Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/10/14 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 14, 1987 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 6 0 Hugh Curtis X 6 0 Martha Edgmon X 5 1 Brent Hough X 5 1 Earl Neel X 5 1 Gary Olsen X 6 0 Barbara Whitney X 5 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Al Smoot, Director of Transportation & Energy Robert Green, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary ' Architectural Advisory Committee - October 12, 1987 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Barbara Whitney Martha Edgmon Brent Hough William Johnson Will Kleindienst Gary Olsen Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Curtis; Neel absent) approving minutes of September 23, 1987 as submitted. s Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0002. Application by DAN AINSWORTH for architectural approval of detailed landscape plans for a single family residence on Tuscan Road between Racquet Club Road/Via Alavera, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0237. Application by VITO DI STEFANO for architectural approval of revised elevations for a two unit apartment at 1340 Camino Amapola between Thornhill Road/Calle Amigo, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the roof line does not coordinate between the two sections of the building. 2. That the south elevation needs to be better integrated. CASE 3.0262. Application by ALEXANDER COLER for architectural approval of revised elevations for single family residence at Patencio Road/O'Donnell Golf Course, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0282 - MINOR. Application by DORE REYES for reconsideration of condition for glu-lam beams for remodel of restaurant, 1550 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planning Commission maintained the requirement for glu-lam beams subject to the following conditions: 1. That the graphic shall not end on a exterior corner. 2. That glu-lam beams shall be used for exterior woodwork. 5-1 vote (Kleindienst dissented - feeling that glu-lam beams were not Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0283. Application by WENDELL VEITH for Betty Chapman for architectural .. approval of a four unit apartment complex on Camino Real between La Jolla Street/LaVerne Road, R-2 Zone, Section 26. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That patio wall shall be located a minimum two feet from curbs adjoining drives. 2. That patio wall shall be integrated with air conditioning screen wall. 3. That dwelling roofs shall project over garage roof on the Camino Real elevation. 4. That unit No. 4 shall be restudied. Portions may project into front yard providing that an average minimum setback is maintained. (An AMM application may be necessary. ) Revised plan shall be resubmitted for AAC review. 5. That landscape plan shall be restudied, noting the following: a. That the landscaping shall respond to the building and site (that an additional landscape area be added in lieu of paving on the Camino Real frontage. CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Application by EDWARD J. DEBARTOLO CORPORATION for archi- tectural approval of revised landscaping for Desert Fashion Plaza on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Amado Road/Tahquitz Way, C-D-B Zone, Section 15. Continued to October 28 pending review in the field. CASE 5.0424-CUP. Application by MARRIOTT CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised detailed landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans and a main identification sign for a 149 unit hotel on the east side of Hermosa Drive between Tahquitz Way/Andreas Drive, R-4-VP/C-1-AA Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That palms shall occur in natural groupings. 2. That palms shall be added to the Hermosa frontage to continue the planting theme. 3. That pines are acceptable. 4. That palms shall have an average height of 15 and 35 feet. Higher palms shall be placed adjacent to high building elements. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.0424-CUP. (Continued) 5. That landscaping along the Tahquitz frontage shall be enhanced. 6. That landscaping shall be added to accentuate all entries/exits. 7. That a substitute citrus shall be found for Myer Lemon. 8. That lower areas shall be recessed a minimum of two inches below adjoining sidewalk. Note: The above comments are intended as a clarification of the conditions of September 9, 1987 only, and are not intended to supersede these condi- tions. Sign Application Approval subject to: 1. That the overall height of sign, is not to exceed 8 ft. from grade. 2. That the width of the monument be increased so it lines up with the upper element of the sign. CASE 3.0123. Application by HERITAGE RANCH CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised final landscape plans, parking lot lighting, and pre- liminary sign program for retail center on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Via Escuela/Zanjero Road, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC had a 3-3 vote because three of the members felt that the application could be approved subject to conditions and was not a total restudy. She stated that conditions were changed from preliminary plans because different AAC landscape architects attended the September 21 meeting. Bob Ritchey, 4039 Sugarbush Court, Palm Desert, project architect, stated that the same landscape architect has been employed from the beginning, that he had thought all conditions had been incorporated into the plans, and that he was surprised to get new comments which forced his plans back to the preliminary stage. He asked that the plans be approved at staff level rather than be restudied. Planner stated that landscape architect Buccino made the restudy motion at the AAC meeting. Chairman stated that on a split vote the action is a restudy, that the plans could be reviewed with an AAC landscape architect member, Tom Doczi , to decide if he agreed with the dissenters, or whether a restudy was in order. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 5 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0123. (Continued) Commissioner Curtis stated that problems could be resolved with the use of more trees, used and that the Commission should not take action until the landscaping is reviewed by the AAC again. Motion was made by Curtis and seconded by Olsen for a restudy. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Curtis, Hough Noes: Edgmon, Whitney, Lapham Absent: Neel Motion for a restudy failed. M/S/C (Whitney/Hough) for the applicant to resolve the sign program and landscaping with staff and landscape architects on the AAC. CASE 3.0236. Application by MIKE PIO for architectural approval of revised elevations for warehouse/office on Valdivia Way between Tachevah/La Compana, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Planner (Green) presented the project. Discussion ensued on the curved metal frontage of the building. Ted Powell, project architect, stated that the encroachment in the setbacks is for architectural delineation to the frontage; that the access is the side; that the blank curved wall creates a sculptural appearance with fenestrations creating relief along the sides; and that landscaping could be resolved with staff. Commissioner Edgmon explained that she dissented at the AAC because she could not visualize the long curved front. Chairman agreed. Planner stated that the blue color is around the doors, windows, and side elevations and that the curved wall has no windows or doors. Commissioner Whitney explained that she liked the building, but was not sure about the colors and that more landscaping should be added to soften the buildings appearance. Commissioner Curtis suggested some kind of penetration on the front such as a door, windows, or landscaping. Chairman suggested that the curved wall have some relief such as off- setting or fenestration, but that design is subjective and that sometimes architects cannot agree. He suggested a transitional element between the curved wall and the side of the building. Discussion continued. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 6 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0236. (Continued) Motion was made by Hough and seconded by Whitney for approval of the appli- cation. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Whitney, Olsen, Hough Noes: Curtis, Edgmon, Lapham Absent: Neel Vote was split 3-3; therefore, the action was a restudy. CASE 3.0297 - MINOR. Application by MIKE BRUCE for Bob's Big Boy for architec- tural approval of awning program for remodel of restaurant at 1901 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 10. Planner (Williams) stated that the remodel was for the Bob's Big Boy on E. Palm Canyon only and described the revisions. She stated that there were three dissenters on the AAC and each had a different reason for dissenting, ranging from the feeling that the design was acceptable to a total redesign. Wes Litzinger, 495 Coast Street, Laguna Beach, project architect, stated that remodeling the interior to update the building will require changes to the exterior to lighten and brighten the building. He requested that if the awnings were objectionable that the application be given approval if necessary without awnings or without the proposed light fixtures. Commissioner Whitney commented that she liked the concept of the existing building and did not like the awnings. M/S/C (Whitney/Hough; Neel absent; Olsen dissenting) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That the applicant restudy the awning shade and color. 2. That the T-111 fill-in and modification is acceptable. Chairman suggested that the applicant meet with Planning staff for guidelines. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TPM 22396 (Continued) . Application by COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS for a tentative parcel map and planned development district to allow con- struction of a mixed use commercial center including multiple drive through restaurants, a carwash, and other non-specified uses on twelve acres on the northside of the airport, M-1 Zone (I.L. ), Section 18. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; action; no comments received. ) Planner (Green) stated that the application was continued for a study session and that staff had met with the applicants and new conditions generated regarding the carwash noise study; the linkage road and Evelita, the number of drive-throughs; and a combination of any two lots to increase their size. He stated that the applicant agreed with all conditions, except for the combination of two specific lots and that the adjoining map will be redesigned for a linkage road with the consent of the Transportation Director. He stated that the redesigned street is a compromise in case the applicant cannot obtain access property necessary for the linkage to Evelita and that the new road in 24 feet wide with a six foot separation strip, and that design is acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. (Commissioner Neel arrived. ) Chairman declared the hearing open. Pat Meyer, Urban Environs, Redland, stated that he was in basic agreement with the conditions with some clarifications. He stated that the new design allows access to the airport property and eliminates a substantial amount of roadway to be developed by the airport, that the trade off of property might not be able to be completed because of FAA requirements; that there was a concern with condition #10 and requested that the wording be changed to the following: "That any two of the lots shall be combined into one lot", instead of stating that "lots two and three shall be combined". Planning Director stated that the condition could be that four lots be combined into three with the decision to be made at the final map stage and a lot line adjustment considered. There being no further appearances Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Olsen stated that the four lot arrangement on Ramon was a concern to the Commission and the changes are an improvement. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and approving PD-189 and TTM 22396 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TPM 22396. (Continued) Findings 1. That the proposed mixed use at this location is properly one for which a Planned Development District application is authorized by this ordinance. 2. That the proposed restaurant, carwash, retail, and industrial uses are desirable for the development of the community, are in harmony with the General Plan and are not detrimental to existing or future uses permitted in the zone. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use including yards, setbacks, walls or fences landscaping and other features required to adjust the use to existing and permitted uses of the neighborhood. 