Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/01/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 8, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 12 0 Hugh Curtis X 12 0 Hugh Kaptur X 10 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 11 1 Larry Lapham X 12 0 Curt Ealy X 7 0 Earl Neel X 3 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Richard Patenaude, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Robert Green, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee - January 6, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Sharon Apfelbaum Curt Ealy Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving mirvt-gs_-of the adjourned December 18, 1985 meeting as submitted and the a _N ember 11, 198`5�1.meeting with the following corrections: Page 8. CASE 5.0356-PD-168. Paragraph 6, Line 2, delete "not" . Page 13. CASE 5.0317-PD-157. Paragraph 9, first line should read "Planning Director" presented the project. Page 19. CASE 5.0258-PD-145. Paragraph 5, line 14 delete "condensation"; add "condemnation". There were no Tribal Council comments. ' January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Appr of • mustobelexerc seditwith within tses times valid for two years.period unless extended. The approval granted M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) taking the following actions: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. WHITE for the House of Fabrics for modification of sign program and architectural approval of a new main identification sign for business in existing shopping center on the southwest corner of Sunrise Way/Tahquitz-McCallum Way, PD-76, Section 13. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Application by DEBARTOLO, INC. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for Maxim' s Hotel/Desert Fashion Plaza project on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Andreas Road/Tahquitz Way, PD-147, Section 15. Restudy noting that a comprehensive revised landscape plan should be submitted (rather than spot substitution of species) . Grouping of the Cocus Plumosa and inclusion of Melaleuca and Boston Ivy was suggested. CASE 3.957 (MINOR) . Application by ARMET, DAVIS, & NEWLOVE for architectural approval of addition to Bob' s Big Boy Restaurant (for seating only) at 1901 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25. • Withdrawn at the applicant' s request. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.953. Application by M. HORWICH for architectural approval of revised plans for an art gallery with warehouse space, retail shops, and apart- ments/artist' s studio at 1090 N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tachevah Drive/Indian Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Discussion ensued on the roof structure; Planner (Patenaude) stated that no decision was made by the AAC on the roof structure since there were several different motions with no agreement, but that the Commission had at the December 11 meeting approved the roof line extension as revised by the applicant. He stated that there was no motion on the colors of the building, and that comments on the roof were varied. He stated that the intent is to create uniformity with the building extension. M. Kiner, Yucca Tree Drive, Palm Desert, Project Architect, explained the roof configuration on the board including sections showing the tie line with the porte cochere. He stated that the plan is to show the roof line as a continuation instead of seeing a mansard roof. Commission Kaptur stated that Spanish architecture is disjointed and that there should not be a continuous roof line. He suggested a parapet Mr. Kiner ing from the western sun,� plthatdtheatileewillfmatch the line texisting tects the ile and will be removed from the roof areas not visible from Palm Canyon if January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA • CASE 3.953 (Continued) necessary and placed on the Palm Canyon frontage. He stated that any tile would be clay barrel tile. In reply to Commission question, Planner repeated that the Commission action at the December 11 meeting was to permit the applicant to make the extension (continuation) of the roof to the south in order to figure structural calculations for a building permit, and that Commission approval was without AAC review of the revised plans. He stated that the AAC recommendation at the December 9 meeting was to bring the pro- ject before the committee on January 6, but that the Commission reviewed the project and granted approval of the roof extension on December 11 with details of doors and windows to be submitted at the January 8 meeting. Commissioner Kaptur stated that although there are some well designed details, the roof ends in a peculiar manner and the windows should be recessed more deeply to add character. He stated that the details now seem to be "tag ons". He repeated that the roof line should be non continuous without a positive ending. Discussion continued on whether or not to restudy the entire structure. Motion was made by Kaptur for a restudy of the Palm Canyon elevations • (and later withdrawn) . Commissioner Ealy stated that the roof line was approved at the December 11 meeting and questioned whether or not the Commission should change its action. He stated that he could not support a motion for restudy. Mr. Kiner stated that a restudy of the entire structure including the roof would delay the project since structural details need to completed for the weight of the roof before the structure can proceed. Chairman stated that he could not support the motion because the developer needs to be able to rely on Commission decisions. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion continued on the proper action and in response to Commission question, Planner stated that the Commission was informed at the December 11 meeting that it was reviewing only the roof line with remaining details to be sent back to the AAC. M/S (Apfelbaum/Lapham) for approval subject to AAC conditions and a restudy of the roof line. Discussion followed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the location is very conspicuous, and that more information is needed. Planning Director stated that the matter of the roof came to the • Commission without a full architectural package being submitted because the applicant needed to know calculations for the roof structure, and that the major concern of the AAC was the roof treatment. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA . CASE 3.953 (Continued) In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission has the power to restudy under a limited approval because Commission and AAC are reviewing a total concept, and that under the Commissions implied powers it is feasible that a change to a portion might effect a portion already approved, although it might create difficulties for the applicant. Commissioner Ealy stated that he would not support the motion because he felt it would be a hardship for the applicant since the roof line had already been approved by the Commission. Commission Kaptur reiterated that he was against piecemeal approval and that the total concept should be reviewed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Kaptur/Lapham dissented) amending the previous motion by deleting the requirement for restudy of the roof line subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lower sash of the arched window on west elevation to be 30" above exterior grade (to match level of window to the south) . 2. That the planter (about 30" high) is to be located along the west wall generally between and under the windows with final plans to • be submitted with the landscape plan to he approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That the rear entry is to be structurally boxed-in by the stairway element. 4. That the roll-up door on the east wall is to be painted to match the main building color. 5. That new materials and colors match th'a "isting. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.352-VARIANCE. Application by C. MILLS for Ben Perry for a variance for reduced sideyard setbacks to allow an extension to a single-family hill- side residence at 2441 Southridge Circle, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. (Reference Case 3.935. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve Variance 6.352. Planner (Green) presented the variance request on the display board stating that the variance proposal is immediately to the north of the Bob Hope House in Southridge, and that Commission approval was given to the house extension on December 11. He stated that staff feels the extension will not block the Hope' s view because of the oleanders planted on the Hope property, but that Mrs. Hope is opposed to the variance with her objection centered on the chimney, which is 72 feet above the height of the extension. He stated that the chimney was January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 6.352 (Continued) approved at the December 11 meeting, that the project architect has met with the Hope' s architect and lawyer, and that there may be some lee-way on the design. He noted that the Southridge Homeowners Association pre- sented a letter stating that the variance was approved, but that it was approved by only 1 member of the homeowners association and that the entire board has not yet reviewed the application. He stated that the Southridge Homeowners Association CC & R' s have a clause stating that views should not be obstructed. He stated that an AMM applies to hillside areas and that it is not atypical to allow additional height. Discussion followed on lot sizes in Southridge. Planning Director stated that the lot is standard, but that the building pad only covers a minor portion of it. Commissioner Lapham stated that the area does not have a standard size, lot and that the lots are all sizes and shapes. C. Mills, Project Architect, 121 South Palm Canyon, stated that the variance is for the setbacks only, since the Zoning Ordinance allows a 15 foot setback and the proposal is for a 10 foot setback. He stated that the home is against the hillside, that the roof of the addition does not project above the Hope' s pad, and that the addition was designed so that the roof can be looked over when viewed from above and • that the parapet was designed to reduce the view across the flat roof section. He stated that the chimney is below the oleander line, that he did not feel the chimney would be a problem, that he had spoken with Mrs. Hope, that the fireplace could be lowered to minimum code height, that the chimney is a side issue, and that the applicant would not be unreasonable about it. He stated that the lot coverage is less than Zoning Ordinance requirements. Planner stated that the coverage is 27% and the ordinance allows 30%. He stated that the lot size is slightly smaller than the 20,000 square foot standard, and that the existing structure is 3,000 sq. ft. with the addition to be 2500 sq. ft. between the existing house and the hillside. S. Zundel , Attorney, Palm Desert, representing the Hopes, requested a continuance so that the plans could be reviewed by the Hope's architect, and that the Hope' s have objections to the variance as well . A. Brandt, member of the Southridge Homeowners Association Board of Directors and representing Jay Metz, Chairman of the Architectural Committee, stated that the addition plans should be presented to the homeowners association before being submitted to the City. He stated that he thought it was to be just a remodel of an existing structure. F. Kelly, 2362 Southridge, stated that he had heard about the proposal from his wife who is on the architectural committee of the home owners association, but nothing was stated about additional square feet, that • the plan should have been submitted in its entirety to the Architectural Committee to avoid a piecemeal variance on portions of the house, that the homeowners association has a 30 day limit in which to act, and that he had not received a notice of public hearing. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS . CASE 6.352 (Continued) Chairman stated that the City is not a party to CC & R agreements,that the issue is a variance request only, not architecture since the archi- tecture has been approved. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the applicant has not complied with the Southridge CC & R' s. Chairman stated that if the application is not presented to the Commission before approval by the homeowners association, Commission can take action on it. He stated that possible continuance can be discussed after the public hearing portion of the variance. Mr. Zundel stated that the Hope swimming pool area is at the point closest to the variance, that the house construction blocked the Hope' s view so they planted oleanders, and that the proposed extension places the roof 10 feet from the property line and 20 feet from the Hope pool area. He stated that legal grounds for the variance do not exist, and that a variance does not entitle someone automatically to accommodate a three car garage, which is the reason for the variance. C. Mills (rebuttal ) stated that the Hope pool is not on the property line but back from it, and that there is open space and oleanders and a pool deck behind the oleanders, and that the new addition is not obstructing any view. He stated that the existing house is above the height of the Hope's pad 5 to 6 feet, and that an AMM can be obtained • without a problem for a 12 foot variance, and 2 feet on a horizontal plane is not noticeable. He stated that the problems probably occurred when the original house was constructed and not with the current application, and that the addition will be an upgrade from the original . He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Metz in a meeting, as sole repre- sentative of the architectural group, and discussed the fact that the house would not be pushed further out but would be pushed back to the hillside, and that an expansion of the house was proposed. He stated that it was a hurried meeting and that Mr. Metz (stating that he had the authority) approved the plans and signed them, and that the approval was received at the beginning to allay neighbors' concerns. Planner stated that the homeowners letter had come from Mr. Metz after it was requested by the City indicating that the homeowners had seen the project. (Mr. Mills stated that he submitted a photocopy of the letter to the city, and that the plans have not changed from that time. ) Mr. Mills also stated that delay would cause problems with the major construction of the house, since it is a skeleton at this time. He stated that the variance application on its own merits is in conformance with other variances granted in the area, but if required by the Commission the two week delay would be acceptable. In response to Commission question, he stated that the portion adjacent to the triangular area of the Hope' s property is the garage with an exercise room above, that plans could not be adjusted to the corner, • because thew plan would not function, and explained the remainder of the improvements. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS . CASE 6.352 (Continued) Chairman stated that as a neighborly gesture there should be a two week continuance. Planning Director stated that the findings for the variance meet requirements of state law and is a classic case. Discussion continued on variances granted in Southridge. Planning Director stated that there have been a few and that interest had been shown by the homeowners, but few complaints. Commissioner Ealy stated that it would have been preferable to address the architecture and the variance at the same time. Chairman reminded the Commissioner that the variance is the issue, that the architecture has been approved, and that the homeowners objection is to the height. Discussion continued. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the case should be continued. Commissioner Ealy stated that he agreed with the homeowners since the architecture is within the setbacks and more apparent, and questioned whether or not the variance could be granted with conditions. Assistant City Attorney stated that it could be. Commissioner Ealy remarked that the Commission should review the archi- tecture as it relates to the setbacks, that the variance could be inappropriate, and that a two week continuance should be acceptable. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he would not support a variance unless there were legal grounds, and agreeable with the neighbors who, if possible, had approved. Chairman requested that the applicants and the architect meet with the architectural committee of Sou hridge to resolve concerns. M/S/C (Ealy/Apfelbaum) continuing the application to January 22, 1986. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.963 (MINOR). Application by AMERICAN SAVINGS for architectural approval of automatic teller machine and ramp on the southeast corner of Baristo Road/S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. • Planner (Williams) stated that the applicant submitted photos of auto- matic teller machines (ATMs) in other location than Palm Springs, that the AAC feels that itisdisruptive of the west elevation and architec- ture, and that several alternative locations were discussed. She stated January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.963 (Continued) that the AAC was concerned about the proposed location of the handi- capped ramp, and that the applicant who is in the audience is not in agreement with the AAC recommendations. M. Burton, Torrance, California, the applicant, stated that because of the configuration of the building and the grading differential there, is only one location for the ATM. He stated that the bank does not want the machine in the parking lot for security reasons, and that the only place left is Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that he had put in two hundred of the machines and described difficulties with other locations at the bank. He stated that the ramp could be eliminated and also the railings but that the machine could not be, and that the initial design was not to make changes to the bank, that staff discussed design with him and a Kiosk concept was discussed, but it would be too large because of access requirements, and that most banks want the ATM' s to be un- ohtrusive. He stated that he has installed the only ATM in Santa Barbara in the historical area, and that he would do an aesthetically pleasing job as well in Palm Springs. Discussion followed on whether or not a handicapped ramp is required by law. Planning Director stated that it is either required by law or for a bank' s own needs, but that there is no requirement for a teller. Mr. Burton stated that all banks are making the ATM's accessible to the handicapped. He stated in reply to Chairman' s question, that ATM' s are mandatory in several communities. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the applicant finds it impossible to install the ATM in none of the alternate locations, the Commission' s position is that the Palm Canyon side not be affected by an ATM. He noted that the building is an award-winning design and the architect for the building should be contacted and a definite plan prepared. Chairman stated that the Commission does not have the power to have the applicant meet with a particular architect, but that the applicant' s application could be restudied or approved. Discussion continued on the proposed location. Mr. Burton stated that two banks have ATM's on Palm Canyon Drive. Commissioner Curtis stated that he did not want ATM' s on Palm Canyon and that he is opposed to the ramp, and that the design is poor. He stated that he did not know if a good design could be executed with the handi- capped ramp. Chairman reminded Commission that the Commission did not say that ATM' s should be eliminated. Discussion continued on the aethetics of the application. Chairman • suggested that the planners make an appointment with the applicant to discuss aethetics and location. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.963 (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Ealy abstained) for a restudy of the application, stating that an alternative location (south lobby area) should be investigated or a stronger architectural statement/structure designed. CASE 3.785. Application by D. BEEN for R. Ehrlich for architectural approval of working drawings for 134 unit residential apartment complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Farrell Drive/Compadre Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Planner (Williams) stated that working drawings are consistent with the approved design. Commissioner Apfelbaum commented that the neighbors had concerns about the landscaping. Planner stated that staff is meeting with landscape architects on the project to the west for coordination between the two projects regarding walls and landscape, and that grading and final landscape plans will be submitted in the future by the applicant. Motion was made by Lapham to approve the working drawings subject to conditions. The motion died for lack of a second. . Commissioner Curtis stated that he had ingress and egress and site plan concerns. He stated that placing traffic on a single family residential street is not proper, and that also the transition to the area to the east is difficult. He stated that the AAC architects did not have a problem with the architecture. Planner stated that the site plan was approved. Commissioner Curtis stated that the entire complex exits onto a forty foot wide cul-de-sac single family area with no access to Palm Canyon Drive or Escoba, and that also the complex is not the best use of of the land. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that in the architectural review process the plot plan, architecture and details affecting appearance are taken into consideration as well as ingress and egress integration into the community and that the entire complex is reviewed. Commissioner Lapham stated that the project had been approved and questioned whether or not approval can be reversed. Assistant City Attorney stated that if everything has been approved except for working drawings, the working drawings only should be addressed. Chairman stated that the Commission could not reverse itself, and that the issue is not the site plan. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS . CASE 3.785 (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was discussing accessing, and that the City cannot say that accessing be changed when in fact it is the only access for the property. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that accessing was discussed throughly and also discussed with the traffic engineer, that there is nothing more to be done, that access is not the issue, but working drawings are. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Lapham; Curtis dissented) approving the working drawings subject to the following conditions: 1. Delete metal cap on parapet throughout (Sheet 12, Sheet 13 #1, 6 etc.) . Rolled plaster top. 2. Delete plaster screeds (Sheet 9 #13, #6) . 3. Exterior plaster to have blown on finish. 4. Delete bathroom windows throughout. 5. Extend patio wall to screen A/C equipment (Sheet 38) . CASE 3.866. Application by CRHO for Hershel ' s for architectural approval of • final development plans for restaurant and sign at 2555 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25 (Desert Isle) . M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy) tabling the item until the architect could be present. SIGN APPLICATION AND AWNING. Application by DELMONICO"S FISH MARKET for architectural approval of main identification sign and awning for restaurant in the Desert Inn Fashion Plaza, 119 N. Palm Canyon, PD-147, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer (Forcucci ) stated that the sign was reviewed without the awning and approved, but that the awning color (submitted later) did not integrate well with the sign colors and that the only color that will coordinate well is Ivory. S. Mahoney, representing Imperial Signs, stated that the applicant will be amenable to the ivory color. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) approving the sign and awning subject to the following conditions: 1. That the second line of copy of the sign be moved to the right. 2. That the color of the sign face be ivory. • CASE 3.938. Application by M. HOFFMAN for D. Dugdale for architectural approval of industrial and automotive building on Williams Road/Sunny Dunes Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.938 (Continued) Planning Director presented the project and stated that the building is to be used primarily for storage of the old car collection of Mr. Hoffman. D. Dugdale, 4618 Madison Street, Indio, requested that planters be eliminated because of the possibility of their being used as trash con- tainers and also because they do not add to the attractiveness of the front of the building. Planning Director stated that if the elimination of the planters is approved, it can be noted on the plan, that the AAC felt that there should be a shrub massing against the building, and that the planters could be reviewed when landscape plans are submitted. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Ealy) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Eliminate "step" in wall at fixed gate. 2. Parking area planters to extend to building face. 3. Add 2' planter alongside building. • 4. Exterior finish to be a single block type (either slump or split face) . 5. Fascia to wrap around. 6. South wall masonry to extend to meet the fascia line. 7. That there be a restudy of the landscaping including planters adjacent to the building and that shade trees be added. 8. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.942. Application by K. HINSVARK for architectural approval of tennis court, offices, and retail complex on Calle Encilia between Saturmino/ Ramon Roads, C-1AA Zone (IL), Section 14. Planner (Green) stated that there is an unusual mix of uses - retail , office, and enclosed tennis court, that the project was recommended for restudy by the AAC who was concerned about the north/south elevations, and made several suggestions for the restudy. He stated that the lot is substandard and would have grounds for a AMM, and that the architect does not agree with the restudy. R. Patton, 73435 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, Project Architect, stated that the location has much to do with the situation and described the configuration of the site and adjacent properties. He stated that . the design is honest, an asset to the neighborhood, and that the client is happy with it. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.942 (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur stated that height is of concern and is accentuated by the large soffit around the top of the building, and that if the plans were redesigned to make the upper portions of the building appear smaller the design would be improved. Mr. Patton stated that the band under the top of the building was originally proposed to be glass, but the applicant did not want it. He stated that the front elevation is pleasing in his estimation. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the "hat" effect were removed, it would minimize the height and suggested a darker color for the band below the top. Discussion continued. Mr. Patton stated that he would consider a tile band, perhaps recessed, and that the height of the building is 35 feet. He stated that the parking is adequate, that the building fits the site, and that he did not see that side elevations were important since they are not on Palm Canyon. Discussion followed on the tennis court. In response to Commission question, Planner stated that the Commission made the determination on February 11, 1985 that a tennis court is an allowable use in the C-1-AA Zone, and that the subject project is the one precipitating the deter- mination. Planning Director stated that the use was viewed as an accessory one. Commissioner Ealy stated that one of the comments of the AAC was to depress the tennis court portion for height mitigation and allow a viewing area on the other side. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he would like to address each AAC restudy item individually. 1. Use a tile border around the building elevations with a 20 foot landscape area around the building, and a heavier hedge type of tree. 2 & 3. The band can be tiled or a color. 4. Adding landscaping between the parking lot and the building is a good idea. 5. Depressing the tennis court might not be viable if the building is within the height limitations. 6. A tree hedge in the setback area should be used rather than a berm. 7. The entry court is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping. . At Mr. Patton' s suggestion to encroach into the setbacks 20% to provide landscaping, Commissioner Neel stated that solid landscaping would add too much bulkiness. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.942 (Continued) Discussion followed regarding the four elevations of the building. Commissioner Neel stated that there is a 6 foot wall around the perimeter of the project that hides the building elevations. Discussion followed on the material to be used for the band near the top. Mr. Patton stated that the client does not want Clere story glass, that tile could probably used and that recessing of the band could be tried. Motion was made by Kaptur for a restudy with comments of the Planning Commission addressing AAC recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 with the deletion of numbers 5 and 7, and the project returned to the AAC. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Curtis stated that he could not support a restudy because the height is excessive, that the building is being used solely for the applicant' s own purpose, and also because the building intrudes into the neighborhood. Commissioner Lapham stated that if condition number 5 regarding depressing of the tennis court is approved by the Commission the applicant will be forced to do it. Chairman stated that depression of the court is just to be considered. Discussion followed. Planning Director stated that the architect should redesign the building and reach an acceptable solution with the intent being to lower or reduce the impact of the building or use a different building design, and that depressing of the court is not mandated. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Ealy; Curtis dissented) for a restudy to include the conditions of the AAC as follows and deletion of AAC number 7, (which deals with the interior of the building) . 1. That the western and southern elevations be revised. 2. That the form of the tennis court elevations be simplified. 3. That materials and textures of the tennis courts be revised. 4. That landscaping be added between the parking lot and the building. 5. That the tennis court level be depressed. 6. That berming be added against the wall of the court. CASE 3.959 (MINOR) . Application by S. SULLIVAN for PS Townhomes HOA for architectural approval of security gates, wall , and landscape plans for • residential condominium complex on N. Indian Avenue between Escuela/ Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.959 (Continued) Planning Director reviewed the project. He stated that the homeowners association has requested approval of a security gating system to reduce traffic flow through the older complex (built in the 1970' s) . He discussed the major driveway and the T parking off Via Escuela, stating that retrofit gate systems have been reviewed in the past for other such projects such as the Riveria Gardens, and a revised drawing has been submitted that was not on the display board. He stated that all parking will be behind the gates, that the AAC had a concern about the 36 foot wide turn around at the Indian Avenue entrance gate and recommended widening. He stated that he had visited the site , and that t,ie gate is at the bottom of a fairly steep slope, that the AAC recommended approval subject to redesign of the turnaround, that the entry street will be red curbed, and that the AAC recommended no steps in the wall on Via Escuela and that staff recommends that a Nox box be installed for emergency access and the driveway signed for no parking. He noted that retrofit s are difficult, that the committee felt that the turnaround was the only major problem, that there are homeowners opposing the gate. Commissioner Lapham commented that there will be a high cost of main- tenance of the system. Commissioner Kaptur stated that security gates are on the inside of the project, not visible from the front, and that if this is acceptable, although contrived, to the homeowners he would support it. • Mrs. M. Lawler, 2268-E North Indian Avenue, a resident of the condo- minium, a member of the Architectural Committee of the project, stated that she seemed to be the spokesman for the group opposed to the gates and that the system does not protect all the buildings from traffic. She stated that the former traffic engineer stated that he did not encourage gates without a turnaround (the design requires backing out onto Via Escuela if a car cannot gain entry through one of the gates on that street) , that widening of the driveway which removes and recon- figures sidewalks in front of the north building impacts the most affected building which is not protected from vehicular traffic; that the homeowners in the north building do not know about the revision; that the project has a small permanent population who will be penalized for the cost and maintenance of the gates and walls damaged by vaca- tioners who have no vested interest in the project. She requested that the revised plans be reviewed by the homeowners association prior to Planning Commission action. S. Sullivan, of Palm Desert, Project Architect, stated that the gate discussion has been in process for three years and that the revised drawing (not shown) allows for sidewalks and retaining walls on both sides of the entry drive. He stated that there will always be a 3 point turn because of the retrofitted nature of the system, and not all of the problems can be solved. He noted that the project has a weekend type of resident with a 25% maximum occupancy, with little traffic at the Via • Escuela and Indian Avenue gates, that the Via Escuela gates will be marked for "Residents Only" and have high visibility, and that it is possible to back out onto Via Escuela because of visibility. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.959 (Continued) S. Konow, President of the homeowners association and long time resident of the project, stated that the idea for a security system evolved because of abuse of the facility by other than residents and the increase in burglary, vandalism and derelicts, that a feasibility study was done, that the board receives no salary and is only concerned with the project, and that not all 119 units are occupied, that security guard service is too expensive, that the homeowners have voted for the system, that the person speaking in opposition was invited to be on the architectural committee. He requested that the gate system be approved to increase project security. Planning Director stated that the revised plans were not reviewed by the AAC and after visiting the site, he noted a forced condition at the north building and that the AAC needs to review the access point since it reduces the quality of the units more than the AAC would recommend if they had received the plans. He stated that he would recommend a restudy. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Ealy) continuing the application to January 22, 1986 to review revised plans. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that there are four gates and no problem with fire and police access, although a 36 foot wide turn around is not ideal . • CASE 3.866. Application by CRHO for Hershel ' s for architectural approval of final development plans for restaurant and sign at 2555 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25 (Desert Isle) . M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) to remove the item from the table. Planner (Green) reviewed the project, and the proposed sign. Ms. E. Sloan, of Tustin, the architect, stated she was present to answer questions. Commissioner Curtis stated that he was concerned about the sign which is now revised, and is brighter and has more lineal lights. Ms. Sloan stated that she was trying to achieve the lively effect the lights provide. Discussion followed on the mechanics of the lighting system. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that there should be lighting only on "Hershel ' s" , "Deli" , "Bakery". Ms. Sloan stated that only the letters are lighted (by a neon strip behind plex which will diffuse the light) . . Commissioner Kaptur stated that it is a plastic faced sign within the allowable square footage, and that the type has been approved by the Commission for many years. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.866 (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Planner stated that staff recommends that an architectural detail of the sign in section be submitted, since the original sign was a neon tube and that the cabinet is also a concern. He stated that staff suggested having a neon tube screened by a cabinet to create a diffused glow for the stripes, although it is difficult to determine how that would work on a sign. Discussion continued on the sign face and colors. Ms. Sloan stated that she thought the colors would be acceptable in red. In reply to Commission question, Planner stated that there is manuevering room on-site for the trash trucks. Commissioner Lapham stated that the mounting of the sign was not requested or approved. He stated that Commission action was to have the mounting recessed and in the same plane with a plaster surround, but that the revision shows a revised can. Ms. Sloan stated that individual letters surface mounted were approved by the Commission. Discussion continued on the aesthetics of the proposal . Commissioner Kaptur stated that the concept of the building is the 1940' s, and that • it is unfortunate that the sign cannot be done in neon. Planning Director questioned whether or not a monument sign would be appropriate. Ms. Sloan stated that the proposed sign is part of the concept of the building. Commissioner Lapham stated that he felt the sign was not pleasing because it is all surface mounted. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the letters are like channel letters, which are never recessed. Planner stated that the sign was revised because the original application was a can sign with one face and letters on the one face, but that the Commission preferred individual letters. Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not know the sign protruded. Ms. Sloan stated that there are wing walls hiding the protrusion of the cans. Commissioner Ealy noted that the sign can be seen only from the front. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the applicant has trido. Ms. to achieve Sloanthe same sta stated look thatwith it would covered, iffiand cult Ito difficult to return to individually back lit letters. Discussion continued on the type of can. Ms. Sloan stated that she would have to investigate Commission direction. Commissioner Kaptur suggested one large can with a plastic face so that letters and background are flush with the can recessed, and the area on both sides firred with the can sitting on the firred area to make the sign look less contrived. He stated that over the years plastic faces have been encouraged because they are not contrived. • Commissioner Madsen stated that the red sign might be pleasing as a plastic faced sign. - January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.866 (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur stated that the 1940' s style was honky-tonk and in its own way a good style, but not the Palm Springs style. Ms. Sloan requested that there not be a restudy, because she could not obtain building permits. Planning be completed Dw thtthe sign or dheld auntil final planned devel coulde remner of the roject opment plans are submitted. Commission Kaptur stated that the sign should be approved in neon as originally approved, and the Council given the problem. Chairman stated that the sign still looks like neon, but the problem is whether or not the background section can be moved back or moved forward. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lapham) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the alternate trim color be used. (As submitted on the color board. ) • 2. That the landscaping be restudied noting: a. That substitute species for Ivy, Agapanthus and Azalea be found. b. Palms shall be grouped. C. That the trash enclosure be screened with landscaping. d. That evergreen trees be introduced into the parking lot. e. That a Crepe Myrtle be added as a focus species. f. That Xylosma and Chamerops palms be added. 3. That the sign be recessed to the point where the face of the plaster will be at the same vertical measurement as the face of the letters. (Letters to be flush with the building. ) 4. That the stripe be recessed and also flush with the building. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of main identification sign (change of face) for Hollywood Bar and Grill, 1973 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign was brought to the • Commission because it is over 30 square feet. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the word "Hollywood" be laminated. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.956 (MINOR) . Application by D & A SHADE CO. for architectural approval of hoencna entryawning Pepper Tree Inn ( tel ) at 645 N. Indian Avenue, R3 Zone Section 11. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the AAC had no comment on the scallops of the canopy except for AAC member Mills. M/S/C (Neel/Lapham) approving the application as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0386-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for irrigation design standards in all zones City wide. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negtive Declaration. No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and give final approval to the Zoning Text amendment. Planner (Green) explained the amendment briefly. • Chairman declared the hearing open, there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and giving final approval of the Zoning Text amendment based on the following findings: 1. That the standard will complement the City and the DWA' s enforce- ment efforts, which are aimed at existing nuisance water generators. 2. That the proposed design standards incorporated in further designs and installations will eliminate nuisance water from new projects. 3. That the guidelines will minimize nuisance water run-off and give direction for a well-designed irrigation scheme for the general public, designers, and maintenance workers. CASE 5.0390-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the Conservation Element of the General Plan for an expanded historic resources section to encourage the preservation of historic resources. Rcommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, give tentative approval to the Zoning Text Amend- ment, and continue the item to January 22. • Planner (Patenaude) presented the staff report and stated that the proposed amendment along with the properly administered historic site program will afford significant long-term benefits to the community. In response to Commission question, he stated that the provisions will not r January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) • CASE 5.0390-GPA. (Continued) add a burden of bureaucracy to the property owner above what is in place at the present time since only the text is expanded, but that the amend- ment gives a more comprehensive list of goals. He stated that staff will develop some guidelines benefitting property owners who own designated local historic sites. Planning Director stated that no additional staff will be added to the Planning Divisions since the Planner II position is the one assigned to historic presevation. With 25 to 30% of the time being used for that purpose, and that the amendment sets the stage for the historic districts overall framework for planning purposes. Commissioner Apfelbaum complimented the Planner for a well-written document. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the Zoning Text Amendment, and continuing the item to January 22. • PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by D. BUSCH for Burger King for architectural approval of new main identification sign for restaurant on S. Indian Avenue between Ramon/Saturmino Roads, C-2 Zone (IL) , Section 14. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) for a restudy noting that the brick detail should be wrapped around the sign and brought to grade level . CASE 3.964. Application by J. SULLIVAN for architectural approval of a multi- family residential complex on the southeast corner of Calle De Carlos/El Placer Road, R-2 Zone, Section 19. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That all parking be on Calle DeCarlos. 2. That separation walls between walls be increased to 12 inches. • 3. That pilasters be added and that the arch along the north elevation be increased. January 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) • CASE 3.964. (Continued) 4. That wing walls extend to meet the roof line. 5. That windows be removed on the west wall. 6. That a sun control device be added to the east elevation. 7. That attic vents be round with decorative stucco trim. 8. That the entry gate to the service area on the east side be simplified. CASE 3.968 (MINOR) . Application by DESERT WATER AGENCY for architectural approval of addition to existing vehicle maintenance building for storage area at 1200 Gene Autry Trail, M-1 Zone, Section 20. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Ealy abstained) continuing the application to January 22 for submittal of plans. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of main identification sign for Cherokee Way, RGA 8 Zone, Section 30 (Ref. Case 3.505). M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) continuing the application to January 22. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update of City Council actions. - Fee Schedule. Council commented on the large increase in fees. Staff is trying to obtain some cost recovery and under the proposed schedule 72% of the direct cost of the planning function would be recovered. Fees will be applied as services are provided. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, & DISCUSSION - Homeowners Association Approval . Commission Lapham stated that there should be some way to obtain firmer approval from homeowners associa- tions regarding projects that come before the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. ' �plan VinogrDl�rector • MDR/ml WP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 22, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planninq Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 13 0 Hugh Curtis X 13 0 Hugh Kaptur X 11 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 12 1 Larry Lapham X 13 0 Curt Ealy X 8 0 Earl Neel X 4 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Richard Patenaude, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Richard McCoy, City Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Robert Green, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - January 20, 1986 William Johnson Absent: J. Cioffi, Chairman Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving minutes of January 8, 1986 with the following corrections: Page, CASE 6.352, first paragraph, third line, change "Southridge Homeowners Association to "architect" . . Page 6, CASE 6.352, fifth paragraph, second line, change "homeowners letter" to "approval" .