Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/05/11 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ' Council Chamber, City Hall May 11, 1988 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 - 17 3 Hugh Curtis X 20 0 Martha Edgmon X 18 2 Brent Hough X 19 1 Gary Olsen X 17 3 Barbara Whitney X 15 5 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - May 9, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Tom Doczi Martha Edgmon, Alternate William Johnson Brent Hough Barbara Whitney, Alternate Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Lapham absent) approving minutes of April 27, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES: Chairman Lapham was absent; Vice Chairman Curtis presided. There were no Tribal Council comments. x May 11, 1988 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 (Olsen/Edgmon; Lapham absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0346 (Continued) . Request for DENNY AUSTIN for reconsideration of action by Planning Commission for single-family residence on Vista Drive/Via Livorno, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Continued to May 25, 1988 at the applicant's request. CASE 7.679-AMM. Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for William Gillespie for architectural approval of detailed final landscape exterior lighting, and irrigation plans for revised entrance gate for residence at 2145 Araby Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0376 (MINOR) . Application by MARRIOTT CORPORATION for architectural '- " approval of revised plans for awning program for Bob's Big Boy Restaurant at 1501 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Discussion ensued on Commission action at its April 27 meeting to retain the stained glass at the roof peak. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC recommended that it be removed and replaced by ship lap and that the Bob's Big Boy on East Palm Canyon had had the glass removal approved by the Commission. Commissioner Olsen stated that it was very clear that the Commission wanted to explore retention of the colored glass. Planning Director stated that perhaps the Commission liaison at the AAC had not told the Committee of the recommendation. Commissioner Olsen stated that there are ways to keep the stained glass. Planner stated that the structural elements of the dropped ceiling will be seen, if the glass remains. Mitch Haase, Marriot representative, stated that the company had explored the possibility of keeping the glass, but the structural elements of the ceiling would be visible, that painting the glass would not be practical because of maintenance, that T-111 or stucco should replace the glass; that, if stucco is used, it should be painted the color of the exterior of the building, and that the renovation is part of a state-wide campaign for upgrading the appearance of the 20-year-old Bob's Big Boy image. Vice-Chairman stated that he felt that the AAC would recommend the same conditions if the application were sent back for a restudy. Motion was made by Olsen for a restudy to explore retention of the colored glass. There was no second and the motion died. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CASE 3.0376 (MINOR) . (Continued) M/S/C (Hough/Whitney; Edgmon, Olsen dissented; Lapham absent) approving the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the area to be filled in for the existing window be 1 by 6 ship lap of resawn wood. 2. That the existing equipment on the roof (water heater) be lowered so as not to be visible. Details to be reviewed by staff. 3. That working drawings and cross sections of the awning be submitted for AAC review. Lighting details to accompany working drawings. CASE 3.0384 (MINOR) . Application by ONE WAY COSMETICS for architectural approval of awning for store front at 216 North Palm Canyon, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the AAC was concerned about the quality and color of the awning (which has already been installed) , and that the Committee took a field trip individually to the site and four members phoned the following concerns to staff: that the awning fit is not acceptable, that the color is painted on the awnings instead of in the fabric, and that the color does not match the adjacent awnings. He stated that the awning has no permit and that the AAC also felt that the awning should be consistent with the green-colored awning program of the building. Vice-Chairman asked for the background on the Baubles and Bangles awning. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the Commission approved an awning program where all awnings were to all be green for this building. This approval came after a grey awning had been approved and erected. Baubles & Bangles then erected a gray awning after the Commission approved the awning in green. One Way Cosmetics then painted their awning charcoal . He stated that One Way Cosmetics has no approvals of the awning or the signs. Commissioner Hough explained that the old gray awning was painted charcoal with an awning paint which stretched the fabric and left a poor fit. He stated that he felt that a green awning program should be maintained for the building. Commissioner Whitney stated that the installation lacks quality in its application and asked for direction on a motion. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the Commission should give direction on the color and then restudy the application. