Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/02/12 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 12, 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 14 0 Hugh Curtis X 14 0 Hugh Kaptur X 12 2 Sharon Apf elbaum X 13 1 Larry Lapham X 14 0 Curt Ealy X 9 0 Earl Neel X 5 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - February 11 (Tuesday), 1986 William Johnson Absent: Curt Ealy J. Cioffi , Chairman Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Earl Neel Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelabaum/Curtis) approving minutes of January 22, 1986 with the following corrections: Page 8, CASE 3.973, last paragraph, third line, delete "brass". February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: ,. Chairman explained that Agenda Item No. 15 (TPM 20167 - NAHODIL) which had been referred back to the Commission by Council would be renoticed and addressed in a Public Hearing on February 26, 1986. CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) taking the following actions: SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) . Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of revised plans for a freestanding identification sign for Jensen' s Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Sunrise Way, PD-76, Section 13. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the overall height be reduced to 5 feet from grade. 2. That the monument not be connected to the perimeter wall . 3. That the pedestal not incorporate a planter. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BANNING SIGNS for architectural approval of main identification sign for Fountain Hotel at 1777 N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1/R-3 Zones, Section 3. Restudy. CASE 3.864. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for Brown, Brosche Financial , Inc. for architectural approval of main identification sign and land- scape plan for a hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between E. Vista Chino /Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Restudy of the sign noting the following: 1. That the applicant explore other materials for sign face (no plastic) . 2. That the color choices be reversed using a dark background, light letters. Restudy of the landscaping noting the following: 1. That the Queen Palms be used as accent trees around the pool area only. 2. That Date Palms or Filifera Palms be used on the north side of the Building (replacing Queen Palms) . 3. That Eucalyptus Polyanthupus be substituted for Eucalyptus Nicholii . February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.864. (Continued) 4. That the Ficus Religiosa be deleted. 5. That the Ficus specie used be "Nitida", not "Retusa" . 6. That the Livistonia Chinensis (Chinese Fan Palm) be replaced with a combination of Xylosma and Dwarf Oleander (pink) . 7. That the Chamerops Humulus (Mediterranean Fan Palm) be used in small groups as accent clusters only. 8. That the Osmanthus Fragans "Sweet Olive" be deleted. 9. That the overall landscape theme and plant mixture be reevaluated. CASE 3.616. Application by J. M. PETERS COMPANY for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for 240 unit condominium project on E1 Cielo Road between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 13. Abstention: Ealy. Continued to February 26, 1986. CASE 3.785. Application by R. GREGORY for R. Ehrlich for architectural approval of landscape plans for 134 unit multi-family residential �.. complex for E. Palm Canyon Drive between Farrell Drive/Compadre Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the tree buffer adjacent to the R-1 (north boundary) be increased. 2. That a grading plan be submitted. 3. That coordination and integration of landscape, streetscape and materials occur between this project and the property to the west. 4. That the sidewalk and bikepaths be combined in certain areas to eliminate small planter areas adjacent to the right-of-way. 5. That the landscape plan include boulders and berming along the street frontage. 6. That should trees not be allowed in the right-of-way (by CalTrans) adjacent to Hwy 111, a revised landscape plan be reviewed by the AAC. 7. That the patio areas be reduced in size to create usable planter space within the courtyards. �... CASE 3.980 (MINOR). Application by PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for architectural approval of awning with signage for art gallery, 687 N. Palm Canyon Drive on southwest corner of Merito Place, C-1 Zone, Section 10. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.980. (Continued) Removed from the Agenda. ( Staff approval .) CASE 5.0380-CUP. Application by T. DOCZI for Security Pacific Bank for architectural approval of landscape plans for parking lot on Calle Ajo between Ramon Road/Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Abstention: Ealy Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Evergreen Ash be changed to Modesto Ash. 2. That (gold) decomposed granite be added as a accent ground cover. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS CASE 5.0385-PD-176. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Casa Verde Associates for environmental assessment to allow a planned development district construction of a 290 unit, 3-story apartment project with density bonus on Amado Road between Hermosa Drive/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director stated that the project is allowed by right of zone but is requesting additional density which the applicant is seeking as a density transfer from the existing Casa Verde project which is lower in density than by Indian zoning, and that specifics will be developed by staff for Commission review on February 26. He stated that there was a problem with the Public Hearing noticing, but that the project is on the agenda for environmental assessment because of a pressing deadline for the applicant. Planner (Williams) stated that 290 units are requested by the applicant and the zoning would allow 258, which is an 112/ increase and that there is no environmental impact of any importance except for that on the sewer system which will be mitigated by the assessment of an impact fee. Planning