Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/05/25 - MINUTES 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 r 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. ,fir May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PUBLIC COMMENTS Ken Moran, attorney, P. 0. Box 1784, Palm Springs, and Giorgio Herrera, 1055 Chino Canyon Road, requested an opportunity to speak at the time the Commission addressed Case 3.0378. 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 (Hough/Whitney; Curtis absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0342 (MINOR) . Application by PERRY LISS for architectural approval of grading plans for a single family residence on Camino del Norte between Via Monte Vista/Stevens Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0343. Application by PERRY LISS for architectural approval of grading plans for a single family residence on Camino del Norte between Via Monte Vista/Stevens Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0373 (MINOR) . Application by JOHN WALLING for architectural approval of revision to a house addition over an existing garage at 700 West Stevens Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director explained that the revision is to expand a previously approved addition over an existing garage. Abstention: Olsen CASE 3.0387. Application by INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION for Jan Kessler for architectural approval of a single family residence at 320 El Camino Way, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CASE 3.0390 (MINOR) . Application by DR. KENNETH GARETT for architectural approval of a room addition for residence at 2359 Smoketree Avenue, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Approved, subject to the following condition: That the existing wood window casings and attic vents be matched. SIGN APPLICATION (Ref. Case 3.0318-MINOR) . Application by EXPRESS GAS for a new main identification sign for gasoline station at 2901 N. Palm Canyon Drive, U-R Zone, Section 3. Restudy. Noting the following: 1. That the colors are too bright. 2. That the attachment detail between the sign cabinet and monument base should have a better transition and suggest painting the base to match the building. CASE 3.0168. Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for W. Shellenbarger for architectural approval of detailed final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for single family hillside residence on Via Olivera/Tuscan Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0356. Application by ROBERT GARDNER for architectural approval of revised elevations for single family residence at 950 E. Azalea Circle, W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That fascia be maintained at a constant 8 ft. vertical height. 2. That the ridge line be maintained at a single height. 3. That the rear roof elevation shall be flat where the roof falls short. 4. That the roof pitch be 4:12. 5. That working drawings be submitted for review by the AAC. Commissioner Curtis entered. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0378. Application by JACK WESTON for Lea Eastman for architectural approval of single-family hillside residence on Chino Canyon Road west of Panorama Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 3. Planner (Patenaude) showed the location, described the house on the board, and stated that three letters have been received from neighbors opposing the project and that the AAC felt that the home is not integrated with the slope of the parcel and obstructs views. He stated that he took a field trip to look at the view above the property at 925 Barona whose owner, a Mrs. Scott, objected to the project because she stated it blocked her view, but he stated that he did not feel there was a serious impact, and that a hedge obscures views of the house from the property owners to the west and south, although they can see over the hedge. Jeff Eastman, 1046 Oro Street, Laguna Beach, the applicant, stated that the section provided by the applicant showing the subject project in relationship to the adjacent house is incorrect, and offered a correct section and site plan. He stated that the owner in the rear has a 180 degree view and can see only the house roof until his oleanders grow taller, and that everyone's views were considered when he designed the house. In response to Chairman's question, Planner stated that the roof height is 18 feet and very little cutting or filling will be done on the lot. Mr. Eastman commented that he did not know why the raised floor line is such a concern, since the side of the house is setback from the property line 37 feet. Ken Moran, attorney representing Mrs. Scott, a resident at 925 Barona, stated that the project is inappropriate because the living room area is artificially elevated to enhance the Eastman's view and that Mrs. Scott would have no problem if the floor and ceiling were lowered to the natural slope. He stated that the idea is not to drop the floor and leave the ceiling, but to totally lower the whole area. He requested a restudy. Giorgio Herrera, neighboring property owner, stated that his property is affected by the proposed residence and the length of the house will hide the view from several areas on his property, that the building is two stories (like an eastern home) and should be a one-story California-type design. He requested that the house be lowered. Mr. Eastman explained that a neighboring house affects his view and if his house were at a 9-foot height, he would have no views, that the house is designed to meet City ordinances, that Mr. Herrera could have put his bedroom addition on the second floor to preserve his view, and that any development blocks some views. Mr. Herrera commented that the house being referred to by Mr. Eastman is on the side of the Eastman property (not in front) , and that the Eastman house will block his view of the City. Chairman suggested that a story pole be erected at the house height to be viewed from adjacent properties and the house height adjusted before approval is given, and until the house is adjusted, using the story pole, a restudy is necessary. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 CASE 3.0378 (Continued) Commissioner Hough stated that 18 feet is the zoning requirement, but hillsides are sensitive to views and the house should fit the hill , Planning Director stated that the hillside ordinance was modified in the last update of the Zoning Ordinance, and that it is not mandatory to protect the view, but hillside projects should be sensitive to existing views and have continuity with surrounding development. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon) for a restudy, noting the following: 1. That the protection of view corridors is encouraged. 2. That the house design should be more sensitive to the hillside location. Chairman recommended that if the applicants want to maintain the height, a story pole should be used and a field trip scheduled for the Planning Commission and AAC. CASE 3.0272. Application by VOSS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES for architectural approval of a revised site plan for retail and restaurant complex on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone, (I .L.) , Section 14. (Vice-Chairman Curtis presided.) Planner (Williams) explained that the site plan has been revised to accommodate valet parking and two nightclubs/restaurants and that the square footage has not changed. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon, Lapham abstained) approving the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the driveway be patterned concrete or pavers in a cobblestone pattern. 2. That building "B" be relocated to the 20-foot setback line and the additional area on the east side of building "B" to be landscaped. 3. That revised architectural drawings be presented to AAC and Planning Commission. 4. Final landscape lighting and irrigation to be submitted for review and approval by the AAC and Planning Commission. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 CASE 3.0398 (MINOR) . Application by DONALD RUBENDALL for architectural approval of revised roof materials for single family hillside residence at 3330 Andreas Hills Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 1 . Planner (Evans) stated that the AAC continued the item for individual field trips and called in a split vote (2-2) on the roof. He stated that one of the AAC members felt that the roof could not be seen so the material should be allowed; and two members felt that the material was inappropriate since it is neither shake nor tile and is an unusual material . He stated that approvals have been given in the past to two of these roofs in the City, and that the material is regimented and comes in seven-foot strips with the same pattern repeated throughout. Commissioner Hough stated in response to Commissioner Edgmon's question that the one roof he knew of in the City did not sparkle and blended well with the background. Commissioner Curtis stated that the material is not appropriate aesthetically. Commissioner Olsen suggested that the Commission look at one of the approved roofs in the field. Planner stated that the residence with the roof is in the Mesa tract and difficult to reach. He stated that the AAC felt that from 50 yards the roof appears to be appropriate, but closer than that it is not. He stated that one of the roofs was approved on the Jakway house where the roof was not visible, that roofs in the subject neighborhood are a mixture, and that the subject roof is difficult to see since there are many trees on the property. `'— Commissioner Edgmon stated that the Andreas Hills area is nice and the proposed roof material resembles styrofoam, and that she wanted to see a similarly roofed house. Planning Director stated that the applicant can re-roof with shake. He stated also that the roof is open at the present time. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon) to continue the case to June 8. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0346 (Continued) . Request by DENNY AUSTIN for reconsideration of action by Planning Commission for single-family residence on Vista Drive/Via Livorno, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the applicant wants a continuance to revise his plans. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) removing the item from the agenda for submittal of revised plans. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 3.0355. Review of environmental assessment for application by ANGELO TORCHIA for architectural approval of general retail building at 343 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; action.) Planner (Evans) stated that the Environmental Assessment is a follow up to an approved project and recommend filing of a Negative Declaration. M/S/C (Edgmon/Curtis) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration for Case 3.0355. 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 staff was going to recommend continuance for Tribal Council review, but an attorney for Smoketree Properties has requested to address the Commission to ask to remove Smoketree Properties from the Redevelopment project area. Redevelopment Planner (Terell ) stated that copies of the letter from Smoketree Properties will be distributed at the June 8 meeting of the Commission, that the Redevelopment Agency is not recommending removal of ..� the Smoketree Properties (but that it is a Commission decision) , that the viewpoint of the owners of the property should be heard, and that part of the property in question is vacant and part is the Smoketree Shopping Center. Paul Seltzer, attorney, Best, Best and Krieger, representing Smoketree Properties, stated that the shareholders of Smoketree voted unanimously to request that Smoketree Properties, including the shopping center and the vacant land on Barona be deleted from the project area, that the removal of the property will save staff time and allow more time to be spent on the other eight other project areas, that if the owner of a property does not want to be in a redevelopment area, it is a waste of time, that the homeowners do not need redevelopment aid and are capable of developing their own property and feel that it is inappropriate to include the property in a redevelopment project area. He stated that perhaps it could be a project area on its own in the future, if necessary. Chairman asked for reasons for including the property when the homeowners do not want to be in a redevelopment project area. Planning Director stated that one of the reasons is because there is interest in developing the Smoketree property and the redevelopment process would allow techniques and tools not otherwise available to aid in the development. Redevelopment Planner