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Lapham absent) for restudy of the application with particular attention given to making the awning fit its frame, to the style of lettering, and that the awning is to be green to fit the awning program. i May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 CASE 3.0385 (MINOR) (REF. Case 3.105) . Application by AMADO CENTER for architectural approval of revised exterior colors for retail complex on N. Palm Canyon Drive/Amado Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the new owners of the Amado Center ,.-, are upgrading it, that color would be applied to the wood laminate throughout the center with the stucco left the same color, and the stairways painted a lighter color. Commissioner Olsen stated that he had no problem with the colors, that the project will resemble the Deauville Condominium complex, and the appearance will not change significantly. William Packard, 3702 South Park, Santa Ana, agent for the new owners, stated that a face lift is proposed for the center and colors used that will complement Maxim's and the Desert Fashion Plaza and the neighborhood for continuity, that the renovation program will cost $100,000 and will include painting, renovation, deck work, cleanup, upgrade of the parking lot, and a higher caliber of tenant which will be attained by an aggressive marketing campaign. He stated that the new owner hopes to lease one-half of the spaces by late fall , and that the company will cooperate with the City. M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Lapham absent) approving the application, subject to the following condition: That the alternate lighter color be used on the wood fascia/trim and the railing. �. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. Application by MAINIERO SMITH & ASSOCIATES for Steven C. Nichols for a tentative parcel map to create three parcels on 101 acres at Tram Way/N. Palm Canyon Drive, U-R/R-3/R-1-A Zones, Section 3. and Application by CHRISTOPHER MILLS for Quality Centers for a conditional use permit and Change of Zone from R-3 to C-D-N to allow a shopping center on thirteen acres on North Palm Canyon Drive between Tram Way/San Marco, R-3 Zone, Section 3. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Planner (Williams) gave the staff report (on file in the Planning Division) and described the project on the board. She stated that there have been changes to the Development Committee conditions as follows: The Traffic Engineer recommends that the driveway between the parking area and the service area be separated be 200 feet (applicant shows 165 feet); and that dedication will be made for street improvements on the parcel map, but improvements will be deferred until development occurs. Vice-Chairman asked, if the two undeveloped lots on Tramway would need additional parking when developed. Planner replied that the project is May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) currently 25 spaces over-parked, that the parcels would need to provide additional parking when developed. Planner stated that there is a deceleration lane at the entrance on Palm Canyon for right turns to remove vehicles from the flow of traffic and a two-way left turn pocket on Hwy 111 . Vice-Chairman told the audience that during public hearings comments should be made on the application only, not on extraneous issues. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Bob Smith, Mainiero, Smith and Associates, project engineer, stated that the map's intent is to separate the property so the owner can convey legal title to the Quality Centers Corporation. He requested that the *for off-site Development Committee requirements*be limited to the Quality Center project improvements only (with improvements deferred until development for the other parcels) . He stated that dedication will be made to the City. The following people spoke in favor of the project: Karen Tabbah, 584 S. Camino Real Charles Ozengard, Palm Springs Villas, Board of Directors Ed Rozniak, Palm Springs Villas, 2875 Los Felices Road Ray Olsen, 2775 Cabrillo Jack Stite, Palm Springs Villas William Hillegos, Palm Springs Villas They noted the following: Project will bring revenue to the City ($25 million in sales) . Exciting project which will bring people to Palm Springs to shop. A good project, but homeowners of Palm Springs Villas do not want liquor sales at the Center and there should be a stipulation to that effect. A good business use (instead of residences) . Blowsand abatement program should be instituted so that sand does not affect the landscaping or the pools at the Palm Springs Villas. Changes have been made to lessen impacts on the neighbors. Chris Mills, 121 South Palm Canyon Drive, project architect, stated that the Center will be a manufacturer's outlet with goods from manufacturers who have gone into the retail business and sell on their own and not in department stores . He stated that the project is not a discount center, that materials and architecture will blend into the mountains and desert, that the merchandise and the landscaping will be of high quality, that the material in the complex will be of high quality and the project will be a well-designed gateway to the City. He stated that the Center will market pd dvertise throughout the Los Angeles and Orange County areas as well as e esert, that the project is a shopping mall without the usual 40,000 to May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) 60,000 square feet large tenant, and that the Center is 65 percent leased. He stated that the Center will employ 125 full-time and 75 part-time ,,.