Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/10/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 8, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 6 0 Hugh Curtis X 6 0 Hugh Kaptur 5 2 Earl Neel X 4 2 Gary Olsen X 5 0 Barbara Whitney X 3 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer ..,� Tom Graham, Building & Safety Director Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 6, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi William Johnson Mike Buccino Chris Mills Gary Olsen Barbara Whitney Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Kaptur absent) approving minutes of September 24, 1986 as submitted. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Whitney/Curtis; Kaptur absent)) taking the following actions: CASE 3.758. Application by RATTNER INVESTMENTS #III for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for a 129 unit apartment complex on Farrell Drive between Hwy 111/Sonora Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Continued to October 22, 1986 for submittal of revised plans. CASE 3.0095. Application by the HOLT GROUP for Frank Matranga for architec- tural approval of an office and print shop on Valdivia Way between Campana Way/Tachevah Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. CASE 3.989. Application by CARPETERIA for architectural approval of revised --elevations for new commercial building on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Yorba/Alvarado, C-1 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. Restudy, noting that the roof mass should be modified to include a large stucco area and hip roof. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.960 (Continued) . Application by the PALM SPRINGS MALL for archite- ctural approval of working drawings for the north side of an existing shopping center on the northwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, CSC Zone, Section 18. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC reviewed the north elevation only in working drawings; and that the originally approved glass storefront has been removed because of building and safety requirements, and replaced by a stucco wall , the exterior corridor deleted and replaced by landscaping. She stated that the planters will remain. Discussion ensued on the reasons for deleting the glassed storefronts. Planner stated that the glass was originally approved, but with the change in staff in the Building Division, requirements changed and a one-hour fire wall is now necessary. She stated that there is a sprinkler system also. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 Case 3.960 (Continued) D. Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon Drive, project architect, stated that the project was originally designed with the glass storefronts, but because of a change of staff at the Building Division, the requirements were changed and the design then changed to eliminate the 10-foot corridor on the north elevation. He stated that a heavy irrigation system has been provided in lieu of a sprinkler system and another exit added. He stated that he disagreed with the Building Division requirements and the revised plans are a compromise, that the design meets Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements; and that the applicant has appealed before the Appeals Board which resulted in the compromise shown, which eliminated the 10-foot corridor and the glass storefronts. Chairman questioned whether or not unwired glass would be violating the UBC requirements. Mr. Christian explained that the 10-foot corridor was originally allowed before the staff change in Building, but that the current staff is not comfortable with the corridor. He stated that the mall owners want to finish the project, that the sidewalks have been deleted and replaced with landscaping, that blank walls exist presently at Millers' and Von's stores, and that the walls will be painted a deeper tone. Chairman suggested a different color to the wall to retain continuity of design. Mr. Christian stated that a deeper tone would probably be used and requested that he be allowed to borrow the colored elevations on the board to review the color combinations. He stated that the corridors are required to be 20 feet to allow glass fronts and would displace too much store area, and would require removal of curbs. Planning Director suggested that the corridor be moved to the south, but Mr. Christian stated that the applicant did not want to relocate them to the south. Commissioner Curtis stated that the revised requirements are not fair to the applicant, but that the area needs landscaping, and some element should tie the blank walls together. Mr. Christian explained that the area will be shaded and without light but there will be "play" with other materials to draw the eyes to the areas of activity (the entrances) , and that a monochromatic color scheme is preferable for the wall . Planner stated that the AAC felt that the wall was like the west side of the building and recommended that the lightness and airiness of the original proposal be implemented. Planner asked whether or not plants could grow in the shaded areas. Commissioner Neel noted that it would be difficult unless the plants were changed often, and that they would never attain any height. Discussion continued. Planning Director stated that doors could be set into the north side. In reply to Chairman's question, Mr. Christian explained that doors could have some wired glass in steel frames, but it would not be aesthetically acceptable. Discussion continued. Mr. Christian stated that the area should not be accentuated. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 Case 3.960 (Continued) Commissioner Olsen noted that if the AAC had known that with the moving out of the footprint of the mall the glass would be deleted, the design would not have been approved. He stated that the purpose is to funnel customers into the mall , which is probably not necessary since the complex is on a major thoroughfare. Commissioners Olsen and Whitney, in response to Chairman's question, stated that the AAC recommended a restudy of the front (Tahquitz- McCallum elevation) . Mr. Christian stated that if he had deleted the sidewalk and planters, the AAC would have approved the design. Commissioner Whitney disagreed. Planner, in reply to Chairman question, stated that the vote would have been split. In response to Commission's question, Mr. Christian stated that a trellis could be provided for plants and would be preferable to massive articulation of the wall . He stated that a complex of the size of the mall does not have storefronts on every elevation. In reply to Chairman's question, Planner stated that Planning staff cannot become involved in disagreements between the architect and the Building Division. Commissioner Curtis stated that the mall has been a disgrace for 25 years and should have the best re-design possible; that issues with the UBC cannot be resolved by the Commission, but that design issues can be; that the glass storefronts are a good design and necessary. Chairman asked if a two week delay to design trellises and landscaping would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Christian replied that the revisions would not be able to be-visualized on a drawing, that there are few design options, that a trellis for plants could be designed, and it was his impression that the AAC recommend deletion of the sidewalk. Commissioner Whitney explained that the AAC was trying to find a way to improve the design. Planner stated that the vote at the AAC was split with some of the members wanting resolution of the problems and others prefering the original elevation. In reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission cannot interpret gray areas addressed by UBC requirements, and that the items would require an appeal to the Board of Appeals. Discussion continued on the range of concerns, including the blank walls, the depth of the planter area, the possibility of using glass, and the possibility of removal of the overhang on the north to soften the design. Mr. Christian stated that the proposal would be a bad design decision. Chairman stated that on a project as important as the mall , he felt uncomfortable approving a design with which the AAC was not satisfied. Mr. Christian explained that although he appreciated the Commission's position, the Commission would have to appreciate his, and that he had no choice but to take the item to the City Council . q October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 Case 3.960 (Continued) M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Kaptur absent) for a restudy, noting the following: 1. That the exterior pedestrian corridor should provide a pleasant experience. 2. That the exterior corridor/colonnade should be deleted and the area put into landscaping. 3. That the overall design of the north facade/storefronts be re- worked to soften the design. 4. That the emergency exit doors be relocated to the east ends of the north structure if the colonnade/corridor remains. CASE 3.0105 (MINOR) Continued. Application by RICHARD FISCHER for the Palm Springs Spa Hotel for architectural approval of revised plans for porte- cochere, 100 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 and C-1AA Zones (IL) , Section 14. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur absent) approving the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That working drawings be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections). (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . ) No comments received. Recommendation: That the Commission continue the item to October 22, 1986 at the request of the Tribal Council . Planning Director stated that the zoning text revisions have been on the agenda for several months with little input until recently from the Tribal Council , as staff proposed that language be incorporated into the revised Ordinance and specifically referenced to Indian Ordinance #779 and inclusion of Indian requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for consistency. He stated that he had explained the minor effects of the revisions to the tribal planning consultant at a meeting, and that the Indians are concerned that the more stringent requirements in the industrial zones would adversely affect their properties, but that he explained to the consultant that the requirements would improve the general appearance and landscaping along major thoroughfares and would discourage small lot premature subdivisions and give a guarantee with some language revisions that smaller lot sizes could be developed with a specific plan. He stated that in a letter to the Chairman, the Tribal Council indicated that it was not in favor of the Ordinance as written October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 Case 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) and requested that the items be specifically inserted, in total , in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the appeal section fs incorporated in the Ordinance and the agreements between the City Council and Tribal Council will become an appendix to facilitate amendments without public hearings before the Commission or Council , but that the Indians feel that the industrial requirements are onerous and do not want the standards changed. He stated that the Indians have requested that action be delayed until they are satisfied, and that the Indians are afraid that larger industrial lots will not be competitive, but are consistent with other cities in the valley. He described the changes in lot sizes proposed by staff and explained that the standards can be altered in cases where specific development plans are proposed, but that this is not satisfactory to the Tribal Counci which feels that the language allows too much discretion to the Planning Commission. He stated that