Director stated that the strategy is to collect a fee based on cost to upgrade the sewer system of approximately $200 per unit, and that the fee would be assessed on units above 8 units per acre. P. Selzer, attorney representing Casa Verde Associates, stated that the fee was negotiated for the entirety of Section 14 and other areas impacted by the increased density of Indian zoning in 1981, that the fee would be approximately $200 per unit in excess of 8 units per acre ., and that the original 10 acres of the parcel (of a total of 20 acres) was developed at less than right of zone density. He stated that the housing is needed for hotel workers required by additional hotel rooms being constructed in the City, and that the project has been encouraged by the Council and Commission and will be an asset to the Community. In reply to Chairman' s question regarding ownership, Mr. Selzer stated that Casa Verde Associates owns the master lease on the 20 acre parcel with individual units subleased. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0385. (Continued) Mr. A. Fornier, resident of Casa Verde, stated that he could prove that the buyers in the condominium complex were told verbally and in writing that the second phase would be a similar development to the first, and that the homeowners now have learned that another type of development is proposed. He stated he thought that he was paying $50 a month to the Indians although perhaps there is a sublease fee. He noted that there is unrest in the Casa Verde, and other condominium developments bordering Phase II and requested information on ways to voice opposition to the proposed project. Chairman stated that Mr. Fornier' s opposition was being voiced at the present meeting, could also be voiced again at the February 26 meeting, and that the homeowners within 400 feet will be sent notices of public hearing. Planning Director explained that staff is having a problem with the property owners list, and that the notices will be based on the assessor' s roles which may preclude recent buyers although persons con- tacting the Planning Division requesting notification will be notified. Chairman stated that the notice will be mailed the week of February 10. Mr. Fornier stated that it seemed to be short noticing to residents. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Selzer stated that there are four 5 `. acre parcels totally. He stated that originally the project was to be part of the original Casa Verde Project, but that the final public report indicated that there was no assurance that future phases would be built. He stated that the developers will be present at the homeowners meeting scheduled in the near future, to explain the proposed project. M/S/C (Lapham/Apf elbaum; Ealy/Kaptur/Neel abstained) ordering the pre- nfFebr 26,Draft Negative198 pl Declaration and continuing the/to aPa a public hearing on TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, The Tribal Council approved the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration with mitigation messures as recommended in Environ- mental Assessment/Initial study dated February 12, 1986. The Tribal Council noted that mitigation measures included the payment of a sewer surcharge to off-set impacts associated with densities greater that 8-units/acre. In a letter dated May 1, 1984 to Mayor Bogert, the Tribal Council concurred with the rationale for this sur- charge which affected Indian trust-lands and with the basis for computing such fee. This letter also recommended that the surcharge should be expanded to include other properties where land use changes may impact the sewer system, and inquired as to the status of a long- standing sewer fee known as the "street main second lateral charges." Responses to this recommendation and inquiry have not been received. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0391-CUP. Application by C. MILLS for M. Salem for environmental `�- assessment to allow a conditional use permit for a gasoline service station and retail store on the southeast corner of Saturnino Road/Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director explained that the project would be expedited by an environmental assessment in advance of the public hearing, which will be scheduled on February 26. Planner (Williams) explained the project and stated that discontinuation of the station requires mitigative measures including checking of under- ground gasoline tanks by the Fire Department and permits secured from the Southcoast Air Quality Management Control District prior to issuance of building permits. C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, the architect, stated that there are major conditions of staff that may not be appropriate although the conditions could be discussed on February 26, 1986. He explained that one of the conditions required by ordinance states that the service station be 700 square feet, which requires additional unneeded footage redesign of the site plan, and razing of the existing service stationwhich the client does not feel is appropriate since he plans extensive remodeling and upgrading of the station. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the conditions be addressed at the public hearing. M/S/C (Apf el baum/Curtis; Ealy abstained) ordering the filing of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to February 26. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as recommended in Environ- mental Assessment/Initial Study dated February 12, 1986. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TPM 18787 - REVISED. Application by MAINIERO SMITH ASSOCIATES for Golden West Equity Properties Inc. for approval of grading plan for map to allow commercial and industrial uses on the north side of Ramon Road on Gene Autry Trail to San Luis Rey, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Planning Director stated that the application was continued to the February 12 meeting because of Commission' s concern that there were pre- cedent setting characteristics of approving a grading plan without a development plan and also concerns about specific conditions. He stated that staff met with the City Engineer, and that it is difficult to ..., establish conditions when it is unknown what type of materials will be found on the old dump site and that staff' s recommendation is that AAC Conditions be implemented regarding softening of the line of the slope February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) TPM 18787 (Continued) although by the time the property develops there will probably be a new line. He stated that any area disturbed because of grading will be required to be restored and planted to reduce blowsand, that no grading shall occur until street improvements are begun, and that bonding is required for restorations of the site and off-site so that the property can be restored if the applicant does not complete the project. He stated that the applicant is waiting for the Air Quality Management Board's recommendations and engineering conditions will be finalized upon receipt of those recommendations. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that the bond will be in place prior to issuance of the grading plan and permit., and that also in reply to Commission' s question, that the applicant will limit the amount of grading and the site will be monitored by the City with explanation of the conditions at a pre-construction conference although the current grading plan may not be the final one. M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Neel; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) approving the grading plan subject to all recommendations of staff and the mitigation measures set forth in the soils studies prepared for this site. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.981 (Minor). Application by S. SHORR for architectural approval of new store front for gallery in the Desert Fashion Plaza at 123 N. Palm Canyon Drive, PD-147, Section 15. Planner (VanKeeken) presented the project and discussed the proposed sign. M/S/C (Neel/Lapham) approving the application subject to the following condition: That details of the sign be submitted for staff approval . CASE 3.960. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for architectural approval of revised elevations and revised site plan for existing shopping center (PS Mall ) on the southeast corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, CSC Zone, Section 13. Planner (Williams) described revisions undertaken by the architect since the plans were reviewed at the January 22 meeting, at which the Commission did not approve the former J.C. Penney Building. She stated that angles in the parking area have been softened and better circula- tion provided around the Walker Scott Building and revised landscape and parking areas detailed. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, explained the revisions to the Penney's building as a compromise between integration with the remainder of the mall and cost. He stated that plastering of the decorative panels cannot be done because of the shifting of buildings February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE ,3.960 (Continued) and the panels will be painted. He stated that an architect on the AAC stated that he felt the painting would be acceptable. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis) approving the revised elevations and revised site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site plan concept is approved; details to be submitted with the landscape plans. 2. That the fin wall on the parapet above the east canopy be widened to a minimum of twelve inches on the former J.C. Penney Building. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0317-PD-157. Application by JIMSAIR for Planning Commission review of conditions on carwash at airport fixed base operator on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 18. Planning Director stated that the Council referred the carwash condi- tions back to the Commission for clarification and questioned the reasoning for Commission action in not approving the carwash being open to the public. He stated that carwashes are not addressed in the zoning ordinance but are considered as a adjunct to service stations. He stated that in the subject proposal the carwash was in the application to service the car rental facilities at the fixed base operator. He stated that the "A" Zone is viewed somewhat industrial area by the Council , who feel that carwashes are probably not a problem in the zone. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the client desires the basic ability to wash cars of pilots leaving cars at the Jimsair facility, and that the Council did not have strong feelings about the proposal . He stated that the operation is limited and not of high speed, and this approval will eliminate the problem of who is allowed to wash his car and who is not. He stated that the carwash is unmanned, accommodates only one car at a time, and takes 7 to 8 minutes to cycle. Discussion ensued on the size of the operation. Planning Director stated that a larger operation could not be accommodated unless the building were enlarged. Commissioner Lapham questioned whether or not the building could be used as a manned handwash car facility. Mr. Christian stated that the building would have to be revised to operate a larger function. Commissioner Lapham stated that if a carwash is allowed there is nothing wrong with a manned operation. Mr. Christian stated that the facility is aviation-oriented and does not intend to have a major carwash operation. He stated, in reply to Commission' s question, that it is a necessary service for the car rental fleet and no major use by the public is anticipated. Chairman stated that the Commission disapproved the use for the public because it is viewed as an ancillary use and not permitted in the zone. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0317 (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Mr. Christian stated that the use is to remove constraints and avoid policing of the carwash and not for financial gain. Discussion ensued on advertising for the carwash. Planning Director stated that advertising was prohibited by the Commission in the recent case of a car rental agency in a hotel . He stated that Jimsair indicates there will be no major signing for the carwash. Commissioner Lapham stated that he could not see anything wrong with the carwash being open to the public since the area is industrial , and he has not seen any advertising for it. Mr. Christian reiterated that the facility is oriented toward aviation, not to carwash operation. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham; Ealy abstained) approving the carwash being open to the public subject to the following conditions: 1. That there be no signing for the carwash on Gene Autry Trail . 2. That a convenience sign is allowed on the interior of the complex only. 3. That there be no advertising of the carwash through the media to the general public. CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Application by E. DeBARTOLO, INC. for architectural approval of textured color coat for exposed concrete wall in outdoor cafe at Maxim' s Hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tahquitz Way/Andreas Road, CBD Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the AAC reviewed the wall in the field and had varying opinions although all felt that the Thoroseal coating in the parking structure was not the right material . He stated that various suggestions were made including painting the wall a rust color, and continuing the gray tile into the curving wall (which would be difficult and is a problem because the the installation is not of high quality) . He stated that the AAC architects felt a restudy is needed. T. Milner, representing DeBartolo, stated that he had planned to bring photographs showing the wall, but could not get them developed in time for the meeting; that DeBartolo wants the walls to blend with the rest of the building, and that they want to use a Thoroseal coating. He stated that a portion of the tile wall lips over into the fountain area which complicates tile installation; that the Pratt Hotel group wants the Thoroseal installed for the grand opening while alternatives are being considered, and that the accent color suggested is too bold. Commissioner Curtis stated that the wall should not be changed until the AAC gives input. He suggested a restudy or continuation for further review. Discussion ensued on DeBartolo tactics regarding restudies. Commissioner Lapham stated that DeBartolo will appeal to the Council on the restudy action. Mr. Milner stated that he is trying to follow the procedures. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0275 (Continued) Chairman questioned the Assistant City Attorney on possible actions. Assistant City Attorney stated that restudy has the effect of denial (without prejudice) and allows the applicant to bring the application back to the Commission, and can be appealed by the Council . He stated that another action would be to refer the proposal to the AAC for study. Mr. Milner stated that the Grand Opening is February 22. Planning Director stated that it could not go to the Council before that date even if appealed. Mr. Milner stated that the hotel will paint the wall and will remove the paint if that decision is made by the City, but that he wanted to bring the matter to the Commission's attention. Discussion followed on alternatives. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested that rust colored paint be considered. Planning Director stated the wall could be left alone or could be tiled. Mr. Milner stated that he had suggested painting but was overruled by the hotel architect. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) for a restudy of the wall to allow AAC review and input. DISCUSSION. Application by Planning Commission discussion of placement with- out the necessity of staff approval of sculpture in the sculpture garden between Maxim' s Hotel and the Desert Museum, CBD Zone, Section 15 (Ref. Case 5.0275-PD-147) . Planning Director stated that the discussion on the sculpture garden was initiated by a request for a Building Permit for a slab to place a large piece of sculpture. He stated that there are no conditions of approval on the sculpture garden, and that perhaps sometime the intent might have been to have approval for the sculpture. He stated that after reviewing the concept with other City agencies, staff' s recommendation would be for no review of the sculpture themselves and that only two works of sculpture have ever been reviewed in the City - one on the hillside because it is hillside and the statues in a local hotel fountain. He requested Commission direction and stated in reply to the Chairman' s question that there is no free speech doctrine involved. Discussion followed on Commission action. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the museum art director review the sculptures since sculpture chosen by a shopping center developer might not be tasteful . Planning Director stated that the DeBartolo organization is commissioning a sculptor to do original work for the garden. T. Milner, representing DeBartolo, stated that the organization has worked with the museum on a limited basis reqarding the sculpture garden, that the sculptor chosen by DeBarolo is one that the musuem directors have sought for many years, that the directors are negotiating with the artist (Woods Davy) for another sculpture which will be on display for several months after the hotel opening, and that the DeBartolo intent is to commission a sculpture a year for several years with the first being a major piece of art. He stated that DeBartolo works with art consultants and is involved with high quality art in its malls. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) DISCUSSION (Continued) Chairman stated that the Commissions only concern is proportion and size, and that the Commission does not review Desert Museum sculptures for its garden because they are not visible from the street. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) approving the concept of no formal review by the City of the sculpture to be placed in the sculpture garden. Commissioner Apfelbaum left the meeting briefly. CASE 3.947. Application by D. LYNCH for American Diversified Corp. for clarification of conditions on a 6-plex motion picture theater at 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle Segundo, C-1AA Zone, Section 14, (I.L. ) (Ref. Case 3.309 - Bank of Palm Springs Center) Chairman stated that he would abstain from the discussion. M/S/C (Curtis/Neal; Apf elbaum absent) tabling the case until the Vice- Chairman returned to the meeting. CASE 3.952 (REF. CASE 5.0135-PD-110 & TTM 16581). Application by D. MARTIN for architectural approval of 192 unit apartment complex on Sunrise Way between Racquet Club Road/Francis Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 2. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC made several suggestions including the fact that the project is deficient on the parking and that parking does not relate to the units. She stated that the AAC was also concerned about the long lineal roofline on the two story buildings. Commissioner Lapham questioned the long distance between the two-pool complex and the units. R. Wilcox, developer, Rancho Mirage, stated that the project is designed for ambulatory seniors 55 and older, and the design and amenities are similar to those of One Quail Place in Palm Desert. He stated that the project has 70% open space. Mr. Fassnacht project site planner, stated the type of project dictates the design, that it is a senior project which makes vehicular access in parking relationship to the building important, and that there are less cars, traffic and tripsinasenior project. He stated that perpendicular design in building orientation is avoided to allow for more landscaping and that the main open space recreational area are for residents and for _. the single family homes proposed adjacent to the senior complex. He said that the part: area is a community park for a small number of people and little parking is provided, that there are two pool areas, and that there are no amenities in the senior area to entice non- residents into the area. Planning Director stated that the AAC commented on the relationship of parking, open space, and buildings, and February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.952. (Continued) in several cases buildings which have a vista are on top of parking areas and should be changed, and because of pad differential between the pads of the buildings retaining walls may be necessary. He stated that north/south orientation of some buildings should be improved, that off- street parking is at a rigid 900 angle, that the parking should have a better relationship to the building, and that there will be drainage problems in some of the parking areas. He stated that the problems should be reviewed and resolved, and that the parking area (single loaded corridor) in the northwest corner parking area should be redesigned. He stated that the AAC recommended a restudy of the architecture for emphasis on horizontal elements, that the massing is acceptable, but that the two-story buildings require review, and that some of the two story buildings are too close to the street. Mr. Fassnachtstated that the buildings are skewed to the parking areas to allow for different types of landscape areas which would be changed if the parking were perpendicular. He stated that parking in the park area is limited to discourage heavy use of the park, but is provided at the insistance of the developer for residents of the complex who are several blocks away. He stated that single loaded driveways are not efficient but necessary to preserve a green belt and that double loaded parking would create a dead end parking lot. He explained in reply to Commission's question that the park is a neighborhood park but not restricted and is primarily for the apartment complex and the future single family homes. D. Levinson, architect, Orange, California, stated that the two story buildings have been developed for a number of years and have been successful , that large plants and trees will be used for landscaping to create a park like atmosphere for the apartment complex, and that the one story buildings have not been developed by the developer previously, but that there will be no straight line effect because of two-story buildings overlooking the one story elements, and that the AAC is con- cerned about the two story building design. He requested these buildings be left with their present design. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Wilcox stated that an internal security system will be provided. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur; Curtis abstained) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That a break in the roofline occur. 2. That glue-lams be used instead of rough-sawn lumber. 3. That the parking areas relate to the units. 4. That the metal cap flashing detail be deleted. (Use City Standard available in the Building Division. ) 5. That emphasis on the horizontal elements be increased. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.952. (Continued) 6. That the arch/window detail be reevaluated. Commissioner Apf elbaum returned to the meeting during discussion on Case 3.952. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.947. Application by D. LYNCH for American Diversified Corp. for clarification of conditions on a 6-plex motion picture theater at 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle Segundo, C-1AA Zone, Section 14, (I.L.) (Ref. Case 3.309 - Bank of Palm Springs Center) Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. M/S/C (Curtis/Apf elbaum) removing the application from the table. Planning Director stated that the project was reviewed at the January 15, 1986 study session but that the applicants are requesting a clarifi- cation of conditions. He stated that the consensus at the study session was that an building permit for the theater could be issued prior to finalizing plans for the Tahquitz-McCallum frontage, but that the plans should be finalized or work begun prior to theater occupancy. He stated that Mr. Lynch, the American Diversified Company representative, has indicated that the company wants to delay the remodel of the fascia until the marketing structure of the courtyard is determined as altered by the theaters. He explained that the company is concerned that requiring the remodeling of the fascia before the theater is occupied will cause the theater to not proceed. He stated that the company wishes