-.,, employees and that the portion of the City's taxes will be $250,000 a year. He stated that a partial list of tenants would be Corning, Royal Dalton, Mikasa, Fanny Farmer Candies, Canon linens, Hathaway, and Van Heusen. He stated in reply to Vice-Chairman' s question that the Center will not have food service, but that possibly the two outer pads could, and that the land slopes up and views of the parking will be screened by berming and landscaping. Planning Director remarked that the east elevation steps up with a 30-foot high differential and asked as the east elevation steps down if the material used would be split-faced block. Mr. Mills stated that it would. He requested that a 165-foot separation be allowed between the driveways, since the second driveway is for employees only. Planning Director explained that the C-D-N Zone allows liquor stores by right-of-zone, but a more specific list of uses than those in the C-D-N can be developed under a Planned Development District, if the Planning Commission wishes to change the application to a Planned Development District. The following people spoke in opposition: Frank Tysen, Casa Cody Hotel Ramon Hernandez, 420 Patencio, owner of Tango's `..� Jerry Ransom, 1533 Chaparral , Chaparal Lodge James Diamond, 1888 N. Indian, Morningside Inn �•.% Mike Dutton, 557 Sunny Dunes Road They voiced the following concerns: - Adding more empty store spaces to the City' s already high vacancy factor. - Hearing should be at night so more people can attend. - Loss of village atmosphere of the City. - Massive size of the project. - Lack of interest by Commission in keeping the village atmosphere intact. - Moratorium should be instituted until vacancies are filled. - Much land available for commercial expansion (away from the City's entry) . - Project will take business away from downtown. - Project will increase traffic. - An environmental impact review should be done on a project this size. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) - First impressions of the City are important and the project will not make a good first impression. - Project will drive away tourists looking for the village atmosphere. - Project should be hidden away behind a berm. - Visual techniques should be presented depicting the project' s impact on Palm Canyon Drive. - Project has created concern at the Council level , including the Mayor. - Anything under a normal retail price is considered discount. - People will not come in Palm Springs to shop because there are large discount centers in other areas. - Palm Canyon is a first impression of Palm Springs and important to the real estate industry. The street should be guarded aesthetically all along its route. - Tourists now visit such areas as Mexico and Santa Barbara because of their charm and not Palm Springs. - Small hotel owners do not want the project. �.. - Factory outlet stores are not appealing and merchandise is poorly displayed. Vice-Chairman stated that the owner of the project has other successful operations in other locations in which the same manufacturers have space and that the plan is to coordinate the group, not to build a center, and that the spaces are already leased. Murray Cohen, the applicant (rebuttal ) , explained that the operation is not a discount operation, that the merchandise is of high quality, that no merchandise is displayed outside the building, that no posters will be on the windows, that the Commission has seen the other centers in photographs and knows that they are of high quality, and that the project is a dynamic one. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Olsen stated that people have divergent opinions about the project, i .e. the project will force people down valley or the project will benefit Palm Springs. He stated that the project is of high quality but not the quaint village envisioned by some and that the City has changed throughout the years and must go forward. Commissioner Hough agreed stating that the project is a beautiful piece of architecture which will enhance the entry to the City and has quality tenants. He stated that the spaces are already leased and that the `"� shopping center is not a strip shopping center. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 CASES 5 .0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) Commissioner Edgmon commented that the spaces are large and tenants would not find that much space downtown, that there is good landscaping to hide the parking, and that the project blends well into the mountains . Commissioner Whitney agreed, stating that the project architect should be complimented on the design. Vice-Chairman stated that the project is of high quality, that one of the problems of the City is lack of drawing power and that Palm Springs has changed over the years and will continue to do so. He stated that the Commission's job is to obtain the best project possible and that any other issues (such as political ones) regarding the project should be addressed to the City Council . He stated that the Commission has seen the subject application five times and changes have been made to improve it and that the owner of Loehmann' s Center feels that the project will encourage business in