there is enough industrial land left in the City for 462 years. Discussion continued on the development of small lots. Planning Director stated that it is easier to develop large parcels rather than small lots, that he did not know if the Tribal Council understands the concerns to maintain flexibility, but that unless specifically invited, people cannot attend Indian meetings, that staff will prepare a letter to articulate the revisions, and that the City should have Indian support for the revised Ordinance. Chairman stated that the City should have acceptance of the Ordinance by the Indians. Planning Director stated that the Indian appeal process is intact in the revisions, and that the Indian concerns seem to be setback requirements and industrial lot sizes, but that the only location where `.. the M-1 Zone creates a major setback is on the north side of Ramon Road next to a residential area, in which a buffer will be required. He stated that another area of concern is addressed in a memo from the Transportation Director and states that the Director has concern about proposed setbacks and buffers in the "A" Zone. He stated that the Director feels that it will cause problems on the east side of the Airport. He explained that staff is proposing a more specific allowance for height in excess of 30 feet on aircraft hangars, since the current Ordinance is ambiguous and buildings are now exempt from height limits, i .e. , the height of the Corwin Denny hangar which caused an outcry from the neighbors. He stated that staff is reviewing a 2:1 ration of building height to setbacks which would maintain the setbacks along Gene Autry Trail which have been established. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Olsen expressed concern over the fact that the Corwin Denny hangar was approved at less height and allowed more height through staff modification. Planning Director stated that the proposed Ordinance delineates a ratio of height to setback, not a height limitation; and that E1 Cielo, Ramon, Farrell , and Vista Chino would be affected. Chairman requested that a letter be drafted to the Tribal Council explaining that the ordinances have included a statement that the Commission can review individual cases and planned development districts. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 Case 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) M/S/C (Olsen/Curtis; Kaptur absent) continuing the case to October 22, 1986 at the Tribal Council request. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "The Case was previously considered by the Tribal Council and reviewed again on October 7, 1986. The Tribal Council 's comments are included in its letter of October 7, 1986, addressed to Mr. Larry Lapham, Chairman of the Planning Commission". as follows: "In previous memoranda to the City Planning Commission, the Tribal Council has commended the Commission and Planning Staff for their efforts to update the Zoning Ordinance and with certain reservations and exceptions, has concurred in general with the proposed revisions. Since these revisions are City-wide in nature and will affect both developed and undeveloped Indian trust lands, the Tribal Council has expressed its concerns with certain proposals which may adversely affect the use and development of these lands as well as fee lands. The Tribal Council has also requested development of trust lands be incorporated into the Revised Zoning Ordinance. The Tribal Council is taking this opportunity to reiterate its previously expressed concerns and requests prior to your Commission taking final action on this matter. Existing agreements between the Tribal Council and City Council (Agreement No. 1324 dated July 26, 1977, and Supplement Agreement No. 1 thereto, dated March 28, 1978) clearly provided that procedures, rules and regulations related to zoning, use and development of Indian Trust lands geographically located within the City of Palm Springs, be included in the City's Zoning Ordinance. In view of the large acreage of remaining undeveloped trust land within the City, the Tribal Council feels very strongly that it would be both right and timely that the following Ordinances and Agreements relating to the use and development of Indian trust lands be incorporated into the Revised Zoning Ordinance as a separate and distinct section. The action would be consistent with the agreements referred to above. a. Ordinance No. 779 of the City of Palm Springs adopted March 13, 1967, and known as "The Joint Planning Procedure Ordinance." The references therein to various sections of Division 9 of the Palm Springs Ordinance will have to be revised and/or updated to conform with the text of the Revised Zoning Ordinance. b. Ordinance No. 5 of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians adopted December 12, 1978, and known as "The Tribal Land Use Appeal Ordinance." C. Agreement No. 1324 between the Tribal Council and City Council dated July 26, 1977. This agreement established the current procedures, rules and regulations for processing land use matters involving Indian trust land. The Tribal Council strongly disagreed with the proposed Property Development Standards for the "M-I" and "M-I-P" zones. As noted October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 Case 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) previously, the standards being proposed for lot areas, setbacks, 4.