Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/10/12 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 12, 1988 • 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 6 1 Gary Olsen X 7 0 Barbara Whitney - 5 2 Brent Hough X 5 2 Martha Edgmon X 6 1 Chris Mills X 5 0 Michael Dotson X 4 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Sherri Abbas , Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams , Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Robert Harris, Zoning Enforcement Ken Feenstra, Redevelopment Director Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 10, 1988 Brent Hough, Chairman William Johnson Will Kleindienst Tom Doczi Reuel Young Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Whitney absent) approving minutes of September 14, 1988 as submitted. M/S/C (Hough/Mills; Whitney absent) approving minutes of September 28, 1988 as submitted. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The October 12, 1988 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m., Friday, . October 7. October 12, 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/Hough; Whitney absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.375. Application by RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT for architectural approval of landscape and flood control plans for Tahquitz flood control improvements. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the fence and lighting plans be reviewed by the AAC and the Planning Commission . 2. That the boulders and slope be restored to their original color. Planning Director stated that a committee of the Tribal Council will review the plans and the plans brought back to the Commission after the Tribal Council review if any changes are recommended. Tribal Council Comments: "This Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of July 12 and September 27, 1988. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning • Commission , the Tribal Council reiterated its comments of September 27 which included the request that these landscape plans also be reviewed by the Committee formed by the Tribal Council to coordinate the design and construction of the Interpretive Center, the Planning Consultant previously selected by the Tribal Council , and the City of Palm Springs to prepare a Site Plan for the facilities proposed to be constructed on the Tahquitz Cone." CASE 3.0414 (MINOR) . Application by RADISSON RESORTS for architectural approval of final detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for hotel renovation at 1600 N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0445. Application by OUR LADY OF SOLITUDE CHURCH for architectural approval of a new education building for the church at 151 West Alejo Road , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy. • October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CASE 3.0453 (MINOR) . Application by PACIFIC NATIONAL for architectural approval of revised roof material for a 50-unit condominium complex (Casa Canyon) at 241 LaVerne Street, R-1-C Zone, Section 26. Approved , subject to the following conditions: 1. That all the sloped roofs in the complex be similarly treated. 2. That the flat roofs in the complex have the same general coloring. CASE 3.0272. Application by VOSS INVESTMENTS for architectural approval of working drawings and minor elevation modifications for retail/restaurant complex on the northeast corner of Avenida Cabal leros/Tahqui tz Way, C-1-AA Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. Restudy. CASE 3.0279. Application by ANTHONY J. CANTELLA for architectural approval of revised landscape for a single-family residence at 1677 Hillview Cove, R-1- C Zone, Section 2. Approved as submitted. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0398 (Continued) . Application by MARK LIDDY for All That Glitters for architectural approval of awning at 142 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the applicant requests consideration of a restudy of several months ago, and that the AAC felt that, if the awnings were installed with staff guidance and an awning program established, the awning could be approved; that the awning will cover a burglar alarm box; that See' s candy will not be included in the awning program; and that the awning program will eliminate several different colors of awnings in the same complex. M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Whitney absent; Hough and Mills dissenting) approving the application , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final details of the awning be submitted to staff for review and approval . 2. That the Planning Commission establish an awning program for the building frontage. 3. That the awning be placed lower than the upper frame of the window. • Commissioner Mills and Hough dissented because they felt the awning design was poor. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0344-PD-164. Application by PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION CENTER for architectural approval of freestanding marquee sign on Avenida Caballeros , PD-164 (I .L.) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that the original reader board was redesigned at the Council ' s request and was accepted, but the Convention Center is now requesting a state-of-the-art electronic sign to be more visible, that originally the wording on the reader board was silk screened and not easily changed, and that the proposed reader board is electronically controlled and can be changed by computer; and that several colors are available. He stated that the AAC reviewed a video on the sign, that the size would be 70 square feet per side which is larger than the original 40 square feet on each side, that the AAC took individual field trips to review locations for the sign and the location chosen is away from the entry; that in Phase 2 construction on the Center a fountain should be included; that the Committee felt that the concept was acceptable, but the design should be restudied; and that the design should be integrated with the Center, and that minor landscape changes will be required. He showed a video of the proposed sign and stated that one of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance is that signs change electronically only every 15 minutes to avoid an ever- changing display, that the proposal can be as static as the Commission directs; and that in some cities similar prohibitions against constant sign changing has been eliminated according to the manufacturer' s representative. Chairman stated that the Commission action would be for approval of the concept, not approval of a specific design or colors . . Commissioner Olsen stated that he would like the sign to be located right of the entry with a tile surround and mounded base, that a visible informational sign is needed, and that it is unfortunate that the sign cannot be located on Tahquitz Way. Planning Director explained that everyone wants to have signage on Tahquitz and that a sign on Avenida Caballeros will not have the same exposure as on Tahquitz, but that the Sign Ordinance has limitations. He stated that there are many ways to advertise the Convention Center besides signing, and that a sign on Tahquitz would be offsite signing which is prohibited by the Sign Ordinance and would defeat the purpose of the Ordinance. Commissioner Olsen stated that the proposed sign is actually a billboard and will not reach enough people in its location on Caballeros. He asked why it is being proposed if it is notinformative and that conventioners know when their groups are scheduled at the Convention Center. Chairman stated that many shows at the Convention Center are also open to the public. Commissioner Olsen reiterated that the sign should be where people can see it. Commissioner Edgmon stated that she felt it was not appropriate for Palm Springs and also that it is very large. • October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0344-PD-164 (Continued) • Commissioner Mills stated that he liked the sign concept, and that the original reader board was a small town approach and the new proposal is more sophisticated and will last a long time. He stated that he felt the sign should be large because of the mass of the building behind it. Planning Director stated that the landscaping in the sign area is palm, olive trees , cassia shrubs and boulders; that there is 25 feet behind the sidewalk to the parking curb, and that the sign should be pulled back to allow for planting. He stated that the sign could be seen from northbound traffic, that some of the sign can be seen from Amado, and that all of the sign is visible from the entry point at the Center. He stated that to integrate the sign into the entry wall , the entire design and landscape would have to be redesigned, and that one of the AAC members felt that the central element could be redesigned with landscaping and perhaps elevated with a waterfall . Chairman suggested a series of rectangular signs instead of one rectangular sign . Commissioner Dotson asked, if approval of the concept meant approving the specific product shown , and Planning Director replied that the concept approval does not necessarily mean approving the proposed product. He stated that the material is not lighted. Commissioner Hough stated that he liked the material and the way it functions , that the location away from the Center is the best, and a • slightly larger sign would be acceptable. Commissioner Dotson stated that he supported the concept and location, subject to conditions , and that the colors should be reviewed in conjunction with the cabinet design . James Canfield, Convention Center staff, stated that the staff researched every type of sign , that the proposed sign offers a variety of colors and is the most aesthetically pleasing other than white bulbs which are too overwhelming, and that the software is included in the sign and is on a computer which makes the signing very versatile. He stated that the colors do not fade. Mr. Kane of the sign company stated that the nearest similar sign in the United States is in San Francisco. M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Whitney absent; Olsen , Edgmon dissented) approving the sign concept, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sign design (base, surround) be restudied. 2. That the sign integrate with the site. 3. That the colors be reviewed in conjunction with the cabinet design . • 4. That the sign location be at the mid-point between Arenas and the Convention Center main porte cochere area. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0344-PD-164 (Continued) • NB: Commissioner Olsen opposed the location of the sign; Commissioner Edgmon felt the sign was not appropriate for Palm Springs . Planning Director stated that, if the sign location is finally on Tahquitz, immediate changes in the Ordinance will be necessary and a new era in information exchange will have arrived in Palm Springs. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0497-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to Section 931.00 (Public Art) to change the method and amount of allocation by which public art is funded. (Commission response to Draft Negative Declaration; action. No comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Zoning Text Amendment 5.0497. Planning Director stated that the method of allocation of funds in the Public Art Ordinance would be changed from 1% of the first $1 million, and .2% of any building over $2 million, to a flat rate of 1% of the total construction valuation of the project. He stated that the art would be placed throughout the City and approved by the Council , that the changes • will have no effect on smaller projects and a minor effect on larger ones , and that the language on location of the art will be at the discretion of the Council . He noted that the Council is soliciting citizens to be part of a Public Arts Commission to oversee the process, and that the Tribal Council requests continuance to review the specific program, but that the staff recommendation would be to approve the Zoning Text Amendment and allow the Council to work with the Tribal Council on any changes . In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that all development projects in excess of 10,000 square feet are included . Commissioner Dotson stated that a person building a 9,999 square foot house will be exempt from the public art requirement which would be unfair. He asked about public art inclusion in affordable or elderly housing developments , and if an analysis had been done on the amendment' s effect on housing stock. Planning Director replied that no analysis has been done, and that the 10,000 square foot and $1 million proviso has not changed from the original Zoning Text Amendment and will have no further affect on housing. He stated that the amendment will primarily effect projects in excess of $1 million and could affect affordable housing projects at the rate of $1 ,000 per every $100,000. Discussion continued on the equitability of the fee. . Commissioner Mills stated that he felt that it was not fair to exempt a residence under 10,000 square feet, and tax a tract of homes which total over 10,000 square feet, even if built one at a time. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0497-ZTA (Continued) • Commissioner Edgmon agreed. Chairman suggested limiting the assessment to one percent. Planning Director explained that the original Commission action was to place a ceiling of 10,000 square feet which would exempt most houses built by individuals and tax larger projects which impact the community as a whole and have plateaued Palm Springs into a larger city. He stated that the program is to develop public art, that the Commission can place an exemption for all housing, although the intent is to develop a fund for public art, and that housing is one of the needs that demands public art. He stated also that the Council may exclude certain development types from the fee. Discussion continued. Planning Director stated that the taxes are on new square footage , that there is much development under 10,000 square feet in the City. Commissioner Mills reiterated that a 9,999 square-foot commercial building would be exempt, but that someone buying a 2,000 square-foot home in a tract would be required to pay the tax. He stated that a house over four to five thousand square feet is a luxurious home and the owners can afford to pay the tax, and that any commercial or industrial use, no matter what size, should also pay. Planning Director stated that the original amendment was adopted without much debate. Chairman replied that he did not know that houses were • involved and was not told that houses were required to pay the tax. Planning Director stated that to be taxed the house would have to be in a development. Commissioner Edgmon commented that more people buy homes in tracts than build individual homes . Planning Director stated that new single-family home subdivisions are fairly rare in the City (larger condo projects are built more often) , that single-family subdivisions in the last ten years have been 4% of the housing total , that the condominium projects pay the tax, that the amendment can be revised to exclude all residential , or that square-footage limitations could be developed, but if exemptions or limitations are approved, the amount of money in the public art fund for future projects would be limited. Commissioner Hough asked if including all commercial , regardless of square footage and excluding residential , would be more equitable. Planning Director replied that it possibly would be, but that an analysis would have to be done. Commissioner Mills commented that taxing single-family residential projects is a concern of his and is unfair, and that his concern is the unfairness of the exclusions. . Planning Director declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that the Council will have to make the final decision. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0497-ZTA (Continued) • Planning Director suggested that the hearing be continued to an adjourned meeting on October 9 for staff to address Commission concerns such as the unfairness of the tax and possibly eliminate single-family homes from the requirement. Chairman stated that there is an affordability factor that should be addressed and that luxury homes should not be excluded. Planning Director stated that requirements can be developed at the adjourned meeting/study session, including a fee for remodels over $50,000. He stated that the amendment could be approved on October 19 at the adjourned meeting to keep the process going. M/S/C (Mills/Dotson; Whitney absent) continuing the Zoning Text Amendment to the adjourned meeting on October 19 from 3 to 5 p.m. in the Large Conference Room. Tribal Council Comments: "Planning Commission staff report dated October 12, 1988, indicates that the Public Art Fee is going to be adjusted by revising Section 9311.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, and that a mechanism for establishing the public art process will consist of a separate instrument to be placed in the Municipal Code. Since the Public Art Fee and the public art process affect undeveloped Indian trust lands , this Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of October 11, 1988. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning • Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the proposed revisions to Section 9311.00 of the Zoning Ordinance do not establish criteria or otherwise attempt to define "public art" or "other alternate public amenities" . 2. Lacking any information relative to the "mechanism" for establishing the public art process referenced in the staff report, expressed its concern at being unable to fully understand and evaluate the intent and purpose of the proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Requested that this matter be continued until the criteria/definition of "public art" or "other alternate public amenities" is established, and information relative to the "mechanism" for establishing the public art process is available. • October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS • Paul Madsen, Tahquitz Way, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that a Chamber event on October 28 (Palm Springs Harvest Festival ) is proposing to use balloons for identification, and he felt that the proposal may violate the Sign Ordinance and requested direction from the Commission. He stated that the merchants participating in the program want to identify their stores with the balloons, that the particular event is a one-time proposal with a "Perfect 10" card which can be punched and prizes received by the customers, that other events may be planned in the future, that the balloons would provide a festival atmosphere, and that Commission consensus is needed . Planning Director stated that staff in the context of working with Main Street and keeping the downtown active at night wants to help, but that balloons , mannequins and signs taped to the windows are discouraged to maintain a high-quality appearance in the downtown and to not give a competitive edge to one merchant over another. He stated that perhaps clusters of balloons could be taped inside the stores , although he realized that the customer may not be able to see the display from down the street. He stated that he knew that balloons would allow more visibility, but they make zoning enforcement very difficult. Mr. Madsen stated that a representative from Parks and Recreation who works with the merchants on a continuing basis told the merchants that the City would allow the balloons , and that perhaps the City needs to communicate between departments. Chairman suggested an ongoing identification system for merchants who stay open at night. Mr. Madsen stated that this is only the first event and that in the future the merchants staying open on Friday may not need identification and that those staying open have paid a fee for the advertising so customers know that they are open at night. Chairman asked if the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the program could make a one-time Land Use Permit application. Assistant City Attorney commented that perhaps a series of LUPs could be applied for, that the Council has introduced an Ordinance suspending certain regulatory ordinances for special events , and that the downtown program might be able to be included . Chairman asked if an LUP, including guidelines for cleaning up, etc. , could be given for the October 28th program without setting a precedent. Assistant City Attorney replied that he did not know if the event would come within the LUP provisions . Planning Director stated that the LUP includes festivals and special events, that Council is directing the downtown activities and has hired people to organize street fairs, and also has suspended regulations for • special events . October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) • Commissioner Olsen stated that he thought the idea was good, that identification may not be needed later, and that most of the stores which are open at night, open their front doors . He stated that the program should be allowed. Chairman suggested that Mr. Madsen review the provisions of the LUP with the Assistant City Attorney to see if the proposed event falls within the LUP provisions. Planning Director stated that staff is reluctant to breach regulations because it places staff in a bad position regarding enforcement. Commissioner Mills stated that he was in favor of encouraging stores to stay open at night, and that decals mightb/ae solution for identification. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that staff wants to help the downtown, but that something of more quality should be developed. He stated that the allowance of balloons is difficult for staff, and that an LUP regulates activities (not design) , and an LUP is not a vehicle to allow the program. Commissioner Olsen stated that the downtown committee should prepare a plan and give guidelines to the merchants, such as no balloons on palm trees and no mannequins, etc. Mr. Madsen replied that presently the proposal is a one-time event and that he hoped a mechanism could be developed to allow it. • Commissioner Hough stated that he would support the program on a one-time basis to give the downtown committee time to develop guidelines for the next event. Commissioner Edgmon commented also that there is no time left to do anything very elaborate. Commissioner Dotson stated that he was in support of the night time activities, but felt that advertising outside the stores would be precedent setting. He suggested that the merchants use balloons in a portion of their front windows as a unifying theme. Chairman suggested that the Chamber of Commerce develop an ongoing identification symbol (to be approved by the Commission) for stores staying open at night. Mr. Madsen stated that he would discuss the Commission' s suggestions with the committee and would contact the City Attorney later in the afternoon about the allowance of the advertising program under an LUP. • October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 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 3.0460. Application by REUEL YOUNG for Palm Springs Regional Airport architectural approval of a 15-foot sound wall located at the north end of the runway between Tamarisk Road (extended)/Tachevah Road (extended) , "A" Zone, Section 12. Planning Director explained that the proposed Airport sound wall is to protect residents at the north end of the Airport from the noise of aircraft turning movements and engine thrusts. He stated that one concept to lower noise is a masonry wall and another is a pre-cast panel wall with a connecting strut on the Airport side of the panel . He stated that the AAC approved the masonry wall design on a split 2-1 vote, that there is lack of space for landscaping and landscaping maintenance, and there is also not enough space for a meandering wall . He stated that there are height limitations because of Airport functions , that the wall is 1100 feet in length and was included in Part 150 Noise Study for the Airport expansion. Commissioner Mills asked if an acoustical study had been prepared for the shape of the wall since a shape responding to the noise study might ward off sound better. Planning Director stated that no acoustical study had been done, but that deadening chambers in the wall might help, and that the inside of the wall should have an articulated surface for no direct echo. Commissioner Olsen stated that one of the noisiest planes will be phased out soon and asked if the wall design takes that fact into consideration. Planning Director stated that the wall is an overall noise baffle and not directed to a specific plane, and that a 15-foot wall is needed even after the noisiest planes are retired. Commissioner Mills stated that there should be a restudy of the wall design after input of an acoustical engineer. He stated also that the design could be improved. Commissioner Olsen stated that the wall should be pleasing from the street and suggested mounding and landscaping. Commissioner Mills stated that there is not enough space for landscaping. Chairman stated that the wall is not designed well and articulated improperly and should be redesigned (perhaps with height variations) . Commissioner Hough commented that the inside of the wall should be well- designed for passengers at the Airport. Commissioner Edgmon asked about the struts on the inside part of the wall . • Planning Director replied that the struts were part of an alternate design, but could be designed differently. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 CASE 3.0460 (Continued) Chairman commented that a wall could be done with returns and the struts eliminated. Commissioner Dotson stated that a design is needed that baffles ambient noise as well , since noise impacts at distances further than the residences at the end of the Airport runway. Planning Director replied that a way to start would be with an acoustical engineer who can review various shapes , sizes, and materials for noise containment. Commissioner Olsen agreed, stating that the wall could be computer-modeled by an acoustical engineer. M/S/C (Mills/Dotson; Whitney absent) for a restudy of the wall design and materials addressing Commission concerns. CASE 5.0488-CUP. Application by WARNER CABLE for architectural approval of revised elevations for a 6,100 square foot facility for offices and a service