his complex. Planning Director stated that, if the application is approved as requested, the zoning would be C-D-N which allows liquor stores (among other uses) by right-of-zone. He stated that, if the use is a concern, the project should have more specific uses developed under a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone, and that wording should be developed to underground utilities on abutting and on site electrical lines, and that an EIR is not mandatory for the project but may be required on parcel 2. He stated that under a Planned Development District a specific list of uses would be developed as part of final development plans, and that the Council requested that no "For Lease" signs be on the property, and the applicant agreed. He explained that a 165-foot driveway separation is not a problem under the circumstances. Commissioner Whitney stated that a high-end usage should be developed under a Planned Development District. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen; Whitney, Lapham absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TPM 23130 and Case 5.0474-PD-198 (in lieu of a zone change) . Findings and conditions are as follows: TPM 23130 Findings 1 . That a parcel map is the appropriate application for the proposed subdivision. 2. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed subdivision. 3. That Parcel 3 (a 14.4 net acre site) is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed commercial development. 4. That all development in the Urban Reserve (U.R. ) Zone (Parcel 1) shall be subject to the Planned Development District Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 ' CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) 5. That the proposed subdivision as conditioned, including a requirement L..� that no development will be allowed on Parcel 1 and 2 prior to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 6. That conditions have been imposed to insure the the proposed map will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 7. That the site is served by N. Palm Canyon Drive (Hwy 111) and Tram Way (major thoroughfares) which are adequate in size to service the traffic to be generated by the proposed project. 8. That a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been filed. Conditions 1 . That the creation of Parcels 1 and 2 are for the purpose of con- veyance of title only. 2. That an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared prior to development of Parcel 1. 3. That all conditions of the Development Committee shall be implemented with the exceptions noted. 4. That all development in the Urban Reserve (U-R) Zone (Parcel 1) shall be subject to the Planned Development District provisions of the t... Zoning Ordinance. 5. That San Marco Way shall be brought into alignment with Yorba Road. 6. That for Parcel 3 only one 35 ft. access drive shall be permitted on N. Palm Canyon Drive (Hwy 111) , driveway to be located approximately midway between Yorba Road and Tram Way. 7. That no future access shall be permitted on N. Palm Canyon Drive (Hwy 111) to the future out parcel of Parcel 3. 8. That the public entrance driveway on Tram Way shall be located 165 ft. easterly of the service driveway. 9. That dedication shall be required but improvements limited to the subject parcel until development occurs on the other parcels . 10. That utility undergrounding be limited to abutting and transgressing electrical lines. 11. That a specific list of uses be developed as part of final development plans. 12. That no "For Lease" signs are allowed. 13. That the center shall maintain all landscaping, including on site and the small triangle south of San Marco Way. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 CASES 5.0470-CUP/5.0474-CZ/TPM 23130. (Continued) Case 5.0474-PD-198 (in lieu of a CUP and zone change) . Findings: 1 . That the proposed use is desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the General Plan and is not detrimental to existing or future uses. 2. That the proposed site, 14 acres, is adequate in size and shape for the proposed use. 3. That the site relates to the surrounding streets of San Marco Way, Tram Way, and N. Palm Canyon Drive and the streets are of a capacity to accommodate the proposed traffic. Modifications and alignment to the intersection of San Marco Way and N. Palm Canyon Drive will be necessary and are conditions of approval . 4. The site design will be an integrated element to the neighborhood through the sensitive site design of adequate natural landscape, generous setbacks and understated architectural style. 5. That the conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the immediate neighborhood. 6. That a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone and C.U.P. for a Neighborhood Shopping Center is necessary in order to maintain the specialized nature of this shopping center. Conditions: 1 . That all conditions of the Development Committee and Environmental Assessment, as revised shall apply. 2. That a specific list of uses be developed for the center as part of the final development plans. 