� landscape buffers, etc. , appear to be very restrictive when compared with other communities that are currently experiencing significant growth in quality industrial/business parks. There are large acreages of undeveloped trust lands as well as fee lands included within the M- 1" and "M-1-P" zones. The Tribal Council is concerned that the proposed development standards may not be attuned to the current market for industrial properties and will become a deterrent to attracting the types of industries which contribute significantly to job opportunities and economic stabilization within a community. The latest proposals received from the Planning staff do not adequately address the concerns and request referred to above. While the Tribal Council appreciates the time and effort that the Commission and staff have spent on this matter, it strongly urges that the Commission give further consideration to the concerns and requests referred to above prior to forwarding the Revised Zoning Ordinance to the City Council . The Tribal Planning Consultant will be available to continue working with staff on these matters." CASE 5.0413-CUP. Application by ROBERT NACKOWSK I/HAWTHORNE SAVINGS for a on i ional Use Permit to allow construction of two tennis courts in conjunction with two single family residences on San Joaquin Drive, t� between San Mateo Drive/Alondra Way, R-1C Zone, Section 24. (Categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines; final approval . ) Planner (VanKeeken) presented the staff report, discussed the configuration of the courts, and stated that the AAC recommended denial due to the lack of ability to integrate with the surroundings and no room for landscaping since the house is directly above the tennis courts. She explained that the tennis courts are recreational and considered open space. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Nackowski , 332 Promotory, Newport Beach, the applicant, explained that the property was purchased to develop lots, but was not developed because of the economic downturn, except that the three executives of the ownership retained three large lots of 16,000 sq. ft. to build personal homes. He stated that he was shocked that an apartment project of high-density (R-3) was being built abutting his lot since he is accustomed to transitional zoning and was not protected in any way by the City. He stated that the configuration of his project is in response to the high-density development, that his lots are no longer as appealing as originally, that apartment units are only 15 feet behind his lot, that it is ironic that an elevated tennis court structure was approved, although not to be built, abutting his lot, but that the AAC denied his project. He stated that the configuration of his project will act as a buffer for his lot, that he can no longer build the original home he planned, and that the project is a viable alternative to the situation he inherited. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 Case 5.0413-CUP (Continued) Mrs. M. Ehrlich, 830 Calle de Flora, a neighbor, stated that the proposed east/west orientation of the tennis court behind her property would cause the wall to block her view of the mountains and suggested a north/south orientation. She stated that a wall 10 feet high would block her view. Mr. Nackowski noted that the wall situation would not change; that there is a chain-link fence 10 feet inside the property line which does not obstruct the view. Mrs. Ehrlich stated that the fence is ugly and should be reduced in height or the project design changed. She stated that there would be three levels of fencing if the project were approved. R. Nackowski (rebuttal ) stated that the lots were purchased finished with grading and pads complete and that Mrs. Ehrlich's walls were already constructed. He stated that the project walls were built on top of a drainage device and that building pad is 2 to 3 feet higher which makes a difference in the wall height, and that the wall is a retaining wall because Mrs. Ehrlich's wall is unstable. He stated that the full impact of the chain-link fence will not be visible, except for perhaps only three to four feet above the property line wall and should be no problem, and that the setback to Mrs. Ehrlich's property is the required 10-foot distance. In reply to Commission question, Planner stated that there are no line- of-sight exhibits. Planning Director described the walls as walls of the Montoro Estate and Appel subdivisions, stated that the walls on the Appel property are two courses of block higher than they should be, and that the wall height will have to be determined at the point of building permits. He stated that in regard to side setbacks there could be a 15-foot solid structure, at the point of setback so the tennis courts will not block the view any more than a structure. He stated that there is encroachment into the rear and on the side setbacks which is the. reason for the public hearing, and that if there were no setback problems, the case would have been an architectural item only. He explained that a north/south orientation would encroach into the front setback on San Joaquin and that staff had advised Mr. Nackowski to place the courts in their present location as a lesser impact, since the location maintain setbacks on the east side and establishes a landscape border along the south side of the east court to buffer the court from the units to the south. He stated that the plan is "tight" and that a solution would be to lower the courts 2 to 3 feet minimum and construct an 8-foot wall , but that these remedies would be expensive. Commissioner Whitney stated that the tennis courts will be visible from cul de sac and the height of the fence different on the two elevations. Planning Director, in reply to Commission questions, stated that the tennis courts cannot be built by right of zone and require a CUP in ..: order to meet setbacks, and that footage would have to removed from the courts which would make them sub-standard in size. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 Case 5.0413-CUP (Continued) Commissioner Curtis suggested that the courts be sunken for better integration into the site. /Whitney, Lapham dissented; M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen; Kaptur absent) approving CUP 5.0413 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the Zoning Ordinance authorizes consideration of tennis courts within the setbacks under a Conditional Use Permit. 