4. That the development is subject to conditions which ensure that it relates to Ramon Road, a 100 ft. major thoroughfare which is properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposal. 5. That the master plan for this planned development district appli- cation allows consideration of smaller lots than specified in the M-1 section of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. That conditions have been attached to this application which require the linking of this site to properties on the east and west with an internal road system. This internal road system is necessary in the interests of highway safety. Conditions 1. That final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That all mitigation measures of the Environmental Assessment shall be complied with as follows: Earth: That the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code blowsand abatement measures, as amended by the City, shall be complied with. Water: City Engineering Division conditions require that the site accept and convey to an approved drainage carrier flood and/or nuisance waters that impinge upon the site. Also, the City Engineer requires that flood and /or nuisance waters leaving the site will not cause erosion, nuisance or damage. (See Development Committee condi- tions "Engineering - General 10 and 11. ) Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TPM 22396. (Continued) Noise: (a) That full details of potential noise generation from the carwash shall be submitted prior to review of the carwash applica- tion. (b) That the proposed carwash shall conform to the requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance. Traffic: (a) That the applicant install a six phase traffic signal at the intersection of Paseo Dorotea and Ramon Road. Developer shall be responsible for the initial installation cost. A reimbursement agreement can be arranged as the properties on the southwest and southeast corners of said intersection and to the east develop. (b) That the proposed "A" street shall be linked to the adjoining property to the east and west with a 40 ft. wide private street. Joint access easements with the property to the east shall be furnished prior to recordation of the final map. (c) That the westerly access shall be provided as a 40' wide private street which aligns with Avenida Evelita. Reciprocal access easements for this street shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. Alternatively, a second, westerly access shall be provided on the site to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division. 3. That should the development be phased, all street improvements shall be installed with Phase I. 4. That a preliminary landscaping plan shall be submitted. The plan shall show a common landscape theme throughout the project, and shall serve as the landscape master plan to be used as a guide for preparation of detailed landscaping plans for individual lots. 5. The signs shall be subject to a separate application. A compre- hensive sign program for the site shall be submitted. 6. That this approval includes lot layout, means of access and cir- culation and use, only (as amended by mitigation measures and conditions) and does not include detailed interior lot layout, lot access and building placement and design. 7. That all Development Committee conditions shall be implemented. 8. That separate architectural approval applications shall be sub- mitted for individual sites. 9. That this approval includes two drive-through restaurants only. Any additional drive-through restaurants (three or more) , shall be submitted under a Conditional Use Permit application. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TPM 22396. (Continued) 10. That any 2 lots of the front four lots shall be combined into one lot. Resubdivision may be considered upon submission of detailed development plans. TRIBAL COUNCIL COM14ENTS This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of September 22, 1987. After consideration of the recommendations of the Tribal Planning Consultant, the Tribal Council reiterated its action of September 22, 1987, which was as follows: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures included in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. 2. Approved the Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map No. 22396 subject to the conditions contained in Planning Commission staff report dated September 23, 1987. TTM 22694 (Continued) . Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for the City of Palm Springs for a tentative parcel map to create 4 parcels of land for lease and/or sale on the north side of Ramon Road/Santa Cruz, M-1 Zone, Section 18. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; action; no comments received. ) Planner stated that internal configuration of the map will change to link with the adjoining property. Chairman declared the hearing open. Bob Lotito, project engineer, 712 Eugene Road, stated that he had no objections to the conditions. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration Rnd approving TTM 22694 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 22694. (Continued) Findings 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro- posed subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate physically for the type of development and density of development. 4. That the proposed subdivision is not likely to result in any adverse environmental impacts. Conditions 1. That a joint access easement with the adjoining lot to the west shall be obtained prior to recording of the Final Map. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee shall be complemented with including change in the configuration for linkage to adjoining TPM 22396. CASE 3.0294. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of review of non-conforming parking requirements for a commercial building at 1000 N. Palm Canyon Drive. (Categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commissioner continue the non-conforming parking standards subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that normally a building built to prior parking standards retains the standards unless the use is intensified, but the sub- ject buildings have been vacated in excess of 180 days, that the building has had several types of uses, and now the applicants are requesting conversion to an office use, but the building does not meet the parking standards for offices. He stated that a retail use would not be successful because of the layout of the building, and that medical office use is prohibited because of lack of parking. He noted that staff has made findings for a hardship; that the Redevelopment Project Committee recommends an extension of non-conforming parking standards for office use, and that notification is required only to be published in the newspaper. He stated that the applicant could convert a portion of the building to retail use if he desires. Chairman declared the hearing open. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0294. (Continued) Jim Reynolds, 332 Camino Sur, representing the applicant, gave the history of the building and stated that a tenant has been obtained and much money spent on remodeling for office uses and a hardship would be created if there are further delays in occupancy. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman commented that the staff recommendation to continue the non- conforming parking standards is the most acceptable action. Planner (Williams) stated that painting of the building and landscaping will be at staff level and were included as part of the application. M/S/C (Olsen/Curtis) approving continuance of the non-conforming parking use for office use only based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: Findings 1. That the purposed use is consistent with and an allowable use within the C-1 zoning classification. 2. That the original use of the building was an office use and apart- ments and the proposed use is not more intensive than the original use. 3. That the use (as an office) would alter the building to the degree that would preclude any other use of the building. 4. That the office use is compatible with the character of the neighbor- hood and surrounding business. 5. That the vacant building would ba a greater blight in the neighbor- hood than the continuation of the office use with minimal on-site parking. Condition 1. That no medical offices be allowed unless additional parking is provided. CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-B & 5.0456-GPA. Application by DESERT HOSPITAL for a Planned Development District to allow phased, redevelopment, and expansion of the hospital campus to allow for hospital expansion and related health care uses on 25.69 acres bounded by Indian Avenue, Tachevah Drive, Via Miraleste, and Mel Avenue, R-4/R-2 Zones, Section 11. This expansion includes a permanent heliport location. Also to be considered in an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan to expand the area .. designated as "Hospital" and delete from the street plan the portion of Paseo El Mirador between Indian Avenue/Via Miraleste. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-9 & 5.0456-GPA. (Continued) (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the Planned Development District and General Plan amendments subject to conditions. Planner (Patenaude) described the four-phased expansion program as follows. Phase I - Land Acquisition; Partial Closure of Paseo El Mirador; Helipad constructed on the north side of the hospital in the area between Palos Verdes and Via Miraleste. (Minor projectsalready begun. ) Phase II - Development of the new lobby and administration area; addition to the medical office buildings; and a Hospice. (Starts in five years. ) Phase III - New 5-story nursing tower with Helipad on the roof; new area for administration; relocation of the clinical lab; and a parking structure. (Starting in ten years. ) Phase IV - Additional 5-story nursing tower and second parking structure. (Starting in ten to twenty years. ) Planner stated that three environmental issues exist: noise impact due to the heliport operations; circulation due to additional vehicle trips and the closure of Paseo E1 Mirador; and utilities such as sewer capacity. He stated that the noise study is based on current landings. He stated that he helicopter landings are estimated to be between 0-8 per month, that the traffic study considers closure of El Mirador, that signalization will be necessary at several intersections near the hospital , that the primary entrance will be moved to El Mirador with emergency service shifted to Miraleste, and that the application also involves highrise buildings, which do not meet the 6 to 1 setback standards, but in conjunction with existing buildings should not be view obstructing. He stated that travel and transfer time are a concern if emergency flights land at the airport instead of the hospital grounds. He noted that the helipad will be permanent until Phase III when it is moved to the nursing tower roof and that the decibels are averaged but at a single event reach 85 dba at the landing site. He stated that land acquisition has already occurred for the expansion and that letters have been received from people living in the area objecting to the noise and increased use of the site and the flight paths. He stated that one letter was received in favor of the project. Planning Director explained that the helipad was denied several years ago in a public hearing because of intrusion into the residential area; that the hospital became a trauma center with helicopter use as needed, but that the use of the helicopter is at the total discretion of the Commission and the designation as a trauma center does not carry a mandatory requirement for a helicopter site. He noted also that timely response for patients to from the hospital is a consideration and, does have benefit to the community, and that the flight pattern cannot be controlled by the City, but that the city can give input to the FAA. He stated that aircraft west of the airport are required to maintain a thousand foot height; but often Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-B & 5.0456-GPA. (Continued) do not, with the resulting glide paths affecting neighborhoods, more than necessary since pilots take the shortest route; and that the FAA will accept City input regarding helicopter noise if the helipad is approved at the hospital . He stated that there are many other issues involved, but the helipad receives the most attention; that the current site plan is a more campus-oriented design; and that the Commission has discretion regarding the General Plan deletion of Paseo E1 Mirador; and that the proposed towers align as a wall , which was a concern of one member of the AAC and there is a major re-emphasis to the hospital . He stated that the E1 Mirador Tower Building will be an exciting change in its use as a medical office building. He reiterated that the other issues should not be overlooked because of the issue of the helipad. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mike Fontana, hospital planner, stated that the plan is a combination of community and hospital needs over.a 4 phased, 20 year period. He discussed the four phases as noted in the staff report, and requested discussion of some terms and conditions in the Development Committee conditions, i .e. improvements including signalization in conjunction with phasing, and short term retention of some on-street parking, recommended to be deleted. He requested that grading permits be allowed prior to parcel map approval and stated in reply to Commission question that the helipad was not placed on top of the nursing tower built several years ago because it was not structurally designed for helicopter landings, but that the tower was built �- before he came so he did not know the reasons except that the roof is a mechanical penthouse. Mary Lawler, 2268-E. North Indian, which is on the helicopter route, spoke in opposition to the helipad location; stating that the helipad is in the most impacting location to the residential area of 500 condominums and many single family homes and suggested alternatives to the proposed location as follows: Moving the helipad to the corner of N. Indian and Tachevah which is surrounded by medical and. commercial uses that are closed at night, which would lessen the impact; moving the emergency services to an area near N. Indian and Tachevah to be near a helipad at that side; consideration of a path or roadway from a helipad on Indian and Tachevah to the emergency rooms in their existing location or deferrment of the helipad to the Phase III nursing tower roof. She stated that an alternative should be considered for no helipad at all since the airport is only 5 minutes away from the hospital and helicopters and ambulances all have medical specialists on board which should result in no delay in medical attention during transferrence of the injured. She stated that the helicopter routes proposed by the hospital are vague, with no assurance that depicted routes will be followed; that the landing site noise is 85 decibels on a single event basis which the State standards indicate are "clearly unacceptable" for new development and should be applied to existing development, especially residential . She stated that it is Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-B & 5.0456-GPA. (Continued) difficult to monitor landings to make certain they are all emergencies; and that the neighborhood should not have to suffer to further the image and finances of Desert Hospital . Diane Waldman, who lives on Paseo E1 Mirador, 50' from the corner of Paseo El Mirador and Miraleste, voiced concern over quality of the pilots, stating that they are not controlled by the hospital nor the City and fears for herself and her childrens safety. She stated that the helicopters fly very low; that Desert Hospital is a private company and not subject to certain rules governing advertising and that the hospital could advertise, for example in the Los Angeles Time, stating that there is a helicopter service to Desert Hospital for medical services taking only half the driving time (which is not a new concept) . She stated that the hospital can state it is a medical emergency when it may not be; but when a hospital becomes private, controls loosen; that the heliport is really a private heliport in the neighbors' backyards, and that she did not believe it should be built at all . She stated that the worst case scenario would be a crash in the neighborhood; that there is not an up side to the issue, and that she felt that an emergency room on Miraleste is dangerous to children walking along the street because emergency vehicles travel at high rates of speed up and down the residential streets; and that if the access is changed , emergency vehicles should be able to respond from that access. She also stated that circulation could be improved. She stated she bought her home 10 years ago, and that she liked the neighborhood, but that changes to the Hospital have caused her problems and that the helicopters cause swirling dust and sand, and affect the environment and the health of her family. She stated that the hospital does not serve its neighbors. Chairman interjected that if the helipad is approved it will be for emergency use only. Vincent Dundee, 455 The Palm, stated that his backyard would face the heli- port on Mel Avenue; that he has lived in the neighborhood 30 years, that the hospital was a small one when he bought his home; that approving the heliport would violate the Noise Ordinance of the City, that when he moved to Palm Springs he followed all rules and the hospital should not be allowed to set new rules including violations of the Municipal Code; and that there has been investigation recently in helicopter crashes and it has been found that competitive pressures, weather, and poor equipment cause problems. He explained that 82 people have died and 57 have been injured in helicopter accidents since 1972 and that competitive pressures have been the biggest threats to safety because pilots are pressured to fly under poor weather conditions. He requested that the Commission consider the backyards of neighboring residences as thoroughly they would consider theirs. Vince Dundee, 455 The Palms, asked if the Commission were aware that Government Code 7265 requires a $15,000 payment to each homeowner affected by a heliport. He stated he wondered who would pay the $15,000. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-B & 5.0456-GPA. (Continued) Assistant City Attorney stated that he was not aware of the Government Code but would research it. Mr. Dundee stated that the law applies to loss of market value of property. Chairman stated that a discussion on the hospital expansion will be scheduled for the Planning Commission regular study session of October 21, and that the City Attorney will answer the question of the $15,000 payment. Marie Cooper, 475 The Palms stated that there was an article in the Desert Sun which she would bring to the study session regarding closure of trauma centers because of the expense of maintaining a 24 hour a day emergency medical staff which is not cost effective if there are only a few trauma patients per month. She stated that most hospitals can effectively care for trauma patients without transferrance to a trauma center, and that decisions on patients who would be placed in a trauma center are subjective. She stated that a specialized staff must be available in such a center and that Desert Hospital is understaffed presently from her own experience and the Hospital should stop the infighting and make patients want to go to the hospital before any thought is directed to a heliport. Susan Ford, 2277 Via Miraleste, stated that some of the streets around the hospital are too narrow and irregular and are dangerous with heavy and fast traffic, especially from Tachevah to Racquet Club; and that the streets cannot be widened because of tennis courts and other types of encroach- ments. She also spoke against moving the emergency entrance to Miraleste, stating that there will be a large increase in traffic which is objection- able. Roland Haskell , 456 The Palm, objected to the heliport stating that he felt it would be used for more that emergency landings; that the noise level at the site is 85 decibels where the norm is 50 to 65. He questioned why the Commission was even considering putting the heliport in the neighborhood. George W. Trager, medical director of Desert Hospital (rebuttal ), stated that the overriding reason for the heliport is for speed and treatment of trauma patients and that the hospital is the only trauma center in the desert. He stated that a lighted pad for helicopter landings is a better than a roped off parking lot on the street, and that there is no choice but to consider other people besides the neighbors. Mike Fontana, hospital planner (rebuttal ) , stated that is not the intent or the image of the hospital to cause problems for the neighbors; that the hospital if there for sick people; and that from July 1/lt�o86 June 30, 1987, 19 lives have been saved because of the trauma center. Chairman stated that the Commission will study the hospital expansion at a study session and that a FAA representative will be present for discussion on control over helicopter approaches, and other Commission concerns regarding the hospital expansion. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421 & 5.0421-PD 185 & 185-B & 5.0456-GPA. (Continued) M/S/C (Neel/Edgmon) continuing the application to October 28 with the application scheduled for review at the regular Planning Commission study session of October 21 from 3 to 5 p.m. , in the Large Conference Room. CASE 5.0454-CUP (REF. CASE 3.0260) . Application by LASZLO SANDOR for Harold Matzner for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a tennis court with substandard setbacks on Crescent Drive/Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the application sub- ject to conditions. Planner (Green) described the application, stated that the lot is sub- standard in depth and that two letters have been received from neighbors regarding the application. He stated that one was from Alexander Coler who requested that the court be sunken four feet for a maximum wall height of 6 feet and the other from a Mr. Linthicum with a similar concern. He stated that sinking the court into the rock could be a problem, but he did not know if soil testing had been conducted. �... Laszlo Sandor, 44829 Oro Grande Circle, Indian Wells, project architect, stated that the lot is a difficult one on which to place a court because it is a narrow lot, has a drainage easement and a mountain on it, and the design of the court is the only one possible. He stated that dense landscape screening will be planted, and that the court could be sunken if it is possible to do so, although Riverside County will have to be considered in the encroachment in its easement, and that creating a solid wall may be objectionable. He stated that other alternatives besides encroaching into the easement or excavation of the site should be con- sidered. He asked that the Commission consider approval as submitted. Alexander Coler, 457 Hermosa Place, stated that he was constructing a multi-million dollar home and amenities on a lot adjacent to the subject site and that he had sunken his tennis court (although costly); that the proposed court is close to his main entrance; that an unusual precedence would be established by permitting a tennis court in the front setback; that the court will be close to the streets and the owners should be required to sink it. He stated that a ten foot front yard wall ' - is an unusual precedent and that the county does allow encroachment into the easement if the drainage pipes are not disturbed. He noted that the parking area for the courts should not be encroaching into the setback, that a tennis court parking area is also an unusual precedent, and that he objected strenously to the dense landscaping of 10 foot high oleanders. Thomas Hunt, 605 Crescent Drive, stated that he had been vacationing in Palm Springs for 40 years and has owned a home for the last 7, that his property is contiguous on the north side of the Coler residence and is 100 Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0454-CUP (REF. CASE 3.0260). (Continued) feet from the tennis court. He stated that he agreed with the statements of Mr. Coler, that there is only one entrance to the area and the parking for cars for the tennis court is superfluous and asked that a precedent not be set. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planner stated that the AAC felt that the landscaping is too formal; that staff feels that more landscaping is needed; and that the City does not require tennis court parking, but it exists at the location and accom- modates three cars. Mr. Sandor explained that the reason for the parking for the tennis court is that there is only two car parking for the large residence, and more parking space is needed for guests and family using the court below the house. Commissioner Olsen stated that the area is established and landscaping should be compatible with the existing landscaping. He suggested consideration of another approach to sinking the courts. Commissioner Neel suggested a restudy because of the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Edgmon stated that lowering of the court was not considered by the AAC. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen) for a restudy to review sinking of the court, a restudy to locate the landscaping and parking away from the corner and continuation to October 28. Chairman left; Vice-Chairman presided. CASE 6.359-VARIANCE. Application by JOHN ANDERHOLT for Victor's Restaurant for a variance from open space requirements to allow expansion of a bar area for a restaurant at 1900 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planner (Evans) stated that staff cannot establish the necessary findings for a variance. Commissioner Whitney stated that she did not have a problem with the addition because she did not feel that the addition generated additional parking since the diners are already in the restaurant. Vice-Chairman stated that the facility is under parked at the present time. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.359-VARIANCE. (Continued) Bob Lotito, KWL Engineering, 712 Eugene Road, stated that the request for a variance is because the building was built many years ago before the current ordinance was adopted, that the additional square footage is minimal and will not cause a problem; that the old wall will be removed and the addition extended 10 feet, that four tables seating eight people will be placed in the addition which would lessen the impact on parking because of the elimination of eight restaurant seats; and that a solid wall would alleviate sounds and noise from the music. He stated that one of the reasons for the request is that Victor' s has been asked by patrons and neighbors to play music of the 40's and 50' s. Gail Douchette, 1125 Laverne, stated that she was a neighbor and patronized Victor' s Restaurant for dining, that she liked to dance and the music would appeal to restaurant customers. She stated that no increased parking would be necessary; that there is valet parking if it is a problem, that it will keep patrons from going down valley to dance, and eliminate drinking and driving. She stated that amenities such as dancing are needed in the community. Buela Crowley, manager of the condominium/apartment building adjacent to Victors, objected to the addition stating that parking is a problem when the restaurant is full and that people park in the condo/apartment parking areas and cause noise and traffic late at night. She requested that addi- tional parking be provided since the use will cause additional customers to come to the restaurant. Commissioner Neel stated that the use would not be fair to the neighbor- hood. Planning Director explained that there is no parking district within the area; that there is a possibility that parking might be able to be arranged with the nearby International Hotel ; that realignment of the interior for dancing is a possibility; that open space that is so deficient that the project is 50% under parked; that there are no grounds for a variance; that outside dancing would be noisy and violate the Municipal Code; and that the project just met parking standards when it was constructed in 1952, and is now non-conforming after a change in the ordinance requirements. Chairman explained that the Commission does not have a personal problem with the variance, but findings are required by State law and cannot be made. Commissioner Whitney stated that a 10 x 20 dance floor should not have any effect on the parking. Motion was made by Whitney, seconded by Hough for approval of the variance. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Hough, Whitney Noes: Curtis, Edgmon, Neel Absent: Lapham Abstention: Olsen Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.359-VARIANCE. (Continued) The motion failed and a variance was denied for Case 6.359. 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. CASE 3.0272. Application by VOSS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES INC. for architectural approval of retail/restaurant complex on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA/R-4-VP Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; action. ) Planner (Williams) presented the project. Planning Director stated that the project is the first request for additional building height to enclose mechanical equipment and is not what staff had envisioned, but complied with the intent of the ordinance, and that the Commission can grant additional height. He stated that the structure will be higher than the E.F. Hutton Building but the mass falls away on the site and approval is discretionary with the Commission under the new ordinance. He stated that the application is not a planned development district for a high rise structure. Hugh Kaptur, project architect, 700 E. Tahquitz, stated that the mass dis- appears as the building rises but that the concept is to design a building with a hat because of the height limits; that the roof is a very important element of the project and the pyramid is an unusual statement because Palm Springs roof structures usually cannot be seen, that the building will support itself and will not be intimidated by the surrounding buildings, that the design concept is a different appearance for the important corner on which it is located; and that a pyramid is not bulky, but is a delicate structure moving away from the viewer and the height is exaggerated to keep the proportions valid. He stated structures similar to this are seen in Hawaii and Mexico; and that he felt it was important to have a change in Palm Springs. He explained that the flat area ceiling height is 10 ft. and that pyramid ceiling height is 27 ft. , and that bottom of the pyramid is concrete tile with wood open grill work at the top for ventilation of the equipment. Vice-Chairman stated that street will have varied architecture. Planning Director stated that the design is a solution for screening of air conditioning and that he had seen something similar on a smaller scale in San Diego. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0272. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney stated that the design is strikingly different. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel; Edgmon abstained; Lapham absent; Hough dissented) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0291. Application by SUNSPOT/KRAMER for architectural approval of house plans and revised grading plan for 14 single family residences on W. Racquet Club Road west of Cardillo, R-1-C Zone, Section 3. Planner (Green) explained the project. Commissioner Olsen asked the architect the measures taken to protect the glassed area from the sun on the east and west. Chris Mills, 121 E. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that there are overhangs and trellises except for the very small windows. He stated that the fifteen foot setback on two lots is to accommodate the irregularly shaped lots and to give them an area for swimming pools; and that encroach- ment is on only a small portion of the site. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the followings condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0293. Application by DESIGN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of office complex on El Cielo between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, P Zone, Section 18. Planning Director stated that the application is on the north side of the application that the City is processing at Ramon and E1 Cielo and is pro- posed for office space, but may be submitted for food services later if the Planned Development District does not move ahead first. Commissioner Olsen asked what mitigative measures were being taken for air- port noise. Planning Director stated that the complex is only slightly open to the airport. M/S/C (Neel/Hough; Edgmon abstained; Lapham absent) approving the applica- tion subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0438-MISCf. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural Rpi povfl Aof one v S ed parking r1 ing and access plan for Palm Springs Regional Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0438-MISC. (Continued) Planning Director stated that the design revamps the front parking and access to the terminal; that the current loop road has reached capacity; and that a committee representing various City bodies met to complete the design and try to reduce the major impacts on E1 Cielo and Tahquitz. He stated that the main access on Tahquitz will remain and three other accesses will be provided - one for north bound traffic for accessing the airport; another for employees to access at Baristo and also serve the service building at the back of the airport; and a separate access for rental car operations with another access north of the terminal and a separate parking lot for drop off cars. He stated that a future phase shows possible deck parking and than a final phase shows a major decked area on the south. He explained that the curb parking has been increased over what is existing and that negotiations with Co mbs-Gates will be discussed by the Director of Transportation. Director of Transportation and Energy stated that negotiations have not been completed with Combs-Gates; but the major portion of their site is under the control of the airport and the agreement has strong reversionary clauses and the property can be received by the airport almost immediately. He stated that a twenty year master plan will be shown to the FAA and decking may be needed and that the terminal may not be able to handle the projected passenger figures, but that a new terminal could be built instead of a deck. He explained that the access road design was created by many people, almost all of whom liked the results; and that the design meets the demands of the airport and allows the airport to meet the demands of the valley. He stated that the roadway system will handle traffic for fifteen years except that parking becomes a problem; that the airport now has 700 parking spaces and a deck would hold a 1,000, but projections show that in 8 to 10 years twice the number of passengers will enplane and a decision will have to be made on location of facility. He stated that the airport has had a 20% growth for each of the last two years. Planning Director stated that merging distances will have to be reviewed although the consultants feel that the distances are adequate. He explained that the design will be reviewed in its final form. M/S/C (Olsen/Curtis; Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the merging distances be studied for adequancy. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. TTM 16581. Application by DENNIS MARTIN for architectural approval of phasing plans for 83 units (36 units in first phase) for property on Racquet Club Road/ Hermosa Drive, 05 & N05 Zones (IL), Section 2. Commissioner Whitney left. Octoher 14, 1987 PC MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0438-MISC. (Continued) M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0292. Application by ROGER CARVER for architectural approval of a single family residence and tennis- court on West Vista Chino Drive between Via Monte Vista/Via Norte, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the application is a very large house in Las Palmas which will be a corporate retreat and that the porte-cochere will have to be removed because it is in the setbacks. He stated that the applicants will be seeking a vacation of the cul-de-sac and that the tennis court will be submitted under a conditional use permit. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: Th-at all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 24. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. - Council approved the Motel 6 project (CASE 5.0437-PD-187) . 25. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. - STUDY SESSION. Planning Commission regular study session will be held Wednesday, October 21, 3 to 5 p.m. , Large Conference Room, City Hall . The agenda will include the Desert Hospital expansion, Zoning Ordinance revisions, and a presentation given by local architects on the Zoning Ordinance. - NOISE. Decibel level of sirens is not included in City noise measurements, but they are probably in excess of 80 decibels. 26. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration. ) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. PLANNrRGIDIRECTOR MDR/ml WP/PC MINS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 28, 1987 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 7 0 Hugh Curtis X 7 0 Martha Edgmon X 6 1 Brent Hough X 6 1 Earl Neel X 6 1 Gary Olsen - 6 1 Barbara Whitney - 5 2 Staff Present _ Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 26, 1967 Mike Buccino Absent: Barbara Whitney Tom Doczi Brent Hough Martha Edgmon, Alternate Chris Mills, Chairman William Johnson Will Kleindienst Gary Olsen Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney/Olsen absent) approving minutes of October 14 as sub- mitted. There were no Tribal Council comments.