Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/02/26 - MINUTES 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.) February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA L..� 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/Kaptur; Lapham absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.616 (Continued). Application by J.M. PETERS COMPANY for architectural approval of revised landscape and exterior lighting plans for a 240 unit condominum project on E1 Cielo Road between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, R-2 Zone, Section 13. Removed from the agenda (staff approval ). SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BANNING SIGNS for architectural approval of a revised main identification sign for Fountain Hotel at 1777 North Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1/R-3 Zones, Section 3. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the grout colors match one of three used in the sign. 2. That the blue band be deleted. 3. That sections, details and dimensions be reviewed by staff. CASE 3.994-HOA. Application by SUNRISE EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for C. Rickets for architectural approval of patio enclosure, wall, and sky- light at 2490 Oakcrest Drive in Sunrise East condominium complex, R-1-C Zone, Section 24. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wall be all slump stone with cap. 2. That landscaping be planted on the outside of the wall with plant material to be approved by staff. 3. That the wall color match the unit. CASE 7.626-AMM. Application by I. GREEN for architectural approval of expansion of a second story in an existing single family residence at 4215 Santa Rosa, R-1- A Zone, Section 15. Continued to March 12 at applicant' s request. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 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 5.0352-PD-166. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for National Capital Development orpor a ion for architectural approval of final development plans for 105 room hotel on Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Chuckwalla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Neel ; Lapham absent; Ealy and Kaptur abstained) to table the item until later in the meeting. Commissioner Lapham came to the meeting. CASE 3.645. Application by HELTZER ENTERPRISES for architectural approval of concrete bumper stops for condominium complex on Golf Club Drive between Cree Road/E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. Planning Director stated that the curb stops were installed by an out- of-town development company, but that the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance requires 6" continuous curb stops, and that the AAC also recommended that the stops be removed. He stated that curb stops have been allowed only in specific instances, such as near light standards; and that the curbs in the project meet Code requirements. C. Rollins, Director of Operations for Heltzer Enterprises, explained that the company feels that the bumper stops are a bonus for the project, and that the Ordinance does not specifically exclude the stops, that they are advantageous, and that the Homeowner' s Association will maintain them. He requested that the installation be approved and stated that the stops were installed by the developer. He reiterated that the Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit the stops, that the Ordinance is difficult to understand, and that the people do not park cars all the way to a curb. Chairman commented that the striping could be extended to the curb to show the parking area. Mr. Rollins stated that the cars get sprayed by irrigation water if parked at the curb. At the request of Commission, Assistant City Attorney read Section 9306.00.C.2.d of the Zoning Ordinance, indicating that concrete curbs shall be "continuous" (operative word) . Planning Director explained that because of penetration of the asphalt by spikes required to install the stops, water seepage occurs and deteriorates the pavement, and also that trash collects around the stops. He reiterated that they have been allowed only infrequently. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 3.645 (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur commented that the Ordinance was designed to elimi- nate the temporary appearance of the bumper stops, thus making parking lots appear more permanent, and that approval might set a precedent. M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Kaptur) denying the application for bumper stops. CASE 3.944 (Minor) . Application by R. VALENTINE for remodel of hotel located at 2095 N. Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Planner (Williams) presented the application stating that it was an extensive remodel of an old hotel on the southwest corner of North Indian Avenue and Via Escuela. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ) approving the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the glu-lams to be Douglas Fir. 2. That fiberglass inserts or pots be incorporated into the roof top planter. 3. That landscaping be increased along the west elevation. 4. That the west elevation be restudied (sun control/architectural elements needed) and submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. 5. That canopy details and sign details be submitted for review. 6. That the parapet be straightened on north elevation at entrance. 7. That the south drive area be eliminated. (Details to be reviewed by AAC and Planning Commission. ) 8. That working drawings to be reviewed by AAC. 9. That detailed landscape and exterior lighting plans be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. 10. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0385-PD-176 (Continued). Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Casa Verde Associates for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a 290-unit, 3 story apartment complex including density transfer on Amado Road between Hermosa Drive/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone, (I.L.), Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; order for filing; final approval . ) February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) ... Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration, and give final approval , subject to conditions. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC recommended approval , subject to conditions, that there had been a number of complaints received by phone and mail regarding affordable housing, apartments, and the three-story height. She stated that 258-units and the three-story height could be allowed by right-of-zone. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council requested a continuance to review the plans. Chairman declared the hearing open. P. Selzer, attorney of Best, Best and Krieger, 600 East Tahquitz, representing Casa Verde Associates, stated that the property is zoned for apartments, 258-units can be built by right-of-zone and that no density bonus has been requested. He stated that the project is entitled, by State law, to a bonus of up to 25% in density above the zoning allowance and that a density bonus is neither properly attribut- able, nor of interest to the applicant. He stated that 290 units would be in the best interest of everyone, and that the project would be of high-quality, if allowed to respond to the market rather than restricted and governed by City requirements. He stated that the applicant owns the adjacent 10-acre Casa Verde project which has only 160 units, although 258 were allowed. He stated that the applicant is requesting a density transfer from the original Casa Verde project to the subject project because the applicant owns the master lease on the two parcels, and there is a basis in law for allowing the density transfer. He stated that because 1,000 hotel rooms are being constructed or have been constructed in the area, hotel workers are needed and the location is ideal to house them and eliminate