agreed, stating that there had been interest in the ' past, although not currently in developing the property, and the cooperation of the property owners would be crucial for the redevelopment to be successful . May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0373-MISC (Continued) Chairman stated that because of the nature of Smoketree, nothing. will happen, questioned wasting time if the homeowners do not want to be involved and Redevelopment Planner answered that a project area process takes quite a while and is costly, but the Agency is not adverse to deleting the Smoketree property, if it will not be developed or need assistance, but it is a larger expenditure of staff time to come back at a later date with a project area which includes Smoketree. Mr. Seltzer stated that the Smoketree property is included because developers receive more assistance if the project is in a redevelopment area, and that no one has approved Smoketree until recently and the residents protested. Planning Director stated that redevelopment can become a reality several times along the process route and adoption of a resolution to establish boundaries can be done since boundaries of a project area can be reduced but not expanded. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) continuing the item to June 8. discussion DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION/on tree trimming policy city-wide. Planning Director stated that the item should be continued to June 8, not June 22, as was recommended, since the City Council wants to review the tree trimming policy because of an incident in which a palm frond fell on a citizen who is filing a claim against the City, and that the citizen indicated in the claim that if the palm tree had been trimmed, he would not have been hit by a frond. He stated that the original discussion was to have been on tree trimming in general to address the mangling of trees by gardeners. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) continuing the item to June 8. DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION review of provisions for sign ordinance regarding real estate signs. Planning Director stated that the original request was from a former Councilman who requested exemption of 6 square foot realty signs, but that a group of realtors requested discussion of offsite real estate signs as well . He stated that the item should be removed from the agenda for staff to discuss signs with the realtors, particularly offsite signs; and that staff would not recommend the allowance of an offsite sign, but would like to investigate the issue. M/S/C (Whitney/Edgmon) to remove the item from the agenda. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0474-PD-198. Commission discussion on application by CHRISTOPHER MILLS for Quality Centers for a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone from R-3 to C-D-N to allow a shopping center on 13 acres on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tram Way/San Marcos, R-3 Zone, Section 3. (Planning Commission discussion of specific uses under planned development district guidelines only.) Planning Director stated that a list of specific uses for the PD has been prepared by staff and that the project architect agrees with the list. Commissioner Curtis suggested that the bath house use be deleted. Planning Director stated that all uses listed are inside with the exception of restaurants with or without outdoor dining and that restaurants could serve alcohol , but no liquor stores or nightclubs would be allowed. He stated that the recycling center use is the boxes for recycling small amounts of cans, and that car washes, service stations and video arcades are allowed under a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that the Council is getting pressure from a downtown group to deny the center. Chairman suggested that Category "C (uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit) be deleted and asked about Christmas tree sales . Planning Director stated that Christmas tree sales are only temporary and would be allowed. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) approving the following specific list of uses: A. PERMITTED USES Antique Shop Artist's Studio ..r Athletic/Health Club Bank Bakery Barber/Beauty Shop Book/Gift/Stationery Store Camera/Film Sales Clinic (Medical/Dental ) Dry/Valet Cleaners Confectionary Store Conservatory Department Store Delicatessen Dry Goods/Notions Florist Gift/Hobby Shops Hardware, Appliance & Electronics Housewares Interior Decoration Jewelry Newsstands Office Pet Stores Pharmacy Photography Studio Post Office Branch Radio, Television & Music Shop Restaurants with or without outdoor dining Shoe Store Specialty Food Store Tailor Shops Toy Store Travel Store/Agency B. USES PERMITTED BY LAND USE PERMIT 1. Art displays. 2. Car shows. 3. Christmas tree sales not as an accessory use to a main store. 4. Child care centers. 5. Festivals, exhibits and special events. 6. Musicians/Entertainment (subject to provisions of Noise Ord) . 7. Recycling Collection Center as an accessory use on a developed property. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 CASE 3.830. Application by LAUREL PALMS, INC. (Vernon PudwelI ) for a 12-month time extension for a 61-unit apartment complex on San Rafael Drive between N. Indian Avenue/Virginia, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the project has received one 12-month time extension and is requesting a second, and that the applicant's intent is to build the project. In reply to Commission questions, he stated that if the applicants apply for building permits within the next 12 months, the project may need to be reviewed in terms of landscaping and working drawings, that the approval is discretionary with the Commission, and that the City has been favorable to time extensions. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough) approving a 12-month time extension for Case 3.830, subject to all original conditions of approval . CASE 5.0479-MISC. Planning Commission discussion of SCAG population projections for year 2010 for Palm Springs. Planning Director described the SCAG population projections and stated that the Palm Springs growth will be less than that targeted by the study, since the SCAG numbers are projected Los Angeles growth trends. He stated that the most recent projection for Palm Springs, using computer modeling, was 75,000 people by the year 2010 with the closest SCAG figure to that being 88,000. He explained that SCAG estimates are based on several factors, including "Base Line" population projections, housing, employment, �-- mobility, emerging trends, all of which are high. He stated that staff will write a letter to SCAG stating that the projected figures are high in terms of population, unless the Commission feels there will be a population explosion over the next 26 years. He stated that the adopted figures for 1984 change to a regional housing need assessment after June 30, that the numbers will rise significantly and that the numbers are important for determining the amount of low-income housing, since the higher the population figures, the more housing needs are affected. He stated that the subject could be reviewed at a Planning Commission study session, if the Commission desired. Chairman stated that if a "no growth" initiative passes, the figures will not be valid. Planning Director replied that the State says that growth/housing projections have to be consistent with the General Plan, but that the Attorney General states that zoning cannot be used as an inhibitor to housing. He explained that if the State decides to enforce the requirement, the City will be forced to re-zone areas to add lower cost housing and that the subject should be considered by the Commission. Economic Development & Housing Coordinator stated that if the growth control ordinance passes, a priority will have to be set aside for low- income units, that it is being used within the SCAG region, and that it would be a model for Riverside County. Chairman stated that Palm Springs single-family residence construction is over because there is no more space. May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0479-MISC. (Continued) Planning Director stated that most of the housing will be multi-family, that there has been flexibility in density which has taken less land, and that the Economic Development and Housing Director is questioning Palm Hills development. He stated that in 26 years, Palm Hills could develop, but may not create a new market for houses in addition to current housing needs in the flatlands, and to meet the highest SCAG scenario, 1828 units would have to be built per year over the next 26 years. He stated that the lowest projection of 1381 is just double the Palm Springs average over the last decade. Chairman stated that there is not enough property in the City to develop to the figures suggested and that Palm Hills probably will not be a reality. Economic Development & Housing Coordinator stated that SCAG did not review land for zoning, but reviewed the amount of houses that are needed for projected job holders. Chairman stated that the SCAG figures are totally distorted relating to the number of jobs, since there is no industry in Palm Springs; and that the numbers are incorrect and should be revised. Planning Director explained that formal action will be taken by the Commission in the summer, regarding the figures, but after June 30 it will be more difficult to change the numbers drastically, and that methodology can be reviewed and errors pointed out more easily before the June 30 deadline. (This item was for discussion only and no action was taken.) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. Main Street. Commissioner Whitney asked the reasons the City was not included in the Main Street program. Planning Director stated that the City was designated as a self-initiative city, but not a full- grant Main Street city because the Committee felt that Palm Springs already has a sophisticated approach to its problems and mechanisms are in place, (such as a celebrity mayor) to address problems; and that help will be given by the State architect because the State wants the program to succeed. He recommended that the Commission attend the Town Hall meeting at 7:00 p.m. on May 25 to see what direction the people think the town should go. New Commissioners. Council will wait until July and a Council committee will interview candidates. Applications will be taken until June 9. Chairman asked if the Council will establish a process of asking people themselves to apply or if the Council will take candidates at-large. Planning Director stated that he did not know, but that indications are that the Council wants a wide representation from the community and that some of the Council want new faces while others want people whose performance is known. He stated that Chairman Lapham was re-appointed last year without being interviewed and felt that an interview would have been appropriate. Chairman May 25, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. (Continued) stated that the concept of new people is good, but people should not be appointed unless they have lived in the city at least 10 years so they know about Palm Springs and have background knowledge of the city so they can make a contribution. Public Relations Firm to promote Palm Springs. Expense of hiring a public relations firm will be offset by major event sponsorships. All ideas will be approved by the Council . Specific concerns should be addressed to the Council . COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. None. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. PLAN D RECT MDR/ml WP/PC MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 8, 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 19 3 Hugh Curtis X 22 0 Martha Edgmon X 20 2 Brent Hough X 21 1 Gary Olsen X 19 3 Barbara Whitney X 17 5 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Fred Hawkins, Director of Parks, Recreation & Libraries Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Bob Harris, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - June 6, 1988 Chris Mills , Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Will Kleindienst Barbara Whitney, Alternate Mike Buccino Martha Edgmon, Alternate William Johnson Brent Hough Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough) approving minutes of May 25, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Planning Director introduced Dean Lewis, new Traffic Engineer, who will be attending Commission meetings as part of the Engineering Division's interest in coordination with other agencies. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: • The June 8 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, June 3.