Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/03/12 - MINUTES . r s 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 Apf elbaum X 15 1 Larry L aph am 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 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 (Apf elbaum/Lapham) approving minutes of February 26, 1986 as submitted. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA .,� Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. 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 San Rosa, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. (Ealy abstained. ) CASE 3.952. Application (Ref. 5.0135-PD-110 & TTM 16581) by D. MARTIN for architectural approval of revised elevations for 192-unit apartment com- plex on Sunrise Way, between Racquet Club Road/Francis Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 2. Removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised plan. (Ealy and Lapham abstained.) CASE 3.995 (MINOR) Application by ALLEN FENCE for architectural approval of 1200 ft. of chainlink fence to secure mostly vacant property at 815 Panorama Drive (hillside lot), R-1-A Zone, Section 9. Continued to March 26 to allow site review by the AAC. t CASE 5.0352-PD-166. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for National Capital Development Corp. for architectural approval of final development plans (landscape) for 105-room hotel on Indian Avenue, between Vista Chino/ Chuckwalla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to: 1. That a Section of the planter be submitted for staff review prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. That a planter and landscaping of sufficient size to screen sub- terranean parking be added to the west of the surface parking spaces off Chaparral Road. (Details shall be submitted for staff review. ) 3. That annuals be added in focused areas only, rather than the entire street frontage. Details shall be submitted for staff review. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That staff complete a final review of landscape plan. (Ealy and Kaptur abstained.) March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION (REF. CASE 3.583) . Application by CHIEF SIGNS for archi- tectural approval of change of color for main sign for Sizzler Restaurant on South Palm Canyon Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Approved as submitted. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.794. Application by R. SQUIRE for architectural approval of revised exterior building materials for warehouse on Valdivia Way, between Campana Way/Tachevah Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Planner (Van Keeken) stated that the AAC recommended approval but that staff in a field review discovered that the rear of the building was sandblasted much less than the front and sides, and that the applicant is requesting that the rear be left as it is. M. Lindeman, Westlake Village, stated that sandblasting the back of the building will cause problems because of the trim and the downspouts which have been painted, and that the rear is not visible from the street. He stated that it is difficult to achieve uniform sandblasting and requested that the finish be approved as it is. Planning Director stated, in response to Commission question, that when he first saw it he thought that the building had not been sandblasted at all in the back, but that the building overall is very attractive and will be viewed mainly from the front except for delivery services. He stated that the project was approved as split faced block but is tex- tured block. Commissioner Ealy commented that the sandblasting seems not to have been very well done. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he agreed with the applicant that to refinish the rear now would create more problems. Commissioner Apfelbaum commented that the AAC felt that the design of a the building is very attractive. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis) approving the exterior texture as submitted (rear wall to remain lightly sandblasted. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA SIGN APPLICATION (REF. CASE 5.0317-PD 157) . Application by D. CHRISTIAN for architectural approvalof main identification sign for delicatessen and car wash at JIMSAIR (fixed-base operator) on Gene Autry Trail, between Tachevah Drive/Ramon Road, A Zone. Discussion ensued on the sign concept in relation to the sign program in the complex. Planning Director stated that the design is totally different in concept since it is proposed as channel letters on the wall while the others are monument signs. M/S (Curtis/Neel ) to approve the sign as submitted. Commission Kaptur requested that the other signs be shown to the Commission. Commissioner Curtis withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Ealy abstained) to table the application for staff to bring pictures of the other signing in the project to the meeting. CASE 5.0385 - PD-176 (Continued). Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Casa Verde Associates for a Planned Development District to allow construc- tion 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. No action was taken since the applicant withdrew the application. TPM 20167. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH, AND ASSOCIATES for M. Nahodil for a tentative parcel 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. (This map was referred back to Commission by City Council to review additional material . ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the map application. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Green) presented a history of the map, and stated that the map was recommended for denial by the Commission previously because of environmental impacts, including possible water damage to the access road owned by Mr. Lansdale (adjoining property owner). He stated that after Council reviewed a hydrology study, Councilmembers felt that the Commission and City Engineer should review the new information. He stated that if the Commission denies the map, the finding for denial would be that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. He gave reasons for the findings for denial as deversion of a natural water course, disruption of the natural edge of the wash by grading, the possibility of a hard sided channel lining which is not consistent with the General Plan policy of preserving natural courses and prevention of scarring, erosion, and disfigurement of land caused by development. He stated also that the development is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding residential area, March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) which seemed to be more sympathetic to the natural terrain, and that the information submitted is not adequate to determine whether or not there is erosion of the environment. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Mainiero, 777 E. Tahquitz, project engineer, stated that the focus of the discussion seems to be on the drainage issue, but that the issue can be resolved by engineering solutions. He stated that there are several areas of the Sanborn/Webb Hydrology Study with which the applicant dis- agrees. The channel capacity is adequate according to the City Engineer, and other aspects have to be considered, as are considered in other projects, to avoid damage to Mr. Lansdale's Road. He stated that the design can be widened to reduce the water velocity, that the channel ends three to four feet from the Lansdale road, and that the water will spread into a thin sheet as velocity is reduced and will be minimal by the time it reaches the Lansdale Road, as it does in its present state. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that the access is from the end of Araby, not through a lot. (Planning Director stated that the access could be via the private road at the end of Araby, that there is a driveway through a lot servicing two houses, and that there was no change in the original proposal .) Mr. Mainiero, in reply to Commission question, stated that channelizing to discharge the water the way it is presently discharged will be done. Commissioner Ealy requested that the City Engineer explain the proposal . City Engineer stated that he agreed with Mr. Mainiero that there are solutions to the hydrology problems, but the proposal will not solve them and will not accomplish what the project engineer feels will be accomplished. He stated that there are three issues to be addressed: 1. The proposal for water drainage on the property which involves the changing of the direction of the water and channelizing it causes a change in velocity for which provisions must be made. He stated that debris transported will reduce water velocity, will cause problems because of build-up over a period of time, and will change the direction of the water. 2. The velocity of the water will erode the softline channel bottom proposed. 3. Much space is needed to provide for velocity of dischargeat tlhe outlet, including boulders to divert the flow. The water will take much space to sheet out and return to its natural flow. He stated that if the bottom is sand, the channel will erode. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the City Engineer and the project engineer reach a consensus on which the Planning Commission can act. Mr. Mainiero stated that he did not dispute the statements of the City Engineer, but that the solutions will be no different from any other project in which details are reviewed during the design stage. He repeated that the focus seems to be only on the drainage issue. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) Commissioner Kaptur commented that the project is very unique with special conditions. Mr. Mainiero replied that the drainage area is only approximately 200 acres, not half of Palm Springs. He stated, in reply to Commissions question, that the channel will be trapezoidal in shape, preferrably with rip-rap, but not on the bottom, because the applicant would prefer to use natural materials. A. Perrier, 3001 Tahquitz-McCallum, attorney representing the applicant, stated that there was a divurgence of opinion between him and staff, that staff relies on the Conservation Element, and the Open Space and Conservation Map adopted by the City in 1973. He stated that none of the property involved in the application is on the portion shown in the Conservation Element, that only 170 acres of run-off is involved, and can be controlled, and that doubling the channel width will reduce the velocity in half and reduce impacts on the Lansdale property. He stated that the drive to Mr. Lansdale' s home is in a more impacted area (from the Palm Canyon Wash, not Araby Creek. He stated that the Lansdale property is below the 100 year flood level and that Mr. Lansdale should understand the risks of erosion of his road, that a condition of approval is that water flow be handled so that no damage occurs downstream, and that the engineers will produce a satisfactory solution which would impact the Lansdale property no more than it is at the present time. He stated that the Council returned the map to the Commission for input, that he agree with the City Engineer that the matters can be resolved, that the clients have accommodated the neighbors in many instances such as raising pads to the same level as Araby Drive to which the homeowners now object. He commented that the homeowners presently have encroachments on the Lansdale property, and that the property is zoned for this type of development. He requested project approval and stated that if not approved there would be reasonable grounds for a lawsuit, that the only reasonable access besides the Lansdale property is Lot #4 that was acquired by the applicant for this purpose and that the City tradi- tionally has not removed rights of people wanting to develop their property, that Commission impetus should effect a result that is satisfactory to the neighbors, and requested again that Lot #4 be allowed as an access point. He stated that there are problems with access from Araby. It is a private driveway which creates problems in establishing the type of access. He noted that Lot #4 is a reasonable access and was recommended as an access by staff. He stated Council has voiced some objections to building in a wash, but the area is not really a wash since it is only 170 acres in size, and that if the Commission wishes to keep the land undeveloped, the applicant would consider a density transfer to other parts of the property such as Lot #4 ( it included the proposed access) . He requested denial if the access is not considered as proposed to allow the application to proceed through, the City and that alternatives could be discussed. Mr. Mainiero stated that when a channel is doubled the water velocity is cut in half. Mr. Perrier, in reply to Commission's question, stated the March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) the subdivision is not part of the original Araby tract. He stated that he would be interested in knowing how much of the soil was rearranged to develop the Nahodil property. Commissioner Ealy commented that he had visited the site, and that the lot seems small to accommodate the driveway and meet setback standards and other conditions. Planning Director stated that the request to use a lot as an access is only the second one in the City' s history, and that the Zoning Ordinance does not include provisions for a lot to be used for a street; and therefore, there are no conditions of approval and that in the subject proposal the setback would be 12 feet from the street. In reply to Commission questions, Mr. Perrier stated that materials for construction would be moved through the lot since the access off Araby Trail provides access into only three lots. He stated that access rights on Araby are not confirmed and are not sufficient for the remainder of the development, and that the logical way would be to obtain permission from Mr. Lansdale for access, and that construction problems would not be of long duration. Mr. Mainiero, in reply to Commission' s question stated that less than 20,000 cubic yards of fill dirt would be required. M. Arthur, Santa Monica, the owner, requested approval since the property is zoned R-1-A and has a beautiful view of the City. He stated that in staff review of the property, a suggestion was made to use the lot as an access; therefore, a lot was required for that purpose. He