center on Farrell Drive between Tachevah Drive (extended)/Vista Chino, 0-5 Zone, Section 12. Planner (Abbas) presented project revisions stating that the AAC action was a split vote and the Committee had major concerns over the exposed • satellite dishes on the roof and did not like the red color on the building. She stated that the basic site plan is the same, that the dishes are on the roof instead of on the tower because of signal blockage, that the City Council reviewed the original design on October 5 and approve the C.U .P. , but denied the design because of the exposed satellite dishes . She stated that the revised elevations have not been reviewed by the Council . Chris Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the project phasing has been changed and a warehouse has increased the square footage and that the original design was scrapped and a new design developed. He stated that the dishes face south and were not on the roof originally, but because of signal blockage from future development, the dishes has to be placed on the roof. He stated that the smaller dishes are only two feet in diameter. Chairman asked why a cluster of dishes was not considered. Mr. Mills stated that a cluster would be too high. He stated also that he had not been notified that the application was on the Council agenda and did not attend the meeting. Chairman stated that the building design is pleasing, but the dishes on the roof are not. Mr. Mills stated that presently only two dishes will be in the raised • planter, that only two will be on the roof (and one additional in the near future) , and the roof dishes are only 6 feet in diameter. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0488-CUP (Continued) . Chairman suggested that the dishes be moved back. Mr. Mills explained that because of signal blockage , they would have to be higher if moved back. Planning Director stated that the Commission could limit the height of development to 18 feet on the adjacent property to the south, but he did not know if the height limitation would affect a prospective development. He stated also that a baffle or screen system could be designed as a partial structure behind the dishes . Chairman commented that the design is very interesting. Planning Director stated that the Council vote for denial was unanimous on the design , and that the most vocal opponents were the three former Planning Commissioners. Discussion continued on the height. Mr. Mills stated that he was trying to give his clients flexibility for the future. Chairman asked if an offsite location could be chosen. Mr. Mills replied that it is possible to separate the head-in facility from the dishes , but not as functional . He stated also that the three pronged support structures are not massive in scale, and that the second design is better than the first in the context of a complete building. Chairman stated that the City makes everyone else screen the dishes . • Commissioner Hough stated that he liked the appearance of the antennas . Commissioner Dotson explained that clustering the dishes would create an element of interest and suggested that the dishes be enclosed in an architectural element. Mr. Mills stated that although sending equipment can be enclosed in a structure, receiving equipment cannot. Commissioner Dotson stated that the dishes should have a superstructure either around or behind them. Mr. Mills replied that a backdrop would make the building more massive and that the dishes were the architecture and the building was designed to fit that need. He stated that the dishes were left free for flexibility and that the type of facility is appropriate in an industrially-zoned area . Planning Director commented that the zoning is currently 0-5 (Open Space) . Chairman stated that the building design is fine, except for the red trim, that the dishes on the roof are appropriate because of the type of facility, and that the Council could make the final decision . Mr. Mills stated that a Commission statement that the exposed dishes are • appropriate in the zone and location would be helpful . M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Whitney absent; Mills abstained) approving the revised elevations, subject to the following conditions: October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0488-CUP (Continued) 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the red trim be deleted. NB: Commission consensus was that the facility with exposed dishes is appropriate in ./M-1-P Zone since the building is a cable television facility. an Commissioner Olsen left the meeting. CASE 5.0491-CUP. Application by PALM SPRINGS MARQUIS, INC. for Commission reconsideration of allowable lighting levels for tennis court lighting on existing tennis courts at the Marquis Hotel & Villas , 140 S. Calle Encilia, C-1-AA/R4VP Zones (IL) , Section 14. Planning Director explained that after the 400 watt lighting level was approved for the tennis courts at the Marquis Hotel , staff discussed lighting levels with a lighting expert and his advice was that 400 watt lighting is fine for residences but is inadequate for hotels because the lights lose efficiency with constant use and often have to be replaced with 1,000 watt lights. . Commissioner Edgmon asked why the lighting is adequate for residences but not for