2. That the proposal complies with the General Plan and as condi- tioned is not detrimental to existing or future uses in the zone. 3. That the sites are adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposal , and that landscaping can be added to adjust the appearance of the court to the neighborhood. 4. That the conditions (below) are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Conditions 1. That the perimeter fencing be located at the edge of the tennis court slab with the landscaping on the outside of the fence. 2. That the courts be sunken at least 4 feet (to the height of the existing wall ) and reviewed by staff for compliance. 3. That the perimeter walls along side and rear lot lines of both lots shall not exceed six (6) feet in height and that walls in the front yard and side front yard shall not exceed four and one-half WO feet in height. 4. That all conditions of the Development Committee dated September 15, 1986, shall be implemented. 5. That permits for the tennis courts not be issued until construc- tion has commenced on the houses. 6. That the portion of the courts visible approaching the cul de sac from the north be screened with landscaping. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 Case 5.0413-CUP (Continued) 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 3.0103. Application by HAROLD PALLVINY for architectural approval of single family hillside family residence on Ridge Road/El Camino Way, R- 1-C Zone, Section 27. Planning Director stated that staff is recommending that the 15-foot fill on the lot be retained and that the applicants are revising their plans. He recommended that the item be removed from the agenda pending receipt of the revised plans. NOTE: No action was taken. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0411-MISC. (Continued) . Planning Commission review of draft EIR for the Riverside County redevelopment Agency for projects in the City's Sphere of Influence. M/S/C (Olsen/Curtis; Kaptur absent) tabling the item to later in the meeting. CASE 5.0419-MISC. Planning Commission review of CVAG Transportation Report. Planning Director explained that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has prepared a study of the highway system throughout the valley as part of a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)-sponsored transportation study which will re-design the SCAG model because of the closed transportation system of the valley. He stated that part of the study included the Master Environmental Assessment prepared several years ago which is a computer-prepared information system, and that one of the streets reviewed is Alejo which has been suggested to be tunneled under the airport. He stated that the study indicated that the Alejo extension is a logical undertaking, although the traffic would have to increase considerably for the project to be cost effective as an alternate route to Highway 111 and Ramon Road. He stated that another proposal is the extension of Avenue 34 (Dinah Shore Drive) to Escoba and would affect the Palm Springs Equestrian Center and golf course and would not be a viable plan. He stated that staff will prepare recommendations to be reviewed by the Commission. Traffic Engineer explained that the study addresses the improvements constructed by the year 2010 and the Alejo tunnel would not be done by that time. He stated that staff requested that SCAG restudy Gene Autry Trail and the Whitewater Bypass which were not reviewed in depth, and also that the development of the airport on the east side of the terminal be reviewed for traffic impacts. He stated that the proposal to extend Avenue 34 was requested to be deleted; that other alternatives October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 Case 5.0419-MISC (Continued) such as widening Ramon Road to six lanes are viable. He explained that SCAG will be reviewing developer Ernie Hahn's proposal for a bypass north of the Palm Canyon Wash in Palm Springs, but that the proposal would be costly because of condemnation of property to obtain right-of- ways. In reply to Chairman's question he stated that the Whitewater Bypass has not been abandoned, but only the portion linking with Highway 111 north of the wash along the dike, extending to Gene Autry Trail north of the golf course remains. In reply to Commission question, he stated that Alejo would be extended to the Panorama area, that the Cathedral City Master Plan shows linkage with Alejo, and that Duvall Road would also be extended. He stated that a portion of Alejo may be deleted from the Cathedral City General Plan as a thoroughfare because of the residential characteristics of the area and because the road does not go anywhere. In reply to Commissioner Olsen' s question, Traffic Engineer stated that the issue generated by development of the east side of the Airport will be reviewed by SCAG. He stated that original figures for traffic generation in the study came from trip generation on the west side, but that the City is requesting review of the traffic impact from the east side. Commissioner Olsen stated that the main terminal will remain indefinitely, and that the traffic impacts on the east side should be reviewed. Traffic Engineer stated that SCAG reviewed the past growth trends in the valley to determine trip generation and the amount of build-out in 2010 using 1984 traffic volumes for modeling. Note: No action was taken (discussion item only) . CASE 5.0420-MISC. Planning Commission review of Commission annual report for M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur absent) continuing the item to October 22, 1986. 