Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/05/28 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 28, 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 20 0 Hugh Curtis X 20 0 Hugh Kaptur X 18 2 Larry Lapham X 20 0 Curt Ealy X 15 0 Earl Neel X 11 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Richard McCoy, City Engineer Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - Tuesday, May 27, 1986 William Johnson Absent: J. Cioffi , Chairman Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) approving minutes of May 14, 1986 as submitted. r ' May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Community Deve1 dent Coordinator distributed rough drafts of the Capital Improvement 'Pro ram (CIP) which will be reviewed by the Commission on June 11 , stated that the CIP had been discussed with Council and that the Commission needs to review the document for conformity with the General Plan. She stated that the dollar amounts and costs are accurate and describe the various funds included in the CIP. She explained that the Commission could contact her if there were any questions or concerns or additional items that Commissioners want included. She stated that the text for the CIP will be completed and mailed to the Commission, and that prioritizing is indicated by the years the project is listed, but that years 86 and 87 have not been prioritized. She stated that the Redevelopment Agency can answer questions on the auto part and street improvements along Ramon and Gene Autry Trail , but that she could obtain the costs if the Commission desires. Planning Director stated that the CIP includes the entire industrial area along Ramon and Gene Autry with an overall street improvement program. Community Development Coordinator stated that the text is not available currently even in draft form but should be com- pleted and available within a week. CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy) taking the following action: CASE 3.0041 (MINOR) . Application by SIGN TECH for Tony Romas Restaurant for architecturYT approval of awning for restaurant at 450 S. Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following: 1 . A total redesign of the awning to include width, height and mass. 2. That the signage be including in the awning design. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA CASE 3.953. Application by MICHAEL KINER representing Horwitch Galleries for architectural approval of revised landscaping and revised exterior for art gallery at 1090 N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tachevah Drive/N. Indian Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the AAC originally recommended approval subject to submission of landscape plans and recommended at the time the landscape plans were submitted that a planter be added along the Palm Canyon frontage tying it with the lower sill of the window, but that the architect wants to extend the arched window to the ground which would fill the entire door space and place the planter under the southern May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.953. (Continued) addition of the building only. He stated that at the AAC meeting of May 27, the AAC reiterated its recommendations of April 21. He stated that the applicant feels that the buttress which would be hidden by the planter should remain as an important architectural element of the building. M. Kiner, 7654 Yucca Tree Drive, Palm Desert, project designer, stated that the buttresses and the porte-cochere are the two architectural elements of the building which are strong and should remain. He described on the board the AAC recommendations and stated that encasing the buttresses is not acceptable. He indicated his preference for the elevation exposing the buttress (architect's plan "A" ) . M. Buccino, landscape architect, 340 S. Farrell Drive, stated that he does not disagree with the AAC very often, but that in this instance he felt that the building should be left clean and pure as it was designed, and that the landscape treatment should be a paving scheme on which the building sits with no plantings around it. He stated that the courtyard will be a landscaped scheme with the only planting in the front being an existing Jacaranda tree. He described the courtyard landscape elements and stated that sculptures will be placed in the courtyard and under the porte-cochere. He stated that the integrity of the architecture should be maintained, that nothing should be added that does not belong in the design and that to construct a planter would be a foreign element. He explained that the Redevelopment staff has agreed to participate in the paving costs because of the proposed concept. He described landscaping in the parking lot and suggested evergreens on the south side with Crepe Mrytle in the rear of the parking lot (although the AAC recommended against them because they do not provide enough shade). He stated that the applicant wants a bright and playful appearance to the landscaping. Mr. Kiner stated that the planter recommended by the AAC is not a planter but a masonry wall . Commissioner Lapham noted that the Crepe Mrytle trees will be bare six months of the year. Mr. Buccino stated that the trees do not lose all of their leaves in the desert climate and that there will be no strong shade pattern on the east and north sides of the building. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was inclined to agree with the professionals on the project and not restrict them in the minor details the AAC recommended. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Buccino stated that there will be flowers in the two planters and groundcover beneath the Jacaranda tree in the front and pots against the building for color. M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy; Lapham/Neel dissented) approving architect' s plan "A" subject to the followings conditions: 1. That the pot shelf be added along the Palm Canyon frontage to the south of the buttress only. f; .. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.953. (Continued) 2. That the trees along the south edge of the parking lot be evergreen. 3. That Crepe Mrytle be planted along street frontages and parking lot. 4. That a minimum of 30" box size trees be used in the parking lot. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0398-PD-180 (Continued). Application by LAWRENCE PIERCE for a Planned Development District to construct a 91 unit, 3-story hotel on South Indian Avenue between Calle Encilia/South Indian Avenue, south of Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1-AA Zones, (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . No comments. ) Recommendation: That the Commission restudy the architecture and continue the application to June 11. Planner (Green) presented the project and stated that there has been a change in State law that requires that plans be submitted and signed by registered architects, and that the revised plans submitted by the applicant were not drawn by a registered architect. He stated that the AAC recommended continuance until the plans are completed and signed by an architect although the Committee informally reviewed the architecture. He stated that the applicants are redesigning the project. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances , the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) for a restudy of the architecture and for plans to be submitted with an architects signature and license number and a restudy of the landscape plans noting the following: 1. That decorative paving be added to visually break the parking lot street. 2. That more trees be added around building B (add vertical spaces). 3. That canopy trees be added south of the pool . 4. That trees be subject to the city size policy. 5. That palm trees be grouped and placed against the building. Note: The Commission continued the application till June 11. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 r . PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0398-PD-180 (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of May 13, 1986. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and review of the City Planning Commission Meeting minutes of May 14, 1986, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its actions of May 13, 1986, which were as follows: a. Concurred with the findings and conclusions contained in Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 14, 1986. b. Approved the Preliminary Planned Development District subject to the conditions recommended by City Staff. 2. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 1 , 1986. CASE 8.229 - SIGN VARIANCE (Continued). Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for Plaza Motors for a sign variance for two additional signs above �—' ordinance requirements for auto sales company at 290 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 (I .L. ) , Section 14. and CASE 3.0039 (MINOR) (Continued). Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of revisions to existing sign program for automobile agency at 290 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 14. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny sign variance 8.229 and approve Case 3.0039 subject to conditions. Zoning Enforcement Officer described the proposed sign changes and stated that the AAC recommended approval of the design of the sign but did not comment on the variance. He stated that two additional signs are being requested, but are above the requirements of the sign ordinance - a sign for the used car area and a second identification sign. He stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance. Planning Director stated that no finding can be made for approval and that the Tribal Council supports staffs recommendation for denial . Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Engle, Imperial Signs, Indio, stated that there is a problem with the existing identification sign because it is blocked by the building architecture and cannot be read by traffic traveling on Indian Avenue. He stated also that the City' s street trees block the sign and that there is also a safety hazard created because people have passed the business before they realize it and cannot turn around because Indian is May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 r ' PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 3.0039 (MINOR) (Continued) a one-way street at that point. He stated that the proposed used cars sign is set 75 ft. and could not be seen unless it were larger than the 5 sq. ft. allowed and was the reason for the applicant's requesting the sign. Discussion followed on findings for a variance. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Sign Ordinance stated that a sign variance may be granted if there are unique architectural or site plan features which limit the sign's applicability. Ms. Shannon O'Mahoney, Imperial Signs, Indio, stated that she had difficulty finding the 'business as she drove along N. Indian Avenue, although she knew where it was and that people have to drive around the block if they miss it because of the one-way street. She stated that the building structure is unique and that because of the traffic hazard created by the one-way street the sign company feels justified in applying for the variance. Commissioner Kaptur stated that signing is important on a one-way street and suggested that locations of signs "A" and "E" be reversed. In reply to Commission question, Ms. O'Mahoney stated that a person would be able to identify Plaza Motors while traveling west on Amado if an I .D. sign were facing Amado. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that staff could not trade off the location of the signs, but if the applicant wished to delete the main sign and replace it with one on the south end of the building it could be done. In reply to Commission question he stated that a convenience sign over the driveway would be limited to 5 sq. ft. (maximum) , but that a sign on Amado is allowed and cannot be traded. Further discussion followed on moving locations of the signs. Commissioner Curtis stated that moving a main I .D. sign to the south of the building might create both a car servicing and traffic problem. Ms. O'Mahoney stated that the south parking lot is not used as a driveway and cars block it. A. Jessup, 599 Fern Canyon Road, the applicant, stated that the two objectives requested are upgrading of the sign program and giving additional identification to the car lines since people cannot find the business. He stated that there was sufficient signing on the canopy before the Sign Ordinance was changed and the sign eliminated. He explained that no single sign will serve the entire facility and suggested that the sign on the end of the canopy be approved (thus eliminating a safety hazard) . In response to Commission question about replacement of sign "C" with an entry sign and another sign on the south end of the building, Mr. Jessup May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0039 (MINOR) . (Continued) stated that he did not like to lose sign "C" on the north side of the building. He suggested a smaller sign at the end of the canopy as an alternative and stated that a service entry sign is a needed sign (sign B . ) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that sign "B" will be upgraded, is a convenience sign, and that there is no problem with the sign. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that he could not interject an opinion on whether or not there is a hardship because of a lack of signing, because it is the Commission's purvue to do this. He explained that a finding must be made that there are unusual architectural or unusual site plan features which limit the applicability and lessen the intent of the Sign Ordinance. In response to Chairman's request Planning Director stated that the intent of the Sign Ordinance is for one main sign concept per property. Assistant City Attorney read the preamble to the Sign Ordinance (high aesthetic standards, equitable standards for all businesses, and the need for an uncluttered appearance of the City) . Discussion followed on the uniqueness of the building as a finding for a variance. Mr. Ealy stated that the building does have some d... characteristics of "unusual and unique" architecture. City Attorney stated that a finding would have to be that the building is unique. Planning Director stated that if the uniqueness of this building is a finding, staff will receive many applications for additional signs. Chairman stated that a variance does not set a precedent. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he could support the variance, but did not want 5 or 6 signs on the building. He suggested that an in-depth study be made to resolve problems from a design standpoint and develop- ment of a sign program. Discussion followed on whether or not a variance could be approved. Commissioner Curtis stated that sign "E" on the south side of the building, if approved, should be compatible with the rest of the signing. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the parking area south of the property is owned by Plaza Motors. Commissioner Curtis suggested a free standing sign and again suggested that a program be developed at which the variance could be supported if necessary. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that a monument sign was suggested by staff, but that the sign company felt that the configuration of the building prohibited it. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 R PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0039 (MINOR) . (Continued) Chairman commented that a monument sign would have to be on the sidewalk. Discussion ensued on the type of Commission action. Planning Director stated that a variance could be approved if findings were made that the building is unusual (with a restudy of the signs), He suggested that if findings are made for uniqueness they be enum- merated. M/S (Kaptur/Ealy) that the variance be approved with findings that there are unique architectural and site features, one-way traffic which reduces the visibility of the signing, existing City palm trees which block the signing, that the signing was designed with a two-way street element which has now become one-way, and also that the architecture does not facilitate to adequate signing. Discussion continued before the vote was taken. Planning Director reiterated that staff is concerned about the findings being specific because there are many businesses along one-way streets with the architectural design ignoring graphics and signage and the same findings could be made for many businesses along Indian and Palm Canyon. He questioned whether or not there were a problem with the Sign Ordinance and stated that findings could be made on this particular building but not on every building along Palm Canyon and Indian. Commissioner Kaptur stated because of the nature of the 200 ft. wide frontage there would be less signage than there would be if the property were in several more normal frontages. Commissioner Ealy stated that the wording regarding the Ordinance seems to be more general and permissive in the Sign Ordinance than in the Zoning Ordinance and allows for more general types of findings. Assistant City Attorney stated that findings for a land use variance are different from that for a sign in that the characteristics created by the user himself, such as architecture of the building, are not used in a land use variance but can be used in a sign variance. Commissioner Ealy explained that the generality is the reason he seconded the motion. Commissioner Curtis stated that there are not many businesses that have access to the south or north on Indian and Palm Canyon and that they would never require a sign either north or south, but that there are many properties on the corners who do not have existing signage. He stated that if there are any businesses that deserved a sign on the south side the subject business does although the type of sign is open to question. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the business is unique because there are several businesses within one at the facility (servicing, used car and new sales). May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0039 (MINOR). (Continued) Chairman stated that he did not support the variance because the problem could be resolved by moving the main identification sign down to the driveway. Commissioner Neel stated that he could not support the variance because it is precedent setting and because there will be many more requests if it is approved. Chairman explained that Commission action should be in regard to whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a variance (without consider- ation of the signs) . Assistant City Attorney stated that precedent setting cannot be caused by a variance because it is granted on uniqueness. The Commission then voted on the variance. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Kaptur, Ealy, Curtis Noes: Lapham, Neel , Madsen The was a tie vote and the variance was denied. (Assistant City Attorney stated that a tie vote is denial since the Commission did not approve the variance. ) Planning Director stated that the action is appealable to the City Council . M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) approving the three legal signs as submitted (Case 3.0039) . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS CASE 8.229 - SIGN VARIANCE was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of May 13, 1986. Action on this Case was continued pending the applicant's submittal of the showings required for the approval of a variance. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and review of the City Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 14, 1986, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the applicant did not make the mandated showings, either as part of the application or in his presentation at the City Planning Commission hearing of May 14, 1986, which are required for approval of a variance. 2. In view of the applicant's failure to make the showings referred to above, the Tribal Council concurred with the recommendations contained in City Staff Report dated May 14, 1986, that the variance be denied. 3. In accordance with its policy on architectural approval items, the Tribal Council did not comment on CASE 3.0039 (MINOR) which involved architectural approval of revisions to existing signs. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0404-PD-182. Application by DAVID GRAF for Mark Bragg for review of the initial study portion of an environmental review to define the areas to be analyzed in an EIR for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a 200 unit resort hotel on Tram Way between the Tram Base Station/Highway 111, U-R Zone, Section 4. Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a draft EIR. Planner (Evans) described the project as a 200 unit hotel with 8 tennis courts and 5 pool areas on 40 acres of a 320 acre site. He requested that comments or concerns be given to staff regarding potential issues, to establish the scope and focus of the EIR, and to delineate primary and secondary impact areas . He stated that the Tribal Council is supporting the preparation of a Draft EIR, and that one letter has been received in opposition to development in Chino Canyon. He explained that the proposed timeline is for a public hearing on the draft EIR in November and the final EIR in January, 1987. In reply to Commission question, he stated that 200 units would be built at a maximum condition; and if condominiums were constructed, there would be 150 units. He described the site on the board and stated that landscaping is proposed to be traditional urban type of landscaping with a transition area to native plant species. He discussed the proposal showing conference and administration facilities and the surrounding property which is to be preserved as open space. He stated that the archi- tectural concepts will be Mediterrean with materials to be selected for compatibility with the area and that minor revisions may be made after EIR results have been formulated. He explained that the AAC approved the concept but felt the architectural type should represent the desert environment. With respect to the landscaping, he stated the AAC recommended that the desert landscaping should be less rigid, more integrated that additional elevations and footprints are necessary, and that a study of detailed colors and materials be made. He stated that all details are to be reviewed in the future by the Commission. Chairman declared the hearing open. M. Bragg, 1526 18th Street, Washington D.C. , the applicant, stated that he was present to answer questions. C. Nichols, 899 N. Palm Canyon, stated that he was in favor of the pro- ject since it will be beneficial and help to protect his adjoining property which he will maintain as a private natural reserve with no plans for development. He stated that his unspoiled property will be preserved permanently for study and educational purposes. He requested that "Tram Way Road" on the agenda be changed to "Tram Way" which is the approved name, and that Highway 111 be referred to as North Palm Canyon Drive. G. Meyer, 73300 Grapevine, Palm Desert, speaking for the Tahquitz group of the Sierra Club and also for the Coachella Valley Audubon Society voiced concerns as follows: May 28, 1986 PLANNING .COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0404. (Continued) - Leap frog development without necessary support services. (Poor planning practise. - Visual obtrusiveness (height, hillside development, visibility from the valley floor, obstruction of the view to Mt. San Jacinto) . - Light obtrusiveness (from tennis court lighting) . - Impact on the natural environment and nocturnal animals. - Hillside development. Technically not hillside but should be listed as such in General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Also Tramway General Plan should be updated as sensitivity to resources has increased since the plan was written in 1966. - Impact on water resources. Wells for the project would have adverse affect on the adjacent oasis which is a Least Bell 's Vireo habitat. - Flood control . Floods could occur on the property since the boulders on the site were deposited by floods and flooding may occur again. - Impact on biological resources. Development is planned in the midst of a natural wildlife area. - Plantings. Non-native vegetation will be intrusive and will interfere with native vegetation. Utilization of natural vegeta- tion should be required. - Nightlight impact. Night lighting effects on wildlife are unknown but impacts could be severe. Cultural resources. More thorough study needed. - Increase in traffic. Traffic would not be confined to tram hours but would be on a 24 hour basis; night travel with lights would be generated and should be considered. - Bighorn sheep habitat. Potentially prime habitat for the Bighorn sheep. - Construction disturbance. Entire 40 acres will be disrupted at one time with loss of much of the values of the site from dust, noise, and vehicles , and will impact on the Least Bell 's Vireo. - Fire. Long emergency response time. Should be sprinklered, water tanks provided, and trained personnel should be on site. Adjacent area is a wildfire area and fire might escape from the site. - Project location. Main concern. It would be a fine project some- where else but not in its present location. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) M. Bragg (rebuttal ) stated that many of the concerns have been discussed in meetings with the Sierra Club and Audubon Society and will be addressed in the EIR. He stated that the cultural resources study was not superficial because much time and money were spent on it, and the study found that there was no major disruption of any identified cultural resources at the present time. He stated that the other con- cerns will be addressed in detail in the future. In response to Commission question, Planner stated that the Least Bell ' s Vireo is found in most of the canyons west of the City and every project near a canyon will need to address the issue. He stated that most of the issues indicated by Mr. Meyer are addressed in the initial study. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) ordering the preparation of a draft EIR for review by the Commission and focusing on areas identified by staff in the initial study. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS It was noted that the proposed project is located on former Indian Trust Land and is bounded by undeveloped Indian Trust Lands on the South, Northeast, Northwest and Southwest. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and in view of the project's potential environmental impact on undeveloped trust lands, including cultural resources within the Project Site, the Tribal Council took the following action: Concurred with City staff recommendations that a Draft Environmental Impact Report be prepared addressing the impact areas identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 28, 1986, and focused according to the prioritization contained in the document. CASE 6.354-VARIANCE. Application by ERIK WILLIAMS for a variance in front yard setbacks to construct a shade structure for a single-family residence at 373 Via Sol , R-1-A Zone, Section 3 (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application. Planner (Green) presented a staff report and stated that the house had a carport converted legally before the City required two covered parking spaces for residential areas, and Finding No. 4 in the staff report is not valid since this information recently came to light. He stated that staff cannot make the necessary required findings for approval of the variance, and that the Zoning Ordinance requires that garages be 25 ft. from the property line for vehicular maneuvering. He stated that if the variance is granted, cars will be required to back onto the street. He explained that five neighbors have objected to the proposal citing �'� concerns of precedent setting, adverse impact on the appearance of the May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.354-VARIANCE. (Continued) street, and effect on property values. He stated that the AAC recommended approval of the design, but that staff recommends denial of the variance. Chairman declared the hearing open. E. Williams, 373 Via Sol , the applicant and owner of the property stated that there are certain circumstances that should be considered and certain conditions make the variance a reasonable one. He stated that the house was built in the 1950's and was inadequate as his family grew larger, and that it was necessary to convert the garage into living area, which necessitated giving up the parking space, and that covered parking is needed because of the summer heat. He stated that there is a driveway on the side of the house which places cars closer to the street with less turning radius and is more objectionable that what is being proposed. He stated that everything being requested adheres to the Zoning Ordinance except for the extension of the canopy further into the setback, that the canopy is not obtrusive or unattractive, and that none of the neighbors has reviewed the plans and are responding in ignorance of the situation. He stated that in the older Las Palmas area many homeowners have constructed canopies and carports, many of which are in violation of the existing ordinance, that no precedent is being estab- lished, since it is already established in Las Palmas; and that the City has allowed the infractions to remain. He stated that the present ordinance requires two covered spaces, and that he wishes to comply with �.. the ordinance but that compliance requires a variance of 5 ft. 6 inches. Commissioner Kaptur asked the depth of the canopy if taken back to the property line. Dr. Williams stated that it would be 15 ft. and very sufficient, and that he had thought the structure was required to be 18 ft. by 18 ft. Planning Director stated that since the carport was legally converted, the applicants are under no mandate to construct a garage or carport so that a permit could be issued for a six foot square covered area and the 15 ft. extension would be no problem. He stated that if it were a legal carport, in order to satisfy the ordinance the applicants would be required to put in a 18 ft. square structure. Dr. Williams stated that he would be happy to compromise with a 15 ft. canopy. Commissioner Lapham stated that there would not be a require- ment for Commission approval , and that the 15 ft. canopy would require only a building permit. Planning Director agreed since it is not a hillside area or an archi- tectural street. He stated that it was put on the agenda to achieve what the applicant wanted to build and that the applicant was not questioned by staff on whether or not he would find the smaller structure acceptable. ,. G. Trimble, 353 Via Sol , stated that he was in favor of the project, that it would be visible from his property and would enhance the subject property since the cars will be covered. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.354-VARIANCE. (Continued) There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur; Curtis abstained) denying the variance based on the following findings: 1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which determines that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classification. 2. That conditions cannot be applied to the proposal which would assure that the adjustment shall not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the General Plan for the City. 4. That the depth of the lot conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. TPM 21492 and CASE 3.997. Application by BERNARD J. CRAWFORD for a tentative 4... parcel map to consolidate 3 lots into one for condominium purposes and architectural approval of a 3-story condominium complex on El Segundo between Ramon Road/Saturnino Road, R-4 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; final approval ; no comments. ) Planner Green explained the project on the display board, and stated that there have been objections from the residents of an adjoining condominium project regarding safety fence, some of the residents feel that the homeowners in the proposed project might gain access to their project while being concealed by the carports. He stated that staff has no objections to the carports as long as they are designed with the pro- ject although a AMM will be required to allow a minor intrusion into the setbacks. He stated that staff recommends approval of the