuated. He noted that the applicant will not have difficulty in manuveuring but is only wishing to display his cars. Mr. Christian stated that the site is fairly constricted and there will be no major changes until redevelopment. He stated that work has been done inside to bring the interior up to standards, that the canopy will • screen the service area and provide uniformity, and that if gates are put in security will be provided, also. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA • CASE 3.814 (Minor) (Continued) Chairman stated that when marginal improvements are allowed blight is perpetuated. Discussion on tandem parking ensued. Planning Director stated that there are other instances of tandem parking at car dealerships. M/S/C (Lapham/Lawrence; Kaptur absent; Apfelbaum/Service dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the removal of the low wall is approved due to the functional layout of the property. 3. That final landscaping, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted. CASE 3.837 (Minor) . Application by B. FLORA for architectural approval of sunscreen for exterior windows for Village Print Shop at 395 North Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. • Chairman abstained, Vice-Chairman presided. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the project and the applicant, B. Flora, distributed pictures of the screening. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the AAC felt that a screen that has an architec- tural effect should not be on the front of buildings. He stated that the purpose of the screen is to deflect the suns rays before they strike the window. Mr. Flora stated that vandalism of the screen is a possi- bility and that the airport and the library have the screens at the present time. Planning Director stated that he was not aware that the two buildings had this screening and felt that it might be illegal . Mr. Flora stated that the screening improves the appearance of some buildings. Commissioner Lapham stated that there are other more aesthetic means of sun control . M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Kaptur absent; Service abstained) denying the application. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) • CASE 5.0303-PD 152 (Continued). Application by E. JOHNSON for Mesquite Country Club for architectural approval of revisions to golf course to allow a driving range on Farrell Drive, south of Mesquite Avenue (I.L. ) , Section 24. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) • CASE 5.0303-PD 152 (Continued) Planning Director stated that the applicant made a request to modify a portion of the golf course on the west side of Farrell to include a driving range, that a driving range is necessary for the course and that an agreement with the adjoining property owner, Mr. Fairchild, did not materialize. He stated that the revisions will tighten the horsetrail and is a concern to staff but that the Desert Riders feel that the solu- tion is acceptable. He stated that the AAC recommended denial because of the elimination of a small portion of the desert and also because of the tightness of the equestrian trail , and that the condominium project (Mesquite Canyons) adjacent to the course and the Desert Riders opposed the driving range altogether. Discussion ensued on the straight line effect of the revision. C. Mills, 221 South Palm Canyon, the architect, stated that space removed from the desert area will be added somewhere else on the golf course. He stated that the bike bath between Farrell and Compadre is in the detailed drawing stage at the present time. Mr. Temple, the appli- cant, stated that the final details have been approved by the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the golfers have no problem with the revisions and feel they want a driving range, and that there will be • protection with the excavation of the trail and by trees when they mature. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Kaptur absent; Service dissented) approving the application with the following conditions: 1. That straight lines of the driving range perimeter be sculptured. 2. That final detailed landscaping and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 3. That more desert areas be introduced into the landscape. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) TPM 20623 (Continued). Application by MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES for B. Djordjevic for Tentative Parcel Map to create two lots for hillside property on Southridge Drive, between Rim Road/E. Palm Canyon Drive, R- 1-A, W-R-1-B and 0-20 Zone, Section 25. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; order for filing; and final approval . No comments received. ) Planner (Williams) presented the map on the board and stated that the County Flood Control District requires that buildings and other struc- tures be kept out of the wash and no development until an hydrology assessment is made. She stated that a Hold Harmless Agreement will be May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) • TPM 20623 (Continued) required for Parcel 1 and that all development would be required to have architectural approval . R. Mainiero, project engineer, stated that the proposal was made to reconfigure the applicant' s lot, clarify boundaries and to facilitate financing. He stated that the applicant wants to make sure that condi- tions relate to the larger piece and do not affect filing of a final parcel map. M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Kaptur absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TPM 20623 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. TPM 18787 - TIME EXTENSION. Request by GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC. for a 12-month time extension for parcel map on the north side of Ramon Road (from Gene Autry Trail to San Luis Rey) , M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Withdrawn by applicant. • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) for restudy of the following cases: CASE 3.785 (Continued). Application by R. EHRLICH for architectural approval of 115-unit apartment project on East Palm Canyon Drive, between Farrell Drive/Compadre Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Restudy noting: 1. That the buildings on Palm Canyon create a wall effect. 2. That a different unit type be explored that uses a single loaded corridor. 3. That unit orientation is toward the carports and the specific easement on Palm Canyon, thus there is limited privacy. 4. A planned development district should be explored. 5. That the architecture is acceptable. May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.802 (Continued) . Application by L. DISCENSO for architectural approval of revised plans for restaurant on North Palm Canyon Drive, between Via Escuela/Via Olivera, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Restudy noting: 1. That the pitch of the port cochere be increased and a crooked attachment to the roof be explored. 2. That the porch element on the west elevation be eliminated and the roof fascia be revised. 3. That the dormer window elements be increased. (Explore extending this element to the property line and tie in fascia on either side) . 4. That windows be eliminated as noted on the plan. 5. That glu-lam beams, minimum of 31k to 12 inches, be used for the fascia. 6. That the north elevation roof be as shown on the roof plan dated 5-6-85. • CASE 3.836 (Minor) . Application by S. WILLIAMS for architectural approval of trim paint color and lattice type fencing (for screening) at hotel at 424 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 23. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Lapham abstained, Kaptur absent) approving the application as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update of City Council actions. No report given by director, except for two upcoming issues as follows: Snow Goose Sign Appeal . Councilman Foster has requested that the Snow Goose neon sign be reviewed in particular, and that the concept of neon signing in the City be reviewed. (On May 15 City Council agenda.) - Downey Savings & Loan Appeal of Driveway Condition. Planning Commission condition to reopen the driveway at Smoketree to improve the circulation pattern is the subject of the appeal (on the May 15 City Council agenda) . • May 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 STATUS REPORT ON COUNTY/SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROJECTS TTM 20087 (Case 5.0335-MISC) for a 48-unit clustered development on 10 acres, south of Verona, between Whitewater Club Drive/Gene Autry Trail in the City' s Sphere-of-Influence; and Status report memo distributed in packets. No additional report given by the Planning Director. Aquatic Park (County CUP #2706-E - Case 5.0365-MISC). Aquatic recreation area with a water slide, commercial facilities and RV park on 80 acres north and south of Edom Hill Road, east of Varner, outside the Sphere-of- influence. Status report memo distributed in packets. No additional report given by the Planning Director. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUEST, AND DISCUSSION Confict of Interest Forms for Baristo/Farrell Redevelopment Project Area. To be returned as soon as possible to the Planning Secretary or the the City Clerk' s Office. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business discussed, Chairman adjourned the meet- ing at 6:50 p.m. /'PLAN +INGJECTOR MDR/ml WP/PC MIN 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 22, 1985 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 20 0 Hugh Curtis X 19 1 Hugh Kaptur X 18 2 Don Lawrence X 17 3 Paul Madsen X 18 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 17 3 Larry Lapham X 2 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recordinq Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 20, 1985 Earl Neel Absent: James Cioffi , Chairman Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson Michael Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were no Tribal Council comments. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen) approving the minutes of May 8, 1985 with the following corrections: P. 20, Paragraph 5, add: "Curtis dissented" . (Case 5.0303-PD-152) P. 21, Paragraph 3, add: "Madsen abstained". (TPM 20623)