3. That no "For Lease" signs shall be placed in any individual storefront. CASE 6.360-VARIANCE. Application by DIANA KOURACOS & NICHOLAS KALLENS for a variance from required front yard setbacks to allow a carport at 20 Cahuilla Hills Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines .) Recommendation: That the variance for the front yard setbacks be approved and the variance requesting unscreened mechanical equipment denied. Planner (Evans) gave the staff report (on file in the Planning Division) . ' He stated that there is much unscreened equipment in the neighborhood, but it is not appropriate to grant a variance to allow unscreened equipment, May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 CASE 6.360-VARIANCE. (Continued) since the revised Zoning Ordinance requires screening of all mechanical equipment within five years. He stated that the improvements have been built over "red tags" beginning with a deck in 1981 and continuing with conversion of a portion of a garage to living quarters and the addition of another garage, constituting a 50% addition to the original structure. He explained that staff feels the equipment should be screened and the remainder of the project brought up to standards, that the current property owner is related to the former one who did the construction and is aware of the history. He stated that the situation would be an "as built" approval since the construction has already taken place, and that the architecture has retained the integrity of the original . He explained that the deck cantilevers out to within 9' 6" of the property below and the deck structure is weak, since it is not footed properly and that the property owner below is concerned about the soundness of the deck. He stated that the structure will have to be reconstructed to meet code. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Bob Lotito, KWL Engineers, 712 Eugene Road, complimented the staff for its direction and stated that all conditions are acceptable, except for the timing of the performance of the screening. He requested deferment until the end of the life of the roof which would be in five years and stated that the applicant did not construct the additions to the property which were done by a former property owner, that the roof will be damaged by the repair if holes are placed in it for screening, that the applicant will paint the roof as approved by staff, and the owner above the property has sent a letter stating the height is no problem. He asked Commission consideration of the letter. Planning Director explained that the compliance date for screening of mechanical equipment is five years from the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance changes which was January 6, 1988, but that the enforcement will probably be by attrition. Mr. Lotito stated that he did not know of the illegal construction at the time it was being done. Vice-Chairman remarked that the house is tight on the site with little space on the sides, and that he was concerned about the strength of the structures during an earthquake. Mr. Lotito stated that, 'if the variance is granted, a building permit application will be submitted, an architectural engineer hired, and the deck reconstructed. Karen Tabbah, 584 South Camino Real , asked if any records were kept on property so that various violations can be found by real estate people when property changes hands . She stated that realtors are responsible when misinformation or lack of information is involved. Assistant City Attorney stated that the City has instituted a policy that an unresolved code violation becomes a part of County records in the County Recorder' s office and can be found through a title search. He stated that the seller has a duty to disclose a violation, but often does not. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 CASE 6.360-VARIANCE. (Continued) Planning Director stated that any item can be recorded and a condition could be recorded for a requirement to redo the roof if desired. Planner stated that the recording process is usually viable, but in the subject case the violation did not become apparent until the last Commission meeting. He stated that a building permit could have a note attached regarding screening within five years which would be on record in the Building and Planning Divisions, although, many times people do not search out these records. He stated that staff has been working on the violations for seven years, and that perhaps the Commission should fix the problems if it feels they need to be fixed. There being no further appearances, Vice-Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director stated that parapets were not allowed as mechanical screens until the recent ordinance changes, and that penetrations to roofs for screening, if done correctly, do not make the roofs leak. Commissioner Hough stated that the Zoning Ordinance has been totally ignored in the additions to the residence, and that the applicants are using the ordinance to extend the infraction another five years. He stated that the Commission should take action per AAC recommendations. Commissioner Olsen stated that the property owner was forced to take back the house, Commissioner Hough stated that the owner' s son was the previous owner. Commissioner Olsen commented that he could accept the roof as it is until the title changes or until January 6, 1993, when the five-year time period expires . M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis, Hough dissenting; Whitney, Lapham absent) approving the variance application based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. That due to the size, shape, topography and surrounding property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood. 2. That conditions have been imposed which will adjust the proposed variance; therefore, this request will not constitute a special privilege. 