Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/01/28 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 28, 1987 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 12 0 Hugh Curtis X it 0 Martha Edgmon X 2 0 Brent Hough X 6 0 Earl Neel X 9 3 Gary Olsen X 9 3 Barbara Whitney X 9 1 Staff Present Marvin D. oos, Planning Director Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - January 26, 1987 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi William Johnson Gary Olsen Barbara Whitney Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ) approving minutes of January 14, 1987 as submitted. Report of Posting of Agenda. Agenda available for public access at City Hall Lobby counter, Planning Division counter, and Library Reference Room, by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, January 23, 1987. r January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted i� must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0023. Application by ABRAHAM YERMIAN for architectural approval of revised elevations for a commercial development at Camino Monte Vista/N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the window style be as follows: a. Three (3) windows total . b. Recessed a minimum of a stud width. C. Width to be between 12" and 16" wide. d. Approximately five (5) feet in length maximum (a one (1) foot area of stucco at the top and bottom of the window minimum). 2. Details to be reviewed by staff. CASE 3.0146 (MINOR). Application by PHILLIP EMBURY for architectural approval of revised pans for swimming pool and spa at 530 Tahquitz Way, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That details of the proposed gate shall be submitted. 2. That a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted (showing size and spacing of oleanders) prior to issuance of Building Permits. CASE 3.0156 (MINOR) . Application by HENRY BOOKSPAN for architectural approval of revised a evations of addition to office for hotel (Estrella Inn) at 415 South Belardo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. Continued to February 11 pending receipt of plans. 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 5.0417-CUP (Continued) . Application by MICHAEL BUCCINO for Cherokee Village esorts or architectural approval of revised main identifica- tion sign for resort hotel , restaurant, and conference facility on Cherokee Way/Hwy 111, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 30. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the history of the sign and stated that it has been approved piecemeal , and that the applicants want to retain the stucco background. He stated that the AAC recommended approval subject to conditions. r January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE. 5.0417-CUP. (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) approving the revised sign subject to the following condition: That the background be painted a desert dusty rose per AAC recommendation. CASE 3.0151 (MINOR) . Application by BEN DOBRIS for architectural approval of enclosure of upper balcony on Los Patos Drive in New Horizons condominium complex, R-2 Zone, Section 29. (Ref. Case 2.807-HOA) Planner (Green) described the proposed revised balcony enclosure, and stated that the face of the enclosure is now recessed four inches and continues the line of the rail in front of the closet area. He stated that there are several two-story units that may apply for the revision, that in the originally approved design several two-story units had closed in the space between the two balconies and that the AAC reviewed the revision, and had a split vote with the two dissenters feeling that the design seemed top heavy. He stated that staff did not want to approve the revision at staff level because the extension is not com- patible with the design of the two-story units and also because a pre- cedent would be set, and also that future extensions would erode the integrity of the condominium design since much of the character is derived from the depth of the balconies. He stated that if others pro- pose to enclose the balcony adjoining the units, the conversion would affect the design of the project, and that as far as staff knew there were no illegal conversions in the complex. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Lapham/Whitney dissented) denying the application. B. Dobris, Los Patos Drive, the applicant, requested to be heard and stated that his proposal is to enclose a portion of the balcony of his unit which overlooks carports and driveways, that he is a licensed builder and architect and has some feeling of the Commission desire to maintain a clean looking project, and that he is asking for approval to enclose a portion of the patio which keeps the design similar to the original design. He stated that when viewing the enclosure it would appear the same except for some lack of depth, and that the proposal is not detrimental to the development. Chairman explained that the majority of the Commission voted against the proposal , that the concern is for setting a precedent, and that if other units modified the design the effect of the architecture would be destroyed. Mr. Dobris replied that only a few units would be affected, and perhaps the owners would never make an application for the revision. Chairman replied that several may want it. Mr. Dobris requested that Chairman poll the Commission on their reasons for denial . Commissioners Neel , Edgmon, Curtis, Hoff and Olsen stated that the pro- posal would be precedent setting and change the character of the original design. CASE 3.0164 (MINOR) . Application by JOHN BUND for Sbarro for architectural approval of exterior elevations for restaurant in the Desert Fashion January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0164 (MINOR). (Continued) Plaza on North Palm Canyon between Amado Road/Tahquitz Way, PD-147, Section 15. Planner (Green) described the application on the board and stated that the AAC recommended approval 5 to 1 with the dissenter (Whitney) feeling that the awning design was not pleasing. He stated that staff feels that the structural design is good but that the awning would conflict with the existing trellis structure and also has reservations about the contrasting primary colors proposed. He stated that staff recommends approval of the structure and restudy of the awning. M/S/C (Edgmon/Whitney) approved the structural design with a restudy of the awning subject to the following conditions: That a separate sign application shall be submitted. 