architecture subject to conditions, that a separate CUP will be required for tennis court lighting. and that an additional trash enclosure will be required. He stated that accessing onto Ramon Road will be by right turn only and that the AAC reviewed the project at an earlier meeting and had minor recommendations. He stated that Planning staff has added some condi- tions. In regard to the map, he stated that staff recommends that the north boundary line extend to the Baristo Channel to avoid a remainder sliver of land which does not comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, but that the applicant is questioning the condition. He stated that the applicant is also questioning the condition to widen the bridge across the flood channel in order to keep a straight line for E1 Segundo and the requirement to install a traffic light at E1 Segundo and Ramon May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 21492 and CASE 3.997. (Continued) (applicant will be required to pay one-fourth of the cost) . He explained the City Attorney is requesting a continuance of the map for further review by his office. In reply to Commission questions, Planner stated that staff feels that carports should be placed along the north portion of the site along the flood channel , will require a AMM for minor encroachment into the set- backs and that a ramp will be required into the entrance to the double- loaded corridor. He stated that zoning for the Village Racquet Club is R-4. (Planning Director stated that Zoning was R-2 when the project was built. ) Chairman declared the hearing open. B. J. Crawford, project developer and lessee, requested that the 8 ft. sidewalk and 8 ft. bikepath requirement be revised to a 10 ft. combin- ation which allows for more landscaping. He stated that the condition which will be impossible to fulfill is that of requiring dedication of Saturnino because he does not have the land under lease, and the area is a natural extension of the Village Racquet Club lease and not tied into the subject site. He said that his lease extends to the southside of the channel and that one of the lots has a maximum of 10,000 sq. ft. and does set a precedent. He stated that' the Subdivision Map Act may not be applicable to Indian Land held in Federal Trust and that he would accept the condition to fund one-fourth the cost of a traffic signal at �..� E1 Segundo and Ramon, although he questioned whether it was needed because a recent traffic study stated that it was not a requirement on that street. He noted that his firm had just completed the Biarritz complex which abuts the same street and was not required to participate in the cost of a signal . He stated also that the requirement for a bridge on El Segundo may not be able to be met because the the Indians may not lease him additional land, and he does not have the authority to dedicate that piece of land. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the land is leased only to the south boundary of the flood channel and that the remainder land is still retained by three Indian owners and is contiguous with land east of Village Racquet Club. He stated that someone could negotiate with the Indians regarding this particular sliver, but that he could not insure the land, and that irrigation would have to be on separate meters. He stated that the Indians should have been compensated for the sliver when the land was taken from them. He stated it was probably a problem for the flood control district. C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that he was present to answer questions, and that there was no problem with reloca- tion of the carports, but that it would be difficult to negotiate to develop on the sliver of property and that the carports are more hidden in their present location. Mrs. M. Troup, 951 Village Square South, stated that driveway ramps on the project will affect residents at that end of the project, because the units face the new complex and will be affected by lights from the cars on the ramps. She stated that security could be a problem because people can climb the walls to use the pools and other facilities and requested that the wall of the adjoining complex be raised in height. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 21492 and CASE 3.997. (Continued) M. Johnson, 474 Village Square West, stated that he was not objecting to the development itself, but that the homes along the wall will be facing directly into the development, and that his home would be near the car- ports and tennis courts. He stated that circumstances change properties which has happened at the Biarritz and that there will be light pollution from the courts. He stated that at Easter there were problems with persons scaling the walls and also security problems and that one of the security guards was killed recently when a vehicle rammed the gate. He questioned whether or not there would be public access to the new project since people could then have access to the Village Racquet Club and stated that the Village Racquet Club homeowners plan to build guard houses and hire additional guards, but if people can access readily the homeowners would be spending money needlessly. He stated that the tennis courts for the Village Racquet Club are in the center of the complex and unlighted to avoid light pollution. He also questioned landscape maintenance responsibility and height of the walls and stated also that the homeowners were never approached regarding the project. B. J. Crawford (rebuttal ) stated that the residents have valid concerns, that he had tried to contact the homeowners association but that the management company had refused to give out the names of the homeowners and he was forced to obtain the names from the assessors rolls for notification. He stated that the subject property tennis courts are not lighted nor are those of the Biarritz. He explained that the maximum height of the walls is 54 inches and that there will be unmanned security gates at the project entrance. He stated that the angle of the ramps does not allow vehicular light pollution. Mr. Mills stated that the angle of the ramps and the landscaping will screen the lights and that the carports will be light, open, and low; and that there are three elevators in the project in the central cores. He stated that the project will be gated. M/S/C (Lapham/Neel ; Ealy abstained) approving the architecture (Case 3.997) subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee of May 13, 1986 be implemented. 2. That there be a restudy of the capitals. 