3. The granting of this variance will not affect adjacent properties. 4. The granting of this variance will not affect the General Plan. Conditions: 1. That the roof be painted with colors (to be reviewed and approved by staff) . 2. That roof screening will be deferred until the title changes for new ownership or until January 6, 1993. , May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 CASE 6.360-VARIANCE. (Continued) Commissioners Curtis and Hough dissented because they felt the mechanical equipment should be screened. Planning Director stated that, if information becomes available, it will be put on the computers in the Building and Planning Divisions and violations will be noted if staff knows of them. Commissioner Whitney left the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0155-PD-129 (REF. CASE 5.0466-PD-196) . Application by MEL HABER ENTERPRISES for a 12-month time extension for a Planned Development District to allow a 72-unit condo complex on the westerly terminus of Tahquitz Way, 0-20/R-2/R-3 Zones, Section 15. Planner (Evans) stated that the Planned Development District was originally approved in 1982 and has had three time extensions, that the map has expired and will be required to be resubmitted, and that there will be no development in the flume on the property. Planning Director stated that a nearby resident, Rose Mihata, was unable to attend the meeting and called staff and requested that the time extension �... not be granted. She requested that the traffic be reviewed, and also stated that the project will block her view. He stated that the extension request is discretionary, and that, if the Commission feels that aspects of development or the map have changed, the extension can be denied. Planner explained that the roof height ranges from 24 to 29 feet, that the Commission at the time of approval was concerned about the roof elements (feeling that there should be full-hipped roofs) , that the parking garages are half-above grade and are individual , that on the interior elevations there would be a 33-foot high building, but next to surrounding properties roof height would be 24. He stated that the former owner of the Mihata house also objected to the project, but that the Commission on a field trip felt the project fit the neighborhood and did not obscure views enough to deny it. He stated that the normal setback requirement was 200 feet and because of the hillside a two-story condition was not disruptive, that the portions of the setbacks next to multi-family dwellings were the minimum, and that the project was received in a positive manner, except for the roof concerns. He stated that the units were to have sold for $300,000 each. Assistant City Attorney stated that Commissioner Olsen who abstained from voting should return to the meeting to form a quorum for attendance purposes, although he could not participate or vote. Planner explained that there was no substantial problem with the traffic, that the plan would have to be redesigned at the entry, and a traffic study prepared, and that traffic should be discouraged from coming into the cul- de-sac. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 CASE 6.360-VARIANCE. (Continued) In reply to Commission question, he stated that to keep the view open, the site plan would have to be redesigned and that by right-of-zone there should not be two-story buildings, but the applicant requested them. Vice-Chairman reminded the Commission that the only action at the meeting was the time extension. M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Olsen abstained; Whitney, Lapham absent) approving a fourth time extension for PD-129, subject to all original conditions of approval . The new expiration date will be July 28, 1989. PUBLIC COMMENTS Frank Tysen, owner of Casa Cody Hotel , stated that he was pleased to see the previously discussed project because it is more village-like than the luxury high-rise apartment units proposed recently on the site, although he still had doubts about it. He stated, however, that he realized that the property owner has to keep his options open, but he was sorry that the Commission has given up on the Palm Springs village atmosphere, that the new mayor promoted the village atmosphere, and that it is sad to hear the Commission's comments. He stated that the public will have to campaign for the kind of people who believe in the village feeling. Vice-Chairman requested that Mr. Tysen be specific. Mr. Tysen stated that the Commission's attitude is that the City is changing and feelsthat change is inevitable. Vice-Chairman stated that the Commission is saying that times change and the City and buildings change, thus the image changes, that the Commission did not say it was giving up, and that a right-of-zone application has to be reviewed on the basis of the site plan, form, and architecture. He stated that Mr. Tysen should discuss his concerns with the City Council and asked Mr. Tysen not to misunderstand the job of the Commission. Mr. Tysen replied that Commissioners in other towns have not given up and have retained the atmosphere of the community. He stated that Palm Springs is over-built but with the right approach it can be shielded. He stated that he had restored a small historic hotel which tourists love because it has