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 the Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the item to February 11. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council is requesting another continuance for its review of language, particularly in regard to the Indian Ordinance, that staff has given the Tribal Council language that addresses Indian requests and concerns, and that the Tribal Council con- sultant informed staff that because of review of several Indian land projects the Tribal Council has not had time to consider the language revisions. He stated also that extensive comments will be forthcoming from a local architect regarding setbacks, structural design, and down- town streetscape design, and that the comments may not be able to be incorporated into the ordinance, but would be an interesting topic for a future Planning Commission study session. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough) continuing the application to February 11. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS As previously noted a draft of Revised Ordinance No. 779 ("Indian Land Ordinance") dated January 5, 1987, is being reviewed by the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant. A copy of the pro- posed revisions to the Property Development Standards for the "M-I" and "M-I-P" Zones was received by the Tribal Planning Consultant on January 26, 1987. January 28, 1.987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) The Tribal Council respectfully requested that this Case be continued to the City Planning Commission's meeting of February 11, 1987. Final comments will be submitted to the Planning Commission at the time on the Revised Zoning Ordinance, including Revised Ordinance No. 779 and the proposed property development standards for the "M-I" and "M-I-P" Zones. Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. CASE 5.0427-CUP (Continued). Application by RICHARD FISCHER for S. Bono for a Conditional se ermit for a discotheque on the lower level of an existing restaurant (Bono's) at 1700 N. Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, R-3 Zone, Section 2. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration; final approval . Planner (Williams) reviewed the case and stated that no changes would be visible on the exterior; that parking is adequate; and that if the Tennis Club were reactivated, a new CUP application would be necessary. She explained that noise would be contained within the building because of its construction, because the doors will remain closed, because the Ef� discotheque is at basement level , and also that no outside activities relating to the nightclub would be allowed. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the disco can operate only as long as the restaurant is in existence. Planning Director stated that no freestanding discos are allowed in the zone, and it is considered an expanded use of the restaurant. Chairman declared the hearing open. B. Kaye, 1252 E. Andreas, requested information on containment of noise. Planner stated that the noise issue was a previous topic of discussion and that the architect stated that the disco is in the basement with no openings and that the walls are solid masonry, which would not allow noise to escape outside. She stated that the condition regulating parking activity would also mitigate noise. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ) approving CUP 5.0427 based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That a Conditional Use Permit is an appropriate application for a discotheque (in conjunction with a restaurant) located int he R-3 zone when property is located on a major thoroughfare. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0427-CUP. (Continued) 2. That the site has a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a major thoroughfare. 3. That the proposed discotheque is a minimum of 150 feet from any single family residential zone. 4. That there is no parking within the front setback and a minimum of twenty-five (25%) percent of the site is open space. 5. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. 6. That the site is served by Indian Avenue and Via Escuela which are adequate in design to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use. 7. That the nightclub use will not be detrimental to surrounding properties and is consistent with the General Plan for the City. Conditions 1. That any public or club use of the tennis court facilities shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. 2. That maximum seating for the discotheque and the restaurant shall not exceed 306 seats based on the 102 parking spaces provided. Additional use (tennis courts) of the site requires additional parking. 3. That all signs require separate review, approval and permit. 4. That no outside activity be allowed relating to the nightclub use. 5. That the nightclub may only be operated as long as the main per- mitted use (restaurant) stays in operation. 6. That the entire property be maintained as approved by the Planning Commission (Case 5.0063), including all perimeter landscaping. 7. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 6.355-VARIANCE (Continued). Application by RICHARD FISCHER for H. Wouk or a variance to allow a reduction in sideyard setbacks for an existing single-family hillside residence at 303 Crestview Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application. Planner (Williams) stated that the location of the project is in the Mesa Tract on Crestview Drive, that a field trip had been taken by staff January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.355-VARIANCE. (Continued) to determine pre-existing conditions to support a variance, but no findings were able to be made to allow granting of the variance. She stated that there are no accurate renditions of the property lines in the old area, and that staff recommends denial . Chairman stated that evidently the Commission has no choice because of State law. Planning Director stated that if a variance is to be granted it must have findings that the property is unique, that the proposal does not affect other properties, that the topography is unique or that the lot is substandard. He explained that although a lot similar to the subject one has some characteristics of uniqueness, staff could not make findings that the uniqueness would have an effect on the house improve- ment since the kitchen does not have to be in the proposed location. He stated that there have been instances in which a Commission made findings to support a variance that staff did not make findings for, but that the Commission to grant a variance must find unique circumstances that are consistent with the General Plan. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. H. Wouk, 303 Crestview, the applicant, stated that the house does not have two sides too close to the property line since the side on Crestview is well set back. She stated that she waters oleanders on that side, and that the only area of encroachment is the area between the kitchen and the living room. Chairman explained that the Commission problem is one of legal , rather than logical nature, and that two sides do violate the setback. Mrs. Wouk repeated that only one side does, that the proposed kitchen would not increase the amount of setback on the site, but only extend its length, and that there is no other location for the kitchen. She stated that the house was added onto before she bought it, that the original house dated back to the 30's, and that there is no provision for a laundry area or supply closet which would help her in the upkeep of the house . Chairman stated that he sympathized with the Wouks, but that State law prevails regarding findings. Mrs. Wouk asked if the decision for denial were based on the fact that no one else in the area is close to the property line. Chairman explained that the reason indicated by Mrs. Wouk was not the reason the application would not be approved, and that in the future the Commission will develop an ordinance to allow approval of minor revisions to built structures in older areas of the City. There being no further appearances Chairman closed the hearing. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen; Hough abstained) denying the application for a variance based on the following findings: January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.355-VARIANCE. (Continued) 1. That there are no special circumstances that are applicable to the property which relate to its size, shape or topography. The site is large (1.65 acres), level (in the area of the main dwelling) and although slightly irregular in shape the overall shape is rectangular. 2. That granting of this variance would be a special privilege in that other properties in the area would be entitled to request a reduced setback based on reasons other than the physical con- straints of the property. 3. That granting of the variance could be materially detrimental to the site and adjacent neighbors by adding to a structure that already crowds the common property line. 4. That the granting of the variance could adversely affect the objectives of the General Plan in that the development standards of Zoning Ordinance were designed to enhance the open desert character often associated with Palm Springs. CASE 5.0424-CUP. Application by the MARRIOTT CORPORATION for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 148-unit, 3-story hotel with an overall height of 46 feet on the east side of Hermosa Drive, between Tahquitz Way/Andreas Drive, R-4, VP and C-1-AA Zones (I.L. ) , Section 14. Planner (Green) described the project and stated that a CUP is necessary because the structure exceeds the height requirements in the zone, and that the application is subject to the Indian Ordinance. He stated that the 32 ft. setback meets Indian standards, with the parking based on the new hotel standards, and that the main issue is the original architecture of the buildings (which have been recom- mended for restudy by the Commission and the AAC), and that alternate elevations were presented but were withdrawn by the applicant. He stated that the AAC reviewed the alternate elevations at its January 26 meeting and again recommended restudy with concerns with building massing and site plan. He stated that the site plan does not take advantage of the views from the site, shades the pool and that the balcony depth should be revised to give more visual depth to the elevations, and that the roofs should be revised. He explained that the application is on the agenda for review of the Environmental Assessments/Initial Study which addresses traffic generation which can be carried by the nearby streets, and that staff recommends approval subject to conditions. He replied in response to Commission questions, that the screening required applies to the satellite dish, but that the dish has also been withdrawn and if resubmitted, the screening conditions will apply. Chairman declared the hearing open. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0424-CUP. (Continued) J. Bloodworth of Santa Ana, representing the Marriott Corporation, stated that there have been problems on the elevation changes and that the revised elevations were withdrawn. He explained that a selection of two or three alternate elevations addressing AAC and Commission comments will be submitted, and described some of the revisions to building balconies and details. H. Zemel , 1345 Amado, representing the Palm Regency Property Owners requested information on the height barrier provided on the north end of the property along Andreas, which is on the south side of the Palm Regency Condominiums. He requested that the wall be limited to 4k feet in height, with landscaping to extend to 7 feet. Planner described the boundary treatment on Andreas as 30 feet of landscaping with a 42 inch wall , and a combination of trees and turf extending the full length of Andreas. He said the wall would be increased to 48 inches in height, and that staff is recommending that the central landscaping strip be deleted and the space added to the perimeter landscaping. Planning Director stated that the driveway to Andreas would be eliminated with the access on Hermosa and a break at Tahquitz at Hermosa to allow traffic access to Tahquitz, and that there are 250 feet from the face of the building across the parking lot to Andreas. He stated that mounding on the back part could be incorporated, and that the barrier to the parking lot is a 4 foot wall . Mrs. Aromowitz, 1242 E. Andreas, Palm Regency Condominiums, stated that the only condominium exit is Hermosa which is narrow, that traffic will be amplified by employee parking on the street, that the street does not accommodate parking of any kind, and that parking pro- visions for the hotel are needed. She stated that the fence is not high enough to keep the employees from parking on the street and jumping over it, and that parking will crowd the area. Planner stated that employee parking is provided on-site and that ade- quate parking is provided. He stated that the Ordinance requires employee parking on-site. D. Kaye, 1252 E. Andreas, requested information on the view from the front of his house. Chairman stated there is approximately 200-280 feet from the project to the front of the units. Planning Director stated that Hermosa will be widened. Planner stated that the curb will be 7 to 9 feet from the back of the sidewalk, and that the curb to the face of the wall is 13 feet with a 42 inch wall and shrubs and trees planted behind it, and that the view from Mr. Kaye's house would be a wall and behind it two rows of trees with additional trees in front of the hotel and the ends of the buildings. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0424-CUP. (Continued) Mr. Kaye stated that the view of the mountains would be blocked by the project and make his property less desirable. He asked if something could be done about the project s affecting his property. Planning Director stated that the proposal has a less negative impact on the view than the height allowed by right of zone since the structure is 125 feet back from the property line on Andreas, and that there will not be a significant reduction in view of the mountains, but some view of South Palm Canyon and the south canyon area will be blocked partially. He stated that there would be some view blockage in the foreground area, but any development of the property would cause loss of view. Mr. Kaye asked how deep the hotel would run from Hermosa to Andreas, and Planner replied 200 feet. Mr. Kaye replied that the structure is beautiful and if the Commission is sensitive to the neighbors, there would be no problems. Chairman explained that the project has not been approved, and that the applicant will make architectural revisions for AAC and Planning Division review. Mrs. B. Forma, 1360 E. Andreas, asked if Andreas and Hermosa would be extended. Planning Director replied that Hermosa will be a through street eventually and will connect to Ramon and that Andreas well dead- end at Caballeros. He stated that staff may be recommending the deletion of a portion of Andreas at a future public hearing. Mrs. Forma asked if development of the streets arose after she bought her home since she had asked about the street extensions before she bought because she was interested in living in a quiet area. Planning Director stated that Andreas as a secondary street has been on the City's General Plan for 20 years and Hermosa is a collector and would not be expected to be extended until development occurred. Chairman stated that there was no starting date for the project since it has not been approved. Mr. Bloodworth (rebuttal ) stated that the Marriott Corporation will improve Hermosa from Tahquitz to Andreas and the streets surrounding the project will become full standard streets. He stated that employee parking will be accommodated on-site and described shift times of the employees. Chairman suggested that after the plans are revised that the Marriott representative meet with the homeowners in Palm Regency. Mr. Bloodworth agreed to meet with the homeowners before the application is sent back to the Commission, and stated that the back of the hotel has two buildings and is not 200 feet of solid wall . There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) continuing the application to February 11 for a restudy of the elevations noting the following: January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0424-CUP. (Continued) 1. That the roof of the three-story structures shall be revised to incorporate similar elements to the roof of the single story Tahquitz elevation (flat roof elements with parapets or mansard roofs intermixed with pitched roofs would be acceptable). AAC noted that the roof on the three-story buildings should match the style of the roof on the single-story Tahquitz elevation and that the current three story roof-design is "hap hazard". 2. AAC stressed that the current site plan and building massing does not take full advantage of views from the site. Also the con- figuration of the buildings would result in shading of the pool area and courtyard. Members emphasized that the building massing and site plan should be revised to take advantage of views from the site and reduce shading of the pool area. 3. Deletion of some three-story elements in lieu of single and two- story elements was encouraged. 