to post a bond for the improvements to be completed after the theater is completed, and that staff has no concerns regarding the concept, but that studies and discussion should be undertaken prior to occupancy of the theater. He stated that the Commission should feel assured that the agreement is a mechanism that will ignite development of the revisions to the fascia. D. Lynch, American Diversified representative, stated that an equitable plan should be developed to allow occupancy of the theater before work is begun on the courtyard fascia since refusal of occupancy of the theater by the City will be a tremendous expense to the company, and that the theater lease could be lost. He stated that the company would work with the Commission and bring ideas and programs on the Courtyard to allow Commission input on the appearance of the revisions. He stated that both the revisions to the fascia and the theater will be addressed by the company, but not as parallel projects and that he had brought renderings to show the Commission and to create a dialogue. �-' Commissioner Lapham suggested that the renderings be given to the AAC for input before Commission review. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.947 (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Mr. Lynch stated that a bond would be posted to complete work on the fascia revisions within six months from the date of theater occupancy because the center will change in the type of patrons to whom it appeals. Planning Director stated that the Commission should look at the renderings for direction and then refer them to the AAC. P. Thrane, American Diversified architect, stated that the long lineal effect of the fascia is a problem and will be resolved as a change of tenants occurs and a final marketing report given. He stated that the revisions depicted in the renderings will change the appearance from commercial to retail , that the colors could be flexible, and that the lineal look will be broken by bays. He stated that the corner detailing will have similar lines in metal or stucco and that another suggestion would be to delineate the lines with neon for sparkle. He stated that the proposed revisions would make the lineal facade more vertical in appearance. Commissioner Lapham informed the applicant that staff and the AAC should review the concept and also informed him that neon is no longer allowed in Palm Springs. ..� Discussion ensued on the proposed revisions. Mr. Thrane. stated that the materials will be dictated by further study and that the revisions should not appear as "add ons" . Commissioner Curtis stated that he had thought that the revisions would indicate interfacing of the theater with the shopping center, but that the only proposal is for the fascia and that the AAC needs to review the submission. Mr. Thrane stated that the existing facade would be retained on the back of the building. Planning Director stated at Commission request that the rendering should be given to staff for review of the design issues. He asked if the concept of a mechanism triggering remodel plan approval prior to occupancy of the theaters in lieu of the actual construction were acceptable to the Commission. He stated that if the proposed design were approved, it would have to include the entire structure for inte- gration, but that the design does not integrate with the theaters. He stated that staff recommends that there be Commission action on the issue of the improvements and the time table, and that the issue is bonding in lieu of delaying occupancy of the theater with the approval of revisions before theater occupancy. Commissioner Lapham stated that it is difficult to have to know the cost of bonding if the revisions are not approved. Mr. Lynch stated that the bond would be a performance bond (not a bond for the amount of improvements) of approximately $30,000 for six months to allow the marketing study to be completed, and to give a history of the theater usage. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 Y MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.947 (Continued) Planning Director stated that there would be no problem with allowing a performance bond of $30,000, and that the Commission needs to see the nature of the solution prior to occupancy of the theaters. Mr. Lynch stated that the company has a large investment in the center and requested help and direction from the Commission. In reply to Commission's question, Assistant City Attorney stated that a performance bond is an acceptable method of addressing the situation with the details to be resolved at the City Attorney' s Office and the Planning Division. Commissioner Apfelbaum commented that the design has some possibilities if carried around the building. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Ealy/Kaptur/Madsen abstained) approving the following per staff recommendations: 1. That the frontage revisions be approved prior to theater occupancy. 2. That a performance bond be posted for completion of the revisions to the fascia prior to occupancy of the theaters. CASE 3.866. Application by HERSHEL'S for architectural approval of identifi- cation sign and landscape plan for a restaurant at 2555 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 25. (Desert Isle. ) Planner (Williams) presented the project and stated that the sign concerns have been addressed (letterswill be flush with the fascia), and that the AAC recommended approval of the landscaping subject to conditions. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum) approving the sign as submitted and approving the landscape subject to the following conditions: 1. That all palms be increased in size as noted on the plans. 2. The vines be aded to the north elevations (Caliandria-"Pink Powder Puff") . 3. That landscape be added for screening of refuse area details to be approved by staff) . 4. That Crepe Myrtle be changed in the parking area to Ficus Retusa, and the remaining Crepe Myrthle to multi-trunked. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0352-PD-166. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for National Capital Development Corporation for architectural approval of final development plans for 114 room hotel on Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Chuckwalla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) continuing the application to February 26. CASE 7.617-AMM. Application by A. COLER for architectural approval of revised plans for a two story addition to a single family residence at 457 Hermosa Place, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the revisions have addressed Commission concerns and have clean line of Spanish influence (Presidio Spanish) . M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all colors, materials, etc. match the existing. TTM 18126 (REF. CASE 3.439) . Application by J. CAIN for a 12 month time extension on map for condominium purposes on Vista Chino between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-G-A(6) Zone, Section 12. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Ealy/Madsen abstained) approving a twelve month time extension for TTM 18126 subject to all original conditions of approval with the new expiration date to be January 20, 1987. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 2.558. Application by G. MONTGOMERY for a twelve month time extension for a single family hillside residence on Cahuilla Hills Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. Planning Director stated that the request is the first for an extension of an old architectural approval case, and that the AAC recommended approval subject to conditions. He stated that Mr. Montgomery may not proceed with the application, that perimeter retaining walls are built and that he hopes to sell the property. Discussion ensued on the appearance of the site. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the structure was proposed some years ago, and now is in a state of ruin and questioned whether or not it could be abated. He stated that if he lived in the area he would be unhappy with the appearance of the lot, and that the City forced Bob Hope to rebuild his burned out structure in the past. Planning Director stated that the condition of the property could be reviewed and that there was a clause in the non-conforming section of the Ordinance regarding abatement of uncompleted buildings with a six month work stoppage. Commissioner Kaptur stated that allowing the structure to remain as a ruin is not a good example and is precedent setting. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) TIME EXTENSION - CASE 2.558 Planning Director stated that the slab for the tennis court for the property has been poured. Commission consensus was that the site should be reviewed in the field. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) continuing the application to February 26 to allow individual Commission members to review the site in the field. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0231-PD-139. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a 12 month time extension for a 12 month time extension for three affordable housing projects on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/extension of Tramview Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 34. Planning Director stated that the applicant requests a time extension to continue arrangements for financing of the project. M/S/C (Ealy/Lapham) for a 12-month time extension for Planned Develop- ment District 139 subject to all original conditions of approval , with the new expiration date to be February 2, 1987. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted `-' must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.884 (Minor). Application by D. WEXLER for architectural approval of revised plans for baggage area at Palm Springs Municipal Airport, "A" Zone, Section 13. Planning Director explained that the addition will be another baggage processing area for the airport and will define the access to the car rental agencies by adding new car rental space and enclosing the area. He stated that the space consultant recommended closure of the area and airport officials feel that the area is cold, windy, and noisy. He stated that the addition resembles the existing building. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the baggage area is the only area of the airport that looks like Palm Springs. Planning Director stated that Council was told by staff that the open area is characteristic of the City, but the Council agreed to the revisions. Commissioners Apfelbaum and Chairman also stated that they were sorry the area was being enclosed. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Apfelbaum/Kaptur/Madsen dissented) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the colors, materials, and details match the existing. February 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update on City Council Actions. - Discussion. Commission/AAC/Council relations. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the relationship existing among the three bodies. The consensus was that more communication is necessary when large projects are in the processing stage, and also consistency in decisions is required so that the City agencies and the developers are working toward the same goals with the same understanding regarding important matters affecting the projects. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. NNING D R MDR/ml WP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 26, 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 15 0 Hugh Curtis X 15 0 Hugh Kaptur X 13 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 14 1 Larry Lapham X 15 0 Curt Ealy X 10 0 Earl Neel X 6 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Doug Evans, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - February 24, 1986 William Johnson Absent: Jim 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 (Apfelabaum/Kaptur) approving minutes of February 12, 1986, as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman informed the audience that TPM 20167 (Agenda Item #4) would be continued at the request of the applicant to March 12, 1986, but that anyone who could not attend the March 12 meeting could give testimony. (Several members of the audience indicated that they would return to the March 12 meeting to give testimony. )