charm and atmosphere and tourists want to get away from the metropolitan areas. Vice-Chairman stated that it is difficult to compromise judgment based on code, but that the Commission is put in that position many times and is forced to compromise to get any kind of quality at all . He stated that most concerns rest with the Council . Mr. Tysen replied that the Planning Division should have visual aids to show what is being developed. He stated that there should not be signs on buildings at the City's entrance, and that Palm Springs has economics based on charm. May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) Vice-Chairman reiterated that the Quality Center project has a good sign program, and that the Commission has to make compromises. Mr. Tysen stated that he realizes that compromises are necessary, and that he is glad that the Commissioners have not given up on the City. He stated that the City has many things for which to fight. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0373-MISC. (Continued) . PLANNING COMMISSION adoption of resolution approving the boundaries of a new redevelopment project area (#9) , nine small areas scattered throughout the City. Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council has requested a continuance to May 25. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen; Whitney, Lapham absent) continuing the item to May 25. DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION discussion on tree trimming policy city-wide. Planning Director requested another continuance, since he had not had time to review a policy of tree trimming with the AAC landscape architects. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney, Lapham absent) continuing the item to May 25. DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION review of permit provisions for Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Planning Director stated that he would recommend continuance to the Planning Commission study session of May 18 and to the Planning Commission meeting of May 25 because there has been a request from a realtor to add offsite real estate signs to the discussion. He stated that the original request was from a former councilman who requested that the ordinance be amended to exempt six-square foot real estate signs from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance which currently exempts only two-square foot signs. He stated that staff does not support the request because the Commission should review signs that are six square feet. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Whitney, Lapham absent) continuing the item to May 25 with review of real estate signs containing six square feet and offsite real estate signs at the Planning Commission study session of May 18, at 3:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room at City Hall . May 11, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 16 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions . Commissioner Interviews. Interviews by Council for Commissioners will be for reappointments',and new positions, not for current members ..� whose terms will expire. Chairman Lapham' s term will expire in 1990. ' " Commissioner Edgmon will be interviewed for reappointment. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. General Plan Update Process. There will be a Town Hall meeting on May 25 at 7:00 p.m. at the Lecture Hall of the Convention Center. Topics will be focused on downtown issues. This is the beginning of discussion on the General Plan changes and the City's General Plan and policies will be interfaced with these ideas. Planning Director requested that the Commissioners attend. Commission will have to respond eventually to the definition of "charm" and an architectural theme for downtown. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. -. CASE 3.0286 (MINOR) . Application TKD ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for the Stroke Activity Center at 1776 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Whitney, Lapham absent) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.0361 . Application by ROBERT NEILL for architectural approval of grading plan, chimney flue detail , and landscape plans for single family hillside residence on Araby Drive between Palo Verde/Cholla Place, R-1-B Zone, Section 25 (Ref. Case 7.690-AMM) . M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Whitney, Lapham absent) continuing the application to May 25 for receipt of final landscape plans (to be reviewed in conjunction with grading plans) . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m. Anzst, -C J.-,, " PLA IRECTO MDR/ml WP/PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 25, 1988 • 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 18 3 Hugh Curtis X 21 0 Martha Edgmon X 19 2 Brent Hough X 20 1 Gary Olsen X 18 3 Barbara Whitney X 16 5 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Amy Hodgett, Economic Development & Housing Coordinator Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - May 23, 1988 • Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Will Kleindienst Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Barbara Whitney, Alternate Martha Edgmon, Alternate William Johnson Brent Hough Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis absent) approving minutes of May 11, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: There were no Tribal Council comments .