hotels. Commissioner Mills explained that he thought it was because of the high volume of night usage by hotel guests . In reply to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that development of the vacant lot next door would be affected by the 20-foot setback of the lighted court, although any developer would be aware of the lights and could place carports , for example, on the side nearest the courts. He stated also that cutoff shields could be used. Commissioner Mills stated that he felt that the light problem would be minor. M/S/C (Mills/Edgmon; Olsen , Whitney absent) approving 1,000 watt lights (instead of 400 watt lights) on the existing tennis courts at the Marquis Hotel . October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) LAND USE PERMIT (LUP) - ACTION. Application by EMBASSY AUCTIONEERS, INC. for Commission approval of a LUP granting an auction on Saturday, November 26 and Saturday, December 10, 1988, at the Palm Springs Resort Hotel , 2800 S. Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 35. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that auctions are permitted under Land Use Permit provisions and that certain requirements have to be fulfilled, i .e. , the auctions will not interfere with uses on the adjacent properties , there is adequate parking, and there is no obstruction of traffic. He stated that one of the requirements is that auctions will not be held more often than three months , and that the applicant is requesting two auctions in one month. He stated that the auctions will be inside the hotel . Commissioner Mills asked about disregarding Ordinance requirements. Planning Director stated that the application will be considered as a split auction. M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Olsen, Whitney absent) approving a land use granting an auction on Saturday, November 26, 1988, and Saturday, December 10, 1988, at the Palm Springs Resort Hotel . DISCUSSION. Commission discussion of topics and format for the joint dinner • meeting with the City Council and the Architectural Advisory Committee. (The dinner meeting will be held at the Plaza Resort Hotel on November 7, 1988, at 6:30 p.m.) Consensus for topics of discussion at the annual joint dinner meeting with the AAC, Planning Commission and the Council were as follows: Communication between the Commission and Council regarding the Palm Springs Classic proposal . Planning Director stated that no design of the project has taken place, that a master developer, who is a friend of the largest property owner is being brought in , instead of SENCA, that the sports arena is eliminated, but a resort hotel has been included. Chairman stated that he had concerns that the Council would sign a development agreement establishing a footprint for the complex without advice of the Commission. Redevelopment Director came to the meeting. Planning Director asked if the City were backed into a corner on the development agreement. Redevelopment Director stated that the Council is being asked to • approve an agreement between developer Harry Canter and SENCA to allow Canter to take over responsibilities for the studies on the proposal and a possible role as the developer of the project. He stated that also there is potential approval of certain land uses on October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 16 DISCUSSION (Continued) the site and that based on the studies the land uses would be a race • track, amphitheater, golf course, private residences (not corporate retreats) , that the resolution is being prepared and that it would be worded so the Commission can review the project design before the Council does . He stated that the studies may show that an industrial park is the best use. Chairman stated that he was concerned that an agreement will be signed that allows the developer to build whatever he wants without Commission input as in the case of Maxim' s Hotel , the Convention Center, and the Wyndham Hotel . He stated that problems occur when there is an advance agreement. Redevelopment Director stated that problems arise when the process is not followed and that there is a difference between staff and the consultants on the type of development. Commissioner Dotson asked if the feasibility studies were being done to justify the needs or to discover needs. He also asked why there was no competition between firms in the awarding of the contract to assemble parcels and to prepare studies . Redevelopment Director stated that there was a wish to develop an entertainment center on Gene Autry and that SENCA was chosen to develop feasibility studies and to negotiate land at a good price, that feasibility studies are done in the context of justification • rather than feasibility, and that the SENCA firm is a consultant, not the master developer, and that the Canter firm is being reviewed regarding financial stability and the results will be given to the City. He stated that the Canter agreement will involve the founder of the company, who is a large developer. Other possible topics of interest for the Planning Commission , City Council dinner meeting: - Architectural Concept of Downtown. - Development along Ramon Road east and at the Airport. - Palm Hills Development Activity. - New Architectural Review Process. ITE14S REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended . CASE 3.0460 (Continued) . Application by REUEL YOUNG for Palm Springs Regional Airport architectural approval of a 16 foot sound wall located at the north • end of the runway between Tamarisk Road (extended)/Tachevah Road (extended) , "A" Zone, Section 12. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.0460 (Continued) . Reuel Young, project architect, Civic Drive, asked for direction on the restudy action on the Airport noise wall . He stated that there are issues of the noise incurred by houses to the west which resulted in a 15-foot high, 1100-foot long wall requirement, that a building violates the clearance now and a new wall cannot, that the struts brace the wall since it cannot be jogged, that the height is dictated by the consultants because of jet engine noise, and that/approach to the design of the wall was mild rather than bold . the Commissioner Mills stated that the clear zone ratio is 7:1, so that the wall could started toward the runway and tapered to deflect the sound upwards. He asked if an acoustical engineer were involved in the necessity for a 15-foot high wall . Mr. Young stated that the 15-foot high wall was one of the seven recommendations for noise abatement. Mr. Mills noted that the material and shape of the wall will be dictated by acoustics and that a sound engineer should be consulted. He stated that more study is needed for a wall which has a major impact on both sides . Mr. Young stated that he could not respond to whether or not an acoustical engineer was hired, that there is not a mass problem, but that wind is a concern . Commissioner Mills suggested that an acoustical engineer be given a wall • section and told to solve the problem. Mr. Young asked if visual impact were a concern. Commissioner Mills stated that the wall design is not attractive and that there are other ways to make it maintenance-free besides painting which would be a mistake. Commissioner Edgmon agreed and stated that the struts are not pleasing in appearance. Mr. Young stated that evidently Commission concern is to make both sides of the wall attractive. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0498-MISC. Planning Commission discussion of General Plan revision work program. Planning Director stated that the General Plan update will begin in January and end approximately in November of 1989. He stated that two major surveys will be undertaken (community leaders and citizens) , that in March a series of neighborhood meetings will be held to provide citizen input, • that a text and series of plans will be developed in the summer of 1989, and public hearings will begin in the fall . He stated that the text maps will be black and white to facilitate updating and that 8," x 11" format will be used for the easiest assemblage and updating in a 3-ring binder. October 12, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 18 CASE 5.0498-MISC. (Continued) • He explained that the downtown will be done separately, that the General Plan changes will not be major, that the text was written in 1960, although the elements have been updated and that major land use changes in 1973 and the Indian changes in 1981 need to be addressed. He stated that data processing and computer technology will be helpful , and also that the Housing Element has to be updated by July 1989. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. - Case 3.0428. There will be a meeting with the Compri Hotel developers on Friday, October 14, 1988, at 4 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Members of staff, the AAC and Commission Chairman will attend. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. Searchlight Ordinance. Council discussion ranged from no fees to outlawing searchlights. After discussion of a staff draft to reduce the fees and exempt non-profit organizations , Council decided to leave the Ordinance as it is , including the fees and exemptions on an individual basis . Commissioner Dotson stated that searchlights are the worst example of offsite advertising and should be outlawed. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that only a few requests are received because of the high fee. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration. ) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business , Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. to October 19 in the Large Conference Room at City Hall from 3 to 5 p.m. to review Case 5.0497-ZTA. PJ iL Pa DIRECT • MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall • October 26, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 7 2 Gary Olsen X 8 1 Barbara Whitney X 7 2 Brent Hough X 7 2 Martha Edgmon X 8 1 Chris Mills X 7 0 Michael Dotson X 6 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos , Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Sherri Abbas , Planner Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 24, 1988 • Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: William Johnson Reuel Young Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Dotson; Mills absent) approving minutes of October 12, 1988 with the following corrections: Page 4. Case 5.0344-PD-164, Paragraph 3, should read . . . "right on the blackboard display" . page 14. Case 5.0491-CUP. Last paragraph motion should read . . . "Whitney absent; Dotson dissented" . •