stated that conservation requirements have been met and disputes with the neighbors have been addressed. He stated that water erosion problems on the Lansdale property are able to be resolved, and that discussions with Mr. Lansdale regarding access have not been fruitful . He noted that he and his partner have the right to build on the property, are prepared to proceed, and requested approval (with modifi- cations to be discussed at a later date) . K. Lyons, attorney representing Mr. Lansdale, 801 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated that Mr. Lansdale wished to substantiate possible damage to his driveway, and had a hydrology survey prepared by Sanborn/Webb Engineers; that water velocity is only one of the issues, that the conservative approach of the City Engineer could not be supported by the applicant because of the high velocity of the water, that a claim could be made against the City for damaged if incurred, and that the applicant has not given enough information showing that damage will not occur, that addressing the problems later is not appropriate, that there will be no way to recover damages from upstream property owners if ' the damage occurs. He stated that there will be an impact on the neighboring residents because of the narrowness of the property and proximity of the residences, and that 20,000 cubic yards of fill dirt is a large amount. He stated that the area is a wash area and the developer should have been able to foresee that there would be problems with trying to develop the site. He stated that the Commission is not required to approve the March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) map because it meets technical requirements, and that the action taken should be in conjunction with the issues. He requested that the Commission find that the map is not appropriate under the Subdivision Map Act. In reply to Commission question, he stated that there are no large Smoke Trees on the property but possibility a few small ones. G. Hough, 2330 Smokewood, stated that there have been no revisions to the project since its original proposal, that residents of Smokewood Avenue are opposed to the project, that the water problem is minor com- pared to other problems that will occur, that the site is not suitable for building, that there is no reason to compound a mistake made by the Commission of several years ago, that the neighbors have not been appeased by the applicant, and that a letter of harassment had been sent to them. He requested that the project be denied. Mrs. 0. Lacompte, 2291 Smokewood, stated that the wash had water in it on many occasions because of the sheer face of the mountain, and that property encroaches beyond the subject property because of dirt left by pool companies who thought it was a flood area. She stated that her harassment letter indicated that the neighbors could use the encroach- ment area until the applicants needed it, that the neighbors bought in the area for peace and quiet, and that the proposal will have a terrific impact. B. Hough, 2260 Smokewood, stated that constructing lots level with Smokewood Avenue was a mistake not an appeasement of the neighbors, that the "T" intersection is unsafe since Smokewood is a substandard street, that the applicant may not have realized that the map could be denied that the property owners did not believe that there would be traffic coming from the Nahodil property because they thought that there would be a single- family residence on lot, and that he doubted that doubling width of the wash would reduce the water in half. City Engineer, in response to Mr. Hough, stated that doubling the width of the wash would not reduce the flow in half, but widening the drainage area would reduce the flow by half. Mr. Hough stated that the wash is a fairly active one and contains water on many occasions. In response to Mr. Perrier' s question, J. Soneji of Sanborn/Webb Engineers stated that the channelization that has been done should not increase the amount of water or velocity which is going into the Lansdale property, but not enough transition has been allowed and no way presented to indicate the way the water would be slowed and that doubling the channel width would reduce the flow in half, but the water velocity is still extreme with a high amount of erosion to the channels, but that no plans have been presented showing further reductions in velocity. A. Perrier (rebuttal ) stated that several property owners have encroached into the Lansdale property which is not a major issue but affects the position of the people on Araby in respect to the proposal . March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) Mrs. Lacompte stated that the encroachment is a residence that has been in existence for 28 years. There being no further appearances Chairman closed the hearing. Planner (Green) stated that although the focus of the direction has been on the water velocity effects, there are other issues. He stated that perhaps the Conservation Element does not specifically designate the wash, but it is a part of the General Plan which is a diagram and a policy document and is not intended to be interpreted specifically, and that the encroachment issue is not relevant on a site physically about to be developed. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the lots will not be substandard because the street (or driveway) is private. He stated that Smokewood Avenue is a substandard road and serves as a driveway to three homes, and that the access from above is the Araby access which is a private road. He stated that Araby would be required to be improved if the map is approved, but that effective negotiations with private property owners is unknown, and that staff would not want a condition imposed that would be impossible to control . He stated that map approval should not be conditioned on the access via Araby Road because improvements might not be able to be mandated. In reply to Commission question regarding liability, Assistant City Attorney stated that there have been cases were a land use was approved with a design in which discharge of water caused downstream damage and the City was held liable. He stated that inhabited properties are required to have access but he was not sure if the responsibility is the City's except on landlocked property. In response to Commission's questions regarding overriding of the Zoning Ordinance and denial based on staffs finding that the site is unsuitable for the type of development, Assistant City Attorney stated that it is R-1-A property which allows for each parcel to have a single-family residence by right-of-zone, but in the subject proposal a subdivision is proposed and the Subdivision Map Act provides that if certain findings are made for denial the local agency (in this case the City) shall deny the map and it is not a question of zoning. He stated that if findings cannot be made for denial , the map should be approved; and that if the Commission finds from the evidence presented from both sides that the property is not suitable for development the map can be denied by the Commission after the Commission weighs the evidence. Planner (Green) presented, at Commissions request, reasons for denial . Discussion followed. Commissioner Lapham commented that nothing has changed in the proposal to indicate that he should vote favorably for the project. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that there are conflicts caused by the proposal and that the site is not suitable for development. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA TPM 20167. (Continued) M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Madsen abstained) denying TPM 20167 based on the following findings: 1. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 2. That the development of the site includes the diversion of a natural watercourse and disruption of the natural edge of the wash by grading and possibly a hard-sided channel lining. 3. That the proposal is not consistent with the General Plan and policies of preserving watercourses and the prevention of scarring, erosion or disfigurement of land as development takes place. 4. That the proposal is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding residential area which has been generally more sympathetic to more natural terrain. 5. That the City Engineer states that the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to determine the potential of overall environmental disruption likely to result from the proposal . Discussion followed regarding an additional staff concern on environ- mental impacts. Planning Director requested that the Commission recom- mend a focused EIR if the Council wishes to pursue an alternate motion to that of denial . He stated that the total environmental impacts have not been disclosed and that denial by the Commission means waiving of environmental review. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham; Madsen abstained) recommending to the Council that if an alternate motion to that of denial is considered, a focused EIR be prepared addressing issues noted in the findings. CASE 5.0391-CUP (Continued). Application by C. MILLS for M. Salem for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a gasoline service station on the southeast corner of Saturnino Road/Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14. Planner (Williams) presented the project on the board and stated that the revised plans have not been reviewed, and staff recommends continuance for further review and to develop conditions. She stated that the new plan calls for razing the building, and that staff wants to review the parking areas. She stated that the AAC recommended approval of the original site plan because the Committee felt there was not much gain or advantage in the revised one. Chairman declared the hearing open. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0391. (Continued) C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, requested direction on the revised site plan and discussed an alternative solution in which the plan is reversed. He stated that Michael Harris, a local attorney, was present to answer questions about the lot size and the relationship to the leases. He stated that the applicant does not wish to lease and upgrade the secondary building on the south property line, that the first plan proposed is the best one, and one that could continue processing as a PD, or square footage added to the building (although the additional square footage is not what the applicant desires). Chairman suggested that because the property could be included in the C- B-D Zone in the future and will be a non-conforming use, that a minor remodel and a future review would be the most reasonable solution. Mr. Mills stated that the indicated action would depend on the length of the time period allowed to the applicant. Chairman commented that ten years with a review period at the end of that time and a possible extension of 2 to 5 years might be viable, and that the remodel would be less extensive than moving the buildings. Michael Harris, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, stated that he was present only as one of the equity owners of the underlying lease and that the lease involving the acreage is approximately a seven-tenths of an acre and includes the old fire-damaged restaurant, the Palm Springs paint store, the auto shop and the gas station, and that there is no parcel or tract map on the site. He stated that no walls were built indicating a division of the property to avoid a legal division, that the paint store, restaurant, and others have a long-term lease with options to renew, that a C.U.P. with a review at the end of ten years might be acceptable but would not necessarily free the acreage, and that the redevelopment process could begin, but that the Commission should be aware of the length of the leases. He stated that the station has been vacant for two years, that he would like for something attractive to happen on and that the subject proposal would be a good chance to improve the corner. He stated that he was also present to answer questions on the lease. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the restaurant would be rebuilt and that the service station would pro- bably not be operating if the subject proposal were denied. Mr. Harris stated that the master lease operators have found someone who wants to upgrade the lot and if not approved the gas station will con- tinue to be vacant. Planning Director stated that the non-conforming use has expired because of the lack of operation of the gas station and that the appearances of buildings on Indian Avenue, architecture and site development issues are also pertinent, that there have been architectural and site development changes in the last few years. He stated that the development on-site occurred before the lease structure went into effect and he asked whether whether or not the Commission wanted to approve the current pro- posal which although of interesting design is a sea of asphalt. He stated also that the 750 square foot building and the 20,000 square foot site are issues. He commented that perhaps the application should be a March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0391. (Continued) PD to have a integrated site, and that the site should be updated and integrated if the use remains. Commissioner Lapham stated that because of the Indian ownership there will be a problem with integrating and updating of the complex, and a quality operation will not be possible until the leases expire. Mr. Harris, in reply to Commission questions, stated that the paint store lease is for 15 years and was extended 2 years ago with an option for 5 years and the Indian lease on the building has 59 years left. There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing. In reply to Commission questions, Planning Director stated that the application was continued to address concerns of the building, the pro- perty size, and the alternative site plan. Commissioner Lapham suggested that an upgrade on Indian Avenue of the paint store could be done since it abuts the burnt restaurant which will eventually be rebuilt. Mr. Harris stated that the lessee of the paint store has indicated some desire to upgrade the location as seen from Indian Avenue, but has been reluctant to do so because of the appearance of the gas station. Commissioner Lapham commented that there will be a "band-aid" approach to the property which would last 18 years. Mr. Harris replied that he did not know what would happen, but that the restaurant has a long-term lease and that the tenant will rebuild it and acquire new operators, and that the paint store lessee has stated an interest to an upgrade but is not obligated to do so. He stated that hopefully the restaurant could be rebuilt within a year. Planning Director stated that a Negative Declaration could be filed and a PD application submitted. Discussion continued on the uses on the site and the length of the leases. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the other two buildings be included as phases because the property is non-conforming and the City could be faced with the situation for some time, and that both uses should be clarified. Mr. Harris stated that from a legal standpoint there is no authority to include the other two lessees and that the paint store lessee only voluntarily indicated that she wanted to upgrade. He stated that a PD could not include that property since those lessees are not applicants. Planning Director stated that if the restaurant will rebuild as it was approved architecturally it would not necessary to review the concept again except possibly for parking and seat count Further discussion followed on the uses on site. Mr. Mills stated that the intent is for review of the service station only unless a con- venience market is allowed, and that the plans were originally submitted March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0391. (Continued) separately. Consensus was that the staff should review the revised plan and resolve the issues. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Ealy abstained) continuing the application to March 26. Commissioner Lapham stated that the City needs to know about plans for the site. M. Salem, the applicant, stated that the intent was to have the convenience store and gas station operation together with the upgrade extended to include the convenience market, but if the convenience store is not approved, the improvements would be only for the gas station. He stated that he could not continue with the project if he finds that it is economically unsound. He stated that he had complied with all City requirements. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the extension of the C-B-D has not been pursued for 18 months, but will probably occur within 5 years with a 10 year non-conforming status for the buildings at that time, with the possibilities of extensions. Commissioner Lapham commented that perhaps the application could be converted to a PD. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of February 11 and February 25, 1986. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its previous action to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures. 2. Reiterated its previous recommendation that in lieu of enlarging the existing structure, the expenditure of resources be focused on renovating/remodeling the existing service station, enhancing the proposed landscaping and outside lighting, upgrading the driveways/parking areas and providing additional screening and buffering. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0006. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Casa Verde Associates for architectural approval of 258-unit apartment complex on Amado Road, between Hermosa Drive/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.0006. (Continued) Planner (Williams) presented the project and stated that the elevations have not changed but that parking lot landscaping has been increased and floor plans changed. She stated that the AAC recommended approval sub- ject to conditions and also recommended more recessing of windows for sun control and walks revised because of their rigidity. J. Cioffi , 600 E. Tahquitz, stated that the windows are recessed 3 feet except in areas where the walls are turned in and the windows at that point are recessed I-, feet. He requested that the turnout at the club- house remain although recommended to be deleted by the Traffic Engineering Division, and that walkways and landscaping will be refined in final plans. He stated in reply to Commission question that the turnout is an asset aesthetically at the front of the clubhouse. Planner stated that the Engineering Division feels that the turnout is a parking hazard and recommended against decorate pavement in the right- of-way. Mr. Cioffi replied that parking is a management concern, and that a 10 foot turnout is not a traffic hazard. Planning Director suggested that the Commission defer action on the turnout to the point of landscape plans so the situation can be discussed with the Traffic Engineer since the traffic engineering division feels that the turnout shortens visibility and creates a sea of asphalt. He stated that the cul-de-sac in the northeast corner will also be discussed with the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Cioffi stated that the project has many energy saving features and that the issue of recessing the windows is not significant. He stated that lattice work was suggested but would ruin the design, and that he would like to keep the application as submitted. P. Selzer, attorney representing the applicant, requested that the cul- de-sac on Calle Rolph be left as it is (not expanded as recommended in Engineering conditions) because it was approved in its present configur- ation under Tract map 14009, and that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to add additional land dedication. He stated that the Commission cannot condition any item on streets and recommended deletion of condition number 1 under "Calle Rolph". He stated that the applicant does not have access to the cul-de-sac, that only a crash gate for emergencies is proposed, and that if the condition were required it would remove ten parking spaces. Planning Director explained the cul-de-sac requirement on the board, and stated that it was required by the traffic engineer, that the cul-de-sac becomes the only point of access from the property to Calle Rolph which was not designed originally to be a cul-de-sac, and that there is an access and drainage problem which must be resolved. He stated that the cul-de-sac is provided to end the street for a turn-around because the applicant is not providing a half street, and that Engineering indicates that an offset cul-de-sac is not viable and the street needs a full half cul-de-sac. He stated also that there is an access issue of cars using the desert and church property for access. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.0006. (Continued) Mr. Selzer stated that there will not be an access issue because the gate is for emergency access only and that the map has been approved by the Commission and Council and the condition of the Development Committee is in conjunction with a previous application and is not relevant. Planning Director stated that it is recommended by the Engineering Division because it is the best estimate of what will work. In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the conditions that should be addressed are those of the AAC not the development committee which is advisory. Discussion continued on the legality of the condition on Calle Rolph Assistant City Attorney read the architectural guidelines to the Commission from the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that there are dedica- tion requirements in the architectural review portion of the Zoning Ordinance, but no direct attention to streets except the ordinance dis- cussing sidewalks and traffic. Planning Director stated that the Development Committee Conditions for Tract 14009 indicate a full half cul-de-sac design. He suggested that the issue be deferred and discussed with the applicant. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the windows be recessed a minimum of 12 feet. 2. That final detailed landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted. 3. That the Development Committee Condition re: the cul-de-sac on Calle Rolph be resolved with final landscape plans. 4. That the turnout on Amado be resolved at the time final landscape plans are submitted. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee except as noted above be implemented. . CASE 3.976. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for KSS Professional Associates for architectural approval of outpatient medical center on North Palm Canyon Drive, between Tachevah Drive/Vereda Sur, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planner (Williams) stated that the City does not have parking standards for the type of use, that medical office standards have been used and a covenant will be required for the applicant to provide additional parking if needed. She stated that the AAC recommended approval . W. Kleindienst, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, described the design of the existing building and stated that the parapet works well to hide the height of the mechanical equipment, to obscure some elements March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.976. (Continued) of the design and to give continuity of line to the existing building which will serve as a background building. He stated that the wood needs sandblasting but should not be deleted as recommended by the AAC, and that the four buildings in the complex will be painted the same color. He stated that the parking is designed for future expansion. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the beam on the face should be extended to form a perpendicular line which may reduce the height of the building. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Apfelbaum/Ealy/Lapham abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the herringbone wood be eliminated throughout and replaced with stucco and that the recessed areas be eliminated. 2. That a sign program be eliminated. 3. That final landscape irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0007. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for architectural approval of exterior remodel of hotel , including trellis and parking layout for hotel at 100 S. Belardo Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Williams) presented the project and explained AAC conditions. W. Kleindienst, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that he concurred with AAC recommendations, and that lighting fixtures have not been chosen. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Ealy abstained) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That blocking be throughbolted to alleviate warping. 2. That trellis spacing on Tahquiti Way be reduced to 16 inches. 3. That detailed final landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted. 4. That fixture details be submitted for review by the AAC and Planning Commission. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. f March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.939. Application by D. DUGDALE for M. Hoffman for clarification of revised exterior wall materials for an industrial building on Williams Road, between Camino Parocela/Sunny Dunes Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Planner (Williams) stated that the originally approved plans have been revised and the wall height reduced from 18 feet to 16 feet 8 inches and the fascia reduced in height because of the cost of construction. She stated that the AAC recommended one type of exterior material although the applicant requests two, that the AAC recommended denial of the revised plans and recommended that the applicant implement the original plan. Planning Director stated that the building proportions were of concern to the Committee. M. Hoffman, the applicant, stated that he had no problem with the original 18 foot height and requested that split face block be approved on the property line building face. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lapham) taking the following actions: 1. That revised plans dated 3/10/86 are denied. 2. That the plans previously approved (dated 1/8/86) be implemented including the height of the fascia. �--� 3. That light fixtures be surfaced mounted on the wall below the fascia. 4. That light fixtures be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. That accent planters be added to planters along the east elevation of the building. 6. That the height of the pilasters match the top of the roof line. 7. That the split faced block be used on the pilasters and extend to the south elevation approximately 12 feet overall . 8. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0266-CUP. Planning Commission review of Conditional Use Permit conditions for Palm Springs Tennis Club and Hotel at Tahquitz Drive, between Arenas Road/Baristo Road, R-2 and R-G-A(8) Zones, Section 15. Planner (Williams) stated that when the C.U.P. was approved to allow the Doubles Restaurant to be open to the public, one of the conditions was that the C.U.P. be reviewed in two years because of parking. She explained that staff waited until the busy part of the year to determine whether or not there were a parking problem. She stated that no com- plaints have been received, and that the restaurant has no visible parking problems. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0266 (Continued) M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Ealy abstained) noting that the C.U.P. has been reviewed, and no parking problems noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0355-MISC. Request by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for a Planning Commission recommendation on the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan and certification of the final EIR for the Baristo/Farrell Redevelopment Project Area, located generally west of E1 Cielo Road, east of Calle El Segundo, north of Ramon Road, and south of Alejo Road, Sections 14 (portion I.L. ), 15, and a portion of 23. Recommendation: That the Commission adopt the Resolution approving the redevelopment plan, accept it has being in conformance with the General Plan and certify it has complete. Redevelopment Planner stated that the redevelopment plan has received five comments from various agencies which are included in the EIR (on file in the Planning Division office) and that the Tribal Council has concurred in the environmental review, but :does not support the redevelopment project area as presently proposed. (This is not part of the EIR. ) He gave directions for Commission action. Commissioner Ealy requested that an explanation of eminent domain be made. Redevelopment Planner stated that as a result of a request by the Tribal Council and some of the Los Compadres Homeowners Association, eminent domain will not be enacted on the Indian landowner nor on the homeowners of Los Compadres Estates, and this fact will be included in the EIR. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) adopting Resolution #3794 approving the redevelopment plan and accepting it as being in conformity with the General Plan. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) certifying the EIR as complete. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS The Draft EIR for the proposed Baristo/FArrell Redevelopment Project Area was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of December 10, 1985. The Tribal Council 's comments were as follows: 1. Concurred with the need for additional archaeological - investigations, and with the proposed mitigation measures with respect of cultural resources that maybe discovered during construction. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0355 (Continued) 2. Concurred with the findings that the significant, cumulative impacts resulting from project implementation would involve ambient air quality degradation, increased traffic and increased in the consumption of energy resources and water. Noted that the mitigation measure with respect to these impacts appear to be reasonable and appropriate. 3. Endorsed the requirement that future site - specific activities will be subject to individual environmental review, including the preparation and additional environmental studies when potential significant effects are indicated. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions at its meeting of March 11, 1986. 1. Reiterated its previous comments as outlined above, with respect of the Draft EIR. 2. Concurred with the findings set forth in the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached to staff report dated March 12, 1986, with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the activities which may be undertaken pursuant to the plan, conforming to the General Plan of Palm Springs. 3. Notwithstanding it actions on the Draft EIR and the draft Planning Commission Resolution referred to above, the Tribal Council voted to not support the Baristo/Farrell Redevelopment Project Area as presently proposed. In previous letters and memoranda to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and to the City Planning Commission, the Tribal Council has expressed its concerns with respect tot he subject project and has noted that it could not endorse the project as proposed. These concerns involve the commitment of some 200 acres of prime Indian trust land (approximately 70% of the privately owned land within the project area) to a project that is highly questionable with respect to its consistency with the intent, purpose and criteria of California Community Redevelopment law; and where the possible benefits to the Indian trust lands appear to be minimal at the most. Some 60% of the trust lands, or approximately 120 acres is vacant. The concerns with respect to the Project' s Consistency with State Law would include the Tribal Council 's exposure to a possible legal challenge by another agency, individuals, etc. , and the possible constraints including delays, that could be placed in the development of trust land sin the event of such litigation. The concerns with respect to possible benefits to trust lands include the lack of assurance that improvements to the infrastructure, i .e. streets, storm drains, etc. will be funded in whole or part from the tax increment and/or sources available to the Redevelopment Agency. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0390-GPA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the Conservation Element of the General Plan for an expanded Historic Resources Section to encourage the preservation of historic resources. Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and give final approval to the General Plan amendment. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the current General Plan addresses historic preservation only minimally, that the proposed General Plan amendment addresses historic preservation fully, and i,n a new perspec- tive and a continuing role will be developed by the City in this area. He stated that the amendment will continue to allow Tribal Council input on its concerns regarding Indian trust properties and archaeology, and that staff met with the Tribal Council and proposed an addition to the amendment addressing Tribal Council concerns. He noted that the addi- tion will prevent archaeological sites from becoming a part of the public record (except on recommendations of the Tribal Council ), and protects the historic sites on Indian lands from being designated as official local historic sites by the City Council without such designa- tion first being recommended by the Tribal Council. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and giving final approval to the General Plan amendment as revised based on the following findings: 1. That the amendment will strengthen the community's cultural and historical ties. 2. That the amendment will strengthen the neighborhood pride in areas that house designated sites. 3. That the amendment will integrate old and new structures in existing neighborhoods. 4. That the amendment will aid in revitalization of older neighbor- hoods. 5. That the amendment will aid in the improvement of property values in the designated area. 6. That the amendment will help in the attraction of additional tourist revenue. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) `., CASE 5.0390. (Continued) The following wording is added at the request of the addition the Tribal Council : "Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological sites, such sites shall not be made part of the historic site survey except on recommendation by the Aqua Caliente Tribal Council . Historic sites located on Indian trust property shall not be designated as official local historic sites by the City Council without such designation first being recommended by the Tribal Council ." TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This matter was initially considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of January 21, 1986. In view of the possible impact of future preservation activities on cultural and archaeological sites of particular importance to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Tribal Council deferred comments on this matter pending for the study of the proposed text. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. That Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. That Approved the proposed amendment to the Conservation Element of the General Plan for the expanded Historic Resources Section in accordance with the text attached to Planning Commission Staff report dated March 12, 1986, with the following modification: The following notation shall be added to Implementation Recommendation No. 2: Note: 2a. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological sites, such sites shall not be made a part of the Historic Site Survey except on recommendation by the Agua Caliente Tribal Council . 2b. Historic Sites which are located on Indian trust properties shall not be designated as official local historic sites by the City Council without such designation first being recommended by the Tribal Council . 3. That The Tribal Council expressed its appreciation for the time and assistance given by Richard Patenaude of the City Planning Department in meetings with the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Council on this matter. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0396-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow auto sales in the M-1-P Zones, citywide. Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration; and give final approval to the Zoning Text Amendment. Planning Director stated that the Zoning Text Amendment has been expedited two allow processing of the proposed auto center. He stated that there is a master plan of development on the property, and that no further public hearings are required for the proposal . Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and giving final approval to the Zoning Text Amendment as follows based on the finding that allow the use by right-of-zone will expedite the process overall and will enable the City to attract additional dealers: "New auto sales agencies on sites of 2 acres or more located on a major thoroughfare to be added to Section 9220.01.A.3. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two pp . years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. SIGN APPLICATION (REF. CASE 5.0317-PD 157) . Application by D. CHRISTIAN for architectural approval of main identification sign for delicatessen and car wash at JIMSAIR (fixed-base operator) on Gene Autry Trail, between Tachevah Drive/Ramon Road, A Zone. (Continued from earlier in the meeting. ) M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Ealy abstained) removing the item from the table. Planning Director stated that a condition of approval of the carwash was that it not advertise to the general public. He circulated pictures of the monument signing approved for the project. Discussion followed on the concept of having the carwash advertised on the main sign. Commissioner Lapham stated that the Commission gave the applicant the carwash use, and it should be able to be advertised. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the sign does not fit the character of the remaining signs. M/S/C (Lapham/Apfelbaum; Madsen/Kaptur dissented) approving the v; application as submitted. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.977. Application by W. HALL for architectural approval of single- fa mi y hillside residence on Cantina Way, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. M/S/C (Ealy/Apfelbaum) for a restudy noting that the design is not in keeping with hillside development. SIGN APPLICATION (Ref. Case 3.864) . Application by D. CHRISTIAN for architectural approval of revised plans for a main identification sign for a hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between East Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented the sign on the board and stated that the AAC recommended approval subject to changing the copy colors. M/S/C (Neel/Ealy) approving the application subject to the following conditions: That the copy color be changed from dark brown to rust. CASE 3.0004. Application by R. DELMONTEQUE for architectural approval of a patio enclosure at 419 Calle Alvarado in the St. Tropez Villas residential condominium complex on Alejo Road, between Calle El Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-G-A(8) Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC recommended denial because the revision to the condominium is visible from the street. She read a letter form the applicant requesting approval. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that balconies should not be enclosed on any condominium complex. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis) denying the application. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 10.358 DETERMINATION. Request by Desert Gymnastics Boosters to allow gymnasium use in M-1-P Zone. Planning Director stated that staff finds that the use is similar to other uses allowed in the M-1-P Zone and has the same parking requirements. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) determining that a gymnasium use is an allowable use in the M-1-P Zone. 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. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) ,r CASE 3.001 (Minor) . Application by D. JOHNSON for architectural approval of revised colors for hotel at 1035 E. Ramon Road, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC recommended the colors indicated in the AAC Minutes. M/S/C (Lapham/Apfelbaum) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wall colors be Pearl White #15 and that the trim be Travertine #52. 2. That the applicant meet with staff regarding exterior lighting. CASE 3.458. Application by J. SNEDAKER for architectural approval of exterior colors for an industrial building on Eugene Road between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Planner (Vankeeken) stated that colors were not approved at the time of the building approval . M/S/C (Neel/Apfelbaum; Kaptur abstained) approving the following exterior colors: "Pink Moon" for exterior stucco and "Whale" for exterior trim. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. Discussion on methodology to revised zoning ordinance review. Planning Director requested direction on the methodology of reviewing the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance. He stated that a series of study sessionscould be held, or an all day session, a zone or section at a time could be reviewed, a subcommittee review could be held, or there could be evening study sessions. He stated that a list will be prepared of the most often requested items. Consensus was to begin the review at the next regularly scheduled study session on March 19 at 3:00 p.m in the Large Conference Room at City Hall . COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update on City Council actions. - CASE 3.959 SECURITY GATES. Council overruled Planning Commission den17a7--`an-d--Tpproved the application subject to conditions of staff. March 12, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 MISCELLAMEOUS ITEMS (Continued) ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at O p.m. PC A NING DIRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 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 17 0 Hugh Curtis X 17 0 Hugh Kaptur X 15 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 16 1 Larry Lapham X 17 0 Curt Ealy X 12 0 Earl Neel X 8 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Robert Green, Planner • John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - March 24, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Alternate: Sharon Apfelbaum Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi William Johnson Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Ealy absent) approving minutes of March 12, 1986 as submitted.