or reduce traffic, noise and pollu- tion; because the service workers can walk to work. He stated that artificial standards would deteriorate the quality of the project, and that the applicant can build 258 units, if there is a substantial market for two-bedroom units, but that the flexibility of 290 is desired with- out State or City review. He stated that the application will be with- drawn and re-submitted at 258 units under an architectural application, if the Commission decides that a density bonus is required. Commissioner Curtis stated that he had no concerns about the number of units or the density transfer, but was concerned about the location chosen for the type of housing, since there are areas in the norther part of the City where developers are currently trying to develop this type of project. He stated that many people feel that Section 14 is not desirable to have this type of housing because of traffic problems generated by lower- and moderate-income housing. Mr. Selzer responded that the apartment project is allowed by right-of- zone and the Commission does not have the option for denial , unless there are design problems. He stated that the Commission can also determine that 258 units are allowable, but that the Commission has no �' legal ability to disapprove the project. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) Mr. Selzer stated : that the project is in an R-4 Zone, can be three- story, and can have 290 units by law. He stated that the true issue is whether or not the Commission wishes to address the density transfer. Commissioner Curtis asked if Mr. Selzer were correct in stating that the project could not be disapproved because of the type of project. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission can vote their consciences, but that Mr. Selzer is correct, since the City Council has already determined the appropriate area for development of the housing type proposed; and that the type of construction (apartments or condos) is not the issue before the Commission. He stated that the price of the condos and rent are also not before the Commission. Mr. Selzer stated that the applicant is trying to avoid "low- and moderate-income housing" designation by requesting a density transfer; and that the application would be withdrawn, if the designation were approved, and then the project would be re-submitted at 258 units. He stated that the transfer would be from the adjacent 10-acre site built to R-G-A(8) standards (Casa Verde) . Planning Director explained that the density transfer mechanism has never been applied in a case such as the proposed one on another existing project; that the applicant originally requested mortgage revenue bonds; and that staff has a problem with transferring density from an existing development, and problems with the General Plan. He stated that, if a density bonus were allowed, the rents would be $230 to $300 a month for the bonus units, but that the applicant is requesting a density transfer so that reporting would be avoided. He stated that the difficulty with the density transfer is that both projects were not approved at the beginning of the proposal; and that the density bonus is a more appropriate mechanism. Mr. Selzer stated that City assistance was discussed at the inception of the proposal , but there is more flexibility to find private financing, if a density transfer is allowed. He stated that the General Plan shows the density proposed and that nothing is affected by the transfer of density. He stated that the fact the applicant built a project of less density is the bonus, and that there is no benefit to anyone in the density bonus. He asked whether or not the homeowners in Casa Verde would rather have a mandated moderate-income project adjacent to theirs, or if the City wants to mandate 258 units, but be less able to meet the needs of the people. Chairman stated that in density bonuses the City has received benefits, such as additional open space, and open space would be provided, if the project were 258 units. He stated that he saw no benefit to a density transfer. Mr. Selzer replied that there is a need to accommodate hotel workers, and a project close to hotels will generate less air pollution and traffic because the workers could walk to their jobs. Chairman declared the hearing open. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) R. Friedman, 407 Calle Rolf and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, stated that the rents would be in the range of $500 to $600 a month, one-third of the apartments would be furnished, and that the rent schedule is approximate until actual costs are determined. He stated that there will be an onsite apartment manager, an assistant manager, a hostess, and a maintenance staff; and that regulations, including that of the number of persons occupying an apartment would be enforced by the manager. He stated that an onsite manager is the best security; that social activities are also planned; and the amenity package would he the top priority in attracting people to the City. He stated that =.programs such as the ones proposed are in existence in other complexes the company has built; and is a second business activity besides develop- ment. R. McCroskery, architect of Kaptur and Cioffi, stated that the architects concur with staff and AAC recommendations. He stated that the buildings are somewhat different, but are architecturally approxi- mately the same. The following persons spoke in opposition: Mrs. R. Zemel , neighboring resident, spoke to the lack of pools, fear of persons "invading" her pool area, and the amount of cars, since the people might not walk to work. Chairman explained that the reason zoning exists is for prospective buyers to know what can be built in their neighborhood, and that R-4 zoning allows hotels, apartments and condominiums. He stated that the zoning was changed by the City council in 1981 at the request of the Tribal Council, although the Commission opposed it. R. Feingold, 216 N. Hermosa Drive (Palm Regency Condominiums) stated that individuals own the Casa Verde complex (not the applicant) , that there is no legality in the transfer of density, that wall-to-wall construction would result and is not pleasing, that he was living in the City when the zoning was changed to R-4, that the application is a breach of contract, since the Casa Verde property owners were told by Mr. Friedman that condos would be built similar to the Casa Verde and the Greenhouse East; and that a brochure given to prospective buyers indicates this. He stated that amenities were promised which were never built; and that if the City aids the Friedman project, the City will be participating in an interference of contract; and that the Casa Verde residents and the Palm Regency residents have a right to file an injunc- tion because of misrepresentation by the applicant. He stated that the applicant has no choice but to construct 160 condos on East Hermosa, 4 tennis courts, and 4 swimming pools. He stated that he is a lawyer and would not hesitate to bring an injunction. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission is not a party to the contract referred to by Mr. Feingold and would not consider that aspect in its decision making. He stated that Mr. Feingold could bring suit, if he desired, but that it would not be discussed. Mr. Feingold suggested that the matter be reported to the City's counsel . February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) A. Fournier, 351 North Hermosa (Casa Verde) , stated that he and others did not receive public hearing notices in the Casa Verde complex, that when Casa Verde was not selling well a campaign was started to rent the condos which was not successful , that there was no logic in building apartments that rent from $500 to $600 a month, and that they probably would not be rented. He stated that the proposal has nothing to do with the Casa Verde complex. He stated that at a recent Casa Verde homeowner's meeting, heated discussion took place and a resolution formulated to present to the Commission and Council in opposition to the proposal . He stated that the resolution indicates that the majority of the homeowners disapprove of the proposal , and that Mr. Friedman, who was present at the meeting, abstained. Chairman stated that the opposition to apartments indicated by the home- owners is not a planning issue at this time, since apartments are proper in the zone. Planning Director stated that perhaps some of the residents were not notified because the notification list was taken from the most current assessor' s records, and that at the February 12 meeting homeowners were asked to sign a paper, if they were afraid of not being notified, but that no one signed the paper, and that it seemed people were told, since many persons are in attendance. He stated that, although some residents felt that noticing time was short, the notices were mailed pursuant to State law requirements and were sent to the most current assessor' s list (as of early 1985) . Mr. Fournier stated that there was misrepresentation on the part of the developer to the persons buying in the Casa Verde complex, and that the homeowners will fight the project in court. Mrs. M. Haber, 1461 E. Amado, stated that the developer does not have the best interests of Palm Springs at heart, that Commissioner Kaptur must feel the same way, that the zoning should be changed, and that at one time no three-story height was allowed in Palm Springs. Chairman stated that there was a change of zone before the Palm Regency Condos were constructed and many hearings and notices were in the paper regarding the Indian-proposed zoning. Mrs. Haber stated that she did not know about the Indian zoning and that the people in the apartments are not the type who will shop at the stores in the nearby Desert Fashion Plaza. Chairman suggested that Mrs. Haber ask the Council about a zone change, but that the Indians will not approve down zoning (less density). Mrs. Haber stated that she would appreciate any help that could be given regarding a zone change. S. Schwartz, 1240 East Andreas, stated that the Commission loves the City and wants it to be beautiful , and that the proposal , if built, would be a tenement which will de-value the adjacent property, lower taxes. He stated he felt that the City should grow in the right direction. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) Chairman stated that the tax increase or decrease is not an issue of the ..: Planning Commission, although the City Council would be interested in it. P. Stevens, 1150 East Amado (Casa Verde), stated that he had seen the brochure proposing future development enlarged as a wall display by the applicant. He stated that the proposal is relatively low-cost housing and will lower prices of the Casa Verde units. Chairman stated that the City subsidizes (on a density bonus) up to a certain rent and would, in this case, subsidize $250 of a $500 rental . Mr. Stevens stated that he felt that the type of persons in the apart- ment would be of the $250 a month type, and he did not see the obliga- tion of the City to help the hotel workers. He asked the Commission to consider the proximity of the Fashion Plaza to the proposal and to consider the City itself and the quality of life. He stated that the original brochure referred to luxury shops and amenities in the area, and that a tenement is proposed. He stated that the pertinent issue is quality. Mrs. A. Gillespie, 353 North Hermosa (Casa Verde) , stated that she is a teacher at the Palm Springs High School and was told that her condo would appreciate $6000 because of the proposed condominium units across the street, and that she had lived in an apartment previously which had constant police and fire calls because of its residents. She questioned responsibility for providing these services and also stated that Hermosa is narrow, although proposed to be widened. She stated that there will be traffic, noise, and pollution generated by the proposal . She noted that a mix of renters who work at the hotels and residents of Casa Verde would not be compatible. Mrs. A. Abramowitz, resident of the Palm Regency, stated that the appli- cant is speaking of working people living in the apartments and will plan field trips and social engagements. She stated that she wondered when they would work. N. Haber, 1461 East Amado (Palm Regency), stated that the Planning Commission can apply pressure, and that the Commission disapproved a three-story building in the past. Chairman stated that the zoning is R-4 which allows three-story height. Mr. Haber replied that the units are residential and asked whether or not two-car parking is required. Planning Director stated that parking count is based on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Haber stated that there will be almost two acres of parking, and questioned whether or not the Commission would want the project across the street from its own homes. P. Selzer (rebuttal ) stated that Mr. Feingold indicated that the appli- cant does not have the same interests as the surrounding condominium February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) residents, but that the applicant has the master lease on the property, that the adjacent property will be subleased, and that interests are exactly the same on both sides of the property. He stated, in regard to misrepresentation, that when Casa Verde was built, 320 units were proposed, but that the condominium market collapsed through over- building. Regarding property values, he stated that the applicant feels that additional condominiums would further depress the value of the units in the area (which has happened to a recent condominium develop- ment in Section 14) . He stated that the applicant is convinced that there is a market for apartments, and that the Casa Verde units proposed for rental were in fact rented. Regarding the character of the neigh- borhood, he stated that the neighborhood has been changed by a conven- tion center and a proposed 400-room hotel less than two blocks away from Casa Verde. He stated that the type of people involved will be working in places such as the Desert Fashion Plaza; and that the people who serve the visitors need housing and the proposal will accommodate their needs. In conclusion, he stated that the Commission should focus on the issues of design and the density transfer, that the applicant requests a density transfer, and that the proposal benefits the City, the devel- oper, and the property owner. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Selzer stated that State law provides up to a 25% density bonus, if the developer dedicates the density bonus units to low- and moderate-income provisions, that the units would be set aside, and the City would dictate the rent. He stated that the applicant' s position is that under the density transfer (because the applicant owns the underlying lease), the same goal could be accomplished, and that the market is in apartments. He stated that in a density transfer there would be 290 units, but no "low- and moderate-housing" stigma attached; and that the market would indicate the amount of rent. He explained that the applicant would withdraw the application, if the density transfer is denied; and will build 258 one- and two-bedroom units by right-of-zone. He stated that the number of bedrooms and baths would not be changed if the 258 units are built. Commissioner Curtis stated that he was worried about the possibility of a slum in the middle of town, if there were not proper controls. He stated that in other cities several people with cars, bikes, etc., crowd into an apartment, and share the rent which creates undesirable situa- tions for the neighbors. Mr. Friedman replied that in other units managed by the company local law enforcement officials are used to control problems. He stated that the goal is to provide a quality apartment project, that leases provide for the number of people occupying an apartment, and that eviction depends on local ordinances. Mr. Selzer stated that each purchaser in Casa Verde signed the public report which indicates that there is no assurance that a future phase would be built. He stated that the amenities (pools and tennis courts) `... were built as committed. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman summarized the issues as follows: 1. Environmental assessment. 2. Architecture. 3. Density transfer or bonus. Commissioner Lapham informed the audience that, if it were not for the fact that the applicant is proposing 290 units, 258 units could be built as a right-of-zone without a public hearing, and that the Commission would be addressing design only. He stated that staff and applicant disagree on whether or not the mechanism for the number of units should be a density bonus or density transfer, but that the apartments will probably be built in any case. He stated that the courts are open to the people in opposition to the project, and that he had no concerns with the architecture, although the parking lot could be upgraded. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the architecture is a good example of regional architecture. Planning Director stated that the environmental assessment has been prepared with the sewer impacts mitigated and the bulk, height, and L setbacks have no impact. He stated that if the Planned Development District were approved, the architectural elements would be in the motion, and that, if the applicant withdrew the application and re- submitted it at lesser density, the project could be developed by right- of-zone with an internal reconfiguration of floor plans limiting units, adding open space, and with some reduction in parking requirements. He recommended that the density issue be addressed, and stated that staff would not recommend a density transfer because the City could receive a significant gain if a density bonus were allowed. Chairman stated that the project will not cause environmental problems that cannot be mitigated. M/S/C (Lapham/Apfelbaum; Ealy, Kaptur, Neel abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration. M/S/C (Lapham/Apfelbaum; Ealy, Kaptur, Neel abstained) approving the architecture, subject to the following conditions: 1. That details and plans of accessory structures be submitted. 2. That interior walkways be redesigned to eliminate rigidness (meander or add center planters) . 3. That shade control/overhangs to be developed on unprotected windows. 4. That the tree canopy throughout the parking area be increased. (Suggest a spacing of one tree per 3 parking spaces. ) February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) 5. That the pull-out on Amado be deleted. 6. That planters be added around laundry building. 7. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that there is nothing in the Ordinance regarding density transfers and that the City Attorney' s office would recommend that the density transfer be studied to see if it is allowed, and to determine ownership of the parcels since density cannot be transferred to a parcel not owned by the person proposing the density transfer. He stated also that the ramifi- cations of Indian ownership would have to be reviewed. Planning Director stated that no density transfer has been considered formally, but was discussed as a technique to obtain open space. Commissioner Lapham stated that the Tribal Council requests that the application be continued. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council wants to review the plan. He stated that staff was not com- fortable with the density transfer because the project was not designed originally to include it. He suggested that the application be continued for the applicant' s response. Mr. Friedman stated that he was not seeking a density bonus, but wanted to hear the comments of the neighbors and was prepared to withdraw the application as a Planned Development District. Assistant City Attorney stated that the applicant can withdraw the application and request no action until resubmittal of the application after it is amended. He stated that the application would be withdrawn through the Planning Division, that the Commission actions taken have been taken, but the applicant is not obligated to go further. He suggested that the item be continued to March 12 and noted as a with- drawn application. M/S/C (Lapham/Apfelbaum; Ealy, Kaptur, Neel abstained) continuing the application to March 12. NOTE: The two Planning Commission actions taken prior to the con- tinuance are continued to March 12, for the applicant to withdraw the ap- plication. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS The Tribal Council , at its meeting of February 11, 1986, approved the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as recommended in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated February 12, 1986. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Coucil took the following actions: ..., 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued) 2. Deferred action on the Planned Development District pending further review of the site development plan, including its compatibility with area development. 3. Requested that the City Planning Commission continue this Case to its regularly scheduled meeting of March 12, 1986. CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued) . Application by C. MILLS for M. Salem for a conditional use permit to allow a gasoline service station and retail store on the southeast corner of Saturnino Road/Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; order for filing; final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the application, subject to conditions. Planner (Williams) presented the case. She stated that the convenience store is in another building separate from the gas station, that the CUP was granted in 1959 and the station abandoned in 1984 which requires a CUP for reactivation, and that it is a new project. She stated that staff has concerns about the site circulation and zoning standards, that the site is 16,000 sq. ft. (Ordinance requires 20,000 sq. ft.) and is a portion of the overall larger site. She stated that a 750 sq. ft building is required for a service station, but that the present build- ing is only 415 sq. ft., and that the City Council has indicated that a use as part of a service station complexshould be auto-related not a convenience market, that landscaping will be added as part of the upgrade, and that because of the long-term nature and aesthetics, a re-design of the service station portion should be considered. She stated that an environmental assessment was prepared and that the AAC recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairman stated that the City Council does not want a convenience store in conjunction with a service station, but that the zoning is C-2 and the store could be there by right-of-zone. Planner stated that, even though it is in a separate building, it is a convenience market and in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance which prohibits combined convenience store and auto service station use. Planning Director stated that a retail store/food service would normally be allowed by right-of-zone, but it is a unique parcel and perhaps the application should be a Planned Development District. He stated that it is not a normal freestanding site for a service station and mini-market, that it is a parcel of which the proposal is a lesser portion with a restaurant and a retail (paint) store on the leasehold site of the gas station which makes it a unique situation. He stated that the Director of Community Development feels that once a mini-market is allowed the intent of the Council would be breached and other applications for the type of use would be submitted. He stated that the Council is adamant about the two subject uses not being on the same property and associated with each other. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued) Planning Director stated that staff recommends that the service station �•.