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 5.0275-PD-147. Application by DESERT FASHION PLAZA for alternatives for punch list items; C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Green) described the applicant's solutions to the items on the punch list as follows: 1. Trellis light source screening. Planner stated that Council did not want to be able to view the exposed light sources and that the applicant is proposing an opaque coating on the outside of the glass or on the bulb, and October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 Case 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued) that the AAC preferred the application be on the glass shroud �..� because in changing the bulbs the coating would disappear. 2. Parking structure lights. Planner stated that the applicant proposed a plexiglass covered shroud around the entire light fixture which would be placed on hinges or slide on channels. He stated that the AAC felt that the metal caps proposed were not necessary and recommended that the shroud be extended instead. He explained that the texture on the plexiglass is white diffusing acrylic plastic with a smooth surface; and that the light source cannot be seen behind the shroud. He stated that the trellis lighting is a heat resistant paint on the glass with the light emanating around the sides. Discussion ensued on the appearance of the proposed coating of the lights. Consensus was that the applicant should install alternate lighting proposals for review by the Commission in the field. Planning Director stated that the proposal eliminated the trellis lighting which is what the applicant is trying to light. Chairman stated that the lighting should be flood lamps for uniformity and that he had doubts about the painting proposal . Planner stated that the lighting situation was discussed at length with the applicant and finally the applicant appealed to the City Council . 3. Kiosk design. AAC recommended restudy of applicant's proposal . M/S/C (Whitney/Curtis; Kaptur absent; Neel dissented) taking the following actions: 1. Trellis light source screen. One alternate to be approved, subject to Commission field review of three alternate lighting solutions installed in bays. 2. Parking structure lighting. Approved, subject to deletion of metal caps and extension of the plastic lenses beyond the ends of the fixture to screen the fixture from view from below. 3. Kiosk design. Restudy, noting that the structures do not integrate well with the architecture and recommending that a metal/wood structure be used. Note: Commissioner Neel dissented stating that he feels that the location of the lights is inappropriate. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued). CASE 5.0411-MISC. (Continued) . Planning Commission review of draft EIR for e Riverside County e evelopment Agency for projects in the City's Sphere of Influence. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur absent) removing the case from the table. Planning Director stated that the item was continued from August by staff to review the notice of preparation of an EIR for a series of redevelopment projects in Riverside County, including two areas within the City's northern sphere. He recommended a two-week continuance for further staff review and comment, and stated that staff had concerns that the sphere area planning by the County did not follow City guidelines and also that fiscal impacts of continued development in the County and fiscal impacts of redevelopment areas in case of annexation should be analyzed. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur absent) continuing the case to October 22, 1986. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update of City Council Actions. - CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Council upheld most of the Commission and AAC recommendations on the DeBartolo punch list. Council deferred two items as not being part of the original approval . Council �..�' discussed the City/DeBartolo's agreement with DeBartolo respresentative Gordon Osborn. City Council/Economic Development Commission Meeting. Joint meeting to discuss downtown cleanup program involving zoning enforcement efforts and the criteria for architectural improvements in the downtown was cancelled. Staff will give a further report after the re-scheduled meeting. Water Task Force Report. Prepared by Palm Springs Project Committee which is not an official citizens committee. Ideas in the report not subscribed to by the Desert Water Agency or City Council . DWA stand on water issues is influenced by outside forces and the Agency's position is difficult to determine. Chairman stated that the water agency would have more knowledge than the task force concerning future water problems. Commissioner Neel stated that much water evaporates from the ponds and never percolates underground and that the water agency should install 24-inch casings to create suction to bring the water below ground level . Planning Director stated that if a water shortage develops, moratoriums can be established within two weeks. Graffiti . Commissioner Whitney reported graffiti on walls in the downtown and on walls on Gene Autry Trail . Seminar. Planning Director requested to know as soon as possible ice_Commissioners planned on attending the Planning Commission Institute Seminar. October 8, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS (Continued) Planning Commission Study Session: October 15, 1986, 3:00 p.m. , Large Con erence Room, City Hall . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. PI anm !rector MDR/ml WP/PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 22, 1986 • 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL f-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 7 0 Hugh Curtis X 7 0 Brent Hough X 1 - Hugh Kaptur X 6 2 Earl Neel X 5 2 Gary Olsen - 6 1 Barbara Whitney X 4 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 20, 1986 fii c'h:.a i Ducc i ro • William Johnson Chris Mills Gary Olsen Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Olsen) approving minutes of October 8 as submitted. There were no Tribal Council comments. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman welcomed new Planning Commissioner Brent Hough, local insurance agent, to the Commission.