4. AAC noted that the balcony depth could be manipulated to give more visual depth to the elevations. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS It was noted that the project complies with all sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the side setback along Hermosa Drive. The proposed setback of 32 feet does comply with Ordinance No. 779 ("Indian Land Ordinance"). After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission , the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the preparation of a Negative Declaration. 2. Concurred with the findings contained in the Planning Staff Report dated January 28, 1987, and approved the granting of a Conditional Use Permit subject to the Conditions recommended by Planning Staff. It was noted that the architectural review of the project was continued from the City Planning Commission's meeting of January 14, 1987 for pur- poses of restudy. In keeping with its normal practice of not con- sidering architectural review matters, the Tribal Council withheld com- ments at this time. The Tribal Council has noted all other uses and matters on the City Planning Commission agenda of January 28, 1987, since such matters do not materially affect Indian Trust Lands. " January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0425-PD-186. . Application by GEORGE JELKS for the Palm Springs Manor `..� for a Planned Development District to allow construction -of a 127-unit retirement facility at 1500 Baristo Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 14. (Environmental Assessment. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application. Planner (Green) presented the project on the board and described the site as being subject to several previous changes of zone and General Plan amendments, that there are two existing retirement facilities on the east, apartments on the southeast, a complex built to R-G-A(8) standards on the southwest, vacant land zoned R-4-VP to the north, and a tennis center and vacant R-G-A(8) land to the west. He stated that the proposal has a significant increase in density of 92 units and although it is designated for the elderly frail which might have less impact than apartments, hotels or a facility for younger persons, it would be difficult for the Commission to restrict its use to older residents. He stated that a General Plan Amendment would be necessary, but that staff recommends that the General Plan not be amended for this small site and that the project be denied (due to being inconsistent with the General Plan). He noted that a letter had been received from the owner of two nearby retirement facilities which indicate concern over competition rather than planning concerns. Chairman agreed that the letter from the neighboring property owner indicates that the basic problem is competi- tion. Planning Director stated that in further discussion with the City Attorney there is probably a mechanism for a development agreement that would maintain the age group if the project were built, but that the specific approval could not be tied to a General Plan Amendment on the one parcel . He stated that if the developers changed their proposal , they have the right to apply for rezoning consistent with the General Plan (H43/30), that the site is not one that has initially been desig- nated as hotels only, that the General Plan could be re-amended if the project were not built, but that that procedure is not what staff recom- mends. He stated that the issue is of equity. He stated that a formula of people density for units would be developed and that the, density on this project would be' thirty (30) persons per acre and the zoning that would be appropriate would require an amendment to the General Plan. He stated that the City has not chosen to compute zoning in this manner, and staff does not recommend this since it is not desirable to have senior and convalescent facilities at high density in garden apartment zones. R. Krotz, Project Manager, stated that much material hasbeen presented, that the project is compatible with and enhances the neighborhood and it is the new type of senior facility, that it will be successful . He stated that it is not feasible to change the use (for economic reasons), that the young people cannot afford it nor need or want the service, and that private counsel has been retained because of legal issues. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0425-PD-186. (Continued) P. Selzer, attorney representing the applicant, stated that he had spoken with the applicants, staff, and the City Attorney and he disagrees with staff on the viability of a Development Agreement, that this type of agreement can be executed and recorded with a General Plan Amendment, and that it operates as a covenant with the land. He stated that agreement could include parking requirements. He stated that the agreement could be enforced by the City with the City secure that what is promised is what is received. He stated that the effect of the development agreement is the same as, and utilized as, CC & R's and that the City can enforce it. He stated that the General Plan can be amended whenever the City desires, and the development agreement is contractual zoning. He explained that the concept is allowed by State law in the State Planning Act as a contract between the developer and the City. Commissioner Hough stated that the concept does not address whether or not the Commission desires to amend the General Plan. Mr: Selzer replied that the General Plan is independent, that staff indicated that the zoning in the area is convoluted, that the proposal is not inconsistent with the area, and is a less intense use if built as proposed than if it were R-G-A(8) development. . He stated that the project is more consistent in terms of the other factors such as noise and traffic intensity and is a superior project. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that other R- G-A(8) Zones developments in the area are the Tennis Center, school site, Palm Regency Condominiums, La Mancha, The Greenhouse and The Rose Garden (which was developed to R-G-A(8) changes before Indian standards were enacted). R. Hirsch, 15233 Ventura Blvd. , Sherman Oaks, local condominium owner and owner of the Sunrise Royale adjacent to the project and the Palm Spring Seniors Facility on Civic Drive, expressed concern over a development servicing seniors being built next to his project, that the project could be built in another section of the city, that he cannot keep his development filled with seniors and has had to rent to "snowbirds" and that he is in a "break even" financial condition. He stated that the company has spent $500,000 to subsidize the facility, that the market is very shallow if the project is not Section 8, that the seniors who live in his facility can afford to leave in the summer, that a senior facility cannot survive on only nine months occupancy, that a price competition could result if the other facility were built and that is not true that the project is less intense than R-G-A(8) development standards. He stated that there has been much use of para- medic services at the Sunrise Royale facility, and that the proposal will attract the same clientele as his project. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0425-PD-186. (Continued) Mr. Krotz (rebuttal ) stated that the Sunrise Royale has had management problems, that his facility is a new generation of housing and very different, that the same market will not be approached, that there is a great need for good management, that his facility takes SSI, that his break even point is much lower, and that his company has no concerns about the competition. He stated that his company will invest a large amount of cash in the project. Planning Director stated that there is no problem with the project which would be acceptable in R-4 Zoning but that the issue would be of granting density increases on the General Plan for property throughout the City when there is no historic precedent, and that staff has to review and analyze a request for additional density. He stated that the City will be double in size when fully developed and if rezoning is approved, it adds to the density. He stated the City can absorb density on an individual basis, but not on a wholesale basis, and that the area was down zoned in 1973. He stated that it is difficult to find justifi- cation and equity for the density and that overall quality of life in the city has to be reviewed. He stated that if the Commission is to pursue this development the issue of whether or not the General Plan is currently wrong for the property must be addressed, and also whether or not the small pocket of medium density should be changed to high density. He stated that after that is determined the Commission could address whether the project is viable, and that the question of density is a major staff concern, and that increased density has not been granted since 1973 except to meet housing element goals for affordable housing (other than the Indian Zone changes). Chairman stated that probably none of the Commissioners would want 127 ordinary dwelling units on the subject property, and that a 70+ age is not as intense as ordinary living units, and that there is nothing dis- turbing about giving seniors a bit of preference, but that the main con- cern is changing the General Plan everytime someone wants increased density. He stated that if the Commission is interested the project should be presented to the Council at a joint study session so the applicant does not continue the project without input since a General Plan application is costly. Mr. Krotz, in reply to Commission question, stated that they estimate that the project will have 150 people in 127 units. Planning Director stated that there is no minimum size for units but that the average in the R-G-A(8) Zone is 1000 to 1100 sq. ft. He stated that the existing zone would allow 35 units and if it were full permanent occupancy the number would be 85. Discussion continued on possible density of the project and parking required at full occupancy. Commissioner Hough stated that the project is pleasant in appearance, but that he is concerned about changing the General Plan since the area has been down-zoned. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0425-PD-186. (Continued) Commissioner Curtis noted that the project is commendable in appearance, but should be in a R-4 Zone, and that the density and higher number of units are a concern. Planning Director stated that staff recommends denial because of the project's inconsistency with the General Plan. Discussion continued on whether or not the application should be sent to Council for a study session. Consensus was that there should City Council input. Chairman stated that if the Council wants the Commission to attend, it could be arranged. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon) continuing the application to Feb. 25 and requesting that there be a joint study session between the Commission and Council to discuss the project. TPM 21912. Application by DENNIS MARTIN for a Tentative Parcel Map to allow a subdivision of land for construction of a 192-unit condominium project between Racquet Club Road/Sunrise Way, PD-110, Section 10. (Ref. Case 5.0135-PD-110) (This project was given an Environmental Assessment previously in con- junction with Case 5.0135-PD-110. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the map subject to condi- tions. Planner (Green) described the project stating that the proposal is a final phase of a planned development district application in lieu of a change of zone, that four phases are proposed, and that sufficient parking and setbacks have been provided. He stated that the original proposal was for 192 apartments which has been changed to 192 condominiums with no changes to the building and that the only issue is the condominium sales of the units. He stated that the CC & R's will be reviewed to ensure that units remain as affordable housing. Chairman declared the hearing open. S. Morris, of Valencia, California, requested information on whether or not his property would be assessed for sewers as was done before when a project was built, and questioned whether or not zoning would be changed on the property. Chairman stated that the project will not create any assessments on Mr. Morris' property. Planning Director stated that no other zoning problem proposals have been proposed with the application. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 21912. (Continued) There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that one condition of approval would be for one covered parking space per unit in order to sell the units as condominiums. He stated that there was a coincidence with the sewer assessment with the H. Heers and other projects because the sewer assessment was for the entire City. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Curtis abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all conditions of the Development Committee be met. 2. That one covered parking space per unit be provided. 3. That affordable housing guideline criteria be met. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. Commissioner Whitney left the meeting. CASE 3.960 (Continued). Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Palm Springs Mall—Fo—rarchitectural approval of base colors of the monument signs, and a request for reconsideration of colors for the east side for two complex in the shopping center on the southwest corner of Tahquitz- McCallum/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planner (Williams) presented the signs stating that the AAC recommended approval as submitted. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, project architect, stated that the base is light pink with a hot pink inset panel and is compatible with the new color program of the mall , and that the location was changed to the east side of the main entrance for vehicle safety. Planner stated that the sign background was originally proposed to be bronze anodized aluminum, but has been changed to stucco. Mr. Christian requested a field trip by the Commission to the site for a color proposal for the east side, which would be the buildings north of K-Mart. He stated that there would probably be no massive changes to January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) the east side and that he would bring a proposal for the K-Mart color scheme and would like to save the west side painting to save a sub- stantial amount of money. Chairman suggested that the Commission review the north side color scheme before the other sides are painted. Mr. Christian agreed and stated that the east side north of K-Mart needs only minor changes since the north side colors of light pink and peach predominate on the east side, and that on K-Mart there are some areas of repaint, and that he would like to have Commission consideration to keep the wall paint on the west side which is yellow and peach. He stated that if the whole complex is repainted the yellow will be subdued when it is not against tan and brown. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney absent; Curtis dissented) approving the base colors of the signs as submitted and approving a field trip with staff and architect to review and establish a color scheme for all four sides of the mall . CASE 3.0123 (Continued) . Application by HERITAGE RANCH CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised plans for shopping center on N. Palm Canyon Drive, between Via Escuela/Zanjero Road, C-1 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. Planner (Williams) described the project and stated that one driveway off Via Escuela has been eliminated. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Whitney absent) approving revised plans subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wing wall on the north property line be reduced in length and increased in width to 36". 2. That the low planter be set 6" off the north property line and return into the wing wall . 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0019. Application by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of fire training facility located on Alejo Road, eat of Civic Drive, A- Zone, Section 12. Planner (Green) described the project stating that it is on airport property near National University and has parking for the mobile/crash/ fire/rescue unit, chain link fencing, automatic sliding gates, oleanders as a screen, and desert landscaping on the streets. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. M. Rowe, Fire Department representative, stated that the building is a temporary one until 1990. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL 4TEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0019. (Continued) �-' Planner stated that the airport staff is aware of and approves the proposal . MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration. ) Planning Director explained that added starters will be reviewed for eligibility for consideration because of changes to the Brown Act (effective on January 1, 1987) which require a 72-hour posting period for agendas and a 2/3 vote of the Commission for action, in this case, on a sign for Maxim's at the Desert Fashion Plaza. He stated that the sign application was submitted on January 23 and was an original sign which was never used after suggestions from staff for another type of sign, but that the sign was completed and has been in the basement of the hotel . He stated that the hoteliers how want approval of the original sign and that staff finds the sign eligible for consideration for action because it is not a major item, nor controversial . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent) finding that the sign application is eligible for consideration. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by DESERT FASHION PLAZA for architectural approval of modification to main ID sign for Maxim's Hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz Way, CBD Zone, Section 15 (Ref. Case 5.0275-PD-147). Zoning Enforcement Officer reviewed the sign on the board and stated that the applicants have a sign, on the porte cochere but now request approval of the wall sign which was never approved by the Commission. He stated that a sign was originally approved on the porte-cochere and that the proposed monument sign is a brass frame with black marble and channel letters, and that the back of the sign would be removed and the sign letters placed on the cafe wall . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent) approving the sign as submitted. CASE 20.100. Request for Riverside County Planning Department to review bounty C/Z 4716 for Pinyon Flats and Vicinity and South Palm Canyon. Planner (Evans) stated that the zone change request is the largest one ever received for Riverside County and affects property adjacent to Palm Hills. He stated it is consistent or more restrictive in zoning than Palm Springs and that staff recommends approval which may provide reasons in the future for the Palm Canyon area to be considered in this zoning, because the Palm Hills area has the same features. He stated that the Andreas Cove area was not included in the zone change. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen; Whitney absent) requesting that the Riverside County Planning Department approve the zone change. January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council Actions. - PROPOSED CULTURAL CENTER. Planning Director stated that Committee mem ers have been wor in to prepare a proposal for a cultural center to be placed next to the Wyndham Hotel , which would incorporate two small office buildings on Tahquitz Way. He stated that if negotiations are not successful , the committee has three other possible sites and that no real architectural or site plans have been completed except the building massing. He said the mixed use center will be privately funded and include theaters, restaurants, offices, residences and commercial uses, and that the proposal is exciting but has some flaws such as all access being from Tahquitz and a 110 foot height, which is twice as high as the Wyndham Hotel . He stated that this height is for a fly loft for theater sets and does not meet highrise ordinance requirements, that the Council approved the concept of the mixed use but has reservations on funding feasibility and building massing. He said the project team is composed of high quality architecture and interior design firms, and that the center will be reviewed at a future Commission study session, and possibly at a Commission/Council joint study session. RESOLUTION NO. 3841. Planning Commission adoption of Brown Act revisions and esta is ment of location(s) and time for public access to the Planning Commission agenda. Planning Director stated that the resolution will be an amendment to the Commission Procedures Manual and indicates locations and times for posting agendas in accordance with Brown Act revisions requiring posting of agendas 72 hours in advance of meetings. M/S/C (Edgmon/Curtis; Whitney absent) adopting Resolution No. 3841. CASE 5.0435-MISC. Planning Commission input for 1987-88 budget. Planning Director stated that the work program is distributed by the City Manager and addresses items to be accomplished, and the second item for review is the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which will relate to the Work Program but is not line-related. He stated that the Work Program presented is only for the Planning Commission and the categories in the program are as follows: A. Existing Services B. Long-Term Projects C. New Objectives Requiring Additional Resources He addressed the additions and deletions to the various categories and requested Commission input for both the Work Program and the CIP by February 6. (No action necessary. ) January 28, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COMMISSION REPORTS OR REQUESTS. VACATION CANCELLATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. Commissioner sen requested that the Planning Commission be toldwe in advance the dates that Commission meetings are cancelled because of holidays and vacations. Planning Director stated that only the second meeting in December has been cancelled in the past because the summer work load does not diminish and summer meetings are necessary. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES/PLANNING COMMISSIONERS INSTITUTE. March 11, 12, and 13 in Sacrament. Commissioners are to notify staff-if they wish to attend. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m. n MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 11, 1987 . 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 13 0 Hugh Curtis - 11 2 Martha Edgmon X 3 0 Brent Hough X 7 0 Earl Neel X 10 3 Gary Olsen X 10 3 Barbara Whitney X 10 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mimi Timbrook, Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee - TUESDAY, February 10, 1987 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino William Johnson Gary Olsen Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ; Curtis absent) approving minutes of January 28, 1987 with the following corrections: Page 17, third paragraph, CASE 3.960, motion was as follows: M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney absent; Curtis dissented) approving the base colors of the signs as submitted and approving a field trip with staff and architect to review and establish a color scheme for all four sides of the mall .