3. That there be a restudy of the roof tile. 4. That the carports be relocated to the north boundary line. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham; Ealy abstained) continuing TPM 21492 to June 11 for further review by the City Attorney's Office. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 4 r" PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 21492 and CASE 3.997. (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved tentative Parcel Map 21492 subject to Development Committee Conditions dated March 11, 1986. 2. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 28, 1986. 3. In accordance with its policy on architectural approval items, the Tribal Council did not comment on the architectural features of the proposed project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0038 (MINOR) . Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of revised sign application and awning for Robann's Jewelers at 125 South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented the sign and awning on the board. J. Engle, Imperial Signs, Indio, requested that the canopy be approved at 30 inches (not 15 as recommended by the AAC) , because the 15 inch width becomes part of the fascia. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that AAC member Mills dissented because he did not feel that the building design should be changed, because the building was designed by Lloyd Wright. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the awning will be recessed an additional 15 inches (from a 30 inch width to a 15 inch width) . 2. That the width at the end of the horizontal band match the building. 3. That the south end of the awning be extended to the end of the stonework. 4. That the AAC and Planning Commission review working drawings. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 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 3.959 (HOA) . Application by STEVE SULLIVAN for the Palm Springs Town omen Homeowners Association for architectural approval of detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for a security wall system for a residential condominium complex on N. Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. Planning Director stated that the application was denied by the Commission, but the Council overruled the Commission action and applicants are now submitting landscape plans, and that irrigation plans include reworking of the existing irrigation system (which has been dis- cussed with staff) . He described the size of the plant materials and stated that the lighting will be very simple with lights at the walkways and uplights on the walls. He stated that the AAC recommended approval subject to changes in some aspects of the landscaping. S. Sullivan, Palm Desert, the architect, stated that the applicants were agreeable with the conditions. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Via Escuela street frontage include Bougainvillea, Aramerops, and Rosemary in the raised planters. 2. That shrubs be integrated with the annual color and planting areas. 3. That the Lantana in the raised planter boxes on Via Escuela be deleted and Bourgainvillea substituted. 4. That details of the above conditions be approved by staff in the field. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0155-PD-129 & TTM 17151. Request by MEL HABER for a twelve month time extension for TTM 17151 and Case 5.0155-PD-155 to allow construction of a 76 unit condominium project on the westerly terminus of Tahquitz- McCallum Way, R-2 & R-3 Zones, Section 15. Planner (Evans) stated that the project was approved in 1981 and the map will expire in July of 1986 and cannot be extended but can be resubmitted. He stated that the AAC had been concerned about the roof concept in the original approval and the elevations were approved con- ditionally subject to redesign of the mansard roof to hip roofs in some areas. He stated that the AAC reviewed the original application on May 27, is still concerned about the mansard roof concept, and that staff is recommending a 24 month time extension on the PD. Planning Director explained the project was reviewed by the AAC because the new Zoning Ordinance limits the length of the AAC approval to 2 May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0155-PD-129 & TTM 17151. (Continued) years and staff feels that the AAC should review older projects. He stated that there are homes which overlook the roof. Planner stated that residents above the project are concerned about the height of the building and the roof tile and are concerned about the white roof because of the mansard concept. He stated that staff has recommended a 24 month time extension with the roof concept to be redesigned prior to issuance of building permit. M. Haber, 200 W. Ramon, the applicant, requested. extension of the PD so that the project will not fail since much time and money have been spent on it. He stated that the restudy of the roof concept is an acceptable condition. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham; Kaptur abstained) approving a 24 month time extension with a new expiration date to be July 28, 1988 subject to all original conditions of approval and the following additional condition: That the mansard roof concept be redesigned to include hip roofs in the overall concept. NOTE: TTM 17151 expired on 1/25/86 and no further extensions can be granted. �... ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.864. Application by BROWN, BROSCHE, FINANCIAL, INC. for architectural approval of revised roof tile for hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between E. Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the original approval was for authentic barrel tile, that the applicant is now requesting a change to either articulated flat tile or "S" tile, and that the AAC recommended denial and retention of the approved barrel tile. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) denying the proposed change of roof tile. CASE 3.932. Application by SUJAN, INC. for architectural approval of revised elevations for apartment building on E1 Placer Road between Ramon Road/Via Parocela, R-2 Zone, Section 19 (Ref. Case 3.951) . M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) for a restudy noting the followings : 1. That the east end elevation be redesigned with a more substantial element, not an "add-on" element. 2. That the wall and entry area & landscaping be redesigned. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.951 (REF. Case 3.932) . Application by SUJAN, INC. for architectural approval of revised elevations for apartment building on E1 Placer Road between Ramon Road/Camino Parocela, R-2 Zone, Section 19. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis) for a restudy noting the followings : 1. That the east end elevation be redesigned with a more substantial element, not an "add-on" element. 2. That the wall and entry area & landscaping be redesigned. CASE 3.0042 (MINOR) (Continued) . Application by SIGN TECH for architectural approval of two main identification signs, an attraction board for a six plex motion picture theater at the Courtyard, 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle E1 Segundo, C-1-AA Zone, Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309.) Chairman abstained; Vice Chairman presided. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Ealy/Kaptur/Madsen abstained) tabling the item till later in the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM CASE 5.0405-CUP. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a conditional use permit to allow construction and operation of a public park (McCallum Desert Reserve) on El Cielo Road, north of Sonora Road, W-R-1-C Zone, Section 19. Planner (Evans) presented the project and stated that the review will be of the environmental assessment only with the public hearing scheduled for June 11. He stated that the McCallum property was donated to the City with open space deed restrictions, and that the idea will be to landscape an area that will represent desert regions throughout the southwest. He stated that the plan was a concept and that the AAC recommended changes as follows: Roadway to be relocated to the north adjacent to the Tahquitz Wash so that the internal portions of the park are not disturbed by vehicular traffic; that the roadway proposed to be gravel be paved (the Traffic Engineer agrees with this condition) ; and that a special entry wall be used (per Frank Lloyd Wright) which utilizes boulders set in concrete. He explained that the Director of Community Services may have budgetary constraints regarding the wall , that there will be no significant adverse effects on the environment and the project will enhance the area and provide access to the equestrian facility. He stated the Traffic Engineer recommends keeping Sonora in its present configuration, feeling that two access points are better than one. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to June 11. 4" NOTE: Brief discussion ensued on extending the roadway to the north. Commissioners Ealy and Lapham indicated that they would like to be able to drive through the park as long as the road is paved. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 CASE 3.0042 (MINOR) . Application by SIGN TECH for architectural approval of two main identification signs, an attraction board for a six plex motion picture theater at the Courtyard, 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle El Segundo, C-1-AA Zone, Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309. ) Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Madsen/Kaptur/Ealy abstained) removing the item from the table. Planning Director explained that two signs are proposed with black metal letters in a script form and a different location than what was originally indicated. He stated that the AAC recommended that the sign be on the east side, that the reader board be separated and integrated, and that the color combination proposed is a black background with white letters. He stated that staff recommended burgandy rather than the red trim because of the color problems of the Courtyard complex, and that also staff feels that the type of letter does not lend itself to the project as it is a cartoon type of style but that the AAC did not comment on the style. Commissioner Lapham commented that the building is stiff and formal . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Ealy/Kaptur/Madsen abstained) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That the reader board be recessed into the wall for a maximum !� projection of five (5) inches. 2. That the sign be integrated on the north elevation with the reader board. 3. That the color, location, and script style of the sign be restudied. 4. That the sign on the east elevation is approved as to sign and location but that the script letter style shall be restudied. NOTE: Planning Director stated that at the Big 5 complex on South Palm Canyon a script style lettering was approved, and it is difficult to read because of lack of negative space around the letters. CASE 3.0043 (MINOR). Application by GEORGE MARANTZ for architectural approval of addition of windows on the north elevation of a building, 1000 block S. Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Planning Director showed a photo of the building as originally approved and with two recent holes cut into the building and requested that the Commissioners review the building individually in the field. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ; Ealy/Madsen abstained) continuing the application to June 11 for a field review by the AAC and Planning Commission. May 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update on City Council actions. '�.. - Noise Study. Noise consultants from Fayetteville, Arkansas will be retained by the City to study airport noise, especially engine run-ups which check performance and are very noisy. - Draft Residential Survey. Input required from Commission as soon as possible since study session of May 21 was cancelled. - Commission Vacation Sign-up Sheet. Circulated to Commissioners to indicate their vacation dates. - Review of AAC Process. Council is requesting review of the process may be revised. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5 :30 p.m. OF PLANNING D RECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 11 , 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 - 20 1 Hugh Curtis X 21 0 Hugh Kaptur X 19 2 Larry Lapham X 21 0 Curt Ealy X 16 0 Earl Neel X 12 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Fred Hawkins, Director of Community Services Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans , Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - June 9, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Kaptur absent) approving minutes of May 28, 1986 with the following corrections : Page 2, line 11, change "part" to "park" (CIP). Page 14, sixth paragraph, line 3, change "fence" to "since" (Case 3.997/TPM 21492) Page 18, fifth paragraph, line 2, change "Aamerops" to "Chamerops" (Case 3.959) . •