�' be redesigned because of the upgrading of the area in general , that Indian Avenue is being upgraded from a parking lot appearance the circulation of the site needs improvement, and the building shou)d be updated to a 1980's appearance. He stated that cars are parked abutting the sidewalk and that the landscaping is in the public right-of-way, and that with a creative re-design of the site, cars could be removed from Indian Avenue, a low-profile monument sign designed and additional land- scaping used without sacrificing the site. He stated that in long-range planning the C-B-D Zone with its higher standards will be extended, possibly in two years, easterly to Calle Encilia, and that in the C-B-D Zones service stations are not allowed. He noted that staff recommends adding a condition that the CUP be in effect for only ten years with review of the use at the end of that time. He stated that other build- ings which are also marginal on the site are on a 15 year lease. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the aban- doned property will have major upgrading, including landscaping, that the site plan is not inappropriate for the area, since there is no service station in Palm Springs that is not oriented as the subject station is, (except that it is too close to the property line) which will be resolved by landscaping, and that reversing the orientation with the pumps in the back is not viable at a minor intersection. He stated that the two structures (service station and convenience market) are operated separately and that he felt that the City Council was objecting to a "Circle K" type of operation with gas pumps, and that the use is not in conflict with the Ordinance. He stated that razing the service station and rebuilding it is not economically feasible for the appli- cant, and that the applicant does not want to adhere to staff conditions #6 and #7 (site and building re-design) . He stated that the area of expansion could be better utilized as a planter and that there is an adjacent storage area which is sufficient for the storage of gasoline- related products. Chairman stated that in the Shell station remodel for example, the 750 sq. ft. requirement was a compromise between the Ordinance provisions and staff recommendations, and that the Commission felt that to avoid tiny buildings a 750 sq. ft. size would be appropriate. Mr. Mills stated that the sign is located south of the entry drive as a continua- tion of the existing wall . He stated that the colors have not been discussed. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested sandblasted wood for the sign. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he did not know of any gasoline company that has colors that would match the colors the applicant is proposing for the gasoline station. Planning Director stated in response to a question that the C-D-N Zone allows integration of service stations, that the service station had been closed for a long period of time which requires a CUP to reopen, and if the station had continued to operate, there would have been a problem of conversion of an auto-related to non-auto-related use. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued) Mr. Mills stated that the applications were submitted originally as °-� separate applications. Planning Director stated that the site is less than 20,000 sq. ft. , that the Commission review an Ordinance which addressed service station proposals without three or four bays and which have limited impact, but opted for larger buildings. He stated that perhaps an alternative in processing could be discussed after the public hearing. M. Salem, applicant, 1485 Avenida Caballeros, stated that the intent is to upgrade the station and comply with all City requirements within economic limitations. He stated that there is no need for more than 400 sq. ft. because the station will be self-service, has a storage room, and will not have a service bay area. He stated that there has been no impact from the previous station use on the site, and that the site plan cannot be changed because of underground installations. He stated that it will not be economically feasible if the site is reversed, that staff had no problems with the convenience store because of two different businesses, and that the convenience store would be a bonus to the gas station because of improved appearance and landscaping. He requested approval and stated that he had a 30-year lease (15-year lease with an option for 15 years) , and that the present paint store has a 15-year lease. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had no problem with the convenience market, but had concerns about the site plan, that if it were a temporary condition, a remodel would be acceptable, but with a long-term condition, the site plan should be redesigned with the building brought forward and the pumps placed behind. Planning Director stated that if the site were re-zoned C-B-D an amortization program would go into effect for abatement in 10 years with hearings held to extend the use, but that the use could be allowed by the Commission with a time limit. Discussion - site plan revisions. Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not believe the gas station is marketable, if the pumps cannot be seen. Planning Director stated that the staff recommendations evolved because of the inefficiencies of the site, the outdated width of the driveway, and two owners who could differ on maintenance. He stated that the building could be angled to create a triangular landscape area in the corner, and that the pumps and buildings would have to be moved, but possibly not the tanks. Commissioner Lapham commented that a complete revision of the site for only 10 years of operation is not viable. Planning Director stated that perhaps the time period should be 15 years, but that a non-conforming use, for example, is amortized over 10 years, and that the Director of Community Development advised that a non-automotive retail function is not acceptable. He stated that perhaps the application should be a Planned Development District and reviewed on that basis, although the Council would not approve a mini- market. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur stated that there is a new gas station on Monterey and Country Club which is not visible, but seems to be busy. He stated that the type of building proposed for the subject application will probably be metal which has nominal cost, and that landscaping on Indian is a good idea. Chairman stated that for a short-term use there is no problem with a remodel , but for a long-term use the site plan should be upgraded to standards. Planning Director stated that, if the Commission wishes to keep the multi-use, the application should be re-noticed as a Planned Development District and include the entirety of the property, or that the Commis- sion could approve a CUP with the condition that the use remain as automotive with a time limit. Mr. Mills stated that action could be taken on the service station (excluding the convenience market) . Chairman stated that conditions #6 and #7 should be supported, if the use is long-term, but that he had no problem with a minor remodel and a review at the end of 10 years. Mr. Salem stated that a CUP would be acceptable and that his initial lease period is 15 years. Mr. Mills suggested as a compromise between a new structure and buffer- ing on Indian, that the furthest bay to the west be eliminated and the area landscaped. He stated that the pumps would be accessible only from one side. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission is required to review a Planned Development District application because the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are requirements (not suggestions), and that the lot and building sizes are too small . He stated that the application cannot meet requirements of the Ordinance under a CUP, and that the CUP application could be denied without prejudice, and the applicant could re-submit a PD application without a filing fee. M/S (Lapham/Apfelbaum; Ealy abstained) requesting that the applicant withdraw the CUP and re-apply under a Planned Development District application. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the wording "request" be changed to "require". Commissioner Lapham withdrew the motion with the consent of seconder. Discussion followed on the size of the site and Commission action. Mr. Mills stated that to avoid submitting a PD application, 300 sq. ft. could be added to the building. He stated that the 16,000 sq. ft. site is not listed in the lease. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the appli- cant should show the Commission 20,000 sq. ft. Planning Director stated that the best vehicle would be the Planned Development District which will address the uniqueness of the site. Mr. Mills stated that the lessee wanted quicker action than is possible under a Planned Develop- ment District and would be willing to delete the convenience market and the application left as a service station under a CUP. Planning February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued) Director stated that a revised site plan should be submitted to show the appearance of the site under 20,000 sq. ft. and also showing a re-design of the building. He requested Commission direction on the site plan and stated that a Planned Development District can have time limitations. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Ealy abstained) for a continuance to March 12 for a meeting with staff to address concerns. NOTE: The Commission recommended that, if the applicant intends to operate for more than 5 years, the site be re-designed, including staff recommendations #6 and #7, and that, if not re-designed because of short-time occupancy, the additional building space be used for planters. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "The Tribal Council , at its meeting of February 11, 1986, approved the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as recommended in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated February 12, 1986. After consideration fo the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures. 2. Noted that Planning Division Condition No. 6 required that a revised site plan be submitted showing a main building with a minimum of 750 sq. ft. of floor area. This condition indicates that the existing service station building, which has 416 sq. ft. , would have to be enlarged or replaced with a new building having a minimum of 750 sq. ft. As an alternative condition, and one which could be more cost- effective from the standpoint of upgrading the site design, the Tribal Council recommended that additional resources required to enlarge the main building be expanded on renovating the existing structures, enhancing the proposed landscaping and outside lighting in providing additional screening and buffering, etc." CASE 5.0394-CZ & TPM 21406. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a change of zone from R-1-C to C-D-N for an existing shopping center and consideration of an application by MORSE CONSULTING GROUP representing Sunrise Square partners (Roy W. Carver) for a tentative parcel map to divide an existing parcel into two on the northwest corner of Vista Chino/Sunrise Way, R-1-C Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 2. (Previously assessed in conjunction with Case 5.938-CUP. ) �.- Recommendation: That the Commission approve the zone change and map. Planner (Williams) presented the application. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CASE 5.0394 (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. G. Pappas, 559 South Palm Canyon, representing Carver Company, stated that the staff conditions are acceptable. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving zone change 5.0394 and TPM 21406, subject to all conditions of the Development Committee. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the proposed change of zone is for an existing neighborhood shopping center which has been developed under the R- 1-C Zone, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Found that the C-D-N (Designed Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone) would be appropriate for the existing development at this location. 3. Approved a change of zone from R-1-C to C-D-N. 4. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 21406, subject to the change of Zone to C-D-N. 5. Noted that a Planning Commission Staff Report covering these matters was not received by the Tribal Planning Consultant. Commissioner Lapham left the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE. CASE 5.0352-PD-166 (Continued) . Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for National Capital Development Corportation for architectural approval of final development plans for 105 room hotel on Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Chuckwalla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Ealy, Kaptur abstained; Lapham absent) removing the item from the table. Planning Director stated that the application is a PD in lieu of a zone `... change, that there has been modification to the development, and that the building element on Chaparral has been raised to four stories which should be reviewed by the Commission. He stated that AAC recommended February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 5.0352 (Continued) approval , subject to conditions, and that the overall height is 42 feet on the east elevation and slightly to °er on the Indian Avenue one. He stated that at a Council study session Councilman Foster indicated that in the past the use of Date Palms had been prohibited, but that there are several projects in town with these trees, and that the Commission was requested by Council to review the matter and to recommend to the Council what its feelings were on the use of Date Palms. He stated that the prohibition was based originally on the messiness of the trees and the gnats that they attract. He requested a recommendation to the Council , and stated that the architectural community has changed since the use of the tree was prohibited and its viewpoint softened. He explained that the subject property proposes to use Date Palms as street trees on Indian and Vista Chino, and that the issues on the subject proposal are the use of the Date Palms and the building height on Vista Chino and Chaparral . Commissioner Neel stated that the trees do not draw gnats and have to be pollenized by hand to grow dates. He stated that, if the trees are properly maintained, there is nothing wrong with using them. Planning Director stated that Washingtonia Robusta have been removed from the site and that there are no Date Palms on the site presently. He stated that there is no written policy on the use of the trees. Commissioner Neel stated that maintenance is the key to using the trees and that the other types of palms are easier to maintain. R. McCroskrey, Kaptur and Cioffi , architects, stated that AAC recommendations will be addressed to soften the front on Vista Chino and that a new landscape plan which everyone will be in favor off will be submitted. He discussed other revisions to the project that are under study and stated that the height is 42 feet, he also discussed changes to the parking, landscaping and wall on Chaparral . Planning Director stated that the 42 foot height with a setback of 25 feet is a significant element, although the height will be softened by bottle trees in two years. He stated that there is a 50% increase in height and a 20% increase in density, and that it is necessary to have underground parking for the project. Discussion followed on the height of the building as it relates to its surroundings. Planning Director stated that the building is three feet higher than approved which is not a major issue but is a design one, and that the parking is not totally underground. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Ealy, Kaptur abstained; Lapham absent) approving the architecture, subject to the following conditions: 1. That supports "C", "D" and "E" on gridline #1 be increased in mass to appear more column-like. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 5.0352 (Continued) 2. That a 4 foot wall or landscape screen occur along the north portion of the buiding east of the entrance with details and cross-section to be reviewed by the AAC and Planning Commission. Restudy of the landscape noting the following: that a restudy be made of the entrance planter on Vista Chino, (staggering tree heights and substituting Phoenix Reclinata for Phoenix Dactilifera) CASE 3.952 (REF. CASE 5.135-PD-110 & TTM 165811. Application by D. MARTIN for architectural approval of revised plans for 192 unit apartment complex on Sunrise Way between Racquet Club Road/Francis Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 2. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with PD-110. ) Planning Director stated that revisions have been made to the site plan addressing Commission concerns of February 12. He stated that the AAC recommended a restudy of the architecture and that staff would not recommend approval of the site plan without the approval of the architecture. D. Martin, 42600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, the applicant, stated that he concurred with recommendations to approve the site plan so that the project can proceed. He requested that the original architural submittal be approved, rather than the revised one, because the buildings are attractive and have been successful in his project in Palm Desert. He stated that they do not appear attractive in the renderings because of the execution of the renderings, that the project landscaping will soften the lines, and that, if the site plan is approved, landscaping can begin. Commissioner Ealy suggested walls around the perimeter of the property to keep non-residents out. Mr. Martin stated that there had been no problems in any of his other projects because the managers maintain adequate control , and the open area is part of the attractiveness of the project. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis abstained; Lapham absent) approving the site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. That more space be created in the southeast corner. 2. That one- and two-story buildings be mixed throughout the site. 3. That the storage building be re-aligned to alleviate rigidity. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That the site plan be reviewed by staff. �.. and, that there be a restudy of the architecture. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 CASE 3.952 (Continued) Planning Director stated that the AAC was concerned about the "chopped- up" look of the buildings, especially the applied arches. Commissioner Ealy stated that concern was also expressed about the pitched roof which should be flatter and extended the length of the building. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the design could be better, and the architect can do it by creativity. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 10.357. Planning Commission determination considering emergency housing under the same zoning classification as apartments or as a special housing type to be allowed under a planned developent district. Planning Director stated that the item was a discussion item at the February 19 study session, and at the request of the Housing Authority and the Catholic Charities, it was added as an added starter on the agenda. He stated that the Commission should decide whether or not the operation is in the category of apartments or multi-family dwellings or is a specific housing type due to its nature and should be considered under a PD application which addresses unusual circumstances. He stated that the Commission seem to be favoring the PD application, so that a public hearing can be held, and that staff would recommend that it be determined to be a unique housing category and considered under a PD regardless of its location in the community. He explained that a PD application addresses a wider breadth of uses and requires a public hearing before both Commission and Council and it would be necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance if the use were to be allowed under a CUP. He stated that the PD could be made conditional for control , and that there is a time issue indicated by the Housing Authority. G. Govoy of the County Housing Authority stated that he was present to answer questions, and that Rosemary Sweet of the Catholic Charities organization could explain the services provided. Mrs. R. Sweet, Ironwood Country Club, Palm Desert, representing Catholic Charities, stated that the organization provides social services for community benefit. She stated that the government provides housing through grants and Catholic Charities provides services directed toward removing people from the street and giving emergency aid to families in crisis. She stated that no food stamps or welfare can be obtained if the family is on the street, and that families are counselled and helped to find their way back into the mainstream at no cost to the City. She stated that the Catholic Charities organization cannot afford the cost of hotels to house the people in crisis; and that the Housing Authority will buy the facility and Catholic Charities will provide service and operate it under its own guidelines. She stated that people stay from 5 to 30 days in order that the family can be brought out of crisis. Chairman stated that Commission action is to determine whether or not it is a special circumstance. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 CASE 10.357 (Continued) Mrs. Sweet replied that it is not a group home, but is emergency service and benefits the City. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the use is no different from the hotel use already on the site, and he would be in favor of approving it by right-of-zone in multi-family areas. Chairman stated that the neighbors will perceive the use as different, and that a public hearing is probably needed. Commissioner Curtis stated that if the use were placed in other areas, public hearings should be held. Planning Director stated that the Commission would take action under a PD on whether or not the use is appropriate in the area, and that notification of residents and exchange of facts is important. He stated that perhaps a better term could be found than "emergency housing" and could be discussed with the Catholic Charities group. Chairman stated that a public hearing is not required under a determination. Planning Director noted that there would be no public interaction if a determination were made that the use is allowable. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the only difference is who is paying for the hotel room which is not in the Planning Commission purview. ._. Chairman commented that the use is not different, but that the difference is in the perception of the neighbors. Chairman stated that the Commission action would be to either make a determination that the use is allowable by right-of-zone, or that individual public hearings under a Planned Development District application are necessary. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Lapham absent) determining that a Planned Development application is required to allow noticing of property owners in the area. PUBLIC HEARINGS TTM 20167. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH, AND ASSOCIATES for M. Nahodil for a tentative tract map located between Araby Drive (extension)/Smokewood Avenue to allow for formation of four single family lots and an access road, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. (The proposal will involve filling in a portion of a wash adjoining the Araby tract on the west. This map was referred back to Commission by City Council to review additional material . ) (Environmental Assessment. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the zone change and map. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 TTM 20167 (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. There being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director recommended that the Commission bring the packet that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting to the March 12 meeting, since new documentation is included. Discussion on the City Engineer' s findings. Planning Director stated that the City Engineer feels that the project requires a hardline channel solution, and that there is more engineering and modification to the property than has been initially suggested by the applicant. He requested that the packets be reviewed for discussion on March 12. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Lapham absent; Madsen abstained) continuing the application to March 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-K-MISC. (WECS-48) . Request by RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT for Commission review of Notice of Preparation for WECS-48 located south of I-10 between Whitewater Road/Highway 62, Sphere of Influence. Planner (Evans) stated that the same issues discussed at other meetings regarding wind energy projects apply, that the project is on I-10 at the crest of the Whitewater grade, that the Board of Supervisors changed the zone to Wind Energy against the City's recommendations, and that the County Planning Department recommends an EIR which the applicant is not opposing. He stated that noise studies will be a part of the EIR and that the project is within the Sphere-of-Influence. M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Ealy; Lapham absent) recommending that an EIR be prepared for WECS - 48 (Case 5.0312-K-MISC. ). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS CASE 5.0396-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow auto sales in the M-1-P Zone, city-wide. (Preparation of Draft Negative Declaration. ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continue the item to March 12. Planning Director stated that the Zoning Text Amendment was initiated in response to the auto sales center proposed for the site, and that, if approved, the CUP classification would be deleted and the use allowed by right-of-zone. M/S/C (Curtis/Apf elbaum; Lapham absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the case to March 12. ~ February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 2.558 Continued). Application by G. MONTGOMERY for a 12-month time extension Tor a single-family hillside residence on Cahuilla Hills Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for field review and that some thought has been given to restoring the site to its natural state, if construction does not proceed. He stated that the application was approved in 1973, and that Mr. Montgomery has built his own houses in the past, but probably will not build this one himself, and that the AAC recommended that working drawings be submitted before the project proceeds. He stated that staff has no problem with the 12- month time extension request. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the incomplete concrete wall is not attractive, and that there are several homes overlooking the site. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the "improvements" should be abated (not extended), although the situation is uncomfortable. Planning Director explained that complaints were received several years ago about the condition of the site, rto complaints have been received in recent years; and that the original complaints concerned the exposed steel rods which have since been cut off. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance indicates that if a residence has a work stoppage of six months or longer, it can be abated. Assistant City Attorney stated that it is proper to send a letter to Mr. Montgomery informing him that the time extension has been granted, but that at the end of 12 months, the house plans must be proceeding, or the lot must be reduced to a building pad. He stated that the Commission's power to approve or deny carries with it the power to add conditions. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Lapham absent) approving a 12-month time extension with the property "improvements" to be removed at the end of 12 months, if no construction has begun. 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. SIGN APPLICATION. . Application by BEST SIGNS for architectural approval of a main identification sign for condominium complex on the northeast corner of Racquet Club Road/N. Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 2. Planning Director explained the sign configuration and stated that the wall on which the sign is located has been there for many years and is now plastered. He stated that the graphics are good, but that one letter (C) seems to be squeezed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Lapham absent) approving the sigh subject to the following condition: That the "C" in "Camino" be upper case and encroach into the logo area. February 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update on City Council actions. Use of Date Palms in Palm Springs. Planning Director requested a recommendation to the Council on the use of Date Palm trees. He stated that the trees located at the condominium project on the northwest corner of El Cielo and Ramon are crowded. Commissioner Neel commmented that the trees are sometimes half-dead when planted and that proper maintenance is the key to allowing them. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the tree is almost generic to the area, and under certain conditions effective, and that it should not be lost. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she did not want to lose another species and wondered about maintenance standards. Planning Director stated that maintenance standards are difficult to monitor, but that a maintenance resolution setting maintenance standards could be developed. He stated that there is a problem in that projects do not have the kind of standard of landscape continuity that architecture, streets, and pavement do; that once cut, it is difficult to return the trees to their original state, and that older trees never do recover. He stated that there is an ordinance prohibiting trimming of skirts on palm trees on Palm Canyon Drive, but that trimmers do trim these trees and ruin them, and that there are books on problems and care of desert flora. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the trees should be in the architect's palate and subject to AAC review. Consensus was that Date Palm trees can be used in the City on an individual project basis with review by the AAC and Commission, although the Commission prefers the native palms. Planning Commissioner's Conference. Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held in San Diego, March 12 - 14 at the Town & Country Hotel . Commissioners wishing to attend are to contact the Planning Division by February 28. Case 5.0275 - PD-147. Staff to give minutes regarding Planning Commission actions on the DeBartolo Project to Commissioner Apfelbaum. - Hollywood Bar and Grill Sign. Sign needs to be reviewed by staff, since it is not attractive. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. PLA NG DIRECTOR I� MDR ml II WP/PC MIN i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 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 16 0 Hugh Curtis X 16 0 Hugh Kaptur X 14 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 15 1 Larry Lapham X 16 0 Curt Ealy X 11 0 Earl Neel X 7 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Robert Green, Planner Jerry Gonzales, Acting Traffic Engineer • Richard McCoy, City Engineer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner v Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - March 10, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson Chris Mills Curt Ealy Sharon Apfelbaum Earl Neel Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Lapham) approving minutes of February 26, 1986 as submitted.