Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 - Jan-Dec PC MinutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 09, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 11 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr.* X 11 1 Ralph Raya X 11 1 Jon Shoenberger X 11 1 Jon Caffery X 11 1 Mark Matthews 9 3 * Arrived at 1:50 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. The January 09, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, January 04, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Caffery/Raga 4-0, 2 absent) to approve the minutes of November 28, 2001 as presented. Page 2 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. Case 5.0850 —Application by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition for final planned development to allow for a nine lot subdivision and single family residences located along the west side of Avenida Caballeros between Cottonwood Road and Chuckwalla Road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Director stated that the City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development District at its meeting of December 20, 2000. He reviewed the series of single family residences and street elevations; stating that the construction plans are in compliance with previous approvals with one small change. He stated that, for a stronger elevation, one single family residence plan has been used twice in the proposed final plans. He stated that the planned landscaping includes street trees (Tipuana Tipu and Chilean Mesquite) and that he would like to keep the possibility open to continue the street tree program further down the street. He stated that staff is working with the landscape architect (Michael Buccino) to continue that plant palette as it is easy to maintain. He suggested upgrading from 15 gallon to 24" box trees for durability. He stated that staff could work with applicant regarding landscaping on the visible rear yard corners and creating more relief at corner walls (e.g. keeping different materials from abutting at corners). He stated that staff recommends the originally proposed plaster walls with brick caps rather than the newly proposed slump stone walls. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Maxine Moore, Interactive Design, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she will work with staff regarding the landscaping plan. She confirmed that the masonry garden walls will be slump stone with sacked plaster finish for color and will look better than brick as there is no brick elsewhere in the project. She stated that, while mindful of budget issues, upgrading the planting sizes is probably acceptable. She stated the majority of the work to build the homes will be done by contractors — that, unlike traditional self-help housing, this project will be completed all at once. Commissioner Jurasky arrived at the meeting. Director confirmed that all work must be fully completed prior to residents moving in and that applicant will submit construction schedule to staff and will not do work in increments. M/S/C (Raya/Caffery 4-0, 1 abstention, 1 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval; and Director of Planning & Building to approve wall design (including caps and curve) and final landscape plan including tree species and sizes. Page 3 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director asked the Planning Commission to appoint a Subcommittee for the Section 14 Master Plan review. He reported that the environmental documents are almost complete and that most City concerns have been incorporated. He stated that a formal hearing will likely be scheduled within the next 60 days. Commissioners Raya, Jurasky, and Shoenberger volunteered to participate; however, conflict of interest issues were discussed and it was not determined whether those commissioners would have to abstain from discussions regarding Section 14. Director stated that he would confer with City Attorney and report back to the Planning Commission when that information is available. PUBLIC HEARING: Case 5.0804 — TTM 29077 (PD 267) — Application by Bergheer California, Inc. for a Preliminary Planned Development District related Architectural Approvals and Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel (APN 513-121-035 and 513-141-012) into 50 parcels for clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Caffery stated that, when this application was heard previously by the Planning Commission, he believed he had a conflict of interest; however, he does not believe that conflict exists currently. In order to confer with City Attorney, the Director and Commissioner Caffery left the meeting and Chairman Klatchko called an informal recess. Upon returning to the meeting, Commissioner Caffery stated that he does not believe he has a conflict. Director stated that it is recommended that Commissioner Caffery sit for the purpose of establishing a quorum; however, abstain from voting as additional legal research is necessary to determine absolutely that there is no conflict. Chairman Klatchko confirmed that three votes would be necessary for a successful motion on this application. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that at its meeting of September26, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project; however, the City Council, at its meeting of October 17, 2001, referred this application back to the Planning Commission with direction to review the setback of two-story units to the R-1 Zone, Tahquitz Canyon Way street scape bay parking, guest parking, and proposed open space. He stated that the applicant has revised the plans to address all of these issues. Included in the revisions are the elimination of two-story buildings adjacent to the R-1 Zone boundary along Tahquitz Canyon Way and an average setback of 203 feet to the R-1 Zone. He reported that the applicant also revised the parking plan (which now exceeds parking code requirements) to create additional guest parking spaces . Also in response to City Council direction, the applicant has revised the plan to eliminate bay parking and widen the landscape median to provide for an enhanced entrance on Tahquitz Canyon Way which are both intended to meet the objective of the General Plan policy for West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He stated that the proposed improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the area. He stated that recent projects in the immediate area (e.g. The Willows Bed Page 4 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 and Breakfast Inn) have been similarly conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way and that refinement to the plans is needed to provide adequate sight distances as part of the Final Development plans. He reported that the proposed Tentative Tract Map includes a number of lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and amenities such as driveways, guest parking, a swimming pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an onsite retention area. He reported that the proposed 50 units (originally 62) range in size from 1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet, with attached and detached one and two-story structures (which include five different models). He reported that the building height complies with the R-3 Zone and is consistent with development in the area. He stated that the adjacent development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way includes single family residences, a historic resort property, the Desert Museum, and the Desert Fashion Plaza and that the existing multi -story homes to the north of the site feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with limited view corridors, elevated second floors with views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. He reported that the project's gated entry features a 16' wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival. He stated that an eight foot landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway and the main driveway and that a teardrop shaped, 16 foot median separates the primary entry lane and the 18' wide exit lane in order to accommodate fire truck and large vehicle turning movements into the proposed project. He stated that there will be decorative, stamped paving at the entryway which will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regarding the proposed landscape design, staff recommends that the detention basins and archeological site be landscaped to the extent possible. He stated that the project includes 49% landscaped area, which exceeds zoning requirements. He reported that by 2010, based on "Build Out" traffic projections, all studied intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exceptions of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road and that no traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate "Build Out" 2010 traffic as a consequence of the proposed project. He stated that the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will likely operate unacceptably although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased traffic due to the upcoming revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. He stated that the intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered as needed. He reported that the Traffic Study finds that Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves exiting traffic through the study area and will continue to do so through 2010 with recommended mitigation measures. He distributed a memo from the Engineering Department regarding the Initial Study to the Planning Commission which clarifies findings and has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Page 5 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 Mr. Robert Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the application should be denied because he feels that the applicant's performance on the project will not meet requirements. He submitted photographs and plans for the Colony at El Mirador (another project of this applicant) for the Planning Commission to review which are on file in the Planning Division. He stated that, on his El Mirador home, materials (such as stucco vs. block walls) do not adhere to plans and that landscaping has not been completed. He stated that he has had difficulty reaching the applicant to address these concerns and that, most recently, mail sent to the developer's office was returned by the Post Office as "Undeliverable — No Forwarding Address." He stated that he felt there were dozens of deviations to generally accepted building standards and codes and that he understands that there is one active lawsuit against the applicant and three other people contacting attorneys regarding these issues. He urged the Planning Commission to visit the Colony at El Mirador in order to review the applicant's work. Mr. Frank Tyson addressed the Planning Commission to state that he felt the revisions to the proposed project are a decent compromise and urged the Planning Commission to require quality materials (e.g. wood window frames and mudded tiles). He thanked the Planning Commission for its attention to detail to this point of the project. Mr. Thomas Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to read a letter from Dr. Russell Christopher to the applicant that describes problems with the building of his home at the Colony at El Mirador which is on file in the Planning Division. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. The applicant had no comment. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director reported that the Building Division has been to the Colony at El Mirador project on numerous occasions and that there are disagreements between some homeowners and the developer regarding finishes and materials but that the areas inside project walls are not subject to Architectural Approval by the City. He stated that landscape issues are also disputed by some homeowners. He stated that the proposed Planned Development District which will have exterior design review of the buildings, walls, landscaping, etc. and that all must comply exactly with Planning Commission and City Council requirements. He clarified that any substitution of materials must be approved by staff or Planning Commission and that, unlike the development at the Colony at El Mirador, staff will have individual inspections for materials, colors, finishes, exterior lighting, and landscaping on each home. He reported that the Planned Development District application under consideration today is very specific and includes a site plan, preliminary landscaping concept, floor plan, roof plan, exterior materials and colors, and preliminary grading. He stated that aesthetic control of a Planned Development District is similar to commercial development — that staff watches progress closely throughout development. He stated that, at the time of Final Planned Development District application, there will be an exact landscaping plan (including contours, berming, lighting, and walkways) for Planning Commission review. Dave Barakian, Director of Public Works, reported that drainage is alleviated by storm drains for this area and that the proposed project will not add more water to Tahquitz Canyon Way but some Page 6 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 tributary drainage to the western property line of the tract which will then pass through vacant land. He stated that future development requirements will handle additional runoff by retaining incremental increases with onsite storm drainage systems and passing west to east through existing drainage. He stated that there is significant storm water runoff to Tahquitz Canyon Way but that the proposed project will not increase that level; storm drains manage the runoff, and that staff is satisfied with projected drainage. Commissioner Raya asked the architect to address the Planning Commission regarding rooflines. Mr. Don Corbin, CYP International, addressed the Planning Commission to review elevations and describe the rooflines. Staff reported that sample materials will be presented for Planning Commission review at the time of Final Planned Development District application. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he wanted some materials (such as wooden garage doors) specified in writing at that time. M/S/C (Jurasky/Raya 3-0, 2 abstentions, 1 absent) to recommend approval subject to Conditions of Approval; and applicant to submit written confirmation of material selections at time of final Planned Development application. CONSENT AGENDA: None. Gene Autry Trail/Ramon Road Median Design. Director presented a model of the sculptural elements, mock sail element, and metal materials for Planning Commission review. He stated that RGA, project designer, is not available for today's meeting. He reported that the proposed sculptural and sail elements will be submitted as an alternate within the bid documents in order to assure budget adherence. He stated that the sails would actually be 10 feet in height and that the frame would be rebar and carbon steel mesh. Marcus Fuller, Civil Engineer, reported that the proposed color of the sail elements is an off-white and showed proposed location of sails (not clustered). He stated that fiberoptic lighting is a possibility and that staff is researching maintenance issues. He stated that tubular steel will be used to outline mountain peaks. Commissioner Raya stated that he would be concerned if flourescent lighting was used such as was installed along Ramon Road for the airport landscape design. He stated that there should be a subtle wash of light with no hot spots and should be lit from the inside to specifically illuminate the mesh mountain. He asked Mr. Fuller to call him to further discuss consultant's lighting plans. Commissioner Jurasky suggested that layering/clustering and lighting from within will be necessary Page 7 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 to create silhouetting as discussed — that he does not want to see a two-dimensional project built. He stated that he is uncomfortable voting on the issue until lighting (fixtures, specifications, types, and placement) are reviewed and documented. Chairman Klatchko stated that he felt the five panels of mountain will give the sculpture depth but that lighting will make or break the design at night. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he understands the landscaping limits placed upon the project by Caltrans and airport restrictions and that he felt the sculptural elements may add a dramatic flair to the median islands which would not be feasible with plant material. Director reported that the majority of planting will be desert material with a smattering of color (no large shrubs which would grow too large). Chairman Klatchko called a brief recess in order for Planning Commission to review plans. At 3:30 the meeting was called back to order. Chairman Klatchko stated that the Planning Commission wishes to review the lighting with further specifications and directed Engineering staff to provide. He stated that the lighting must provide shadow and light and not be static. M/S/C (Raya/Caffery 5-0, 1 absent) to approve subject to Planning Commission review of lighting plan. Chairman Klatchko appointed Commissioner Raya to an ad hoc subcommittee to assist staff if the review of the subject lighting plan. Sign Program — Application by Thai Smile for a main sign with exposed raceway, for building located at 641 (651) North Palm Canyon Drive Zone C-1, Section 10 (APN 505-302-006). Commissioner Jurasky abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director reported that, because the proposed neon sign has an exposed raceway, the application has come to the Planning Commission for consideration. He stated that staff recommends the mechanical and electrical boxes be compressed in order to eliminate the exposed raceway. Assistant Planner Sky Warden reported that staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the size of the exposed equipment and revise the graphics to be more complimentary to the architecture of the particular business. She stated that the sign is exposed neon on the front and is brushed metal with push -through letters. Director stated that the proposed sign would be similar to that at Guacamole's in the Center at Page 8 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09. 2002 Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign Co, stated, in response to Commissioner Caffery's questions, that the attic, fascia, and other logistics make an attached sign at this location unfeasible. He stated that hiding the raceway in the ballast is not possible because it is too tight and logistically impossible. Commissioner Raya suggested that the letter size be reduced. Mr. Engle stated that smaller letters would be difficult to fabricate in pan channel style and that, ideally, the size would be 10-12 inch letters. Commissioner Raya reiterated his concern regarding the size and scale of the letters and asked the applicant to reconsider. Commissioner Caffery stated that he felt the design of the sign was fine; however, if it is to be as large as proposed, it needs to be higher and that installation should be possible without placing the raceway behind it. M/S/C (Raya/Caffery 4-0, 1 abstention, 1 absent) to continue to the meeting of January 23, 2002 with direction to the applicant that 12 inch letters are too large in their present location on the sign. Sign Program — Application by Las Palmas Hotel for a sign program which includes the remodeling of an existing free-standing pole sign, located at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10 (APN 505-184-011). Director reported that there are two issues for Planning Commission consideration todaywhich are an existing nonconforming pole sign and the proposed sign program. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the proposed project is located within the Uptown area and is regulated by the Downtown/Uptown section of the Sign Ordinance. She stated that the proposal includes an office identification sign, a driveway entrance sign, and a freestanding identification sign and that all three are existing, permitted signs. She explained, however, that the current code does not designate freestanding signs within the Uptown area. She reported that the applicant is proposing a face change on the freestanding sign and that staff has determined that the pole sign is the most complimentary to the architecture and layout of the subject hotel. She reported that the proposed lettering would have to be reduced slightly to conform to code. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Applicant stated he had no comment. Commissioner Jurasky confirmed that the proposed font is consistent with corporate identification for the subject business; commenting that it may be hard to read from the street. Commissioner Raya concurred and cautioned the applicant that the rate of travel of passing traffic and the font style and size will not be easy to read. M/S/C (Jurasky/Shoenberger 5-0, 1 absent) to approve as presented. Page 9 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 MISCELLANEOUS: None Director reported that the City Council Cabinet meeting is tonight and that significant Planning Commission issues include Downtown, Uptown, possible North Indian Canyon Drive reconfiguration for improving traffic in and around the Movie Colony, and traffic calming concepts such as median islands. Chairman Klatchko stated that he would like to invite City Council direction regarding the Planning Commission's role is assisting City Council, in light of some Planning Commission decisions being overruled by the City Council. Director reported that, at the next Planning Commission Study Session, Design Review process issues will be reviewed. He stated that a tighter linkage between Planning Commission and the Design Review Group would be advantageous and that the Planning Commission should not have to review design(s) unless the issue is community -based. He reported that the City Attorney is reviewing case law regarding Planning Commission scope -of -review issues and stated that the goal is to make the system work better for customers. Commissioner Shoenberger suggested that more Planning Commission members participate on the Design Review Group. He also suggested that Alan Sanborn and Tom Dozci participate in discussions as they are both regularly attending members of the community with experience in other cities. Director stated that, if the Planning Commission were to give that Group more authority, it would reduce the design role of the Planning Commission during its meetings. He reported that, when prepared, the proposed changes to the Design Review process would be brought back before the Planning Commission and that Design Review members will be invited to attend. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: No update. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Director requested that, after the regular meeting of January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission hold a Special Study Session to review several time sensitive issues. Planning Commissioners agreed to hold that meeting. Director reported that the City Council has amended its meeting schedule; thereby, requiring that the Planning Commission move its traditional Study Session date and that 2:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month is available. Page 10 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 Director reported that there will be an Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation meeting regarding North Indian Canyon Drive, North Palm Canyon Drive, and the Movie Colony on January 25, 2002 and that area property and business owners and residents will be invited to review City progress on improvement plans for that area. Commissioner Raya stated that he will attend that meeting. Commissioner Jurasky asked how the Transient Occupancy Tax is calculated and the Director deferred that question to the Finance Director. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 23, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 12 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 12 1 Ralph Raya X 12 1 Jon Shoenberger X 12 1 Jon Caffery X 12 1 Mark Matthews X 10 3 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Yoav Shernock, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. The January 23, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, January 18, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2001 were not available for review for this meeting and action is deferred to the next meeting. ANNOUNCEMENT: Chairman Klatchko announced that a Special Study Session will be held immediately following the regular Planning Commission meeting and will be held in the Large Conference Room. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: None. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.1903 — Application by Richard Marek for an architectural approval to remodel the building at 333 South Palm Canyon Drive (formerly Robinson's/Crown Books), CBD Zone, Section 15. Director stated that this proposed architectural remodel includes the relocation of entry doors, replacement of all glass and hardware, and extending the planter walls along Baristo Road and South Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that the architecturally significant building has not been fully evaluated by the City for historical significance so staff carefully reviewed its history. He reported that the building was given a 1958 AIA award for outstanding and strong design. He confirmed that two Historic Site Preservation Board members participated in Design Review for the project. He reported that there has been a lengthy review by Design Review and a lot of public comment. He stated that, fundamentally, people would like to have the building remain unchanged (not move the doors or add the planter walls) but that the property functions differently now than in the past. He stated that the buses, bus riders, and sidewalk dynamics impact the ability to run the business and that the business owner would like to move the doors to take advantage of pedestrian movement downtown — to extend to this property. He stated that the Design Review Group did not suggest a complete historical remodel/renovation. He reported that the applicant will occupy approximately two-thirds of the building and there will be one additional tenant space on the south side. He stated that there is a public bus transfer station in front of the subject property and that the planter walls are proposed in order to discourage people from sitting on the existing steps. He reported that staff will work with the applicant to ensure that the trash enclosure will not be seen from South Palm Canyon Drive. He reported that there would be no roof changes (just repair and repaint). Yoav Shernock, Assistant Planner, reported that the building was built in 1957 by the architectural firm of Pereira and Luckman and originally housed a Robinson's department store, and, subsequently, a Super Crown bookstore. He stated that recommended Conditions of Approval include covering the tops and sides of all existing and new planters with ungauged slate; installing a metal door at the rear of the building; and replacing the windows and frames to match throughout the building. Also, staff recommends that no angle be cut from the building in the relocation of the doors and the doors must be arranged on the existing east and north facing sides of the building. He also stated that staff recommends the steps and front entry be covered by concrete or a similar Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2002 material. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he would like to be certain that the entire building will be utilized. Director reported that the local property owner has knowledge of the community marketplace and encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss the issue with the applicant. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Richard Marek, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has compromised a great deal toward staff and Design Review Group recommendations. He stated that there is 131 feet of stairs which are frequently covered with people sitting waiting for buses which will impede entry to the store. He stated that skateboarders have ruined the tops of the planters. He stated that the proposed planter walls could allow people to sit (as an alternative to the steps) but that skateboarders would not use them. He expressed his hope that the business would be busy enough to deter skateboarders. He stated that the proposed window repairs would include anodized aluminum bronze finishing and they would be equidistant instead of the current erratic spacing and would maintain the architectural integrity of the building. He explained that The Alley would occupy approximately 16,000 of the total 29,000 square feet of building space and that he hopes for a retail tenant for the remaining space. He reported that he plans to blacktop and stripe the parking lot; fix the fences around the parking lot; repair the roof; and tile the floor with 16" tiles. He stated that he assumed that the realtor for the previous Alley location would likely try to lease that space. Commissioner Raya stated that he is excited to see the improvement plans for this corner and expressed his concerns regarding the importance of the architecture of this building which is located at the point of the next major extension of downtown. He stated that the materials and architectural elements are critical and that the Planning Commission should have the architect present actual color boards, etc. He suggested that a designer or architect be hired to develop drawings and elevations. He stated that he felt the slate material may not be ideal and that the old drawings presented are difficult to read. Applicant stated that The Alley is a family -owned business and that the cost of the Commissioner's suggestions are not economically feasible. He stated that the slate material was removed from the plans to accommodate staff suggestions and that it should not have been presented to the Planning Commission as a proposed material. Commissioner Raya clarified that the Design Review Group is not a designing service but functions as a review group to support staff in following City direction for design parameters. He stated that he felt the applicant would benefit from hiring a professional architect or designer. Applicant stated that he would like to be able to do whatever the City requests; however, he is just replacing windows, extending planter walls, and redoing the trash area and he feels it is unfair to ask that a larger project be undertaken at this point. Director stated that he has walked the site, spent an hour discussing the application with Design Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 2002 Review Group, and discussed mid-century architecture and renovations with two Design Review members regarding this project. He stated that the key to maintaining the architectural elements is not to break the rhythm of the windows and that the mullions fit with the architectural style. He stated that staff is comfortable with the applicant's ability to conform to this requirement. He stated that the overall architectural statement and historical relevance are different issues than what the applicant has proposed. He stated that staff is comfortable with the poured -in -place concrete with sandblasting to match the current building. He stated that, ideally, the building would look exactly as it had in 1959; however, it would be impractical given the bus traffic at that location. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he is confident that Design Review Group's and staff's review and suggestions for the project are satisfactory. He asked that staff include floor material in the material board review. He encouraged the applicant, in any future renovations, to research the solid wall material when the building was originally designed. He stated that he does not approve of replacing steps with planter boxes and feels the steps are a significant architectural feature. He stated that this may be an opportunity to make integral seating for bus riders. Commissioner Matthews commented that employing a design professional early in the process can save applicants money. Mr. Scott Kenady, Palm Springs Modern Committee, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has reviewed photographs of the building in its original condition and that the blocks form a triangular shape. He stated it is one of his favorite buildings since he move to Palm Springs and that he feels it is similar in significance to the Tramway Gas Station. He stated that modern buildings are sensitive to change and that minimum alterations can dramatically alter the feel of the building. He stated that he felt Cody's gas station has been architecturally damaged. He asked if the bus stop could be moved further down Palm Canyon Drive. He asked that the Planning Commission weigh these considerations in the future. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 4-2, Caffery and Raya dissenting) to approve subject to the following conditions: A. The entry doors may be relocated to the corner but no angle may be cut from the building. The doors must be arranged on the existing east and north facing sides of the building and shall be consistent with the existing column and window spacing; B. The planter should be constructed in a material appropriate to the building, such as pebbled aggregate, exposed aggregate, concrete block, or painted concrete; C. The steps and front entry should be covered by concrete or by a material which appears similar to concrete. D. The applicant must work with the Planning Division to obtain the optimal location for the proposed trash enclosure; E. Working drawings should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee before Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2002 permit issuance. Sign Program — Application by Evan Matzner for an amendment to the Sign Program for Cornerstone Plaza to allow for an 8' x 6' blade sign, located at 301 North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the applicant proposes the amendment to allow for a large blade sign consisting of an authentic motorcycle and a hanging plaque with the restaurant logo and that the motorcycle, as proposed, will be outlined in red neon. She reported that the six by eight foot sign would encroach six feet into the public right-of-way and an encroachment agreement would be required through the Engineering Department. She reported that, according to the current sign program, blade signs are limited to 18" x 36" and that there are several signs in line with and within the same center which are uniform to the existing sign program. She reported that the City Sign Ordinance allows for a maximum size of 16 square feet (with a maximum of four feet in any one direction). She reported that, after review and discussion with applicant's representative from Best Signs, staff feels that a redesign of the size, mass, and location of the proposed sign is necessary. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Applicant not present. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he was concerned about the use of neon and suggested that only a portion of the motorcycle be used, in order to reduce the mass of the sign. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 6-0) to restudy due to size, mass, and location. Sign Program — Application by City of Palm Springs / Palm Springs Follies for a showcase sign located at the Plaza Theater, 125 South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Director reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this proposed sign at its Study Session and that staff has been working to resolve property owner issues and location issues for this sign. He showed several options submitted by the applicant for sign design in keeping with Planning Commission direction from that Study Session. Commissioner Jurasky commented that he was disappointed in the proposed sign designs — that they all look temporary and he felt that the sign should be a building structure on which the playbill might be displayed. He stated that he felt the base should be at least 150% of any of the proposed sizes. He stated that crowds of people will not be able to see the sign at the proposed size and also that the sign should be similar in historical architecture to the Plaza. Director reported that substructure components make it a challenge to locate anything heavier than the proposed sign. He also stated that pedestrian flow is a concern in that location. Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2002 Commissioner Matthews stated that, with four existing signs, he feels there is enough signage for the theater. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Dan Jardin, Associate Producer of the Palm Springs Follies, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the proposed sign is necessary and that he is willing to amend the size to whatever the Planning Commission directs. He stated that, originally, the proposed sign was eight feet in height and that, after Planning Commission direction at Study Session, it was scaled down in size, as presented. He stated that, through negotiations with the property owner and the City, the Theater has lost the signage for northbound pedestrian traffic on South Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that the Theater is a unique downtown business — an attraction. He stated that, eventually, Louise's Pantry will be opened and will have umbrella tables in the courtyard, further obscuring the view of this historic building which is 50 feet off of the street. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt the proposed sign should be approached as an architectural statement that matches the historic theater as a monument in downtown using authentic materials and not plastic components. Commissioner Caffery concurred with Commissioner Jurasky regarding the design; however, felt that a large sign may be necessary. M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery4-2, Matthews and Klatchko dissenting) to restudy with direction as follows: A. The sign be between seven and eight feet in height; four to five feet in width; and 18-24 inches thick; B. The sign be internally lit; C. The finish materials should match those present on the theater (brick, plaster, or similar); D. That an encroachment agreement be approved prior to sign installation; E. That final shop drawing plans be submitted for approval priorto approval of the sign permit. Commissioner Raya called Jesse Cross, Best Signs, to the podium. Mr. Cross addressed the Planning Commission to state that the Planning Commission directives are achievable; however, budget concerns may be an issue. He stated that he was told the sign could not be internally illuminated; but agrees with the Planning Commission that it should be. He stated that the base will be substantial and will look very nice. Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 2002 Sign Program — Application by Marshall Stone for an amendment to the Sign Program for the Camelot Theater (Festival of Arts) to change existing signs to the new name (Camelot Theater) and to allow for an offsite directional sign at 191 South Farrell Drive, CSC Zone, Section 13. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that this theater is located on the north side of Baristo Road and west of Farrell Drive and that the proposal is to change out three existing "Festival of Arts" signs with the newly renamed "Camelot Theater" signs and to add a directional sign at the northwest corner of Baristo Road and Farrell Drive. She reported that the additional letters will slightly increase the existing signage area and that the freestanding, directional sign is five feet in height, four feet in width, and 20 inches in depth as proposed. She stated that it will be internally illuminated, double -sided, and constructed of push -through letters and logo on painted metal and a stucco -covered, metal base painted to match the existing building and signage. She stated that, although the sign is not located on the same parcel, it will be on the adjoining parking lot parcel, which has a joint agreement for reciprocal use by the Theater. She clarified that there is no change of use proposed. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0) to approve as submitted. Sign Program — Application by Imperial Sign Co. for a main sign design which includes exposed raceway for the Thai Smile Restaurant located at 251 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Commissioner Jurasky abstained due to a conflict of interest. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that this is a restudy of the application reviewed on January 09, 2002 and, as per Planning Commission request, the sign company has redesigned the sign to a slightly smaller size and relocated it to the front of the overhang face instead of below the overhang. She reported that the proposed sign employs the use of an exposed raceway and ballast box. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Caffery 5-0, 1 abstain) to approve as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS: None. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that the City is waiting for notice from Palm Springs Unified School District regarding the former Katherine Finchey school site and suggested that the Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 2002 appoint a subcommittee in advance of receiving the notification from PSUSD. Commissioners reviewed the Design Review Group Planning Commissioner participation calendar and determined the following commitments: February — Commissioner Jurasky March — Commissioner Raya April — Commissioner Matthews May — Commissioner Caffery June — Commissioner Shoenberger July — Chairman Klatchko CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Chairman Klatchko reported that, at the City Council Cabinet meeting of January 09, 2002, the City Council gave a clear message that the Planning Commission is performing as per its direction — addressing land use issues. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to a Special Study Session at 3:15 p.m. spectfully Submitted, ouglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 13 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 13 1 Ralph Raya X 13 1 Jon Shoenberger X 13 1 Jon Caffery X 13 1 Mark Matthews X 11 3 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Marcus Fuller, Civil Engineer Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. The February 13, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, February 08, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 6-0) to approve the minutes of December 12, 2001 as submitted. M/S/C (Raya/Matthews 4-0, 2 abstentions to approve the minutes of December 19, 2001 as submitted. Page 2 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. CONSENT AGENDA: None ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.2106 — Proposed renovations and sign program for Knott's Soak City Water Park (formerly Oasis Water Park) located at 1500 Gene Autry Trail, PD 168, M-1 Zone, Section 20. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that the subject '50's-theme renovations and Sign Program were reviewed at the February 06, 2002 Planning Commission Study Session. He reported that the front entrance will have a beach surf scene and monument sign facing Gene Autry Trail. He reported that some interior signage may have over -height elements and that staff will work with applicant to bring interior architectural elements into compliance with code. He stated that the Knott's logo will be on the signage at the front entrance of the building and not on the monument facing Gene Autry Trail. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 6-0) to approve sign program and internal design concepts subject to staff review of detailed drawings. Case 5.0843 — Application by Friend Development for review of final landscape plan for a 104-unit apartment complex located at the southeast corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive, Zone R-3, Section 25. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the Conditional Use Permit for the subject development was approved on February 14, 2001 and, in compliance with original Conditions of Approval, the final landscape plan is being brought to the Planning Commission for review. He stated that the proposed final plan has also been reviewed and approved by the Park South Homeowners' Association. He reported that the lush oasis theme (which includes dense trees to create shading) is intended to tie in and meet the needs of the neighborhood. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Applicant not present. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 5-0, 1 abstention) to approve as submitted. Page 3 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 5.0858 — Application by Steve Schnieder of Lyons, Warren & Associates for a revised wall and final landscape plan for Jack in the Box, located at 694 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Director reported that revised plans have not been submitted to staff at this time. Withdrawn from agenda. Sign Program — Application by Evan Matzner for an amendment to the Sign Program for Cornerstone Plaza, located at 301 North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Director reported that an actual motorcycle will be cut in half in order to use the front section as the sign, projecting from the building. He stated that there will be no headlight on the bike; that there will be red neon lighting underneath the fender for glow; and that it would be visible from North Palm Canyon Drive and Amado Road. He stated that the Sign Program states that all merchants should have similarly designed signs; however, the Planning Commission can allow deviations. Commissioner Jurasky stated that, as the Amado Road sign is mounted on a building column, so should the North Palm Canyon Drive sign be. Director confirmed that an architectural column is available for sign placement. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Jesse Cross, Best Signs, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the second blade sign will be located on the last pillar — furthest to the west. He reported that signage, aside from the motorcycle, will be smaller in order to fit within the allowable square footage. He confirmed that, for a halo effect, neon will be placed under the wheel well. He stated that there will be no spot lights (as discussed at the previous Study Session) as the halo would be lost in a spotlight. M/S/C (Jurasky/Matthews 4-2, Shoenberger and Caffery dissenting) to approve as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case 6.457 — Application by Ron Dale for a Variance to allow an existing shade structure in the southwest corner of a property at 253 E. Mesquite Avenue, R-1-C Zone, Section 23. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that the subject property is 120 feet by 135 feet (approximately 16,200 square feet) and that an existing 3,700 square foot home and a pool are located on the property. The subject 240 square foot shade structure is located in the southwest corner of the property. He reported that the setback for a side yard is 10 feet and, for a the rear yard, is 15 feet. He stated that the existing shade structure is a few inches off of the property line on both rear and side property lines at the posts of the structure, but that the roof structure Page 4 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 cantilevers over both property line walls by a few inches. He stated that the structure is currently five feet above the property line wall to the neighbor to the west and that it violates building code due to the allowable type of construction on a property line. Director reported that, several years ago, Planning and Building staff met onsite and discussed the framed structure (which at that time did not have a roof) and advised the applicant to not build it; or to seek permits to move it. He stated that staff has received complaints since the structure was built. Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Ron Dale, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that two or three years ago, staff did come to his vintage 1920's two-story home. He stated that, in the 1920's, the property was much larger; that it has since been subdivided. He stated that the shade structure has always been on the property and that he was repairing it. He stated that he and Building staff reviewed a 1940's aerial photograph of the area and, unfortunately, the houses were covered with Tamarisk trees and the shade structure was hidden. He stated that a tree fell on the cabana and broke a roof supporting beam and was repairing it when a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Division. He stated that he did stop work on the structure until last September, when he had to resume to make the structure ready for a wedding ceremony. He stated that the neighbor to the west of his home has a permitted structure within inches of the property line and that the neighbor to the east had a similar structure but it was burned down and rebuilt adjacent to the property line. He stated that the subject structure does not obstruct any neighbor's views. Mr. Fred Bryant addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has lived adjacent to the subject property for more than 30 years and that the cabana has existed that entire time. He stated that it has been in disrepair; however, the applicant has improved the neighborhood by repairing the structure. He stated that he can not see the structure from his property and that it does not cause a loss of view. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director reported that the building does not meet building code requirements and that, for safety, the structure would have to be completely retrofitted and reconstructed (framed, stuccoed, one - hour firewall, etc.) if the location were approved. He reported that the structure has been completely replaced — that it is not a question of repairs to an existing structure. He reported that approximately two to three years ago it was all new construction. He stated that building code requires that noncompliant buildings must comply — that there is no leniency allowed within the code. He reported that the Building Division will do a detailed code review of the structure after Planning Commission review of the Variance request. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he felt the structure was not bothering anyone in the neighborhood and that other property owners have similar structures. He stated that he needed clarification as to whether or not the structure was new. Page 5 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 Commissioner Jurasky called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Dale stated that a Senior Building Inspector stated that, because the beams that support the roof structure are wooden laminate from the 1960's, the structure is newer than the house. He stated that the previous owner had some repairs done in the 1970's. He stated that the bases of the posts were rotted so he cut the bottoms off by suspending the cabana and roof structure and replaced the bottom section of posts. He stated that he moved to the property in 1993 and that there is no gas or electric service to the structure. He confirmed that he and his neighbor did the work on the structure. He stated that the neighbor closest to the structure had a complaint because he had raised the block wall to eight feet in one section but that he fixed that. Commissioner Caffery stated that if there is existing tile on the building, the age could be determined. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that, in order to make findings, he needed to know whether or not the structure had been repaired or replaced; whether or not it was legally erected. M/S/C (Caffery/Shoenberger 5-0, 1 abstention) to continue to the meeting of February 27, 2002. Case 5.0900 — Application by Dennis Freeman for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 700 square foot guest house located at 3125 Marigold Circle, R-1-13 Zone, Section 35. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that a single family residence was recently approved for this site and that the proposed guesthouse exceeds 1/50th of the lot area and features two bedrooms and two bathrooms. He reported that the guesthouse will be located in front of the existing primary residence on an existing building pad and does comply with all setback requirements. He reported that no access drives or parking facilities are proposed and that the existing driveway will be sufficient to provide additional parking for the guesthouse. He confirmed that the applicant has indicated that the guesthouse will not be utilized as a rental unit. He explained that staff recommends the use of landscaping to screen views from the guesthouse to the primary residence which would also soften its visual impact. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. There being no appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director stated that plans for the primary residence are currently in plan check. M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 6-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. TTM 30453 — Application by The Heavenstone Collections, LLC, for a Tentative Tract Map to Page 6 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 subdivide 1.37 acres into six lots at the corner of Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. Chairman Klatchko abstained due to a conflict of interest. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that the project site currently consists of three lots (ranging in size from 2,282 square feet to 3,845 square feet). He reported that surrounding uses include park, single family residential, hotel, and a central business zone. He reported that the Planning Commission approved the Planned Development District and Architectural Approval application at its November 28, 2001 meeting. He reported that the six units consist of one duplex and four two-story units ranging in size from 2,000 to 2,300 square feet. He reported that Via Colusa (a private street) will be utilized to access the site. He reported that North Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road are both major thoroughfares which require 100 feet of right-of-way and are currently not dedicated to their full General Plan widths. He stated that the property owner is required to dedicate 20 feet on North Indian Canyon Drive and 50 feet on Alejo Road to bring both streets to their required 50 foot half -street right-of-ways. He also reported that the Public Works Department is recommending that full street improvements along North Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road frontages be installed (including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks) and that the intersection at North Indian Canyon Drive/Via Colusa be redesigned. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Alan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is representing the applicant and would be available for questions, if any. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Caffery called Mr. Sanborn to the podium. To Commissioner Caffery questions, Mr. Sanborn stated that, in analyzing offsite improvements and the size of the property, it was determined that apartments would not be financially feasible. Director reported that the physical development will not change with the approval of this Tentative Tract Map; that the purpose is to put property ownership lines in place, rather than the previous one -lot subdivision as originally approved. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 5-0, 1 abstention) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and that Condition #5 shall be amended for clarification. Case 8.245 — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs to allow the installation of a roof -mounted 60 square foot sign which would exceed maximum height regulations and face a private right-of-way; and allow for a 29.3 square foot accessory sign which would exceed the six square foot maximum sign area for the Caliber Collision Center, located at 672 South Palm Canyon Drive, CM Zone, Section Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 23. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the subject business has street frontage on Calle Chia and a business address on South Palm Canyon Drive and that customers gain access to the business from both Calle Chia and the Chevron Station on South Palm Canyon Drive. She stated that the business is 115 feet east of South Palm Canyon Drive but that, prior to a 1930 subdivision, the property was part of the existing service station parcel with legal access to South Palm Canyon Drive. Staff has asked the applicant for information regarding legal access from South Palm Canyon Drive. She reported that the proposed roof -mounted sign would be a single -faced, internally illuminated, canned sign with a white lexan face and black vinyl overlay. She stated that the proposed accessory wall sign would be individual letters of flat -cut, aluminum painted gloss black with the logo, a full color scotch print. She reported that the requested sign exceeds the Sign Ordinance size limitations and would face private property but that the applicant believes a Variance is warranted because the business is approximately 5-8 feet below the grade of South Palm Canyon Drive and is so far set back; therefore, giving the business poor visibility from South Palm Canyon Drive. She reported that there are two temporary, 45 square foot banners located on the front wall of the service bays building and one smaller banner on the southerly wall of the office building. She stated that there is also a painted wooden sign on the west property line fence and that this sign and the banners do not have permits. Director acknowledged the unique elements of the property and stated, however, that this can be an opportunity for the applicant to do an architectural option which the Planning Commission could support according to the General Plan. He stated that one option could be to have a free-standing monument sign above the height of cars parked in front of the business. He clarified that, technically, the business has no property on South Palm Canyon Drive so no signage is available for the South Palm Canyon Drive view. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mike Clark, Quiel Bros. Signs, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the application represents a unique situation and that the business owner plans to move locations within two years — that the sign request is for temporary signage for those two years. He stated that Caliber Collision uses upscale signs in all locations and that the proposed signage is to direct the public. He stated that an architectural option is too much of an investment since the business will be relocating soon. Mr. Ken Barons, property manager for Caliber Collision Centers, addressed the Planning Commission to state that extenuating circumstances are causing the subject request — that the public can barely see the building from the street and that any sign needs to be above the building if it is to be seen. He stated that extending the fascia is a $30,000 to $40,000 solution and that the proposed option is $10,000 which is more reasonable for a temporary location. He stated that, when the subject business relocates, the proposed signs would be taken down and used at other Caliber Collision Centers in other cities. He stated that insurance company referrals are the primary source of business for Caliber and that the Chevron Station representatives have asked that Caliber rectify the level of misdirected traffic through their business. Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jurasky suggested that secondary signage toward Sunny Dunes may be an option. Commissioner Shoenberger suggested that the issue be continued to a future meeting to give the applicant time to consider options. Chairman Klatchko asked the applicant if he was amenable to a continuance for that reason. Mr. Clark stated that he was. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Caffery 6-0) to continue to the February 27, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to redesign sign per staff report. Case 3.1217 — Application by Donald Cavanaugh for approval of exterior decorative lighting at the Blue Coyote restaurant, located at 445 North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zoning, Section 15. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the existing lighting is holiday lighting being used in a commercial application outdoors. She stated that the City has been working with business with unpermitted lighting to bring them into compliance with exterior decorative lighting regulations and that this application is a result of Community Preservation efforts in this downtown area. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Donald Cavanaugh addressed the Planning Commission to state that the lighting at the Blue Coyote is the same as everywhere else in the City and that he does not understand the City's focus on this issue. He stated that the current lighting has been in place for more than ten years and that, without it, the restaurant is too dark. He read a list of businesses located along Palm Canyon Drive which also have holiday lighting which included Thai Kitchen, Edgardo's, JJ's, Al Dente, Pepper's, The Lobster Company, The Peanut Gallery, Roban's, Vintage Market Place, Livreri's, Erik's, Las Brisas, Shilo Inn, Bubba's Pub, Fisherman's, Johnny Costa's, Tony Roma's, Casa Cody, The Steven Chase Inn, Alfredo's, Penguin's, and Maggie's. He stated that he did not believe the lighting looked bad and that the guests at his restaurant tell him that they like the atmosphere. He stated that the ambiance is important to him and, also, that without the lighting, reading the menu would not be possible. He asked the Planning Commission why his business had been singled out for this review. He stated that it is a difficult time for business owners and that the request by the City to change the lighting is unfair. He stated that he has a full-time gardener who takes care of the lights. Director reported that Community Preservation staff contacted more than 150 businesses regarding illegal lighting and that the businesses that Mr. Cavanaugh listed had all received the same letter from the City that he did and most corrected or removed the illegal lighting. Those businesses which did not comply were issued a Notice of Violation. He stated that staff began working after the holiday season of 2000 to have holiday lighting removed at downtown businesses. He stated that lighting must be architectural grade exterior lights as opposed to holiday lights and that staff recommends the wall of lights at subject business be removed. He stated that if the Blue Coyote complies with City Ordinances, then the rest of the businesses will be more likely to comply. He Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 stated that he attended a Main Street meeting regarding the holiday lighting at which the Board of Directors reminded businesses that holiday lighting must come down after holidays. He stated that the particular lighting being used at the Blue Coyote are 90-day exterior grade lights. Commissioner Raya stated that he understands the concern of staff and that Blue Coyote could serve as a good example of approved lighting. He stated that many establishments do not maintain lighting sufficiently and that there are voltage and color issues, as well. He stated that upgrading to the correct lighting would pay for itself through reduced power utilization. He recommended that applicant work with staff to resolve. Commissioner Jurasky stated that it is important to note that the lighting at this business is not entirely decorative — that it is functional. Commissioner Caffery stated that the safety issue of having 110 volt lights strands along metal fencing and trees should not be ignored. Commissioner Shoenberger called Mr. Cavanaugh back to the podium. He stated that the City will eventually contact and work with all businesses with violations; however, staff time is limited so only so many businesses at a time will be contacted. He asked Mr. Cavanaugh to specify what part of staff's recommendation he disagrees with. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the current lights last longer than 90 days because they are not on 24 hours a day and seven days a week and that the lighting on the north wall is necessary for patrons to read the menu. Director stated that City lighting policy states that architectural lighting must "trace outlines of buildings" and that the holiday lighting on the north wall does not give an architectural treatment. He stated that the project is crisp and well -designed with that exception and the tree lighting. He stated that an alternative to the area lighting currently being used would be to install fixtures. He stated that staff's goal is not to issue Notices of Violation but to work with applicants. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that, contrary to singling the Blue Coyote out for unfair treatment, the City is trying to raise the quality level of City-wide outdoor lighting and that the Planning Commission looks to the Blue Coyote as a pace -setter and good business. M/S/C (Shoenberger/ 6-0) to continue to give the applicant time to calculate costs of required lighting and have load calculations done. Request review by Planning Commission for approval of design for mural to be placed at The Pavilion (Leisure Center). Director reported that the Human Rights Commission and Public Arts Commission are still reviewing this proposed mural and recommended withdrawing the application from today's agenda. Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 ADDED STARTER: Case 20.156 — Application by Riverside County Transportation and Land Management for a residence quarterat Palm Springs Visitor's Centerwithin the Sphere of Influence, south of Highway 111 on West Overture Drive, CPS Zone. Director reported that Riverside County Planning Commission will be meeting regarding this issue on February 27, 2002, so in order to have Planning Commission comments considered at that meeting, this application was added to the agenda as an added starter. He stated that, ideally, a Planning Commissioner, City Council member, or staff member would attend that February 27, 2002 meeting. M/S/C (Raya/Caffery 6-0) to approve the addition of proposed added starter to agenda. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that staff has identified some concerns regarding this proposed use which include that the gift shop use includes a sign identifying it as the "Official Visitors Center" which may create confusion as guests who want to visit the City of Palm Springs Visitors Center encounter this site as they come into town and mistake it for the official site. He stated that Sports Management Group, the agency that the City contracts with for tourism, has been in dialog with the property owner regarding the use of the word "Official" and that, as attorneys are involved, the options regarding this concern will be presented to the City Council. He stated that staff is concerned regarding residential use and animal storage onsite. He reported that the site is fairly well kept with some debris stored in the rear and that staff recommends that outdoor storage of goods not pertaining to the use of the property be prohibited. He stated that the building colors of bright yellow and purple are not as appropriate as tan colors would be for this gateway to the City. He reported that the parking lot does not have shading and has minimal landscaping and that staff has recommended, in the proposed Conditions of Approval, additional landscaping. He reported that trash enclosures and handicap accessibility are also issues of concern. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Gary Joyce, Manager of the Visitor's Center, stated that there have been revisions to the plot plan being displayed and that the front area has been landscaped per Water District approval which includes two 40 foot tall magnolia trees. He stated that building colors will be proposed to be similar to the Desert Fashion Center (pumpkin and burnt yellow) and that the current colors reflect similarity to businesses within the City boundaries such as the Thai Smile restaurant and the artist development on Palm Canyon Drive and Alejo Road. He stated that the trash enclosure has been completed and that the main building will be redesigned with two unisex, ADA conforming restrooms. He explained that the debris in the rear area was set aside for backfill for a new septic system and that some lumber had to be hauled off. He stated that the menagerie trailer was removed in October and that overnight parking by employees has been discontinued. He stated that the Riverside County Public Hearing has been moved to February 25, 2002. He stated that there is not a residence proposed at the site and asked that the part of the Staff Report be removed to streamline the report to Riverside County. Page 11 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 Director reported that the "Official" wording on the signage will be reviewed through alternate City processes and not by the Planning Commission — that the signage time, place, and manner is appropriate; however, the content is not, but that the Planning Commission must remain neutral regarding content at this time. He stated that staff will confer with the City Attorney regarding the use of the word "Official." He also reported that live animal storage would not be appropriate in a temporary structure and that the purpose and facilities would need to be better defined. Commissioner Matthews stated that he felt that government agencies should not involve themselves in private business issues and that codes, such as the use of chain link fencing, should be followed by those agencies which enforce them as well. He cited the commercial area at Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trail as an example of an area which is not being brought to the attention of the Planning Commission; however, is a similar concern as the subject application. He encouraged the Planning Commission to only look at planning issues and not business -related issues. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Klatchko 4-2, Matthews and Jurasky dissenting) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval with the removal of conditions which do not apply as discussed. MISCELLANEOUS: None. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that a subcommittee will be needed to review the Palm Springs Unified School District's letter announcing the status of the old Katherine Finchey school site. He stated that this 10-acre parcel would be best utilized as park land. Commissioner Matthews stated that it would definitely be best for the City and neighborhood if it were to become a park. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that the City Council considered an appeal but upheld the Planning Commission approval of the Gloriette Apartments on Hermosa and Amado Road at its meeting of February 06, 2002 with a unanimous vote. He stated that the City Council added Conditions of Approval for building colors (to tone colors down) and modifying the landscaping plan on the perimeter to more closely mirror the Green House condominium project. He reported that the City Council also approved the re-establishment of limited two-hour parking in City -owned lots in the downtown during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He reported that, at the Joint Tribal and City Council meeting tonight, the Belardo Road Bridge, Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the Canyon Hotel, and Municipal Services contract(s) will be discussed. Page 12 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2002 COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Director reported that the lighting on the Shell Station on North Palm Canyon Drive is not in compliance with the approved Conditions of Approval and staff is working with the business owner to correct. Commissioner Raya inquired about the adobe building on South Palm Canyon Drive across from the Sandstone Villas and Director reported that the building is the marker to the former Gillette Family Estate and is on an inventory list for the Historic Site Preservation Board. He also reported that recent planned historic site plaque ceremonies had to be cancelled, will be rescheduled in the future, and that the Planning Commission will receive invitations. He noted that the Steel Frame houses will receive plaques as well. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, Dir for of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 14 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 14 1 Ralph Raya X 14 1 Jon Shoenberger X 14 1 Jon Caffery X 14 1 Mark Matthews X 12 3 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Marcus Fuller, Civil Engineer Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. The February 27, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, February 22, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Page 2 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. Mr. Andrew Raschid addressed the Planning Commission to state that he lives to the north of the development site of the proposed Von's Fueling Center, across Highway 111, and that he believes there will be a negative economic impact to the real estate values in the area and to traffic safety if the proposed fueling center is approved. He stated that a Variance should be granted only in cases where the applicant is improving an area. There being no further appearances, Public Comments was closed. Case 3.2170 — Application by Evan Matzner for an Architectural Approval for a single family residence located at 955 Via Livorno, R-1-13 Zone, Section 3. Director reported that a courtesy notice had been sent to nearby neighborhoods and that one neighbor from a development to the west had expressed concern regarding the height of the proposed home. He reported that the design of the home is strong and has Californian/Mediterranean architecture. Chairman Klatchko invited public comment on the project. Mr. Rodney Drew addressed the Planning Commission to refer to his letter of February 20, 2002 (Exhibit B of the Staff Report) which outlines his concerns and submitted photographs of the elevations which are on file in the Planning Division. He stated that the home is a beautiful and welcome addition to the neighborhood. He asked that he be shown a photographic representation of the impact the home will have on his view. Mr. Alan Sanborn, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the design elements will be compatible with the neighborhood and that, in order to widen view corridors, he is requesting that the home be pushed five feet closer to the street and that the house has been stepped down the hillside in four sections and plate heights reduced to accommodate concerns regarding views. He stated that the pad elevation could not be reduced further according to Engineering Department unless retaining walls along the west side of the property are built which would not be desirable due to cost and heavy excavation work which would impact the natural desert-scape. He stated that the area that would affect Mr. Drew's view is approximately four feet above the pad elevation in one point of the project only. Mr. Evan Matzner, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the project team has been very sensitive to surrounding neighborhood in the planning stages of the proposed residence and that he lives in the area himself. He stated that his goal was to balance the neighborhood's concerns and pass the benefit of the view corridor on to the ultimate buyer of the home. He stated that there would be minimal impact to Mr. Drew's home. Director reviewed aerial map for Planning Commission and stated that Mr. Drew will lose some Page 3 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 view of the valley floor but not much else. He stated that the fall of the land and pads are fairly consistent at nine foot increments downhill. He confirmed that, if a pool were proposed, there must be a pool fence five feet in height. He stated that single family residences are allowed a maximum height of 18 feet and this home is proposed at 16 feet to be sensitive to neighborhood views. He clarified that views are a consideration for hillside homes according to the Ordinance but it is not required that views be protected. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt this application addresses every aspect of sensitivity regarding building a new single family residence in a hillside neighborhood. M/S/C (Caffery/Shoenberger 5-0, 1 abstention) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval Commissioner Matthews abstained as he was not present for Staff Report. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case 6.457 — Application by Ron Dale for a Variance to allow an existing shade structure in the southwest corner of a property at 253 E. Mesquite Avenue, R-1-C Zone, Section 23. Continued from the February 13, 2002 meeting. Chairman Klatchko abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director stated that this Public Hearing was continued from the previous Planning Commission meeting in order to further research whether or not the structure had been repaired or replaced and whether or not it was legally erected. He stated that the Senior Building Inspector and he interpreted the aerial maps from 1937, 1947, 1958, and 1979 and determined that no shade structure existed or was permitted. Vice Chairman Jurasky reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Ron Dale, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to submit photographs of the residence, the neighbor's residence and their view of the cabana (on file in the Planning Division). He stated that there were many trees and shadows obscuring the view of the shade structure and that is why staff had difficulty locating the existing structure on the aerial maps. He also stated that the footprint and orientation of the residence has changed dramatically since the 1930's. He stated that, in conclusion, to improve the City and follow its goals and objectives, he has made the improvements to his home and property. He stated that the Planning Commission has heard testimony that the shade structure existed more than 30 years. He stated that the structure does not interfere with the neighborhood and that the City should not insert itself into the situation. He stated that he is willing to work with staff to comply with building codes. Mr. Phillip Klatchko, attorney for Mr. James Henderson, addressed the Planning Commission to state that his client owns the property to the rear of the subject site and, as such, is the most impacted by this unsightly and inappropriate structure. He stated the Mr. Dale was informed prior Page 4 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27. 2002 to, and during, the construction of this structure by his law office and by City staff that permits are required. He stated that Mr. Dale proceeded at his own peril. He stated that the foundation is brand new and, further, that the wall between the two properties had a gate and now the gate has been removed because it was apparently inconsistent with the new structure. He stated that there are no findings for a Variance. He stated that doing the construction to bring the structure up to code requirements would make this situation even worse for his client. He stated that this is a heavy beam and the roofed structure and not a "shade structure." He stated that his client, Mr. Henderson, will address the Planning Commission to provide information regarding when the structure was built. Mr. James Henderson addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is here to protect his property and submitted a packet of information that includes photographs, a note from a City Building Inspector from March 1999 notifying Mr. Dale that the structure is illegal and will have to be entirely removed, and a written summary of the events to date regarding the construction of the new structure. He stated that the building has plumbing and electricity and that the roof hangs within two inches of the property line. He asked that the Planning Commission consider the code violations apparent at the site, the spirit of the Variance laws governing California, his privacy and view, the definition of "shade structure," his integrity, and City and State property owner laws. Mr. Greg Bryan addressed the Planning Commission to state that the structure has been there for at least 25 years and that it does diminish the view from his property. He stated that Mr. Henderson's view is only of his home and not of Mr. Dale's home or cabana. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Caffery stated that, despite the significant research by staff and review by Planning Commission, findings cannot be made to support the application. Commissioner Matthews addressed Mr. Dale to state that he was given notification of the problem by the City during construction and that the City has used every avenue available in order to help him (e.g. staff time, Public Hearings at the Planning Commission, etc.) but that it is evident that in 1958 the structure did not exist and the Ordinance must be followed. Commissioner Raya stated that he is concerned regarding the safety of the high voltage power pole and lines at the southeast corner of the property due to the location of the subject structure. M/S/C (Caffery/Matthews 5-0, 1 abstention) to prepare resolution of denial. Case 8.245 — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a Sign Variance to allow the installation of a roof - mounted 60 square foot sign which would exceed maximum height regulations and face a private right-of-way; and allow for a 29.3 square foot accessory sign which would exceed the six square foot maximum sign area for the Caliber Collision Center, located at 672 South Palm Canyon Drive, CM Zone, Section 23. Continued from the February 13, 2002 meeting. Page 5 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0) to continue to the meeting of March 13, 2002 per applicant request. Case 5.0871A — Application by Alan Seymour for a Conditional Use Permit for the alteration in hours of operation and the expansion of a cocktail lounge with live entertainment located at 611 South Palm Canyon Drive #15 and #16, PD-77, C-2 Zone, Section 22. Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director reported that the applicant would like to remove the storefront and create an outdoor smoking area. He recommended that the architecture be referred back to staff to work with the applicant. He reported that staff had received one complaint regarding noise which was probably resolved as no further complaints have come forth. He stated that staff contacted the Police Department and no concerns were reported. He stated that the serving of alcohol must stop and drinks picked up by 2:00 a.m. regardless of operating hours. He reported that the exterior lighting, as per the originally approved Conditional Use Permit, must be reviewed by May 2002. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Dean Carlson, project designer, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the owner wants to have a smoking section so patrons are not gathering on the sidewalk or parking area to smoke. He stated that this will also add storage space. Mr. Alan Seymour, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is trying to increase business as it has been a little slow. He stated that creating a quiet area for people to get away from the music will enhance his business. He stated that he hired an investigator to do decimal readings on the music. He stated that the reading was very close to being within code so he had the speakers turned inward toward the interior of the building which brought the decimal reading to within code. He stated that there is no impact to neighborhood noise from his business. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Matthews stated that the applicant has done a good job integrating and running his business in the community. Commissioner Raya stated that he feels the Sun Center is at a stage where it can support a review of the exterior lighting. He stated that he is concerned about 4:00 a.m. closing time because downtown businesses (e.g. Chop House, Las Casuelas Terraza, Muriel's, etc) may want a 4:00 a.m. closing time as well. He stated that he feels Mr. Seymour operates a good facility. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 4-1, Raya dissenting, 1 abstention) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and refer final exterior design to staff for approval. Page 6 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Case 3.2163 and TTM 30313 — Application by Palm Springs Modern Homes LLC for a Tentative Tract Map and Architectural Approval Application to subdivide two acres into 24 condominium units at 705 East Arenas Road, Zone R-4, Section 14. Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director stated that there are three issues for Planning Commission consideration: 1) the review of the Environmental Assessment including the potential impact to archeological resources which will be mitigated by onsite monitoring during grading; 2) architectural issues; and 3) Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. He reported that the proposed parking plan exceeds requirements. Yoav Shernock, Assistant Planner, reported that the proposed condominium units will range in size from 1,556 to 1,690 square feet and will be arranged into three two-story townhouse -style buildings of eight units each. He stated that each building surrounds the parking area for the residents of that building, creating parking courts. He reported that each parking court consists of 14 covered parking spaces. In addition to these 42 spaces, there are four guest parking spaces located within the gates of the property and two guest parking spaces outside the gates. He reported that the parking courts improve the design for pedestrian traffic and the applicant has proposed a large amount of open space designed as common area. The stated that the three buildings would share two pools and spas. He reported that a pedestrian access gate leads visitors away from the parking areas and into the common area. He reported that, because the proposed project is located within Section 14, the applicant has been in contact with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Planning Office. He reported that the environmental issues which have arisen in the processing of the application include the need for a certified archeologist to be at the site during grading and construction to mitigate any impacts if they occur; and that the sideway on Arenas Road (four feet in width) does not meet the City's design requirements, nor ADA access requirements and, as such, is in conflict with the Draft Section 14 Master Plan which calls for this width. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the first phase of this project was well -received and this application will complete the development. He stated that the design (duplicating the existing project) is a marketing decision and that the two projects will look like one. He stated that the available western views also contribute to the orientation of the buildings. Commissioner Raya reported that he is concerned that, although the parking exceeds requirements, it may not be sufficient as the City has transitioned from a City of transient population to one with year-round residents. He recommended that the Planning Commission study parking requirements in general at an upcoming Study Session in order to be proactive as a growing community. Page 7 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Director stated that the Planning Commission can add this to its Work Program if desired. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jurasky commented that it would be desirable to have a view of the mountains from the pool area. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 5-0, 1 abstention) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. Case No. 5.0897(a): Application to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 40.4 acres from NCC: Neighborhood Convenience Center and RC: Resort Commercial to CSC - Community Shopping Center, and a request to amend the General Plan text to create the "Smoke Tree Area Plan" and to amend policies 3.25.2, 3.25.4, and 3.25.8 to conditionally allow hotel and multiple -family re staff and the Planning Commission has gone to much effort to residential uses to a height of 60 feet in the CSC land use designation. The property is located adjacent to and south of East Palm Canyon Drive between Laverne Way (the southerly extension of Sunrise Way) and Barona Road (the southerly extension of Farrell Drive), a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 25, T4S, R4E. and Case No. 5.0897 (b): Application to change the zoning map to rezone approximately 40.4 acres from C-D-N: Designed Neighborhood Shopping Center, R-3: Multiple Family Residential and Hotel, R-G-A: Cluster Residential and Resort Overlay to C-S-C: Community Shopping Center and a request to amend sections 92.11.00 ("C-S-C" Community Shopping Center Zone), 92.11.01 (uses permitted), and 92.11.02 (uses prohibited) to allow hotels and multiple family residential in the C-S- C zone. The property is located adjacent to and south of East Palm Canyon Drive between Laverne Way (the southerly extension of Sunrise Way) and Barona Road (the southerly extension of Farrell Drive), Zone C-D-N, R-3, AND R-G-A, a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 25, T4S, R4E. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director advised the Planning Commission that staff was unable to verify that all condominium owners on Indian Land within the Public Hearing notice area were notified of today's meeting. He stated that community networking has helped with information dissemination; however, staff recommends that the Public Hearing be continued after hearing the Staff Report and testimony of anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission on this policy -driven application. Chairman Klatchko confirmed that staff's recommendation is acceptable. Page 8 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Director outlined the application and reviewed subject area on maps. He reviewed the application's zoning clarification requests and stated that the owners of Smoke Tree Ranch would like the opportunity to consider other uses for the property than hotel. He stated that staff has received comments from the public opposing the building height limit of 60 feet. He explained the entitlement issues regarding Palm Springs Mall and the property to the east and the shopping center at Sunrise Way and Vista Chino; noting that, if those shopping centers would like to apply for the same uses, they would have the right to apply through a Public Hearing process. He explained that Community Shopping Center zoning allows for larger development (from approximately 15 to 60 acres) with larger lot sizes and a broader range of use as opposed to a Neighborhood Shopping Centerwhich has a maximum size of approximately 15 acres. He clarified that Section 92.11.04 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance text would be amended to include electric vehicles as well as more traditional transportation systems and that Section 94.02.00 Conditional Use Permit 6. Shopping Centers would be clarified and also allow City Council to require posting of performance bonds. He explained that, under the current Ordinance, the applicant is required to build half of the project before the zoning amendment can be applied for which makes financing issues difficult. He explained that, under the current Ordinance, a hotel 60 feet in height could be proposed and that the subject application is for clarification purposes. He also stated that, under the current Ordinance, the Palm Springs Mall or the Stater Bros. Mall could not make that application. Commissioner Caffery asked staff to determine whether or not he has a conflict of interest. Staff determined there is no conflict of interest for Commissioner Caffery. Director reported that the City has held one meeting with primary leasehold interests and have incorporated comments from that meeting into the proposed General Plan text in order to create the opportunity for mixed use development (i.e. not purely shopping) in orderto augment the village feel of the existing center. He confirmed that the application includes the restriction that only one supermarket is allowed and noted that the subject site is in the same General Plan area as projects such as Palm Hills and El Mirador. Chairman Klatchko explained that the Planning Commission will take no action today and opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Walter Vogel addressed the Planning Commission to state that Mr. Graham Barbey recently told him that there would be no supermarket on the eastern parcel of the development and he asked that it be required that the existing supermarket is the only supermarket allowed at the center. Mr. Scott Cole, representing the Garden Villa Condominiums, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he represents 40 homeowners who oppose this application. He stated that there are questions as to the specific site under consideration, the possibility of Murray Road being developed through to Barona Road, and whether or not a Traffic Study has been done. He stated that he was alarmed by the No Impact statement from the Environmental Assessment as he felt that any new project would have an impact on the neighborhood. He stated that a building 60 feet in height would definitely impact the views of many neighbors and that noise would be an issue as well. He stated that this is one of the last open fields in Palm Springs and that developing it would be environmentally significant. Page 9 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Mr. Paul Depalatis, Smoke Tree Ranch Planning Consultant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that Smoke Tree Ranch owners have worked with the City to craft proposed language which would be in the City's interest by creating an asset of this property and giving it ambiance. He clarified that, under the current General Plan, many uses are allowed at the subject site and the proposal is basically just for a different combination of uses. He stated that under the current zoning, a hotel use could propose a building of 60 feet in height. He reported that Smoke Tree Ranch is willing to work with the City on this height limit if the Planning Commission requests. Mr. Michael James Landry, President of the Diplomat Homeowners' Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that residents of the 48 units at the Diplomat received no Public Hearing Notice. He stated that residents are opposed to a 60 foot tall hotel and its impact on the environment. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was continued to the meeting of March 27, 2002. Director reported that the extension of Murray Road is on the City's General Plan but that Smoke Tree Ranch is strongly opposed to the road going through their property. He stated that it may be reviewed during the next General Plan update. He reported that the Tribal Council has purchased a lot of space for Open Space and Park Development in this area and the City may find there is no need for the road to go through with that level of development. He clarified that this issue is not a part of this application. Commissioner Matthews commented that it is frequent for the Planning Commission to hear from neighborhood groups who have concerns regarding applications which are entitled by -right -of -zone. He stated that it is possible that the neighborhood groups do not have enough information at this time and that Smoke Tree Ranch has a good history of being a fine neighbor and place of business. He stated that, when supplied with more information, neighbors may discover more common ground. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 5-0, 1 abstention) to continue to the meeting of March 27, 2002 and that staff will work with Homeowners' Associations and Smoke Tree Ranch to provide information on the application. At 4:15 p.m. the Planning Commission was adjourned for a brief recess and called back to order at 4:30 p.m. Case 5.0876 and Case 6.458 — Application by Travis Engineering for consideration of a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to allow a self-service fueling center within an existing shopping center located at 4733 East Palm Canyon Drive, CDN Zone, Section 30. Director reported that this Conditional Use Permit and Variance application includes a kiosk of approximately 298 square feet which is 452 square feet less than required by the Zoning Ordinance Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27. 2002 and that the kiosk has one unisex restroom facility and meets all requirements with the exception of size. He added that air and water service have also been added to the fueling center since the Planning Commission last reviewed this application. He stated that the canopy design has been improved as well and that the proposed project has been through the Design Review process. He reported that the closest residential area is more than 175 feet away and across Highway 111. He stated that this is the first proposal for a fueling center for the City but that other supermarkets will likely apply for this use in the future and that the market for services is current customers, although some drive -by business will occur. He reported that the City Engineer is comfortable with the ingress and egress. He confirmed that no retail is proposed. He stated that no Sign Program application has been submitted at this time. He confirmed that parking will remain sufficient at the shopping center. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Karl Hoy, Travis Engineering on behalf of Von's, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has revised plans to address the concerns of Planning Commission, Design Review, and staff to include a public restroom which is contrary to the company's corporate plan for these fueling centers and revising the landscape plans. He stated that, traveling from north to south, there is a large array of Mesquite trees which obscure the view of the canopy and the kiosk as does, for northbound traffic, a screen wall and existing landscaping. He stated that Von's has an active program to do fuel centers and not service or repair, with small convenience marts in some; however, not in this case, as the Planning Commission has requested that it not. He stated that this will be the eighteenth store but the first one in the desert and that there will be more in the desert in the future. He stated that the Sign Program will be regulated by the Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures and City Ordinance relative to size of pricing. He asked the Condition of Approval No. 25 be removed. Mr. Kyle Collinsworth, Von's, addressed the Planning Commission to request that he work with staff regarding Condition of Approval No. 25. He also stated that the fueling center will not be open for more hours than the supermarket but that the reverse could be true — that the fueling center could be closed but the supermarket open. He reported that Von's customers will receive approximately three cents off the per gallon price and that the difference between, for example, a Costco fueling center and a Von's fueling center is that Costco sells more than 10 million gallons of fuel per year and Von's sells approximately two million gallons; therefore, Costco's wholesale cost is much lower and Von's cannot compete with that. Mr. Dave Mathews, City of Palm Springs Fire Inspector, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is representing the Fire Marshal in requesting that no unattended fuel dispensing occur between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and that the policy of the Fire Department of City of Palm Springs is to require attendants be present at all times. He stated that these comments are not an exhaustive review of the property but to notify the Planning Commission of the Fire Department's opposition of unattended fuel dispensing. Ms. Rita McDermott, Canyon Sands resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the intersection of Gene Autry Trail and Highway 111 has recently been modified for truck traffic and that there is also a lot of pedestrian traffic at the intersection. She stated that there is currently a person in the hospital from being hit at the intersection. She stated that the proposed use will Page 11 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 increase the danger and urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director reported that Condition of Approval No. 23 prohibits unattended fueling. Commissioner Shoenberger called applicant to the podium to discuss Condition of Approval No. 25. Mr. Collinsworth reported that Von's leases the store but owns the fuel center pad and that, if the Planning Commission eliminates Condition of Approval No. 25, it gives Von's the option of selling it to another fueling company. Commissioner Shoenberger suggested that, if the fueling center ceased to be economically feasible for Von's, then Von's should remove it so the City can be assured that there will not be a derelict, abandoned eyesore in this location. Mr. Collinsworth stated that, except for closure in order to remodel or renovate, Von's will demolish the fueling center, remove tanks, and grade to original condition. He stated that Safeway (Von's parent company) has more than one hundred fueling centers and not one has been closed — that they are each successful. He stated that Albertson's has more than 200 successful fueling centers open. He also reported that stacking is provided for 18 vehicles and the City Engineer has approved the site design. Mr. Hoy reported that hours and path of travel (trucks ruin surface parking area) for fuel trucks are strictly managed. Commissioner Raya stated that the lighting for the shopping center is old and outdated and that the exterior lighting and photometric plans for lighting under the canopy should be presented to the Planning Commission with a report by the applicant's engineer that includes existing and proposed lighting. Mr. Hoy stated that this is acceptable. Commissioner Jurasky asked Mr. Hoy to address the Sign Program issue. Mr. Hoy stated that no signage is proposed at this time and that the State of California will require Sign Program specifics and that the application for signage will include canopy signs. Commissioner Caffery left the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Commissioner Jurasky suggested that the design of the canopy be restudied to be more architecturally exciting and that the entire center is due for a remodel. He stated that the City must be certain that there is no chance of having another vacant gas station. Mr. Collinsworth stated that he is confused by the direction of Commissioner Jurasky which is in contrast to the Design Review Committee's direction for the canopy and kiosk to be "invisible." Mr. Hoy stated that Von's will abide by Planning Commission wishes and will work with staff to clarify. Chairman Klatchko stated that he felt that the design should make the canopy and kiosk disappear — that he doesn't want the design to be exciting. He stated that he is concerned for the neighbors with a view from the south and the northeast. He stated that the landscape plan will be critical in screening these views and that, as a matter of course, Design Review will review final landscape design which must include additional screening (tree forms, etc.). He stated that he respects and admires Commissioner Jurasky's input regarding architectural issues; however, feels that the Page 12 of 14 Planning Commission Conformed Agenda February 27, 2002 applicant followed the City's process which included review and comment by the Planning Commission at Study Session, Design Review, and Planning Commission Public Hearings and should now receive the service of a decision by the Planning Commission. He stated that the City should be servicing applicants faster and that the process is undoubtedly frustrating as it is currently. Commissioner Raya reiterated that the exterior lighting at the shopping center is wrong. M/S/C (Klatchko/Matthews 3-2, Raya and Jurasky dissenting, 1 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval; and a. Remove Condition No. 25; and b. Exterior lighting plan to come back for Planning Commission review; and C. Landscape plan shall be strengthened to protect neighborhoods to the north and to the west as reasonably as possible. Plan to be reviewed and approved by Director of Planning & Building. CONSENT AGENDA: None ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 5.0901 — Application by the City of Palm Springs for preliminary review of proposed Downtown Parking Structure located at the northwest corner of North Indian Canyon Drive and Baristo Road, CBD Zone, Section 15. Discussion only. Director reported that the project team consists of Jerry Ogburn, Downtown Development Director, project manager, Jim Cioffi, project architect, and Walker Parking Consultants, structural designer. He reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission and stated that there will be no parking lane on Indian Canyon Drive, landscaping will be at the curb to buffer traffic from the walkway, the trash and service courtyard will serve the adjacent businesses and the garage, and that there will be three elevators (more than code requires). He confirmed that the Sign Program will be brought to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Cioffi also reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission and pointed out the changes (as suggested by Design Review) since the last time the Planning Commission reviewed them at Study Session. He state that he will have a 3D model of the structure for review soon. He stated that there is no landscape architect on the project at this time, but took comments and suggestions from Planning Commission members for future consideration which include concerns regarding the site distance on Indian Canyon Drive between palm trees and the trees and landscaping on Baristo Road. Page 13 of 14 Planning Commission Conformed Agenda February 27, 2002 Commissioner Shoenberger stated emphatically that he believes the Downtown Parking Structure should be built larger to accommodate more parking and that now is the opportunity to do that. He stated that he does not believe building height is an issue. Mr. Cioffi stated that, with the entrance treatment, elevators, and stairs to the Chophouse, a few parking spaces were lost and that there are now 379 spaces. He agreed that the structure (columns and footings) should be designed to accommodate a fourth level of parking. Chairman Klatchko concurred and asked that an alternate design be submitted which includes this possibility. Chairman Klatchko stated that he felt priority should be given to this suggestion over aesthetic considerations such as stamped decorative concrete paving. Sign Program — Application by City of Palm Springs / Palm Springs Follies for an Architectural Approval to allow a showcase sign located at the Plaza Theater, 125 South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Director stated that there have been many alternatives reviewed by the Planning Commission and staff and that the issue includes the proper location of the sign. He summarized that, at the Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission was uncomfortable with the proposed design at that time and asked the applicant to redesign the side. He reported that the applicant redesigned the sign perthe Planning Commission direction and had it reviewed by Design Review which rejected the design due to the massing on the sidewalk. He reviewed photographs of existing signage at La Plaza and suggested that, although the existing signs may be too tall, using the same general architecture and design would tie La Plaza together. Chairman Klatchko commented that he liked the La Plaza signage but felt that it would obstruct pedestrian traffic is placed in the proposed location. He suggested that the shape is good and would be best if smaller. Commissioner Jurasky asked that the sign match La Plaza signage as much as is possible and that some of the same materials be utilized. M/S/C (Raya/Shoenberger 4-1, Jurasky dissenting, 1 absent) to approve subject to the pedestal being architecturally tied to the building and to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building. MISCELLANEOUS: None. ADDED STARTER: Planning Commission Determination that proposed location and purpose of the Downtown Parking Structure ("Project') at South Indian Canyon Drive and Baristo Road and any acquisition of land Page 14 of 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 to facilitate said Project is in conformance with the General Plan as required by Section 65402 of the California Code. M/S/C (Raya/Matthews 5-0, 1 absent) to approve the addition of the Added Starter to the agenda. Director reported that there are no contradictions within the General Plan regarding the goal of improving City parking and the proposed structure is allowable by -right -of -zone in the CBD Zone. He reported that public parking is a goal clearly defined within the General Plan text and that the City is working with downtown businesses and property owners to acquire land for the structure. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 5-0, 1 absent) to Determine that the location (including the acquisition of land) and purpose of the proposed Downtown Parking Structure is in conformance with the General Plan. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director stated that a subcommittee meeting for the Katherine Finchey school site may be needed soon and that he will inform Planning Commission members as soon as Palm Springs Unified School District notifies the City. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: No Update. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Commissioner Raya stated that he would like the Planning Commission to review the current parking Ordinance as it relates to condominium and apartment development. CONSENT AGENDA: None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, 45 erector of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 15 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 15 1 Ralph Raya X 15 1 Jon Shoenberger X 15 1 Jon Caffery X 15 1 Mark Matthews X 13 3 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Marcus Fuller, Civil Engineer Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. The March 13, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 08, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 5-0, 1 absent) to approve the minutes of January 09, 2002. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting for Public Comments. There being no appearances, Public Comments was closed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Sign Program — Application by Jack in the Box for a Sign Program for the restaurant located at 684 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Director reported that the City Council has overruled the Planning Commission's denial and approved this project. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the Sign Program application consists of seven signs (two main wall signs, two menu boards, and three traffic signs). She reported that the main wall signs have reverse channel letters with white neon tube halo illumination. She reported that, unless properly screened, the menu boards and a Do Not Enter traffic sign could be visible from South Palm Canyon Drive. Commissioner Raya stated that he feels there is currently a traffic problem at that intersection and that this is an opportunity to improve it and to eliminate signage clutter by integrating current traffic directional signage with proposed signage and to have only one menu board rather than two. Commissioner Matthews confirmed that, although he was late to the meeting, he has reviewed the Staff Report and all associated documents so will not need to abstain. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Tamar McCarter, Laurie's Permit Service, stated that the menu boards are critical to Jack in the Box and the preview board is necessary to allow proper stacking time. She stated that this is a strong issue for Jack in the Box — that the food is not prepared until it is ordered. She reported that current state-of-the-art process for the industry is to utilize preview boards. She stated that the area will be concealed with screening. She stated that the Do Not Enter signage is an important safety issue and prevents traffic jams. M/S/C (Raya/Klatchko 2-4, Shoenberger, Matthews, Caffery, and Jurasky dissenting) to approve as submitted and stucco the back of the menu board, reduce the size of the preview board, and reduce the traffic signage in size or number. Motion defeated. M/S/C (Shoe n berge r/Caffe ry 3-3, Matthews, Raya, Klatchko dissenting) to approve as submitted and stucco the back of the menu board. Motion defeated. Commissioner Matthews stated that he believes the site is too tight. Commissioner Raya stated that the Starbuck's downtown does not have nearly as many signs as for the proposed site and it is obviously successful without them. He stated that the Jack in the Box will also be very busy. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 Commissioner Shoenberger stated that the Planning Commission already denied this project and that City Council approved the use. He stated that the Sign Program is the focus for today's meeting. M/S/C (Raya/Klatchko 4-2) to approve subject to Condition of Approval that the drive thru boards be screened from the public right-of-way; and that the back of menu signs are stuccoed to match building and walls; and that applicant work with staff to reduce the size of the preview menu board; and to reduce the size of the directional traffic signs or incorporate into the architecture to make less obtrusive. w PUBLIC HEARINGS: TTM 28495 — Application by Simeon F. Grey and Lorraine Grey for a Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of a 7.45 acre parcel into 15 lots, located to the south of Racquet Club Drive, west of Milo Drive, Zone R1 B, Section 3. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that additional information on drainage, walls, and related flood control issues has not been submitted at this time so staff recommends that the public hearing be continued. He reported that the proposed parcels meet the zoning requirements and has one common area/detention basin parcel. He reported that the property is vacant, features sporadic native vegetation and rocks, slopes gently down to the east, and the overall elevation differential is approximately 25 feet. He reported that only grading for Michael Drive and drainage improvements will be the conducted in conjunction with the subdivision. He reported that precise grading plans for each individual lot will be provided with future applications for the development of each proposed residence. He clarified that the proposed project does not include an Architectural Approval application and that the lots are planned for single -story, custom hillside homes of approximately 3,200 to 4,000 square feet. He confirmed that a courtesy notice will be mailed to adjacent property owners at the time of Architectural Approval application. He reported that the project entry is on the south side of Racquet Club Road at Michael Drive (a private street), west of Milo Drive. He stated that the gated entry will have a landscaped median, directory, and guardgate. He reported that the Fire and Engineering Departments will require the applicant to construct the extension of Sanborn Way, adjacent to the site, as part of the project for public safety purposes (e.g. access to flood control easements, rapid fire access, etc.). Director reported that the flood control design dictates a larger retention basin than is normal for this type of offsite drainage for this property adjacent to the Chino Cone. He stated that walls and berms will divert water (which is not limited to onsite water) through the lowest spot on the subject property to Racquet Club Road West which will correct an existing condition (existing homes in the area are currently subject to flooding). He also stated that the project is at the edge of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep critical habitat and is a disturbed site which will likely need a barrier of six feet in height. Conditions of Approval are proposed to include that, if problems with sheep result due to Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 fencing, reasonable site barrier walls could be erected and a financial mechanism for the revision could be included in the Conditions of Approval. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, stated that the drainage plan will mitigate the effect of the cut and fill required for the future home pads. Director reported that future hillside homes will be custom, split-level on custom graded pads which will come before the Planning Commission at the time of Architectural Approval application for each single family residence. He stated that two-story elements may be inappropriate for the future homes from the standpoint of existing development. He confirmed that the subject site is the last small acreage holding toward the west (further to the west is Indian land and property owned by Shadowrock which will potentially be developed in the future). Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Warner, Warner Engineering, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the types of houses built will be approximately $750,000 to $1.5 million and submitted a brochure for Earth Smart Homes (on file in the Planning Division). He stated that the developer concurs with the Conditions of Approval and that the site is very challenging (huge boulders and 55 acres of drainage). He stated that the homes immediately to the east of the site are subject to flooding and that the proposed project will extend 1,300 feet of sewer lines to the site which will give the existing property owners the opportunity to connect to sewer service. He stated that the ten homes immediately to the west of the subject site are substantially below grade and that some have two- story elements. He stated that the developer would like to maintain a rural, natural theme for the development and would ask that the requirement for street improvement such as sidewalks be deferred by covenant. He stated that a key issue for the development is that Michael Way is a private street as the proposed project is likely to be the last development to the west. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the Tentative Tract Map today. Mr. Dan Seagondollar, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the project's goal is to leave the area outside the building stem walls a dramatic and pristine desertscape. He stated that single family residences will be designed to each individual homeowner's wishes and that each will come before the Planning Commission through an Architectural Approval application for review and approval. He stated that the project will be a very high quality development and urged the Planning Commission to take action today. Mr. Michael Arcano, Milo Drive resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned about pad heights but feels the project is a good one which will benefit the neighborhood. He asked what height the future homes will be. Mr. David Johnson, Crystal Court resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has seen projects done by this developer and believes the proposed project will benefit the neighborhood. He stated that the subject site is currently used for dumping trash and recommended that the Planning Commission expedite this type of quality project for the benefit of the City. Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 Ms. Sandra Schwab -Hand addressed the Planning Commission to state that she likes the developer's projects but that the subject site features dramatic ravines and crevices and has a very delicate ecological system which could be harmed by development. She stated that she does not understand why the developer does not want to develop the land to the west. She stated that the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy are likely to be involved right away if the project is approved. Mrs. Lorraine Gray, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to thank Mr. Arcaro and Ms. Schwab -Hand for coming to the Public Hearing. She stated that her company's philosophy is to keep each neighbor happy and that each home will be assessed individually for its impact to the neighborhood. She stated that the subject property has been disturbed (e.g. trash dumping) and the architecture will be simple and award -winning. Mr. Simeon Gray, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he only does hillside development because he likes the challenge and that he has a vast amount of experience and knowledge regarding environmental issues as they pertain to hillside development. Mr. Lee Chandrasena addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is purchasing a residence on Milo Drive and suggested that gates be installed at Janis Drive as well. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director reported that the project has not been evaluated by Design Review and that the landscaping plans, walls, and gates should be reviewed by that group. He stated that, per the General Plan, Racquet Club Road is intended to connect to Tramway Road. The traffic study done for the Shadowrock project included this road carrying through traffic. Commissioner Raya stated that, in order to integrate into the existing neighborhood, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should not be installed. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, stated that the Conditions of Approval for Racquet Club Road improvements are consistent with the General Plan and intended to keep pedestrians out of the street. He stated that, without knowing the potential development of the entire area, it is not possible to determine whether the street could be narrowed and its classification and purpose changed. Director stated that the dedication must be required as per the General Plan but street improvements could be deferred by covenants in order to better fit the neighborhood. He stated that more information is needed regarding the amount of traffic that Tramway Road can support as well. He clarified that, as currently proposed, Michael Drive would be private and that Sanborn Way would provide the public right-of-way to provide the ultimate half -street width along the entire project frontage. Commissioner Caffery stated that he prefers street improvements such as curbs and gutters be deferred in order to leave the area rural for as long as possible. He recommended that there be no sidewalk and that curbs and gutters be avoided if possible. Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt a gated community is incompatible in this neighborhood and called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Grey stated that privacy is a consideration for the neighborhood and for the residents of the development. He stated that the Police Department and the Fire Department support increased security which may prevent peculiar activities and the presence of Bohemian and homeless people. He stated that he is trying to develop a middle/upper middle income price range project and needs to offer security. He stated that his expertise is in pleasing clients and the community and that gated projects have a positive effect on property values. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt that the security that gated communities offer is a perception only and that Bohemian people in the area will likely move on when the project is developed. He stated that he felt walling in development is a detriment to Palm Springs communities. Applicant disagreed. Commissioner Jurasky also stated that he agreed with other Commissioners who felt that sidewalks should be avoided and, for a more natural feel, perhaps the streets could be narrowed. City Engineer stated that curbs and gutters are necessary to carry water. Commissioner Caffery stated that, although the price range can be supported, at $750,000 to $1,500,000, the future homes do not qualify to be called middle/upper middle income price -range. Applicant disagreed. Commissioner Caffery stated that the price can be supported, not because of the exclusivity of a gated community, but due to the hillside views and excellent architecture. He stated that he felt the entry statement could be designed without closing off the development. Chairman Klatchko concurred. Commissioner Matthews called the project architect to the podium. Mr. Seagondollar stated that there will be no pad height, that the ground will be left where it is and stem walls and raised floors used to preserve the natural ground contours. He stated that future homes will follow the Architectural Approval process as required by Code. He stated that the project team wants the neighborhood to be happy with the addition to the area and will invite them to review future homes as they are proposed. Chairman Klatchko reopened the Public Hearing. M/S/C (Klatchko/Raya 5-0, 1 abstention) to continue to the meeting of March 27, 2002; directing staff to submit newly received plans and elevations to Design Review consistent with Planning Commission processing of hillside applications; and staff to prepare alternate Conditions of Approval which allows Michael Drive to be private with a monument entry but not gated; and eliminate street improvements on internal streets while providing curbs and gutters consistent with drainage plan. Commissioner Raya suggested that, if the project is not gated, perhaps there could be two entries. Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 Case 8.245 — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a Sign Variance to allow the installation of a roof - mounted 60 square foot sign which would exceed maximum height regulations and face a private right-of-way; and allow for a 29.3 square foot accessory sign which would exceed the six square foot maximum sign area for the Caliber Collision Center, located at 672 South Palm Canyon Drive, CM Zone, Section 23. Continued from the February 27, 2002 meeting. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that, as previously reported, the subject site has a challenge regarding the grade differences as compared with the adjoining South Palm Canyon Drive property. She stated that, although the proposed 30 square feet accessory wall sign was acceptable to the Planning Commission at its previous meeting, the proposed roof sign was in direct conflict with the General Plan. She reported that, as per Planning Commission direction, staff has worked with the applicant to design a monument -type sign which can assist the business' clients locate the facility. She described the proposed 11 foot wide and 15 foot tall sign which has a painted aluminum base and a 50 square feet text box as an illuminated can with black vinyl overlay and white show -through lettering. She stated that, although the height is necessary to show above grade and parked vehicles, staff recommends limiting the overall height of the sign to 10 feet above the highest grade. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mike Clark, Quiel Bros. Signs, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he would like the bottom of the sign to be equal to the top of the roof line of the building. He stated that the business needs exposure and identification for its customers as it is located 114 feet back from the highway. He stated that the gas station on the adjacent property gets a lot of misdirected traffic due to the confusion. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director stated that push -through lettering is consistent with past Planning Commission direction for depth relief. He stated that the applicant contends that, because the sign will be so far back from the street and only located there for a period of two -to -three years, show -through letters suffice. He stated that existing business owners who purchased push -through letters for their signs according to Planning Commission direction may complain if that direction is changed at this time. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium to ask if he has an objection to push -through letters. Mr. Clark stated that the sign would be back -lit and will have a halo effect at 114 feet from the street. He stated that, from that distance, it would be impossible to tell if the letters were push - through. Mr. Roger Wright, business manager for Caliber Collision Centers, stated that push -through letters do not work at this location and that Caliber Collision Centers has a strict Sign Program which Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 states that there be no push -through letters and that the company plans to use this particular sign in another location in a different city in the future (approximately three years) when they build a building in Palm Springs. He reported that business hours for the store are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m and that illumination is needed for after-hours drop offs and winter hours. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0) to approve maximum height of ten feet from adjacent grade at its highest elevation and for a term equal to the length of the current lease or five years; whichever is shortest. CONSENT AGENDA: None Mural — Request by the Public Arts Commission and the Human Rights Commission for Planning Commission review of the mural to be located at the Palm Springs Leisure Center, 401 South Pavilion Way, Zone O, Section 13. Lee Husfeldt, Public Information Officer, reported that this proposed mural is a Human Rights Commission project in conjunction with the Palm Springs Unified School District and Public Arts Commission entitled "Hate Free Millennium." She stated that the Public Arts Commission has reviewed the mural and suggested that it be elongated to fill the entire wall. She reported that the mural was designed by students and will be 57' x 10'. Ms. Jane Behman addressed the Planning Commission to state that the Human Rights Commission approved this mural which was designed by nine students and that, in order to elongate the mural as directed by the Public Arts Commission, the hand print design will be repeated. She stated that the mural will be visible from the Leisure Center and the Skate Park as well as the High School. She stated that Palm Springs Unified School District has approved the mural going forward. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 6-0) to approve as presented. MISCELLANEOUS: None. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that the City Attorney is continuing to research the issue of Conflicts of Interest regarding the Section 14 Master Plan. He reported that the City Manager, City Attorney, and staff continue to meet regarding revisions to Design Review. He reported that the next City Council Cabinet meeting will be in April. He reported that the Annual Report will be completed soon and that it has been another very busy year — the busiest in the past five years. He reminded the Page 9 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 Commissioners about turning in Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700's) to the City Clerk by April 01, 2002. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Commissioner Matthews inquired about the status of 360 Crestview Drive and Director reported that the issue is in the City Attorney's office for legal action. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 27, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman 15 2 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 16 1 Ralph Raya X 16 1 Jon Shoenberger X 16 1 Jon Caffery X 16 1 Mark Matthews X 14 3 Jerry Grence X 1 0 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building �• Dave Barakian, City Engineer Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Vice Chairman Jurasky called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. The March 27, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 22, 2002. ANNOUNCEMENT: Director reported that the City Council has appointed Mr. Jerry Grence to the Planning Commission. He stated that Commissioner Grence has experience with the Palm Springs Unified School District managing a large educational facility (plans, building, landscaping, maintenance, etc) and has served on the Airport Commission. The Planning Commission welcomed Commissioner Grence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Raya/Matthews 5-0, 1 absent, 1 abstain) to approve the minutes of January 23, 2002 as presented. Page 2 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2002 Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the meeting for Public Comments. Ms. Cheryl Hammond addressed the Planning Commission to state that she supports the application for Smoke Tree Ranch and that the proposed Simeon Grey project should be visionary and preserve the natural vegetation of the area, not have gates or two-story homes, and have underground utilities. There being no further appearances, Public Comments was closed. MISCELLANEOUS: DETERMINATION — Finding of General Plan consistency for proposed right-of-way vacation for a portion of Orange Avenue. And being and a portion of Palm Springs Addition No. 1 as shown by MB 2 Page 27. Assessor parcel number (APN) 680-111-004, 5 & 47, Right -of -Way File # R-01- 011. Director reported that the subject portion of Orange Avenue is not needed to carry local traffic and the vacation request is consistent with the General Plan. M/S/C (Caffery/Matthews 6-0, 1 absent) to approve resolution. DETERMINATION — Finding of General Plan consistency for the addition of a Class 2 and 3 bike lane on Sunny Dunes, between Sunrise Way and Palm Canyon Drive, Section 23. Director reported that staff has conducted a number of neighborhood meetings regarding potential traffic calming options and the proposed Determination represents a request by the subject neighborhood for this option. He explained that the difference between a Class 2 and a Class 3 bike lane is that the Class 2 is striped but unprotected and a Class 3 shares the road with vehicular traffic but there are no markings aside from a traffic sign. Commissioner Matthews stated that the traffic at Sunny Dunes Road and Sunrise Way is already heavy and that bike traffic will add to that intensity. He asked if it may be appropriate to locate a traffic signal in this area. He stated that the deposit for improvements made by Desert Chapel was scheduled to be utilized this fiscal year. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, explained that traffic calming options depend on the street type (i.e. collector, secondary, or local street) and that traffic calming is not appropriate for Sunny Dunes Road as its General Plan designation is Collector — that sufficient width is all that is needed — and striping is the only option for bikeway traffic on this road. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Raya 6-0, 1 absent) to approve resolution. Page 3 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that tonight the City Council will hold a budget workshop to review the Film Festival, and the Mizell Senior Center. He stated that, at its meeting last week, the City Council approved the Tentative Tract Map for the multi -family residential complex located at Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road and approved a Revitalization Planning Area for the north end of the City (Sunrise Gateway). COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Director announced that the Planning Division has hired Cathy Thomas as the Senior Secretary who will be responsible for coordinating agendas, Public Hearing mailings, Design Review and Historic Site Preservation Board support, and assisting the Planners. Commissioner Raya stated that a South Palm Canyon Drive business has been converted from a gas station to a radio repair shop and looks like a junkyard. Director reported that staff is actively working with the business owner to comply with City codes and, if compliance is not gained after a reasonable amount of time, will forward the matter to the City Attorney. He stated that it will also be addressed at the City Council tonight. Commissioner Raya also reported that the Denny's restaurant on East Palm Canyon Drive has lights on the top of the building which are shining into the street. Director stated that staff will research. Commissioner Matthews thanked staff for their hard work on the Crestview issue. Commission/Staff Reports and Requests was continued to later in the meeting in order to begin the Public Hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case No. 5.0897(a): Application to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 40.4 acres from NCC: Neighborhood Convenience Center and RC: Resort Commercial to CSC - Community Shopping Center, and a request to amend the General Plan text to create the "Smoke Tree Area Plan" and to amend policies 3.25.2, 3.25.4, and 3.25.8 to conditionally allow hotel and multiple -family residential uses to a height of 60 feet in the CSC land use designation. The property is located adjacent to and south of East Palm Canyon Drive between Laverne Way (the southerly extension of Sunrise Way) and Barona Road (the southerly extension of Farrell Drive), a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 25, T4S, R4E. Case No. 5.0897 (b): Application to change the zoning map to rezone approximately 40.4 acres Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 from C-D-N: Designed Neighborhood Shopping Center, R-3: Multiple Family Residential and Hotel, R-G-A: Cluster Residential and Resort Overlay to C-S-C: Community Shopping Center and a request to amend sections 92.11.00 ("C-S-C" Community Shopping Center Zone), 92.11.01 (uses permitted), and 92.11.02 (uses prohibited) to allow hotels and multiple family residential in the CS- C zone. The property is located adjacent to and south of East Palm Canyon Drive between Laverne Way (the southerly extension of Sunrise Way) and Barona Road (the southerly extension of Farrell Drive), Zone C-D-N, R-3, AND R-G-A, a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 25, T4S, R4E. Commissioner Shoenberger and Commissioner Grence abstained due to a conflicts of interest. Director reported that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of February 27, 2002 and that staff has confirmed that the original Public Hearing Notice mailing list supplied by the title company did not include approximately 400 Indian land properties. He reported that staff corrected the mailing list and sent out almost 600 Notices for today's meeting. He reported that a March 21, 2002 neighborhood meeting was attended by approximately 42 members of the public and was very helpful for everyone to raise questions and learn more about the proposal. He stated that, from that meeting, the main issue seems to be the maximum building height and that the neighborhood would prefer a maximum of 30 feet rather than 60 feet. He explained that the commercial shopping center could propose a high-rise building of 35-60 feet (similar to the Hyatt or the Wyndham) as the highest and best use for the property. He stated that the nearby Diplomat condominium project is approximately 35 feet in height and that the Ramada at the corner of Sunrise Way and East Palm Canyon Drive is approximately 30 feet in height. He stated that high quality hotel developers prefer to allow more vertical surface and that a 30 foot height limit would necessitate a flat roof design — that a 35 foot limit or more may allow for more creative rooflines, pitches, and architecture. He stated that the proposed application includes Conditions of Approval that there be only one supermarket at Smoke Tree Shopping Center; home -improvement centers of more than 40,000 square feet are prohibited; that the developer of the vacant land must prepare air quality and traffic studies; that the City encourages the Smoke Tree Inn to expand and improve; that performance standards include provisions for electric vehicles; that the parkway on East Palm Canyon Drive conform to the scenic highway requirements; and that there be a Master Plan for development prior to approval of individual development(s). Director outlined the application and reviewed subject area on maps. He reviewed the application's zoning clarification requests and stated that the owners of Smoke Tree Ranch would like the opportunity to consider other uses for the property than hotel. He stated that staff has received letters from the public opposing the building height limit of 60 feet. He explained the entitlement issues regarding Palm Springs Mall and the property to the east and the shopping center at Sunrise Way and Vista Chino; noting that, if those shopping centers would like to apply for the same uses, they would have the right to apply through a Public Hearing process. He explained that Community Shopping Center zoning allows for larger project areas (from approximately 15 to 60 acres) with larger lot sizes and a broader range of use as opposed to a Neighborhood Shopping Center which has a maximum size of approximately 15 acres. He clarified that Section 92.11.04 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance text would be amended to include electric vehicles as well as more traditional transportation systems and that Section 94.02.00 Conditional Use Permit 6. Page 5 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2002 Shopping Centers would be clarified and also allow City Council to require posting of performance bonds. He explained that, under the current Ordinance, the applicant is required to build half of the project before the zoning amendment can be applied for which makes financing issues difficult. He explained that, under the current Ordinance, a hotel 60 feet in height could be proposed and that the subject application is for clarification purposes. He also stated that, under the current Ordinance, the Palm Springs Mall or the Stater Bros. Mall could not propose hotel or multi -family residential uses. He reported that the City has held one meeting with primary leasehold interests and have incorporated comments from that meeting into the proposed General Plan text in order to create the opportunity for mixed use development (i.e. not purely shopping) in order to augment the village feel of the existing center. He confirmed that the application includes the restriction that only one supermarket is allowed and noted that the subject site is in the same General Plan area as projects such as Palm Hills and El Mirador. He reported that the applicant proposes that the building height be limited to 30 feet. Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Walter Vogel, Manager of the Smoke Tree Shopping Center, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned regarding the abstention of Commissioner Shoenberger. Mr. Andrew Ripple, Smoke Tree Shopping Center tenant and president of the Smoke Tree Shopping Center Merchants Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is pleased that there is only one supermarket allowed in the Conditions of Approval because without the existing supermarket, many businesses in the center would be forced to move. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Matthews confirmed with staff that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review building height, architecture, use, etc. through the Planned Development District and Conditional Use Permit processes. Commissioner Caffery stated that he is concerned that limiting the maximum building height to 30 feet will severely limit the future opportunities for hotel development on the property. M/S/C (Raya/Matthews 3-1, Caffery dissenting, 2 abstentions,1 absence) to adopt resolutions; and limiting building height to 30 feet. TTM 28495 — Application by Simeon F. Grey and Lorraine Grey for a Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of a 7.45 acre parcel into 15 lots, located to the south of Racquet Club Drive, west of Milo Drive, Zone R1 B, Section 3. Continued from the March 13, 2002 meeting. Director reported that the applicant has submitted revised plans which were reviewed by Design Review on March 25, 2002 and stated that the applicant is willing to remove the gate(s) from the project if the Planning Commission requires, as per the March 25, 2002 letter from Warner Page 6 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 Engineering (which is on file in the Planning Division). He reported that the applicant has submitted revised cross -sections of the retention basin, a new basin and entry exhibit, a revised landscape plan featuring the redesign of the retention basins using a more naturalistic approach, and elevations of the retaining walls. He stated that the overall planning area of the Chino Cone extends to Tram Way Road and features several thousand developable acres which will need to be served by a significant circulation plan (more than one roadway). He stated that if the area at Chino Cone is developed as single family residences and golf, a Collector roadway may be necessary and that maintaining the width and right-of-way as per the General Plan is important to possible future development. Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Warner, project engineer, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the sidewalk suggested on Michael Drive is not required if that becomes a private street; therefore, no right-of- way dedication is necessary. He stated that the developer has reconsidered the desirability and importance of gating the community. He stated that he agreed with staff that the future development will determine improvements to Racquet Club Drive and that title reports clearly disclose any covenants to future buyers. He requested that the Planning Commission take action on the application with the amended Conditions of Approval today. Mr. Tom Doczi, project landscape architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has taken the functional aspects of the hydrology report and turned them into aesthetic solutions. He stated that he is working with the project engineer regarding the capacity of the retention basin and that future street improvements will not be a problem for landscape plans. He stated that water comes onto the property from offsite on the west property line and that the water will be moved through pipes to the road with a dry streambed naturalized creek effect. He stated that each lot would come back to the Planning Commission for custom home application. Mr. Daniel Seagondollar, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he supports the inclusion of gates because criminals do not like them, gates increase property values, and gates provide the perception of security for homeowners. He stated that the population is ageing and that security is even more an issue now than ever. Mr. Calvin Fenner, ID Technician for the City of Palm Springs Police Department, addressed the Planning Commission to state that gated entries are a deterrent to crime and that, while there is no statistical data to support less crime in gated communities, it is general knowledge to police officers that there is less crime when there is no opportunity to drive up to individual homes. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Matthews stated that this is a small development with a limited number of homes and that he feels security issues such as gates should be the choice of the developer or the homeowners. Commissioner Jurasky stated that the neighborhood in the Little Tuscany area lends itself to Page 7 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2002 pedestrian activity (e.g. dog walkers, etc.). He pointed out that the area is already established and does not lend itself to a gated community. He stated that he felt any home built there would sell quickly due to the location, regardless of entry gates. M/S/C (Matthews/Rays 4-0, 2 abstentions, 1 absent) to approve Tentative Tract Map and preliminary landscaping plans subject to Conditions of Approval; and specifying that no action (approval or denial) will be taken by the Planning Commission regarding gate(s), deferring that review to City Council; and removing requirement for sidewalks. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 2-2, 2 abstentions, 1 absent, Raya and Jurasky dissenting) to approve gates. Director reported that staff will include in report to City Council that the Planning Commission had no recommendation regarding gates. Commissioner Jurasky stated that if the City Council does not allow gates, the landscaping plans need to be revised. Director confirmed that staff will include language to that effect in the City Council Staff Report. Case 5.0898 — PD 273 — TTM 30454 — Application by Canyon Gate, LLC for a Preliminary Planned Development District and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 10 acre parcel into 32 lots for future development of single family residences within a gated community at the northwest intersection of Belardo Road and Sunny Dunes Road, R-2/R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Director reported that this project has been reviewed at Planning Commission Study Session and Design Review. He confirmed that Commissioner Grence has reviewed all previous materials and reports in order to participate in today's consideration and action. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reviewed surrounding uses and General Plan designations for the Planning Commission (as noted in the Staff Report) and reviewed exhibits. He reported that the right-of-way improvements to the Belardo Street Heritage Trail will include a colored concrete sidewalk and street furniture such as benches. He reported that the applicant has agreed to pay a "fair share" portion of the cost of the Belardo Street bridge improvements. Director reported that there is an approved resort development application for the property across the wash to the southeast from subject site (six -story building similar to the Wyndham). Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mark Temple, Manager of Canyongate, LLC, addressed the Planning Commission to thank them for the opportunity and compliment staff on the efficient and friendly service. He stated that his family has been developing in Palm Springs for a number of years, then in Riverside County and that he is happy to be back working in Palm Springs. He stated the he welcomes the input Page 8 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 from Design Review and staff and is proud of the luxurious design of the single family residences, the unique site, and landscape plans. He stated that the project team members are Tom Doczi and Alan Sanborn and that both are available for questions. He stated that escrow is due to close shortly on the property, he would like to begin building in summer, and asked for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Alan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the site plans has been revised as per Planning Commission input at its recent Study Session review. He stated that Design Review comments were relegated to colors and those were changed. He distributed a sample color board to the Planning Commission. He submitted a written list of requests for revisions to the Conditions of Approval (on file in the Planning Division) and asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Mr. Tom Doczi, TDA, addressed the Planning Commission to state that grading had been changed since the original plans were prepared and the retaining walls removed. He stated that he would like to utilize existing boulders to make the necessary grade transitions and use privacy walls where needed but incorporate a naturalistic effect, leaving the view to the canyon open. He stated that pools could go in the front yards. He asked that wrought iron fencing and grade transitions be acceptable rather than block walls in order to protect down valley views. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jurasky stated that Belardo Road will be four lanes of traffic and a bridge and that a gated community would be consistent for this area as the potential development to the west will feed from Ramon Road. Commissioner Raya called Mr. Sanborn to the podium to address the southwest gate's pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Sanborn stated that he wants to meet with the City ADA Coordinator to review options in order to keep the area accessible. He stated that, in Final Development Plans, he hopes to have access from the gate to the hotel development. Commissioner Matthews stated that he felt the proposed development will be especially convenient for wheelchair -bound residents due to its proximity to town. He stated that he did not feel the entrance and associated path of travel is creative enough at this point and that reducing the number of homes by one or by moving the drainage basin may be worth the upgrade to pedestrian and bicycle traffic and bringing increased value to wheelchair -bound home buyers. Mr. Sanborn stated that there may be a way through or around the drainage basin for improvement without impacting grades. M/S/C (Caffery/Grence 6-0, 1 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval; and 1. COA 24 — amend to include wrought iron fencing to protect views of Tahquitz Canyon; and 2. COA 26 — reword as follows, "The proposed elevations of building pads 104 and 22-24 shall be lowered an average of four feet or to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building. Building pads 5-7 and 19-21 will be lowered to accommodate a gradual transition to the new front pad elevations."; and 3. Engineering COA 9 — Right-of-way shall be at back of curb as street width varies; and Page 9 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2002 4. Engineering COA 13 — Delete for internal streets; and 5. Engineering COA 14 — Amend to require curb ramp on the southwest corner; and 6. Engineering COA 16 — Amend to require right-of-way at the back of curb as street width varies; and 7. Engineering COA 20 — Planning Commission reserves the right to review southwest and pedestrian gate access. Planning Commission was recessed for a short break at 4:10 p.m. and was called back to order at 4:25 p.m. Case 5.0904 — Application by Gregory and Leila Niemann for a Conditional Use Permit for the maintenance of an existing 1,019 square foot guest house located at 348 Merito Place, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Director reported that the application is to continue an existing, legally constructed guest house as well as minor interior and exterior modifications. He reported that the corner lot is in a single family residential neighborhood, built prior to the incorporation of the City. He confirmed that an aerial photograph showed the home, pool, and pool house on the site at that time. He reported that, in 1963, a guest house of approximately 500 square feet was built in the rear of the lot and, in 1990, it was expanded by approximately 500 more square feet and is attached to the main house by means of a lattice -covered breezeway. He confirmed that no Conditional Use Permit was obtained for those additions. He reported that the guesthouse is accessible by pedestrian path to the west of the main residence and that no access drives or parking facilities exist or are proposed for the guesthouse. He confirmed that the applicant has indicated that the guesthouse will not be utilized as a rental unit which is reflected in the Conditions of Approval. He stated that, due to its location in the rear corner of the property and the significant existing landscaping, the guesthouse has negligible visual impact from the street and adjoining properties. Vice Chairman Jurasky opened the Public Hearing. There being no appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0, 1 absent) to approve per staff recommendation. Case 6.460 — Application by West Palm Springs Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses for a Variance to allow construction of a parking lot which encroaches into the required front and side yard setbacks of the building located at 2100 East Vista Chino Road, P Zone, Section 1. Director reported that, on June 28, 2001, the applicant received approval for the proposed parking lot reconstruction from staff in error. He reported that, based on this approval, the existing asphalt parking lot was demolished and a new and expanded concrete parking lot and related improvements were constructed. He reported that the approved plans were incomplete, did not comply with code and that, when the applicant attempted to secure architectural approval for a Page 11 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: None. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Continued from earlier in the meeting. Commissioner Caffery clarified that the reason for his dissenting vote on the Smoke Tree Shopping Center application is that the subject site is the largest, most readily developable parcel in the City and that imposing a 30' height limit will severely limit opportunities for four -star projects. He asked that the City Council approve a 40' height limit. Commissioner Jurasky concurred. Director reported that he and code enforcement staff met with the business owner of the North Palm Canyon Drive Shell Station to review the canopy lighting. He reported that the lighting has been changed out and the owner states that he has security concerns. He stated that staff will continue to work on this issue. Commissioner Matthews thanked staff for the job well done regarding the Smoke Tree Shopping Center neighborhood meetings and that they were very informative and helpful to those with questions and concerns. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Work Program Priorities and Subcommittee Assignments — Approval of Work Program 2002-2003. Director reported that, normally, the Planning Commission would receive the entire Annual Report with the Work Program; however, due to staffing levels, the Report is not complete. He stated that the economy is busy and getting better, and staff is focusing on helping customers on a day-to-day basis which causes policy and administrative issues to get a lower priority. He stated that the Work Program, as submitted, includes the General Plan Update and that the Design Review issue remains in the office of the City Attorney at this point. M/S/C (Raya/Caffery 6-0, 1 absent) to approve Work Program as presented. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfull Submitted, ouglas R. Evans, Direc r of Planning & Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 2002 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 16 2 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 17 1 Ralph Raya 16 2 Jon Shoenberger X 17 1 Jon Caffery X 17 1 Mark Matthews X 15 3 Jerry Grence X 2 0 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. The April 10, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday April 05, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Shoenberger/Caffery4-0, 1 absent, 2 abstain) to approve the minutes of February 13, 2002 as presented. Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting for Public Comments. There being no appearances, Public Comments was closed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Historic Marker — Request by Historic Site Preservation Board for approval of historic marker for modern homes. Director showed the sample of the proposed plaque for modern homes. He stated that there has been some concern that the current Historic Site bronze plaque style does not complement the modern architectural of the recently listed Steel Homes and that the proposed plaques are preferred by the Historic Site Preservation Board. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Grence 5-0, 2 absent) to approve as submitted and to spell out Historic Site Preservation Board instead of HSPB and to use City identification such as name and/or City seal. Case 3.2049 — Application by Stephen Thueringer for Architectural Approval to construct a single family residence at 262 Crestview Drive, Zone R-1-C, Section 27. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that this proposed 2,604 square foot hillside home is on a 8,400 square feet lot (31 % lot coverage) with a 20 foot front setback. Director reported that Design Review carefully reviewed the plans and stated that the rear property slope is to be restored, not reworked. He stated that staff recommends that the applicant retain a professional landscape architect or designer for the project. M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 5-0, 2 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and restudy landscape plan. MISCELLANEOUS: Case 10.435 — Request for Planning Commission Determination by The Desert Resorts School of Somatherapy to add massage schools as a permitted use within the C-1 (Central Retail Business District) Zone. Director clarified that the subject request is not site -specific — that the request is for any C-1 Zone, City-wide. He explained that there are very specific Land Use Permits called out in the Zone and with the current specificity requested, staff was not able to make the determination. Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that a massage school (instruction only) is in keeping with the stated intent and purpose of the zone and is compatible with permitted uses in the zone. She stated that the use is similar to a listed use (beauty college) and will not cause substantial injury to the values of the property in the zone. She reported that the local hotel and spa workforce would benefit from the training to meet the service needs of both visitors and residents and that the State of California regulates schools. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that the Planning Commission should review each Conditional Use Permit or Land Use Permit application in this zone in order to maintain appropriate use. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Burton Boss, General Manager, The Desert Resorts School of Somatherapy, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the reason his business is interested in locating in Palm Springs is for classroom space and that he wishes to relocate administrative offices to Palm Springs. He suggested that, if the Planning Commission directs, the City could restrict massage schools allowed in the zone to those "approved by the State Bureau for Credentialing." M/S/C (Shoe n berger/Caffe ry 5-0, 2 absent) to include proposed use as an additional special use within the C-1 Zone subject to Land Use Permit. Case 5.0903 — Application by Desert Charities for a Conditional Use Permit for a thrift shop operated by a charitable organization at 2500 North Palm Canyon Drive, Suite B-2, PD136-A (C-1) Zone, Section 3. Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a conflict of interest. Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that the applicant is relocating the thrift shop because the former plaza is closing for a center remodel. She reported that the use is allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that the proposed retail unit within the Tuscany Plaza is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the shop and have sufficient parking. She stated that the applicant has submitted letters of recommendation (which are on file in the Planning Division) from their neighbors. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Edward Leonard, representative for the Tuscany Plaza Leasing Center, addressed the Planning Commission to state that Tuscany Plaza has been empty and desolate for a time and the new owners have representation onsite at all times and that Desert Charities would be a good tenant to support the Center's improvement. Ms. Theresa Howell, Executive Director of Desert Charities, addressed the Planning Commission to state that, in its approval of the shop's temporary location at 475 Ramon Road, the concern of Planning Commission and City Council was illegal dumping. She reported that the shop has been Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 successful in preventing that by surveillance cameras, City Ordinance signs, and installing locks on the dumpsters. She stated that no complaints were registered while the shop was at the Ramon Road location. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director announced that, due to the two absences and the two abstentions, there is no quorum and recommended that the Public Hearing be continued. M/S/C (Jurasky/Grence 3-0, 2 abstentions, 2 absent) to continue to the meeting of April 24, 2002. TPM 30292 — Application by Friend Development for a Tentative Parcel Map for the creation of a single 5.27 acre parcel from 43 existing parcels for use as a 104-unit multi -family apartment complex, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive, Zone R-3, Section 25. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the apartment complex was approved by City Council on February 14, 2001 and that, to satisfy a Condition of Approval for the project, the applicant has applied for the Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate 43 lots into one 4.97 acre parcel. He reported that three new Engineering Conditions of Approval are included which include a bike way easement, a reciprocal access agreement, and property conveyance to 1842 Araby Drive. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Elizabeth Baily, condominium owner at Villa Alegria, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she opposes the creation of a single parcel because the zoning is not right — that 104 families are much different than 43 holiday lots. She stated that traffic at East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive is bad and that, with the addition of an apartment complex, children will be crossing the street. She stated that there is water on the road in rainy conditions and that the elevation from the property entrance to Araby Drive to East Palm Canyon Drive is a dangerous situation. She stated that there are no schools in the neighborhood and asked where children would play. She submitted a letter to the Planning Commission which is on file in the Planning Division. Mr. Thomas Monaghan, condominium owner at Villa Alegria, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he believes the City Council turned down the apartment complex with a 3:2 vote and asked why the Planning Commission is reviewing the application. He stated that he hopes the Planning Commission has done its homework regarding the problems that having 104 families move to this area will cause. He stated that there are many accidents at the intersection of East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive and asked that the Planning Commission study this issue carefully. Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Mr. Joe Kennedy, President of Park South Condominium Owners Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he was the appellant to the City Council and that Council Member Reller-Spurgin moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit and that the denial passed. He stated that six weeks later Council Member Reller-Spurgin moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit. He asked the Planning Commission to review the approved Conditions of Approval of the Conditional Use Permit as they have changed considerably since they last reviewed the application. He stated that he felt a judge would not agree with paragraph seven of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Scott Kennedy addressed the Planning Commission to state that he believes the exemption from CEQA is questionable for reasons of impact(s) to traffic, noise, and General Plan issues. He stated that the Conditions of Approval are vague and urged the Planning Commission to obtain a formal written agreement with the applicant prior to recommendation to City Council. He appealed to the Planning Commission to be cautious due to the oddly shaped lots and the fact that the existing condominiums have clear -story roof lines. Mr. Greg Forcini addressed the Planning Commission to state that Condition of Approval Number 3 states that all Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit Case 5.0843 are incorporated into this application. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, reported that the developer prepared a Traffic Report which he reviewed and approved. He stated that the consensus of the report and staff is that, although there is a problem with the site distance at East Palm Canyon Drive and Araby Drive intersection, there is no connection between this project and that problem. He stated that staff has added signalization modifications to the City budget requests for 2002-2003 for the site distance issue across the raised intersection. M/S/C (Jurasky/Grence 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval in Staff Report. TPM 30362 — Application by Desert Healthcare District for a Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of a 5.64 acre parcel into two parcels, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Mel Avenue and Via Miraleste, PD 185 Zone, Section 11. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the subject parcel is currently being used as an unpaved parking lot and the application is to create a parcel for the proposed Hanson House — a facility designed to provide onsite accommodations for family members of long-term care patients at the Desert Regional Medical Center. He reported that the proposed use fits within the range of uses allowed within PD 185 (Desert Hospital) and that the single area of concern is the current parking on the unpaved lot. He reported that the amount of parking onsite far exceeds code requirements for unpaved parking lots and the use of this site as an unimproved parking lot is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance (as the Coachella Valley has been designated as a Federal Non -Attainment Area for PM-10). He clarified Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 that the applicant can either cease the use of the parcel as a parking lot and create a physical barrier to prevent the facility from being used for parking or can provide parking lot plans for improvement of the parking area as per code. Director reported that the Desert Healthcare District, Tenet Healthcare Systems, and Desert Healthcare Foundation are working together through multiple leasehold interests to establish the parcel map for definition regarding Parcel 2 in preparation for the Hanson House. He stated that the Desert Healthcare District has leased the subject parcel to Tenet as the operator which makes Tenet responsible for the operation and maintenance of that parcel. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mike Fontana, representing Desert Healthcare District and Desert Healthcare Foundation, addressed the Planning Commission to state that Desert Healthcare District is the underlying property owner and in 1997 the entire campus was leased to Tenet. He stated that Desert Healthcare Foundation wants to build the Hanson House on Parcel 2 and that is the reason for the Tentative Parcel Map application — to have Tenet quick -claim the parcel to Desert Healthcare District who will then lease to Desert Healthcare Foundation. He stated that the problem with requiring that parking be eliminated on the unpaved lot is that the property is not under the control of the applicant. He asked that Engineering Condition No. 5 be amended to reflect that the site previously had apartments (which were demolished) on it and that it is not the intent of the Ordinance to require drainage implementation fees on previously developed lots. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, stated that the intent of Engineering Condition No. 5 is to collect fees if the lot is currently permeable and will be made impermeable by development. He stated that staff found no evidence of fees having been paid on this property. He clarified that the fee is applicable if the impermeable surface is increased by paving, etc. Commissioner Shoenberger called Mr. Fontana to the podium to address this issue. Mr. Fontana reported that there were 20 apartment units on the site previously and that the lot was impermeable at that time. He stated that at the time of demolition in 1991, the understanding was that the drainage fee does not apply because the 1930's buildings probably predated the Ordinance. He stated that the proposed development is an improvement to the area and asked that staff research the Ordinance and give consideration for removing Condition of Approval No. 5. Chairman Klatchko called Tenet representative to the podium. Mr. Barnhart stated that if property users are in violation of local codes, property owner(s) and user(s) must be notified. He stated that Tenet is willing to cure any problems with the site. He stated that the property must be separated from Desert Healthcare District and Desert Medical Clinic. He asked for a period of 90 days to section off the site from parking. Director stated that the Condition of Approval No. 1 assures the conformance to all codes and regulations and that it is important for all parties concerned to be aware of Condition of Approval Page 7 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 No. 5 regarding parking prohibitions. He stated that staff will follow up with Tenet regarding parking on unpaved surfaces. He stated that staff believes the parking to be sufficient for this relatively low -use facility although staff has not assessed Desert Hospital's parking. He stated that he recommends that Condition of Approval No. 5 be amended to reflect that it only concerns Parcel 2. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Caffery 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval in Staff Report and to amend Condition No. 5 to reflect that Parcel 2 shall be secured to prohibit parking or parking areas shall be improved. CONSENT AGENDA: None COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that the Planning Commission Work Program was adopted at the last City Council meeting. He stated that the City Manager, City Attorney, and staff continue to work on the Design Review guidelines and that he hopes to update the Planning Commission within a month. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Chairman Klatchko reported that tonight is the City Council Cabinet meeting. Director reported that, at its April 03, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved a lighting system for Tahquitz Canyon Way and an extension of the agreement with the Building Industry Association for installation and maintenance of offsite directional signs. He stated that the City Council approved the construction agreement for the Downtown Parking Structure with Fontana -Turner. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Commissioner Jurasky stated that it may be a good idea to develop a City-wide bus stop design standard in cooperation with the Public Arts Commission in order to have the public transportation experience embellished. He suggested that options such as sponsoring, plaquing, and private donations would all be worthy of consideration. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Chairman Klatchko announced a change of location (from Studio B to the Council Chamber) for the Planning Commission Study Session that will follow this meeting. Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. Mr. Miles Barrett, Manager, Palm Springs Windsurfing, LLC, addressed the Planning Commission to state that his request for a time extension on today's agenda is due to the dearth of water at this time; however, that the predicted El Nino winter weather conditions could increase and restore snow packs in the Pacific Northwest which will impact water availability statewide and could allow his facility to operate. Mr. Wilson McNary, Verano Drive, Palm Springs, urged the City to proceed with nuisance abatement of the Biltmore property. There being no further appearances, Public Comments was closed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.2081 — Application by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Graham for architectural approval for a proposed addition to a single family residence at 2431 N. Palermo, R-1 Zone, Section 3. Continued from the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Principal Planner reported that this application had been continued from the September 26, 2001 meeting in order to give the applicant time to a erect story pole for the adjacent neighbor to review the potential impact to the view. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Jim Cioffi, applicant's architect, addressed the Planning Commission to clarify that the applicant's name is Graham and not Brown, as had been previously listed on the agenda. He reported that he had erected a story pole for the adjacent neighbor's (Mr. Case) review of view impact, as arranged at the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. He also distributed photographs of the area and relative heights of adjacent properties. Chairman Klatchko called Mrs. Case to the podium. Mrs. Ramona Case addressed the Planning Commission to state that she has a petition with 20 signatures of homeowners (some of whom she stated would also be affected by the proposed project) in favor of rejecting the application due to the proposed height of the home. Chairman Klatchko asked that the list of names be submitted to staff. She stated that she was not at home when Mr. Cioffi came on to her property to erect the story pole and that she had no idea, until now, that photographs were taken. She stated that the home to the right of the subject lot is built into the hillside and has a subterranean garage and that the house to the left is a tall but single- Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 story home. She reviewed the photographs which had been submitted to the Planning Commission and stated that she did not feel they represented the actual impact to her view. Commissioner Shoenberger asked Mrs. Case to state in what way she felt the photographs were not representative of the actual area. She stated that, from her patio, the view is different than depicted and that the pictures were not taken from a representative angle. Chairman Klatchko called Mr. Cioffi to the podium. Mr. Cioffi stated that he, after receiving permission to come on the Case's property, is surprised to hear Mrs. Case's comments at today's meeting. He stated that the pad has been lowered by three feet to accommodate view impact concerns and that the photographs were taken while standing on Mrs. Case's patio (which is higher than floor level) from an eye -level position. He stated that he felt the proposed project will, if anything, raise property values. M/SIC (Jurasky/Shoenberger 6-0, 1 absent) to recommend approval subject to Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case No. 6.453 — Application by William E. Davis for a Variance to enlarge a nonconforming structure in violation of the side setback for property located at 227 S. Cahuilla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. Planning Manager stated that the subject single family residence was constructed in 1936-37 and is nonconforming in the R-3 Zone (but exists lawfully) which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq.ft. (subject property is 7,650 sq.ft.). She reported that an existing swimming pool adds a constraint to the lot and that the conversion of the garage to living space will result in no covered parking (which is optional for multi -family residential uses as per zoning regulations). She reported that the neighboring property (next to the garage) is a four -unit apartment building with a two-story element in the front. She clarified that the applicant intends to live in the primary house and that parking will consist of two bay spaces and one at the existing driveway area. The subject property has a width of 50 feet in a zone where a width of 130 feet is required. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 2:08 p.m. Mr. William Davis, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he recently bought the property (a Class III historical site) and has contacted the Building Division in order to make sure that no building code violations are made. He stated that he plans to do an historical renovation to the home's original condition. He also stated that he was a plan check engineer for the City of Santa Barbara for a number of years and assured the Planning Commission that the garage is in very good condition. M/S/C (Matthews/Payne 6-0, 1 absent) to adopt the resolution granting the variance Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Case 3.1950 — Application by John Wessman for an architectural approval to allow the paving of a roadway and construction of two driveways on Camino Monte Roadway, a hillside property, Zone 020, Section 27. Continued from the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Matthews abstained due to a conflict of interest. Staff requested that the application be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. There being no appearances, the Public Hearing was continued to the meeting of October 24, 2001. M/S/C (Jurasky/Payne 5-0, 1 absent, 1 abstention) to continue to the meeting of October 24, 2001 at the request of the applicant. Case 5.0888 —Application by the City of Palm Springs, California, for a text amendment to Section 93.17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding flood hazard reduction standards. Continued from the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Manager reported that, in order to be consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be clarified so that in an unnumbered A zone (and in Al -A30 or an AE zone) the lowest floor of a residential structure must be elevated 1.5 ft. above the base flood elevation. Director explained the FEMA map numbering system and stated that most buildings in the City are removed from the flood plain already. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. There being no appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 6-0, 1 absent) to adoption of the Resolution. Case 3.1747 — Application by Thai Kitchen II for a neon border around the top fascia of a restaurant located at 787 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Commissioner Jurasky abstained due to a conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Sky Warden reported that the development code allows for exposed neon signs within the uptown area in conjunction with food and entertainment uses as conditioned by performance requirements and that staff recommends letter style no.8 as exhibited. She reported that the proposed signs, as conditioned, will meet code. She reported that the applicant has also proposed an exposed neon border surrounding the east and north elevations of the restaurant and the use of smaller than average tubing for the border, and that the sign company plans to secure Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10. 2001 it closely to the wall; however, staff feels the exposed neon does not complement the architecture of the building nor the immediate surroundings. Commissioner Payne stated that he felt that businesses in this area of town have difficulty getting consumer's attention and that, although he is not a fan of neon, he supports allowing merchants to be proactive in attracting business. Director stated that the City has, through the Planning Commission, has traditionally discouraged the direct application of architectural neon. He stated that for Davey's Hideaway on South Palm Canyon Drive, for example, the Planning Commission was careful to assure that neon was recessed into the building wall. In another example, he stated that, although Hollywood Video's corporate design includes architectural neon surrounding the building, the Planning Commission required that the neon was recessed and not a part of the architectural design. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Fine Score, RioFine Sign Co, representing the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission and submitted photographs of other businesses with similar neon to the proposed signage. She stated that it is not feasible to rebuild in order to recess the neon tubing into the building. She stated that the application is more architectural than signage-related and that it is much different from a store outlining windows and doors with exposed neon. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he does not like neon lighting (including that at Davey's Hideaway) and does not want it to become more prevalent in the City. He expressed his sympathy for the challenge that businesses in this area of the City have in attracting drive -by customers and that the subject business is a great restaurant. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 3-1, 2 abstentions, 1 absent, Payne dissenting) to recommend denial of the exposed neon band and approval of sign design (no.8). MISCELLANEOUS: Case 5.0813 — Request by Palm Springs Windsurfing for a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit for the Ponds Windsurfing facility located north of the southern border of Section 19, opposite Overture Road, on the east side of Highway 111, W Zone, Section 19. Commissioner Payne abstained due to a conflict of interest. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that the Planning Commission originally recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit on November 24, 1999. He reported that the applicant submits that the request is due to climatic conditions and that water deliveries to the Coachella Valley Water District's Ponds System are unknown and that an established schedule of delivery has not been developed. He reported that the applicant cannot construct the facility until water is available. Page 6 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2001 Chairman Klatchko reminded the Commissioners of the earlier testimony during Public Comments by the applicant, Mr. Barrett. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 5-0, 1 abstention, 1 absent) to recommend approval of time extension. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that the City Council Cabinet meeting is tonight and that Planning Commission issues could include topics such as Lundin Development, Smoke Tree Shopping Center, downtown lighting, the median islands on Vista Chino and those Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail, including possible Public Arts Commission participation. He reported that the agenda includes a discussion of the Fourth Palm Springs City Tour, the impacts to the City from the September 11, 2001 attack on the US, Board and Commission funding, and reports from Boards and Commissions. ( Chairman Klatchko discussed the importance of the Interstate 10 overpass design. Commissioner Jurasky agreed and noted that funding is the necessary next step in order to move forward. Commissioner Raya asked if the General Plan update will be funded and Director stated that the update is likely to remain unfunded at this point due to cost. Commissioner Raya commented that, the longer the update waits, the more critical the need becomes. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that at the City Council of October 03, 2001, the Biltmore hotel was declared a public nuisance and abatement was ordered if specific renovations are not completed within 30 days. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Commissioner Jurasky asked for an update of the sign at Boomerang Bistro. He stated that the restaurant is spectacular; however, the signage is a concern. Director reported that staff has been working with the business owner for sign permit. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to a Special Study Session at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans Direc r of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 24, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 FY 00-01 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences This Meeting To Date To Date Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 7 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 7 1 Ralph Raya X 7 1 Jon Shoenberger X 7 1 Stephen Payne 5 3 Jon Caffery X 7 1 Mark Matthews 7 1 STAFF PRESENT Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. The October 24, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, October 19, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Jurasky/Rays 5-0, 2 absent) to approve the minutes of September 26, 2001 as presented. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.2063 — Application by Leo Egan for a single family residence located at 820 Via Olivera, Zone R-1-B, Section 3. Principal Planner reported that courtesy notices were sent to adjacent property owners and that staff has received no contact from those neighbors. M/S/C (Jurasky/Rays 5-0, 2 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC HEARING: Case 3.1950 — Application by John Wessman for an architectural approval to allow the paving of a roadway and construction of two driveways on Camino Monte Roadway, a hillside property, Zone 020, Section 27. Continued from the October 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Removed from agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 5.0342 — Application by the City of Palm Springs for a new restroom building located at Demuth Park, 4365 E. Mesquite Avenue, O Zone, Section 19. M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 5-0, 2 absent) to continue to the meeting of November 14, 2001 per staff request. CONSENT AGENDA: Sign Program — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a sign program for Plaza del Sol located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-1, RMHP Zone, Section 22. MIS/C (Caffery/Jurasky 5-0, 2 absent) to continue to the Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 2001 per applicant request. Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 Director requested that Item 8 (Sign Program for Andreas Plaza) be removed from the Consent Agenda for further review. Commissioner Jurasky requested that Item 11 (Sign Program for Desert Aids Project) also be removed from the Consent Agenda. Case 5.0666 — PD 231 — Application by Coda for a time extension for a resort golf development located on the east side of Gene Autry Trail south of Vista Chino, W-M-1-P, W-0-5, W Zones, Sections 7 and 18. M/S/C (Raya/Shoenberger 5-0, 2 absent) to recommend approval of the time extension. Sign Program — Application by Bob Mainiero for a sign program for United Methodist Church located at 1555 E. Alejo Road, R-G-A-8 Zone, Section 14. M/S/C (Raya/Shoenberger 5-0, 2 absent) to approve as submitted. Case 5.0788 — PD 59 — Application for minor revisions to the Desert Chapel Master Plan, to include a revision of the Phasing Plan, located at 630 S. Sunrise Way, R-1-C Zone, Section 24. M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve subject to existing Conditions of Approval. REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: Sign Program —Application by Interactive Design Corp. for a sign program for Desert Aids Project located at 1695 N. Sunrise Way, P Zone, Section 11. Assistant Planner Warden reported that, at its meeting of September 12, 2001, the Planning Commission asked to restudy this application in order for the applicant to address concerns which included that the signs should employ a more creative lettering style; that monument signs should identify the Center as per code; to further clarify Detail Sheet No.3; and to refine plans and include correction(s) to Detail Sheet No.2. Commissioner Jurasky suggested design alternatives which would incorporate the geometry of the sign elements (vertical and rectilinear). He asked the applicant to come to the podium. Ms. Maria Song addressed the Planning Commission to introduce Mr. John Brown of the Desert Aids Project. Mr. Brown stated that he generally agrees with staffs recommended Conditions of Approval and explained the tenancy of the center. He stated that the Critical Care Institute is actually in the rear of the center and has no street frontage; therefore needs signage visible at the entrance. He also clarified that the Desert Aids Project is only a tenant in the building and that confidentiality is an issue for some clients of that tenant. Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 M/S/C (Raya/Jurasky 5-0, 2 absent) to approve subject to the following Conditions of Approval: (1) That the design of the proposed monument sign match the existing monument sign; (2) That the existing monument sign will feature only the future donor's name (new Center name) and that the proposed monument sign will feature one of the larger tenant's (that does not have street frontage) names in smaller text below the Center name. (3) That all monument text be made of a material more sturdy than the proposed Gatorfoam, and that the material shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to a obtaining a building permit. Sign Program — Application by Best Signs, Inc. for a sign program for Andreas Plaza located at 201 N. Indian Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Assistant Planner Warden reported that the applicant has contested the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff and is present to address the Planning Commission. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Jesse Cross, Best Signs, Inc., addressed the Planning Commission to state that the owner and the tenants of Andreas Plaza also object to the Conditions of Approval which have been recommended by staff. He asked the Planning Commission to tell him why this particular center is being instructed as to where to put individual tenant signs within the windows. He stated that the signs are within the tenants allowable square footage. He stated that the center owner is anxious to get the signage into compliance. Director stated that unpermitted signage is a problem with this building and that the fundamental issue for signage at Andreas Plaza is that the building is very geometrical and staff feels the signage should carry out the architectural elements of the building with a rigid form, rather than free -form. He stated that if the tenants oppose the Conditions of Approval because they do not wish to change existing signs, then staff is comfortable with allowing existing signs until tenancy changes. Staff reported that the Community Preservation staff has had many problems with enforcing the sign ordinance at this building with each business and that the sign program is meant to unify the building and that multi -tenant second -level signage is not allowed on windows within the ordinance. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he feels the signage for the geometric building should have some creativity and not be limited, but needs to be within an approved sign program. He stated that he feels that staff should work with applicant to define allowable signage space but not dictate style. Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24. 2001 M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 5-0, 2 absent) to approve subject to the following Conditions of Approval: That each second story business shall be limited to one sign, in addition to inclusion on the building directory; The individual letter height shall not exceed twelve inches (12"). MISCELLANEOUS: Case 5.0857 — Application by Jason Kelleher, Michele Cinque, and Eddie Cinque for a revision to Conditional Use Permit to allow hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. for a cocktail lounge at 2100 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Commissioner Raya abstained due to a conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Mierau reported that staff forwarded this request for a change in hours of operation to the Police Department prior to the Planning Commission review and no objection was received. He stated that the applicant wants to extend its business hours to target clientele who may be getting off of work in the early morning hours. He also stated that any action by this business must be consistent with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board laws. M/ (Shoenberger) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. To commissioners' questions, Director reported that surrounding zoning allows hotels and multi- family residences. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he believes allowing the extended hours would conflict with surrounding land use and future potential land use. Motion died for lack of second. M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 3-1, 1 abstention, 2 absent, Shoenberger dissenting) to deny change of operating hours. Discussion of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: Dave Barakian, City Engineer, reported that staff, in response to neighborhood requests to slow traffic, has drafted the Traffic Calming Program based on nationwide city models in order to get people to drive the speed limit (focusing on local, residential streets where the prima fascia speed is 25 mph). He reported that raised medians, narrowing of lanes, speed humps, and enforcement are options currently being reviewed at staff level which will then be reviewed by the City Council at a Study Session in the near future. He stated that staff first must verify traffic is speeding and then, if so, can implement any of the previously stated options for deterring speeding. He stated that the key element to a successful program is neighborhood involvement. He reported that staff assigns a point system to prioritize requests which includes consideration of such factors as traffic volume and accidents. He stated that the least expensive options include painting narrow lanes Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 and the use of signs and that curb pop -outs and speed humps are more expensive options. He reported that neighborhoods frequently want speed humps and those are satisfactory for local residential streets; however, are not intended for arterial or collector roadways. He also reported that federal aid may be available; however, speed humps are not eligible. He reported that speed humps have been installed on San Lorenzo for a trial period in response to Police Department and neighborhood group requests. He reported that staff has received a request from area residents for a recycled rubber speed cushion for Ramon Road, uphill and west of Cahuilla. He reported that notification of the draft program was sent to an extensive mailing list in order to get as much neighborhood input as possible. He stated that each area and request will be handled on a case - by -case basis (e.g. Mesquite Avenue residents have been asking for help but there is a gutter down the middle of the street so all options are not available for that area). Commissioner Jurasky recommended that the funding source for these options be the violators if possible. He stated that, in some areas, the residents are the most frequent violators of the speed laws. Chairman Klatchko noted that ad hoc neighborhood groups may not be representative of an entire neighborhood and that should be weighed when considering funding for requested options. He suggested that the program be made workable for staff to ensure its effectiveness. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he felt the program is well done and that the material provided to the Commissioners was very educational. He stressed the importance of completing the survey and information collection before any measures are taken. He suggested that substantial measures which are more expensive and have a greater impact on traffic might be open to a Public Hearing process (either City Council or Planning Commission) in order for a broader section of the public to have the opportunity to comment. He mentioned that some street closures (substantial measures) which were implemented in Sacramento and Berkeley were problematic and not well -received. Commissioner Raya stated that he understands the concern of the neighborhoods regarding traffic issues. He suggested signage for gateways and widening for some streets in order to prevent traffic from taking shortcuts through neighborhoods such as the Movie Colony or Deepwell. Discussion of Section 92.01.03 (Building Separation Requirement) of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Manager reviewed Ordinance 92.01.03.4, Distance Between Buildings, for the Commissioners. She stated that, for residential areas, an indoor -outdoor living environment is indicative of the Palm Springs lifestyle and staff would prefer to give flexibility for design which incorporates an indoor -outdoor element; however, the current Ordinance calls for requirements which may not support the quality of design for some of these proposed single family residence plans. Director reviewed Building Code separation requirements and stated that without the subject Ordinance section, safety is addressed by that Code. He stated that the formation of this section of the Zoning Ordinance was to protect view corridors but that, in practice, it serves to make projects more difficult and time consuming for staff and property owners who are building by-right- Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24. 2001 of -zone homes. He stated that staff understands that single family residences and cluster developments (condominiums, churches, etc.) should be handled differently and suggested that the current ordinance could be amended to exclude single family residences. Commissioner Raya stated that, in older neighborhoods which have substandard lots, new homes should not deviate from the character of the neighborhood by conforming to the current building separation requirements. Planning Commission gave direction to staff to solicit neighborhood input, draft sample language for a possible change, and present examples of recent projects which have been affected by the Ordinance and present it to the Planning Commission at a future Study Session. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director reported that there was a meeting regarding the Design Review Committee on October 17, 2001 that was attended by Planning Commissioners Jurasky, Caffery, and Shoenberger, the City Manager, City Attorney, Council members Reller-Spurgin and Oden, several design professionals, and one developer which the Building Industry Association invited to attend. He reported that Design Review issues were discussed and the progress of the Planning Commission on the draft Ordinance was reviewed and that many constructive comments and suggestions were given to staff with the direction to identify alternatives which make the process most efficient and then review once again with that group. Commissioner Shoenberger suggested that the issue be scheduled for a Study Session or a light Planning Commission agenda in order to explore ideas. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt it was a good brainstorming process. He stated that the process is not being abandoned but that the goal is to make it a more streamlined and applicant - friendly process while remaining a quality control tool for the City. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that at its meeting of October 17, 2001, the City Council discussed but did not take action on the Disposition and Development Amendment with the Tribe; continued the Housing Compliance Plan (which is a mechanism to establish a capital improvement program) and the Desert Shadows Owner Participation Agreement to its meeting tonight. He reported that, at that meeting, the Lundin Development/Ra I ph's project seemed to have addressed the historical concerns and that the discussion regarding SmokeTree issues seems to be going positively. That item will be calendared for the City Council meeting of October 31, 2001. He reported that the Palm Mountain Tentative Tract Map was approved; that the Bergheer project was referred back to the Planning Commission with direction to the applicant to address setbacks to neighboring single family residences. He stated this will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when the applicant completes the redesign. Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 He reported that at tonight's meeting, the City Council will review upcoming holiday parades and the homeless food distribution activity on Sunny Dunes Road. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Director reported that the City Engineer recommends Planning Commissioners consider attending the Traffic Commissioners Workshop scheduled for November 10, 2001. Director stated that staff will begin adding projects (such as Architectural Approval Application items which are perceived by staff to be easily approveable) to the Consent Agenda for future meetings. Chairman Klatchko suggested that exhibits for Consent Agenda item exhibits be displayed before meetings so Commissioners can review them prior to the meeting and request that items be pulled if necessary. Commissioner Jurasky asked that staff be available shortly before the meeting in order to answer any questions on those Consent Items. Commissioner Jurasky asked that Planning Commission materials (staff reports, letters regarding projects, etc.) be labeled by agenda item number. He also asked that the City Council agenda be made available in a more timely way. To Commissioner Jurasky's question, Director reported that the Desert Chapel/DWA/Golf Course easement has been fully executed and is at the County Recorder's Office for recording. He stated that, when vacated, the bike path will be rerouted south along the channel so as not to be adjacent to the school and ballfields. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 FY 00-01 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences This Meeting To Date To Date Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 7 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 7 1 Ralph Raya X 7 1 Jon Shoenberger X 7 1 Stephen Payne 5 3 Jon Caffery X 7 1 Mark Matthews X 7 1 STAFF PRESENT Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. The November 14, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, November 09, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Jurasky/Shoenberger 5-0, 2 abstentions) to approve the minutes of October 10, 2001 as presented. Page 2 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14. 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. CONSENT: Both Consent Agenda items were pulled for in order for more detailed reviews by the Planning Commission. Sign Program — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a sign program for Burger King restaurant located at 432 South Indian Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Staff reviewed the exhibits of proposed signage for the Planning Commission of this remodeled restaurant. M/S/C Shoenberger/Payne 7-0) to approve as submitted and directed staff to work with applicant regarding the main sign and that the Planning Commission favors the design received by the Planning Division on November 14, 2001. Sign Program — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a sign program for Plaza del Sol located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-1, RMHP Zone, Section 22. M/S/C (Matthews/Shoenberger 6-0, 1 abstention) to continue to the meeting of November 28, 2001. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 5.0853 — Application by Desert Shadows 3 for a bridge (final plan development) located at North Indian Canyon Drive south of Vista Chino, R-1-A Zone, Sections 10 and 11. Commissioner Payne abstained due to a conflict of interest. Principal Planner Meyerhoff reported that City Council approved the amendment to the Planned Development District and the conceptual design of this pedestrian bridge on March 21, 2001 (overriding the Planning Commission denial of February 28, 2001). He stated that the site plan Page 3 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14. 2001 and bridge design depict stairways on either side of Indian Canyon Drive North which are both located entirely on the applicant's private property. He reported that staff conducted parking counts for the parking lot on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive North and that the lot is not fully utilized; therefore making the reduction of three spaces for the proposed stairway acceptable to staff. He confirmed that the stairways are ADA compliant as per the City's ADA Coordinator. He noted that the Staff Report contains a typo regarding the size of the bridge — that it is an 80-foot clear span structure and not 100 feet. He reported that, although the applicant proposes a 16-foot clearance from the crown of the street, staff recommends a 17-foot clearance for reasons of safety as per the Public Works Director. He also reported that staff visited the site and determined that the visibility of the traffic signal at the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive and Vista Chino will not be impaired by the proposed design. He reviewed the proposed colors of Bordeaux, topaz, and India green. He stated that staff recommends the removal of irrigation and landscaping from the bridge. Chairman Klatchko called any interested parties to address the Planning Commission Mr. Chris Mills, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that, although he appreciates the work staff has done on the project, he does not agree with the requirement for the 17-foot clearance. He stated that there are 16-foot clearances elsewhere on Palm Canyon Drive, that there is a 14'3" clearance bridge on Interstate 10 in Yucaipa which is not a problem, and that this street is not subject to Caltrans requirements. He also stated that the planting on the bridge over the street would be in planters and would be irrigated by hand — not with an automatic system, employing Desert Shadows' current landscaping staff. He explained the intent is to have easy maintenance and stated that the landscaped area is integral to the bridge design. He reported that he is waiting to hear from the canvas wing manufacturer to determine which green colors are available in order to comply with staffs request for India green. He stated that the concrete supports will be similar in color and texture to the columns in Uptown along Palm Canyon Drive. He reported that the bridge will have a support mechanism for lateral banners to be centered along the street but not to hang below the bridge. He also reported that detailed lighting plans are not available yet but will include uplighting (by concealed light source — possibly fiberoptic) of the silhouette of the trusses and wing at night. He also reported, regarding the durability of the fabric elements, that the opaque fabric (similar to that used for the airport roof) is required by building code to withstand 80 m.p.h. and have a handrail and that, if necessary, a superstructure may be required but will not be visible. He reported that the colorfastness of the fabric is guaranteed for a 20-25 year period; that the sail fabric is mesh -like and will allow the wind to pass through. Commissioner Jurasky stated that, if the bridge is meant to be a gateway to Uptown, the detail should resemble a City -owned design statement. Ms. Jane Smith addressed the Planning Commission to state that there may be a precedent being set that will have negative implications for the City by approving the subject bridge because many other applications for bridges can be expected. She also stated that, in other parts of the country, similar bridges are being taken down. Page 4 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 Mr. Stephen Payne, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the City Council has approved the bridge and that the Planning Commission's charge today is to review the final design which he feels makes an architecturally artistic statement for an area which currently has no public art. He stated that the City should continue to look to the future in making its decisions rather than stay grounded in the past. He clarified that his resort has had no input toward design to this point as it has been intended that the bridge be a stand-alone architectural statement for North Palm Springs rather than incorporated with the existing resort's design. He reported that both the residents and area businesses are incredibly supportive of this project. He urged the Planning Commission to consider the bridge as a gateway in and out of the City. Mr. Phil Tedesco addressed the Planning Commission to state that he agreed with Ms. Smith and that allowing a bridge for private use across a public roadway is a mistake. Mr. Jim Stuart addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the bridge design looks great. He stated that it will be yet another first for Palm Springs — similar to the windmills which were also contested during the initial application stage. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed design and support the bridge which represents positive growth and another step toward improving the area. There being no further appearances, Public Comments for this item was closed. City Engineer reported that the standard for the 17 ft. clearance was determined based on State criteria for safety which considers that it is a pedestrian bridge and not built to the specifications and mass that vehicular bridges are. He also explained that, while 16 feet is the legal height limit for vehicles, oversize permits are routinely issued. In addition, over time, roadway maintenance can overlay streets and reduce clearance. Director reported that this structure will require an encroachment license and Conditions of Approval will be required to address maintenance. Commissioner Caffery commented that he acknowledges the value for Uptown that the bridge will bring, despite his previous vote to deny. He stated that he approves of the design. Commissioner Matthews commented that he has been opposed to the bridge because he felt that public right-of-way should be for public use; however, as the City Council has approved the bridge, he gives his full support to the design proposed and feels the bridge will be a benefit to the area. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 5-1, 1 abstaining, Shoenberger dissenting) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval; and • The sail element shall be India Green in color; and • Container planting will be allowed on the bridge unless and until such time as City determines maintenance is not sufficient. Page 5 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14. 2001 Chairman Klatchko confirmed that staff will review lighting plans. He also clarified that he was opposed to the bridge strictly due to the use of public right-of-way for private use; however, he stated that he recognizes the importance of the bridge to the surrounding community of residents and businesses. Commissioner Shoenberger echoed Chairman Klatchko's comments and stated that Uptown is an important element to the City and deserves every consideration available; however, in his deliberation, he has not been able to separate the issue of using public right-of-way for private use from the design issue — resulting in his dissenting vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case 5.0890 — Application by Yolanda Mendoza for a single family residence with a guesthouse with kitchen located at 691 Linda Vista, R-1-B Zone, Section 15. Principal Planner Meyerhoff reported that the proposed project is designed with integrated indoor - outdoor living areas and that the proposed guesthouse does exceed 1/50th of the lot area and has a kitchen and therefore requires a Conditional Use Permit. He noted a typo in the staff report (first page, paragraph 7 referring to pad height should be 512 feet (not 511 feet). He reported that the applicant has stated that the guesthouse will not be utilized as a rental unit and that a Condition of Approval has been added to reflect this. He also reported that a portion of bedroom #2 would be located in the front setback area and that staff has recommended a staggered setback which will provide a more engaging architectural design and that, overall, the proposal conforms to neighboring property standards. He reported that the property owner to the north reviewed the proposal with staff and expressed support for the project and was relieved that the subject parcel would no longer be used as a crossing to the Lykken Trail. He also reported that the view from the home to the east will not be impacted at all, that the view will be looking over the driveway of the proposed project. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jim McCabe addressed the Planning Commission to state that he supports the project and asked if the project has a setback of 15 feet. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Staff reported that the second bedroom will encroach into the front setback resulting in a 15 foot setback instead of the 25 foot setback which is allowed by an Administrative Minor Modification application. Director clarified that this provision allowing the reduction of setback applies only in hillside areas for topographic cause as is the case with this project. M/S/C (Matthews/Rays 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. Page 6 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 Case 6.455 — Application by James McCabe and Marcus Gear for a Variance to encroach into the 25 foot street front building setback for property located at 1377 Culver Place, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. Assistant Planner Warden reported that the applicants have requested the reduction of the minimum front yard building setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for construction of a guesthouse within a tract developed using a Neighborhood Unit Plan option which allows a five foot variation from the setbacks. She reported that the applicant states the Unit Plan option does not meet their design needs. There is an existing drainage basin located within the front yard which would have to be relocated if the proposed location of the guest house were approved. She stated that staff was not able to make necessary findings to support this request. She reported that staff has not received contact from anyone in opposition of the application. She reported that the applicants are in the audience and would like to address the Planning Commission. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Marcus Gear, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the lot has an unusual shape and that the house is set on the lot at an odd angle and that he would like to maintain the architectural integrity of the neighborhood by adding the proposed guesthouse. He reported that he has collected signatures of neighbors within the development in support of the project. He stated that he got approval from the Homeowners' Association prior to making the application to the City. He distributed a letter to the Planning Commission which is on file in the Planning Division. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Shoenberger called the applicants to the podium. He stated that he would like to help the applicants with their request; however, does not see the need for the variance — that the back of the property would interrupt the neighborhood views. To Commissioners' questions, Mr. Gear stated that the neighbors to either side of his property have signed the letter of support; that those neighbors do not have guesthouses on their properties. Commissioner Raya expressed concerns regarding building and pad height and proximity to the street. Commissioner Jurasky stated that the proposed design of the guesthouse is terrific; however, the designer has disregarded critical issues. He suggested that the pool and the overhang could be smaller and then a variance application would not be necessary. Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14. 2001 Director reported that recommendations regarding proposed projects from Homeowners' Associations are not considered for variance requests by the City. Commissioner Caffery commented that the City Ordinance requires certain findings and that not all of the necessary findings for a variance have been demonstrated. Commissioner Payne stated that he felt allowing this variance would not set a precedent or negatively impact any other property and would support the request. M/S/C (Caffery/Matthews 6-1, Payne dissenting) to adopt resolution of denial. The Planning Commission was recessed for a break at 3:30 p.m. and called back to order at 3:40 p.m. Case 6.454 — Application by Ned Lavalle and Eric Norland for a Variance for a Reduction in the Required Side Setback for property located at 553 North Calle Rolph, R-1-C Zone, Section 11. Planning Manager reported that a code violation report initiated this application — that an existing carport is in violation of the Building Code and that three sheds all encroach into the setbacks (one of which is more than 100 square feet). She reported that the carport will have to be removed as per Building Code (Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant relief from Building Code); that the Ordinance requires that only one shed can remain and must be less than 100 square feet. She stated that the applicants bought the house without being informed of the code violations. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Ned Lavalle, co -applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the seller signed a disclosure that the property was in compliance will all City codes. He stated that the structures in question are all more than 10 years old and that they are not visible from the street due to trellised vines, etc. He asked the Planning Commission to consider granting the variance. Mr. Eric Norland, co -applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that it was a surprise to find the property had code violations and that the structures are used on a regular basis and were one of the reasons he chose this property. He invited the Planning Commission to visit the site. He reported that he maintains the landscaping and pool himself and keeps supplies in a shed. Ms. Ruth Licata, neighbor, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she has lived in the neighboring home since 1969 and that, if the request is allowed, it will set a bad precedent for all residential areas in Palm Springs. She stated that part of the charm of Palm Springs is that small and narrow lots retain the required setbacks in order to protect the open feeling; provide privacy and safety. Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Payne stated that if the sellers gave erroneous information to these applicants then the problem lies not with the City but between the sellers and the buyers. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that the applicants could come back to the Planning Commission with a design which does not violate Building Code or Ordinance requirements for a garage or carport and prove a hardship to allow the Planning Commission to grant a variance. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Payne 7-0) to adopt resolution of denial. Director reported that staff will work with applicant to determine a reasonable time to achieve compliance. He also reported that the Department of Planning & Building does offer a $100 Code Compliance Inspection that includes structures, setbacks, unpermitted structures, etc. for buyers considering purchasing Palm Springs properties. Case 3.2110 —Application by Lynn Rivard for a single family residence located at 2445 Janis Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Assistant Planner Mierau reported that the proposed project meets all setback standards and reviewed exhibits of materials and colors for the Planning Commission. He stated that the staff recommends chimney and landscaping design revisions. Director reported that automatic sprinklers may be required by the Fire Department and that the applicant should contact the Desert Water Agency to determine fire flow. M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and work with staff to increase landscaping material and revise chimney design; and amend Fire Condition No. 21 to read, "Automatic fire sprinklers may be required. Contact Desert Water Agency to determine fire flow." Case 3.2093 — Application by Michael Coon for a single family residence located at 2110 Leonard Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 3. Principal Planner Meyerhoff reported that the proposed 16 ft. house is on a 26,000 s.f. lot and has 18 ft. elements. He stated that the pad elevation is 680 feet (680.5 at the finished floor) and reviewed the exhibits and plans for the Commissioners. He reported that neighborhood property owners came to City Hall to review the plans and architectural design of the proposed project and all expressed support. Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 M/S/C (Jurasky/Matthews 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. Gene Autry Trail / Ramon Road Median Design: Director reported that, although there are restraints such as the airport and Caltrans restrictions, the proposed plan offers a strong statement with plants such as yucca and agave and, to integrate more color in the early spring to summer, two types of lantana are recommended. He stated that sculptural elements will be included in an alternative application which will come back to the Planning Commission if necessary. Mr. Ron Gregory, RGA, project landscape architect, reported that he tried to include interesting elements of color, diversity, and form of the massed plants. He stated that two yellow lantana varieties could be used and that deer grass could be planted; however, it may not be satisfactory in the winter months. He reviewed a model of the project for the Commissioners. He reported that boulders (and all elements) must be crash worthy and that fiberglass or other artificial rock material is very expensive and may not be attainable within the budget of this project. Commissioner Jurasky suggested that major elements of design not be clustered all together at one intersection or area. He suggested a Master Plan for structures. Mr. Gregory reported that he can prepare a Master Plan and that the lighting proposed for the mountainscapes will be between the outermost layer and innermost — three layers of lighting. He also stated that the few trees, as shown in the model, will be lit within Caltrans and airport parameters. Commissioner Raya commented that the City has an opportunity to be completely distinctive from the rest of the Coachella Valley and that he would like more sculptured elements than lighted trees which may detract from the lighted sculptures. Director reported that staff will work with RGA on the layout of the sculptural elements and the size, color, and texture of the plants. Chairman Klatchko stated that the type of materials used in the sculptural elements is essential to achieve the quality desired and asked if additional funding may be available through grants or the Public Arts Commission. He stated that if the sculptural elements can not be included due to cost then the landscape plan must be readdressed as it is currently very minimal. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, reported that the Public Arts Commission reported that there are no funds available; however, there is enough money in the current grant to do the sculptures. He stated the reason having the sculptures in a separate application was in case the Planning Commission did not want the sculptures. Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 M/S/C (Caffery/Payne 7-0) to approve landscape plans subject to the following condition: add additional color plants either in selected areas or in mass. MISCELLANEOUS: DETERMINATION — Case 10.429 — That mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage within the CM Zone is similar to other uses permitted. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Planning Manager reported that the owner of Indian Canyon RV and Self Storage has submitted a request for a determination to allow the use of a mini -storage facility in the CM Zoning District, specifically on the northerly most five acres of the twenty acre parcel located on the northeast corner of Indian Canyon Drive and San Rafael. She reported that the applicant proposes an upscale self -storage facility that will have approximately 350 linearfeet on Indian Canyon Drive with a depth of 670 feet and will include indoor and outdoor RV storage, climate controlled units and wine storage. She reported that the CM Zone is intended for heavy commercial and certain light industrial uses, particularly service for commercial, hotel, and industrial uses. The zone allows warehousing and wholesaling as permitted uses. She stated that mini -warehousing and storage are not specifically identified in the CM Zone as allowable uses, although both uses are listed with the uses allowed in the M1 Zone. Director stated that it is likely there will be residential use in the future around the subject area. Commissioner Payne clarified with staff that, by right -of -zone, a sheet metal shop (for example) could locate in this area. He and Commissioner Raya stated that they prefer the proposed storage facilities over that type of use. Mr. Jim Stewart, Group One Realty, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he represents the applicant and that, directly across the street from the subject site, Lumberman's is offering storage and R.V. storage now. He stated that the proposed project will feature climate - controlled units and offer the only rental wine storage facilities in the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Matthews commented that the overhead power lines could be a concern. Commissioner Jurasky commented that the future of this neighborhood will be vibrant and that the appearance of this project should support this improvement. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0, 1 abstention) to make determination that mini -storage and R.V. storage are permitted uses. Page 11 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 DETERMINATION — Finding for consistency for proposed right-of-way vacation for a portion of lot 2, of the Palm Canyon Mesa Tract Unit No. 2 as shown by MR. 16 41 /42. Assessor parcel number (APN) 513-400-039. Planning Manager reported that both Camino Carmenita and Mesa Drive are designed as local streets on the City's General Circulation Plan and that the requested vacation is consistent with the required dimensional criteria and does not conflict with the General Plan. M/S/C (Caffery/Shoenberger 6-0, 1 absent) , to adopt the resolution finding consistency with the General Plan. DETERMINATION —Finding for consistency for proposed right-of-way vacation for a portion of Lot 1 of Tract Map No. 14711 MB 116 33/34, Assessor parcel number (APN) 508-143-020. Proposed vacation is Lot "A" of Tract No. 14711. Planning Manager reported that Camino Real is designated as a Collector on the City's General Circulation Plan and that the requested vacation is consistent with the required dimensional criteria and does not conflict with the General Plan. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery, 6-0, 1 absent) to adopt the resolution finding consistency with the General Plan. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: No Update. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that at its meeting of November 07, 2001, the City Council approved the Jack -in - the -Box project (overturning the Planning Commission denial) and referred the signage and landscaping back to the Planning Commission. He stated that Jack -in -the -Box has agreed to a substantial deviation from corporate design in not using plastic plex-faced letters in the signage. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Commissioner Caffery suggested that the Planning Commission review carports at an upcoming Study Session. Page 12 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2001 Commissioner Jurasky complimented code enforcement staff for their ability to remain calm when members of the public get visibly upset as was the case this weekend when he happened to see Nadine Fieger on a Saturday working with a very agitated business owner. Commissioner Raya stated that Uptown business owners want to attract the attention of traffic traveling at 40-50 mph and that can cause them to place unpermitted signs and merchandise outside. He suggested the Planning Commission review this at an upcoming Study Session. Director reported that the Downtown Development Director's work plan for this year includes Uptown traffic calming, displays, etc. He stated that the success of the Uptown depends on good communication between the City, property owners, and business owners. He reported that an advisory committee is being formed to use as a sounding board. Commissioner Raya stated that he would like to participate. Planning Commissioners agreed that the meeting normally scheduled for December 26, 2001 should be rescheduled. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 FY 00-01 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences This Meeting To Date To Date Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 8 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 8 1 Ralph Raya X 8 1 Jon Shoenberger X 8 1 Stephen Payne X 6 3 Jon Caffery X 8 1 Mark Matthews X 8 1 STAFF PRESENT Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Scott Mikesell, Director of Facilities Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. The November 28, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, November 21, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Jurasky/Raya 5-0, 2 abstentions) to approve the minutes of October 24, 2001 as presented. Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 5.0342 — Application by the City of Palm Springs for a new restroom building located at Demuth Park, 4365 E. Mesquite Avenue, O Zone, Section 19. Planning Manager reported that this request is for supplemental restrooms for Demuth Park to be located at the center entry area. Director of Facilities reported that a site analysis determined that during peak park capacity, there are not sufficient restroom facilities at the park on a periodic basis and that future growth plans for the park (e.g. AYSO building) will require more facilities. He reported that Measure "Y" allocations will allow the interior remodeling of existing restrooms over the next couple of years; however, the proposed new restrooms would be the primary facilities for the park. He reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission is interested in remodeling the exteriors of existing restrooms, using a similar facade to the proposed facility. He reported that the Commission intends to Master Plan the entire park which could mean demolition or relocation of existing facilities and that the proposed building is manufactured (with finishing touches by Interactive Design) and so will have the ability to be relocated in the future, if necessary. Chairman Klatchko called Reuel Young, Interactive Design, project architect, to the podium Mr. Young reported that the prefabricated building will be delivered in two halves and will be self- contained on a structural slab. He reported that the industry standard of single compartment facilities will be utilized because it will allow more use, increased safety, and flexibility. He reported that, due to graffiti concerns, materials will not be split -face block. He stated that his philosophy is that, as a public facility, the building should make citizens proud — that it will be a handsome and bold cobalt blue to impart vitality. He stated that existing buildings could be clad to be of cohesive design. He also reported that the materials will be of high quality in order to avoid breakage from sporting equipment (cleats, etc) and that replacement tile colors have been incorporated into the dappled, monochromatic tones. Regarding lighting, he reported that it will be Lexan-covered and vandal -resistant featuring poly -carbonate plastic fixtures both inside and out and that the building will be well illuminated on all four sides. Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 Planning Manager stated that staff will review lighting plans for screening and intensity as there is residential use on Mesquite Avenue. MIS/C (Jurasky/Payne 7-0) to approve as submitted. Sign Program — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a sign program for Plaza del Sol located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-1, RMHP Zone, Section 22. Continued from the meeting of November 14, 2001. Assistant Planner Warden reported that staff feels the proposed program will help to direct people through the center with a unifying theme for the assorted tenants and businesses. She stated that staff recommends that all monument sign designs be closely similar in materials and lighting to the architectural design of the center identification monument signs. She reported that staff will work with the property owner to remedy the non -permitted signage at the center and regarding the design of the monument signs (which must be consistent with existing monument signs and can be no closer than 200 feet from other monuments sign(s)); and that each individual sign must come to the Planning Director for approval. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Dale Tigue, Quiel Bros. Signs, reported that his company began the application process for a new monument sign for Cedar Creek Inn (a major tenant of the center) but was advised that the Ordinance does not provide for additional monument signs. In applying for a variance, staff recommended a sign program to include the additional monument sign. Planning Manager reviewed the definitions of anchor tenant, major tenant, and in -line tenant and stated that both Cedar Creek and Fred Sands Realty are major tenants. She explained that only monument center signs are approved signage per Ordinance and that the applicant is requesting that anchor tenants and major tenants have their own monument signs. She explained that, although there are separate pads within the center, they are all a part of the center and not separate properties. M/ (Caffery) to deny. Chairman Klatchko offered the applicant the opportunity for a continuance in order to work with staff to address Planning Commission concerns regarding number and spacing of signs. Mr. Tigue accepted that opportunity. Commissioner Caffery amended his motion: M/S/C (Caffery/Rays 7-0) to continue to the second Planning Commission meeting in December. Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28. 2001 Commissioner Raya stated that he felt Cedar Creek should have its own monument sign and asked that the applicant show that potential on future plans. Commissioner Shoenberger directed the applicant that the Planning Commission will not approve an abundance of monument signs long Palm Canyon Drive; however, stand-alone, visually isolated buildings (such as Cedar Creek or Fred Sands Realty) may warrant a monument sign, depending upon design, size, and location. Case 3.2133 —Application by Norman Larsen to construct a residential duplex located at 680 Calle Roca, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Assistant Planner Mierau reported that the proposed project meets zoning standards. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Edward Anderholt, representing Mr. Larsen, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the proposed project will be a significant upgrade to the area. He reported that both units of the duplex will be leased and that each unit has an entry from the garage into an enclosed area that then leads in to the unit. Planning Manager reported that there are other duplexes in the area, that it is a permitted use, and that the project complies with all setback and lot coverage requirements. M/S/C (Jurasky/Shoenberger 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval with the understanding that the applicant may enter into a covenant with the City to defer improvements identified in Engineering Conditions of Approval 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 until such time as the Director of Public Works determines that said improvements must be constructed. MISCELLANEOUS: Case 5.0860 — PD 266 — Application by Nick Dibari for a minor revision to Planned Development 226, a development on the northeast corner of Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 11. Chairman Klatchko abstained due to a conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Mierau reported that this minor revision includes changing from four single two- story units to five structures (one duplex and four separate townhouses). He stated that the architecture will remain the same style as originally approved and complies with the design criteria of the original Planned Development which was approved on May 02, 2001 by the City Council. He explained that both Indian Canyon Drive and Alejo Road are major thoroughfares and that Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 neither of them are currently dedicated to full General Plan width; therefore, the property owner must dedicate 20 feet on Indian Canyon Drive and 50 feet on Alejo Road to bring both streets to the required 50 foot half -street right-of-way. Vice -Chairman Jurasky called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Allan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the units are still condominium -type units with community maintenance of landscape and will have individual Jacuzzi patios instead of a common pool which will create more open space on the lot. Planning Manager reviewed Condition of Approval #32 which addresses the preparation of a noise study prior to issuance of a building permit. She explained that future traffic noise at Alejo Road and Granvia Valmonte could impact residents of the proposed project. She further explained that noise complaints are commonly made to the City and staff is attempting to assure that the design of the buildings can accommodate the anticipated level of traffic noise. Commissioner Shoenberger commented that smart planning focuses on mitigation measures (e.g. extra insulation and double -paned windows) to prevent the noise of a busy community from disrupting livability and that these issues do belong within the Planning Commission's purview. Mr. Sanborn stated that his firm has not done noise studies in the past; however, it is an elemental part of any architectural planning project to review potential constant noise impacts (as opposed to one-time events such as art shows or parties). He stated that today's construction methods already incorporate the mitigation measures necessary to protect residents from excessive noise. Director reported that staff is concerned due to the setbacks of the proposed project and the fact that it is on a major thoroughfare. He stated that most information for the noise study will be available from the California Code and the Palm Springs General Plan and that the measurement process should not be excessively expensive. He stated that staff has received complaints from neighborhood residents concerning the traffic noise in the subject area. He stated that the noise issue is not a significant risk for the development but that certain elements at certain locations may have to be upgraded to ensure livability. He confirmed that this requirement is a standard condition in selected areas. M/S/C (Matthews/Shoenberger 6-0, 1 abstention) to approve subject to revised Conditions of Approval. Revision to Sign Program at Palm Springs Market Place, 1717 East Vista Chino Drive, CSC Zone, Section 12. Assistant Planner Warden reported that the proposed revision would allow for businesses within the center that occupy not less than 18,000 square feet in floor area, or are operated by a national Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28. 2001 chain store, to display a business sign on the monument identification signs at the center. She reported that this option was not discussed during the original sign program review and approval in 1995; therefore, as City Code requires, only stores exceeding 20,000 square feet can advertise on a business center monument sign. She stated that approval of this revision would allow any national chain to advertise on the center identification sign, regardless of the floor area square footage. She stated that the owner of the Dairy Queen store at the center is in the audience and would like to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Payne stated that he felt this proposal would assist the small businesses at the edge of the center and that he supported helping businesses. He stated that no interior access businesses should be allowed monument signage. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Lou Cunningham, center tenant (Dairy Queen), addressed the Planning Commission to state that she agreed with Commissioner Shoenberger's comments regarding noise mitigation from the previous application. She stated she agrees with Commissioner Payne's support of business and added that no one knows her business is in the center because she does not have enough signage. She stated that the business is losing money every day and that she has received approval from the property owner, Dairy Queen Corporate, and Stater Bros. She stated that the sign company has had her finished sign in storage since April. Commissioner Caffery suggested that the property owner (rather than tenants) present a sign proposal to the Planning Commission. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Payne 7-0) to continue to December Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: None. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Planning Manager reported that at its meeting tonight, the City Council will consider a contract forthe improvements along North Indian Canyon Drive, Stevens Road, and North Palm Canyon Drive. Also on tonight's agenda is the Conditional Use Permit for the Jack in the Box drive-thru and the City Council's resolution overruling the Planning Commission's denial of the project. Page 7 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 28. 2001 COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Planning Manager reported that the City website now has a Code Enforcement Complaint Form that can be used to register complaints directly to Code staff. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 00-01 Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 9 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 9 1 Ralph Raya X 9 1 Jon Shoenberger X 9 1 Stephen Payne** X 7 3 Jon Caffery* X 9 1 Mark Matthews X 9 1 * left early STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. The December 12, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, December 07, 2001. ** ANNOUNCEMENT: Commissioner Payne tendered his resignation and read a prepared statement which is on file in the Planning Division. He then left the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery 6-0) to approve the minutes of November 14, 2001 as amended. Page 2 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Chairman Klatchko opened the meeting to Public Comments. There being none, Public Comments was closed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: Case 3.0384 - Application by White Bros. Investments for a remodel of the Holiday Lodge located at 227 North Indian Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Chairman Klatchko abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director reported that the subject property also has North Palm Canyon Drive frontage and reviewed the surrounding land uses for the Planning Commission. He reported that staff is working with the applicant regarding interior remodeling; that the proposed cosmetic remodel will not change the number of hotel rooms; and that the application is for an architectural rehabilitation of the site including the perimeter of the existing building and redoing the parking lot. He reported that signage is not being proposed at this time; however, architectural elements will be created in the facade to provide space for future signage. He confirmed that authentic materials will be used. He stated that parking lot lighting will be creative and complimentary to the adjacent City -owned parking lot; however, will not be identical in order to preserve the look of two separate lots. Commissioner Raya asked that the applicant work with staff and the Downtown Development Director to assure consistency with the quality of lighting between the two lots. Vice Chairman Jurasky called the applicant to the podium. Applicant not present. M/S/C/(Shoenberger/Matthews 5-0, 1 abstention) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval. MISCELLANEOUS Case 10.432 - Determination that a church within the " O" Open Land Zone is similar to other uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Planning Manager reported that the Palm Springs Presbyterian Church has submitted a request to allow the use of a church at 2555 Via Miraleste. The existing building is currently vacant (formerly used as a daycare) and is adjacent to a fire station. She reported that, in addition to holding worship, the church proposes to host group meetings in the evenings (approximately 20 church members attending). She reported that the site was previously used for a public library. She stated that the Library Board has determined the land as surplus and is seeking to sell to the church. She stated that the library is doing due diligence by the request for determination and anticipates that a Conditional Use Permit application will be filed if the Zoning is allowed and the sale is successful. Page 3 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Jackie Morgan stated that she is available to answer questions. Ms. Josette McNary, Assistant City Librarian, stated that the City owns the land; however this particular branch was built from funds from a special library tax and that proceeds of the sale will go to library funding. She confirmed that the Library Board does not anticipate that this building will ever be needed for library use again. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 6-0) to determine that church use is similar to other uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the O Zone. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case 5.0866 - Application by Burnett Companies for a preliminary Planned Development District (PD 267) related architectural approvals and Tentative Tract Map 30054 for the subdivision of 61.9 acres into 238 single family residences with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 and 6,000 square feet within a gated community located to the northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Way and San Rafael Drive, R-1-C and 0-5, section 36 Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the project is designed around the existing Palm Springs Country Club golf course and features a primary road with 12 cul-de-sacs. He stated that the site is currently vacant but does have an existing concrete -lined storm channel running adjacent to the easterly perimeter of the site. He reported that the applicant plans to work with the Engineering staff to integrate street narrowing as a traffic calming measure. He reported that the 238-lot project features residential lots (ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 square feet). He stated that the applicant is proposing 5' front yard setbacks, 5' side yard setbacks, and 15' rear yard setbacks in order to provide common recreation and open space amenities. He stated that two recreational areas are proposed which include swimming pools, spas, sun decks, shade arbors, restrooms, and drinking fountains and will be located adjacent to the north fairway of the existing course. He reviewed conceptual architectural plans and stated that actual plans will come before the Planning Commission at a later date. He reported that the applicant is requesting that a maximum of 35% of the units be allowed to be two-story which will also come to the Planning Commission for review. Director reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed proposed elevations at a recent Study Session at which time Commissioners expressed concern regarding the overall design. He clarified that today's application is not for Architectural Approval and the elevations are only conceptual at this point. He reviewed the revised Conditions of Approval with the Commission and stated that staff would like to work with the applicant to establish a time frame for complete landscaping of side and rear yards (using CC&R's) and clarified that the developer will be responsible for the landscaping of front yards. He reiterated that the Planning Commission retains Page 4 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 authority of approval for architecture and that the developer's intent is to sell sets of lots to merchant builders. He stated that the two-phase project consists of subdivision improvements such as street, curbs, gutters, and other infrastructure elements (Phase One) and residential development (Phase Two). Chairman Klatchko opened Public Hearing. Mr. Jason Lee, Burnett Companies, addressed the Planning Commission to thank staff for assistance and stated that he will be available for questions. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Matthews called the applicant to the podium. To Commissioner's questions, Mr. Lee reported that, typically his company builds a first phase of 20 houses and a main recreation center to begin development. He stated that the community is gated in order to build a neighborhood feel for the development as it is surrounded by a golf course and a mobile home park as well as to give a sense of pride in ownership, not necessarily as a security issue. He stated that his company is anticipating working with no more than four merchant builders after the project is entitled. He stated that there are two recreation centers, barbeque, and play areas and that approximately 85% of the lots are available for private pools. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he believes security gates can lead to the demise of traditional neighborhoods; however, in the subject case, the gate seems to be acceptable. He asked that it not be overly formal in order to integrate better with the surrounding neighborhood. He also stated that the value of neighborhoods is to encourage families to interact and that the architecture of the neighborhood should also encourage interaction. He stated that he felt the project could be spectacular and that he would like it to have open pedestrian gates if possible. He stated that, in other Coachella Valley cities, walled developments demonstrate the loss of interaction within and between neighborhoods and encouraged the applicant to keep in mind the unique design qualities of Palm Springs. Commissioner Caffery stated that, at the Study Session when this project initially reviewed, it was not gated and he suggested that it be gated as it is at the end of a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Raya concurred. Director reported that instead of standard Southern California Edison overhead lighting, the applicant plans to install decorative street lights on Sunrise Way, entry gates, and at driveways. Commissioner Raya asked that the applicant assure that the lighting is of a pedestrian scale at the entries and for the landscape lighting. Director stated that high-pressure sodium lighting will be used. Dave Barakian, City Engineer reported that staff is pleased with the proposed street narrowing as a means to mitigate traffic impacts. He stated that the applicant plans to incorporate a decorative paving surface at intervals which will also cause traffic to slow down. He stated that the originally Page 5 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12. 2001 proposed median islands are not an effective mitigation tool. Director stated that, as the streets are private, the Homeowners Association may choose to modify traffic calming to a more severe level; but that will not include City review. He stated that the applicant may choose to allow pedestrian traffic through the entries but restrict vehicles with the gate. Commissioner Matthews stated that having gates or not is a marketing issue — that the developer/builders must sell the units and that they and the Homeowner's Association are the appropriate entities to determine the existence and type(s) of gates. Chairman Klatchko thanked City Engineer for reporting about the traffic calming measures proposed and encouraged Planning Commission members to do a site visit to see examples of the discussed narrowing and decorative paving. He confirmed with the Director that Planning Commission consideration of small lot sizes is dependent upon a more creative architectural approach, and that the final architectural development plans will need to be of high quality to meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Director confirmed that staff would include that direction in its report to City Council. M/S/C (Caffery/Matthews 5-0,1 abstention) to approve subject to amended Conditions of Approval and: A. Planning Condition No. 4 to be corrected to require High Pressure Sodium Lighting; and B. Rear and side yard setbacks to be landscaped according to CC&R requirements; and C. Planning Condition Nos. 26 and 27 shall be amended to require decorative landscape lighting and that decorative street lighting will be pedestrian -scale at entries. Case 5.0891 and 5.0893 - General Plan Amendment so as to redesignate property from M-15: Medium Density Residential to Resort Commercial, and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone property from WR2: Watercourse and Limited Multiple -Family Residential Zone to WC1: Watercourse and Retail Business Zone. The property is located at 4601 Matthew Drive, Section 30. Planning Manager reported that the subject property is 1.13.acres of vacant, significantly sloped land with a hillside portion. She stated that detailed development plans have not been submitted but will be consistent with the Resort Commercial General Plan designation and W-C-1 zoning requirements. She stated that the redesignation of this property would serve to extend the Resort Commercial area and is appropriate for the physical condition of the land. Page 6 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Frank Urrutia, applicant, addressed the Planning commission to state that he has plans to build an office building if the redesignation is approved. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. M/S/C (Jurasky/Raya 6-0) to recommend adoption of Resolution recommending filing of Negative Declaration and approval. Case 3.2103 - Application by James Smagala for Architectural Approval and Environmental Assessment(Negative Declaration) for a 206-unit apartment complex (The Gloriette Apartments) on 8.89 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hermosa Drive and Amado Road, R-4 Zone, Section 14. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the proposed 206-unit project will include 16 one bedroom/one bathroom units and 190 two bedroom/two bathroom units (ranging in size from 624 to 936 square feet). He reported that the units will be contained in ten two-story buildings and one three-story building, which will range from 4 to 48 units each. Also included in the proposed development will be an 1,800 square foot community building which will include a gym, meeting room, kitchen, and office. He reported that additional amenities include a central 50' x 100' pool and an 8' x 8' spa area. He reported that the courtyards will feature a trellis, picnic bench, and barbecue. In addition, six roof -top observations decks will be provided. Regarding the surrounding land uses, he reported that there are properties to the north and south which were developed as lower -than -allowed (currently) density, single -story condominiums. He also stated that, for the development to the north, there is an existing six-foot block wall along the shared property line. He reported that, to the west, there are two-story condominiums and that, to the east, the land is unimproved. He stated that the proposed use is consistent with the R-4 High Density Residential Zone and that, although the application is for 206 units, 258 units could be proposed by right -of - zone. He reported that the project also includes landscaped parkways, meandering sidewalks, and decorative screening of the project and the parking lot. He reported that the proposed landscape plan may need to be revised in order to comply with the Section 14 Draft Master Plan and that staff recommends that the applicant meet with City and Tribal planning staff prior to the preparation of the final landscape plan. He reported that parking lot lighting will be a combination of shielded parking lot light fixtures and carport lights, attached to the carports, and screened from view of nearby residences. He stated that staff has received letters of opposition from neighborhood residents which have been supplied to the Planning Commissioners. Director stated that maximum allowable building height for multi -family residential areas is 30 feet but that Section 14 has a High Rise Ordinance which allows a building height of 100 feet. He explained that the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the City have had a contract Page 7 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 agreement since 1977 that the Citywill provide planning, building, engineering, and otherfunctions to the Tribe for Section 14. He stated that the Tribe has an appeal process which Indian land owners, Tribe members, and leaseholders have access to. He stated that the City has worked closely with the Tribe to develop property standards and clarified that the entire area of Section 14 is Indian Reservation and the subject property is zoned R-4 (the highest residential density in the City). He stated that staff would be available, if requested, to meet with area Homeowner's Associations to discuss City and Tribal agreements, the unique land use, and the government to government relationship. He stated that, although the City can not deny the land use as it is allowed by -right -of -zone, the review process should establish the requirement for strong architecture, landscaping, etc. He also stated that the State of California has adopted very strong fair housing laws which prohibit the Planning Commission from differentiating between condominiums and apartments. He stated that the architecture is very strong and includes glass and steel and is in keeping with the City's historical preference for strong architecture. He stated that the amenities (such as the deep, recessed balconies) help to create the indoor/outdoor living preferred in Palm Springs. He stated that staff will use the design review process as a resource to aid in assuring quality materials and design. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Foster Meagher, Board member of the Green House East Homeowner's Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he opposes the proposed development because he feels it will reduce the values of surrounding properties and that it is three times the density of existing development. He stated that he felt the parking was not sufficient and that there should be a traffic study done. He asked that, if the project is approved, that Calle Rolph be continued. He stated that he believed there would be many children at the proposed apartments and that all safety precautions should be implemented regarding traffic, lights, etc. Mr. Robert Fey, applicant representative, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he believes there is some misinformation circulating regarding the proposed development. He stated that there has been a lot of pressure from the landowner of the subject site to increase the density over what is proposed in order to increase income to the landowner. He stated that Palm Springs has almost a zero vacancy rate for residential housing in this market. He stated that the Section 14 land is owned by Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and is being proposed at a much lower density than could be allowed. He stated that the Casa Verde condominium units are much smaller in size than the proposed apartment units (more than half are 1,175 square feet including patio) and that parking is more than sufficient. He stated that current market rates for condominium units selling at Casa Verde are between $65,000 and $71,000 and that for the Green House condominium units, the unit prices range between $125,000 and $160,000. He stated that the apartment units will cost more to build than condominiums such as Casa Verde and that, at the anticipated $1,000 per month rent, will be charging more than the Casa Verde units rent for. He stated that the proposed project will increase property values in the area and offer much -needed housing at a lower density than could be proposed. He urged the Planning Commission approve the application. Mr. Warren Hausman, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that Page 8 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 he agreed with Mr. Meagher's earlier comments regarding density, parking, and traffic study. He stated that he worried that the proposed pools are not enough and residents may trespass into adjacent condominium projects to use the pools and that there do not seem to be enough play areas for children. He stated that he felt there are more appropriate sites in the City for this type of project. Ms. Nick Pask, resident of Green House since 1974, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she was one of the first to close escrow in the Green House condominiums and that she worries that the density and parking of the proposed project are a problem. She stated that, at Green House, parking is not a problem as more than half of the owners are absentee. She said that, after reviewing the artist's rendition, she is shocked at the architecture, and stated that the balconies and stairways could be used as storage areas. She stated that she felt property owners maintain homes better than tenants. Ms. Joan Hausman, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she is strongly opposed to the proposed project; that she is not opposed to development in general and would enthusiastically welcome a project which would compliment the surrounding properties and not, as she feels the proposed project does, undermine the atmosphere of Palm Springs and the subject area. She stated that she felt the project would negatively impact the motivation of homeowners in the area to continue to make home improvements. She stated that she believes the project to be undesirable due to high density, massing, lack of open space, inadequate parking, and lack of playground areas. She stated that there are many areas available in the City to locate this type of project so that it will not be adjacent to a neighborhood. Mr. Dick Rosenberg, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is worried about the quality of life in the neighborhood if the proposed project is approved. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission acted responsibly in approving condominium use at the time when the area was just single family residences; that the development of those condominiums increased property values in the neighborhoods; and that the Planning Commission established a precedent by approving condominium use. He stated that he felt the quality of life will be threatened and that the proposed project is as appropriate as would be locating a K-Mart on El Paseo. He stated that it is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. He asked that the Planning Commission honor the precedent established and help maintain the quality of life in the subject area. Ms. Betsy Ross, real estate broker, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she doesn't think the proposed rents are realistic and that having apartments in the area will make people not want to purchase condominiums or homes there. Mr. John Joyner, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he was previously the Chairman of the Board of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and thanked the Planning Commission for serving the City of Palm Springs. He stated that he agreed with those people opposed to the proposed project. He stated that his district suffered when allowing high density projects. He stated that higher density means higher law enforcement, fire protection, and human services costs, and that it lowers the quality of life. He urged the Planning Commission to Page 9 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 deny the project or mitigate the impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Jim McNatt, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he felt the project does not fit the area and that there are better locations to build an apartment complex. Mr. 011ing Godfrey, Vice President of the Green House Homeowner's Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he objects to the, as he feels, incompatible architecture, the inadequate parking, the high density, and the inadequate pool and playground areas. He stated that Calle Rolph floods in rainy weather and that drainage from the proposed development will exacerbate that problem. He stated that he felt the proposed rents were not reasonable and that he feels the project should be built elsewhere. Mr. Tom Bender, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned with the quality of life if the proposed project is approved. He stated that he felt a successful development does not impact its community. He stated that he felt the safety, traffic, and security issues are problems. He stated the he felt the Tribe will continue to negotiate with the developer even at a lower density. He stated that any new development should be built to complement existing development. Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, President of the Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation (PSEDC), addressed the Planning Commission to state that PSEDC has critically reviewed the proposed project and believes it to be a beneficial project for the City. He reported that members of PSEDC share concerns regarding lack of pools but acknowledged that that is the developer's decision. He stated the he felt the site line portion is much less intrusive that people would think. He stated that Riverside County studies prove that Palm Springs does not have adequate entry-level housing and that the employee base needs this project. He stated that the PSEDC urges the Planning Commission to approve the project. Ms. Diane Matzner, Palm Springs business owner, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she employs 11 people in her downtown businesses and that, for the past 15 years, she has had trouble keeping employees because they cannot find affordable housing in the City. She stated that the issues being raised regarding increased crime are not valid and that many people want to live in Palm Springs but can't until there is housing available. Mr. Joe Rasco addressed the Planning Commission to state that he opposes the proposed project and that he is not anti -development. He read a prepared statement which is on file in the Planning Division. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the project. Ms. Peggy Redman, Attorney for the Green House East Homeowner's Association, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she believes the proposed development does not fit into the neighborhood which was designed and restricted by the City. She stated that she believes there are problems concerning drainage, traffic, and the safety of children. She asked that the City work with the Tribe to eliminate the three-story element from the proposed plans; to bring the development into community standards; and to have a traffic study done. Page 10 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Mr. Jim Smagala, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to thank staff for their work; that he wants to be a good neighbor; and that he believes the proposed project will make the City proud. Mr. Tom Doczi, TKD Associates, addressed the Planning Commission to state that one of the project design considerations was incorporating aspects of existing development such as the internally enclosed design so as to encourage community interaction, decorative, meandering walls, similar landscape palette, open space, and the location of balconies and single story vs. multi -story units. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that drainage flow runs opposite from the Green House and that preliminary grading plans show the drainage originates at the Green House condominium development. He stated that he believes a traffic study has been done and asked staff to confirm. Mr. Lance O'Donnell, O'Donnell & Escalante, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he and his partner, Anna Escalate (a 16-year resident of Palm Springs) and Don Wexler, are the design team and are available for any questions the Planning Commission may have. Mr. Chuck Blum, Green House, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the tranquility of the area will be lost if the proposed project is approved. He stated that he feels there is not room for the development; that children will wander into the streets; and that parking is a problem. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the application. Mr. Don Wexler, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he remembered when Green House was developed and how the neighborhood of single family residences on Alejo opposed that project as are the Green House residents opposing this project. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 4:15 p.m. Chairman Klatchko called a brief recess. The meeting was called back to order at 4:30 p.m. At that time, Commissioner Caffery was called for a family emergency and left the meeting. Director reported that staff has received a memo from the Tribal Planning Director informing of Tribal Council and Tribal Planning Department approvals of the proposed project with recommended Conditions of Approval which include final landscape plan being presented for review by the Tribe and onsite archeologist during grading as the site is close to sensitive historical resources. Director confirmed that these are already included in staffs recommended Conditions of Approval. He also read the Architectural Approval Ordinance regarding the eight points to which the Planning Commission must restrict its review (site layout, relationship to environment, massing Page 11 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 & proportion, building design, harmony of materials, consistency throughout the project, landscape architecture, and the design of signs and lighting), and confirmed that the Planning Commission can not differentiate between rental and ownership housing. He further clarified that the proposed number of units is allowed by -right -of -zone. Commissioner Matthews complimented the neighborhood residents who spoke at the Public Hearing for their ability to remain businesslike during an emotionally -charged issue such as this. He thanked the Chairman for his leadership in assuring such. He asked staff to address the traffic study questions. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, reported that a traffic study has been completed for this project. From that report, the proposed project was conditioned to pay its fair share of a future traffic light on Amado Road and Avenida Caballeros; that there will be no on -street parking on Hermosa or Amado Road. The study projected 1,400 vehicle trips (in and out) from the project per day. He stated that staff has received numerous requests to eliminate on -street parking adjacent to multi- family residential complexes for reasons of security, sight distance, and safety and that, in many cases, the City has complied (e.g. North Indian Canyon Drive at Racquet Club). He also reported, to Commissioner Jurasky's question regarding Calle Rolph, that Calle Rolph is a local street and not a collector or arterial and that is the reason that the project is not accessed from Calle Rolph. Director reported that one condition of the proposed project is that the perimeter of the site will have walls and fences so as not to allow cutting across landscaping to units. He stated that there is adequate parking on -site and that overflow is not considered to be an issue by staff. Commissioner Matthews asked the design team to address comments about the pools. Mr. Tom Doczi reported that a centrally located, resort -sized pool was favored over additional smaller pools in order to use the space for community recreation areas. Commissioner Matthews asked staff to address parking issue. Principal Planner reported that the parking ordinance requires 357 spaces and the applicant has requested an Administrative Minor Modification to reduce the number of spaces by up to 10% which would allow them to provide 321 spaces onsite. He further stated that 17% of the proposed spaces are compact — well under the 40% maximum allowed, and that 59% of the spaces are covered (not a requirement). Director explained that if more parking is requested by the Planning Commission, the number of compact spaces could be increased; adding 15-17 more spaces. Commissioner Matthews asked the applicant to address the issue of storage on balconies and stairwells, and the issue of location selection. Mr. Jim Smagala reported that the Conditions of Approval prohibit such storage and that the onsite property manager would require removal of any storage items placed in these areas. Regarding the location for the project, he stated that there are no other sites available as large; that the project is within R-4 Zoning which does permit apartments, and that the project will be designed to be a Page 12 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 good neighbor. He stated that rules for residents will be instituted which are more stringent than the City's Conditions of Approval require. Commissioner Raya asked the applicant to address the issue of the pool. Mr. Smagala responded that, in his opinion, since many residential developments have two or three pools but close all but one down during the winter, it would be favorable to have one resort style pool with a large deck area and spa. He stated that this could encourage sociability and provide a community atmosphere. He also stated that there are common areas incorporated into the design for possible playground use. Commissioner Raya stated that, while he is sensitive to the issues brought forth in the public hearing and through the many letters of opposition received by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission is charged with determining project approvals through specific findings. He stated that the opposing arguments do not support findings for a denial of the proposed project. He stated that he felt all issues (e.g. traffic, rental vs ownership, playgrounds, pools, on -street parking, etc) have been sufficiently addressed in the application and through the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff for this by -right -of -zone project. He stated that he felt the architecture works within the environment and that, although it doesn't match neighboring development architecture, it would not be desirable to have all architecture homogeneous if Palm Springs is to remain unique from other, more uniformly designed cities. Commissioner Jurasky asked the landscape architect to address the issue of open space, area for children, and screening between the proposed project and Green House East. Mr. Doczi stated that open space amenities are provided for within the design of the project; however, there is not a way to predetermine whether or not residents will have children, be singles, seniors, etc. He described the project as a mini neighborhood and reiterated that there are concentrated green areas for kids. He also stated that the project is not far from Ruth Hardy park which provides recreation amenities (e.g. playground with equipment, tennis, etc.). He stated that there are three gas barbecues in three different outdoor areas — each with different planting palette to delineate it as a unique space (signs and building colors will also help delineate individual areas). He stated there will be roof top areas with views to the west and south. Regarding the screening between Green House East and the subject site, he stated that there is an existing oleander hedge of 8-10 feet in height and a wall which is six feet in height. He stated that the goal is to augment the existing screening with additional landscaping, including canopy trees and shrubs. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt three barbecues will not be enough. He then asked Mr. Smagala to address the density issue. Mr. Smagala stated that the proposed density is a reduction in the allowed density and that 206 units makes the project economically feasible and allow him to develop the quality project proposed. He reported that a property management company will be retained and that tenant applicants will have to sign one-year leases. He stated that there will be strict tenant rules in order to be good neighbors with surrounding development. He also stated that there will be open Page 13 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 telephone access to the property management company available to the neighborhood residents. He stated that, at this time, the project is not proposed to be age -specific. Director clarified that (regarding Condition of Approval No.6) the final landscape plan would be reviewed and approved at staff level and that, as Condition of Approval No.14 states, the final amenity package will be presented to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Jurasky asked whether there was a way that the neighborhood could be involved in reviewing management practices of this facility as a proactive step toward alleviating concerns expressed today. Director stated that the Planning Commission could ask the developer, prior to a point certain, to submit management guidelines and criteria to City staff. Staff could then disseminate to neighborhood leaders and coordinate a meeting (including additional City departments, as needed) in order for the day-to-day management to include neighborhood input. He suggested two representatives from each Homeowner's Association attend such a meeting. Mr. Smagala suggested that neighborhood meetings be held quarterly in orderto maintain effective communication. Commissioner Matthews asked staff to report on other high density multi -family residential areas. Director reviewed aerial map for the Planning Commission, noting the locations of other similar projects (e.g. Marquis Hotel Villas, Palm Springs Village Apartments; timeshare at Murray Canyon, and Biarritz condominiums). M/S/C (Jurasky/Rays 4-0, 1 abstention, 1 absent) to approve filing of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Architectural Approval Application, subject to Conditions of Approval; and Developer to consider creating children's play area north of the main pool area; and Increase parking onsite; and Developer to meet quarterly with representatives of each Homeowner's Association. Unrelated to the application, Commissioner Jurasky asked City Engineer to study conditions in streets of subject area regarding control of public right-of-way use for parking. Case 3.2147 - Application by Alan Salmea for a single family residence, located at 3173 Avenida Sevilla, Zone R-1, Section 35. Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner, reported that the proposed 6,600 square foot home (on a 24,000 square foot lot) conforms to setbacks but needs to be reduced by six inches in height to bring it within zoning requirements (maximum 18 feet in height). Director stated that staff is concerned with the parapet area which needs to be dropped by six inches. He stated that staff will work with applicant on this solvable issue to redesign the roof. He Page 14 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 12. 2001 stated that there is a small structure in the plans which is located in the setbacks and staff's recommended Conditions of Approval require relocation or deletion of this building. He stated that staff has received no comment from area property owners and that staff feels the proposed project will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he was present at the Design Review Committee's review of the architecture and felt that some suggestions were noteworthy; including that the windows have a more consistent theme, the gate treatment should be simpler, the windows on the eastern elevation should be further recessed, and the roof issue as discussed (which are all staff level issues). Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Alan Salmea addressed the Planning Commission to state that the windows on the eastern elevation (back of the house) could be all French with small panels if Planning Commission or staff so directs. He stated that the roof overhang of 2.5 feet is sufficient for shading; therefore, he did not feel the windows needed to be further recessed. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he felt that simplification of the gate treatment (less ornate) would be a good idea for the applicant to consider. He stated that he felt the roof pitches and plate height of windows were inconsistent. Applicant stated that the bathroom windows are raised for privacy. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews 5-0, 1 absent) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval; and work with staff to revise roof plan to reduce parapet area and increase use of roof tile. Case 3.2090 - Application by Cafe Italia at Tuscany Plaza to install exterior lighting along the tenant space. The property is located at 2500 N. Palm Canyon Drive, #D2 and D3, Zone PD, Section 3. Removed from agenda per staff request. WORK PROGRAM: No update. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that at its meeting of November 28, 2001, no Planning related items were reviewed. He stated that at tonight's meeting, City Council will consider the second reading of the Transient Occupancy Tax for adoption of the Municipal Code Amendment. He also reported that the City Council will discuss the vacancy created on the Council by the resignation of Council member Jones. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 19, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 10 Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr. X 10 Ralph Raya X 10 Jon Shoenberger 9 Jon Caffery 9 Mark Matthews X 10 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. FY 00-01 Excused Absences 1 1 1 2 2 The December 19, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, December 14, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Sign Program Amendment — Application by Marcus and Millichap to amend the existing Sign Program for Palm Springs Market Place located at 1717 East Vista Chino Drive, CSC Zone, Section 12. Continued from the November 28, 2001 meeting. Assistant Planner Sky Warden reported that the requested revision to the existing Sign Program would allow for businesses within the center that occupy not less than 18,000 square feet in floor area or are national chain stores to display a business sign on the monument identification signs for the center. She stated that the monument is limited to allow space for only three tenants. Director reported that, as anchor tenants are added in the future, non -anchor tenants would be removed from the monument sign, as the three spaces are used. He also stated that, when additional anchors are located at the center, business should increase for the Dairy Queen. He stated that being a national chain is not an issue with staff. He suggested that center management define criteria for allowing non -anchor businesses advertising space on the monument signs. Chairman Klatchko called any interested parties to the podium. Ms. Lou Cunningham, Dairy Queen owner, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she has obtained approvals from the center manager and Dairy Queen corporate management for her proposed sign and asked the Planning Commission to approve it. She stated that the McDonald's restaurant in the center blocks the view from the street of her business. M/S/C (Jurasky/Matthews 4-0, 2 absent) to approve sign program revision to allow in -line stores to advertise on the Center Identifications Signs (monuments) on an interim basis, subject to the following conditions: A. The center identification signs are to remain limited to advertising three businesses with one business per line, and to use channel lettering; and B. Upon further development of the center, in -line business signs listed on the center identification signs are to be removed and replaced with anchor store signs; and C. Businesses with existing monument signs, or located adjacent to Sunrise Way and Vista Chino Road, shall not be permitted signage on the center identification signs; and D. Prior to issuance of a sign permit for an in -line store, the property owner and in -line store owner shall provide the City with written confirmation that Condition No. 2 above will be complied with. Case 3.2090 — Application by Cafe Italia at Tuscany Plaza to install exterior lighting along the tenant space. The property is located at 2500 N. Palm Canyon Drive, #D2 and D3, Zone PD, Section 3. Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Assistant Planner Todd Mierau reported that the applicant is requesting lighting on a one -tenant suite within the center at Tuscany Plaza. He showed photographs of the proposed rope light design bordering the underside of the canopy of the patio (which is existing and visible from the street). He reported that this is currently not the trend of the Tuscany Plaza and that staff cannot support the proposed lighting. Director stated that the Planning Commission has set the policy for high quality outdoor architecture lighting components for buildings and not for portions of a building such as is proposed. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Applicant not present. Commissioner Raya suggested that staff work with the applicant. Chairman Klatchko confirmed that the current Planning Commission guidelines as stated by the Director are correct and instructed staff to work with applicant. Application withdrawn. Sign Program — Application by Quiel Bros. Signs for a sign program for Plaza del Sol located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-1, RMHP Zone, Section 22. Continued from the meeting of November 28, 2001. Commissioner Raya abstained due to a conflict of interest but stated that he would participate for purposes of establishing a quorum. Assistant Planner Sky Warden reported that, per the Planning Commission request of November 28, 2001, the applicant has submitted a site plan showing possible locations of new monument signs per the proposed sign program. She stated that the applicant has communicated to staff that this diagram only shows locations in relation to existing development. She stated that the locations include all driveway entrances to the plaza and in the frontage of the anchor building at the leading corner of the shopping center (Cedar Creek). She reiterated that approximately 30% of the current business signs have not been reviewed or permitted by the City and that the proposed Sign Program will help direct a unifying theme for the assorted businesses within the center and be an aid to bringing all signs into compliance. Director reported that funding has been approved for the Belardo Road Bridge and that, when completed, traffic will increase between Belardo and South Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that the request is within the Ordinance and would satisfy tenant and applicant requests. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. John Wessman, property owner, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the application is intended to prepare for future development. He agreed that the Belardo Road Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19. 2001 improvements will improve traffic by the site. He stated that there is 600 feet between the two entrances on South Palm Canyon Drive and that, in order to increase tenant occupancy in the center, the proposed signage is necessary. He stated that there is access on Avenida Olancha; however, traffic is prohibited from making a left-hand turn from South Palm Canyon Drive to Avenida Olancha. He suggested that Avenida Palmeras be utilized in the future as a major entrance to the center (including a possible traffic light). Mr. Larry Quiel, Quiel Bros. Signs, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the parcel is huge and that the number of signs requested is necessary. He asked that, along with future development, the Sign Program allow for possible amendment(s) due to new tenant requests. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 3-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve the Sign Program with the following conditions: A. All monument sign designs shall be similar in materials and lighting to the architectural design of the Center Identification signs; and B. Monument signs shall be limited to locations shown on Exhibit A Sign Program Amendment — Application by Wessman Development Company to amend the existing Sign Program for the Mercado Plaza located at 155 South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Commissioner Raya abstained due to a conflict of interest but stated that he would participate for purposes of a quorum. Director reported that the current sign program specifies that all businesses within the Mercado Plaza follow City Code pertaining to size requirements. He stated that this anchor tenant is challenged by the location of the building and the streetscape. He stated that the applicant has requested amending the Sign Program to allow for a larger sign to represent the largest, second - floor food/entertainment anchor -like tenant (The Falls restaurant). He reported that City Code for the downtown area allows for a blade sign to have a maximum of 16 square feet with four feet in any one direction. He reported that the proposed sign measures 5'9" x 6'1" and equals approximately 35 square feet. He stated that the applicant has redesigned the sign to be no more than six colors as required by City Code. He noted that an encroachment agreement may be necessary because the proposed blade sign would encroach approximately nine inches into the public right-of-way air space. He explained that it would hang perpendicular from the wall and be double-faced. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he did not feel that limiting the applicant to six colors is necessary in this well -designed sign and that seven colors should be allowed if necessary. M/S/C (Jurasky/Matthews 3-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve Sign Program revision to allow Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19. 2001 the largest, second floor food/entertainment anchor tenant a 35 square foot sign with seven colors on the South Palm Canyon Drive frontage. Sign Program — Application by Best Signs for Sign Program for property located at 262 South Palm Canyon Drive (The Deck and The Chophouse), CBD Zone, Section 15. Commissioner Raya abstained due to a conflict of interest but stated that he would participate for purposes of a quorum. Director reviewed exhibits for Planning Commission and stated that the Deck is a completely separate business from the Chophouse (separate kitchen, entries, etc) even though they are currently under common ownership. He stated that the proposed painted blade sign for the Deck may need an encroachment agreement and an alternate location, depending upon the ownership of the stem wall between Chophouse and the Village Pub. M/S/C (Jurasky/Matthews 3-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve the Sign Program subject to all secondary signs complying with the Sign Ordinance size provisions and relocating the blade deck sign to an alternative location. MISCELLANEOUS: TTM 29284 — Application by Parocela Group LLC for a time extension to allow conversion of existing 14-unit apartments for Tentative Tract Map for 955 Parocela Place, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Chairman Klatchko abstained due to a conflict of interest. Director reported that all the facts from the Tentative Tract Map are still pertinent to allow the condominium conversion. M/S/C (Raya/Matthews 3-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve time extension for one year. Case 5.0850 — PD 263 — TTM 29695 — Planning Commission clarification regarding landscape maintenance for the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition project located on the west side of Avenida Caballeros between Cottonwood and Chuckwalla road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Director reported that the approved Conditions of Approval require the formation of a Maintenance District for the public right-of-way at the street frontage. He reported that, after seeing the final landscape plans, applicant and staff feel the administrative burden and cost of the Maintenance Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19. 2001 District is too great, considering the amount of landscaping and the location. He explained that a Maintenance District has to include water meters, irrigation (two separate systems) and that, if this were a larger project or the street activity were more, the Maintenance District would go forward. He stated that final development plans will come before the Planning Commission in January. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, concurred that a Maintenance District would be impractical for this project. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Ms. Rebecca Dennis, Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she is confident that the homeowners will maintain their yards. She stated that the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition has built 7,700 single family residences and that they are all well maintained. She stated that, because there are only nine units, a Homeowner's Association would be burdensome to form. Ms. Maxine Warick, Interactive Design, addressed the Planning Commission to state that, as part of the final development plans, irrigation plans will be submitted for the lots which will be designed to be easy to maintain with a desert-scape including decomposed granite. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 4-0, 2 absent) to strike Condition No. 15 from original Conditions of Approval. Case 5.0871 — Application by Alan Seymour for a one-time modification to Conditional Use Permit planning condition #13, to allow operation between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. on New Year's Eve, Monday, December 31, 2001 at Head Hunters nightclub, located at 611 South Palm Canyon Drive #16, Zone C-2, Section 22. Director reported that the request is for a one-time event. He stated that staff checked with the Fire and Police Departments and received no complaints regarding this business, which has been open since November 11, 2001. Chairman Klatchko thanked the applicant for respecting the Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commission's role by coming forth with the subject application as per the City regulations. M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 4-0, 2 absent) to approve one-time event subject to any specific requirements by the Police Department. CONSENT AGENDA: None Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Director requested that, since the Section 14 Master Plan subcommittee has not met in the past two years, the Chairman appoint a new subcommittee. He reported that the Tribe is close to releasing the final Master Plan. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Director reported that, at its meeting tonight, the City Council will review the Desert Shadows Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for the development of 17 condominiums at the northeast corner of Indian Canyon Drive and Stephens Road; an OPA with Palm Springs Apartments for the rehabilitation of a 16-unit apartment complex located on Cottonwood Road and East Chuckwalla Road; and the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition's OPA Amendment request. He reported that the City Council will also consider the contract with Dozier Appraisal for services to determine "as is" market value for the Spanish Inn on Indian Canyon Drive; a lease agreement with John Wessman for three Plaza Theater signs; Final Map 29695 for the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition to divide property on Chuckwalla Road and Cottonwood Road; and an agreement with Walker Parking Consultants for preparation of Design Build documents for the construction of the Downtown Parking Structure, which could be built by the summer of 2002 if construction begins by June 01, 2002. He also reported that the City Council will consider an advance from future Measure "Y" allocations for the construction of the Palm Springs Skate Park and Swim Center. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Director thanked the Planning Commission for having this specially -scheduled meeting in order to keep development projects moving,ahead through the holiday season since there would not have been a quorum at the meeting of December 26, 2001. He reported that the various business owners attending today's meeting did appreciate it. He confirmed that, although on a fast track, the Downtown Parking Structure is still subject to standard Planning Commission approval processes. He reported that Walker Parking Consultants are proposing to use Jim Cioffi as the design architect and that the team approach will enable the Planning Commission to review efficiently. Commissioner Jurasky asked Director to report regarding timeframe for the Belardo Road Bridge construction. Director reported that Caltrans is waiting for federal funding monies to arrive. Once Caltrans notifies the City of funding confirmation, it will be an approximate 18-month construction schedule. He anticipated that it would be completed within the next two -to -three years. Commissioner Jurasky asked for an update of the future remodel of the Spa Casino. Director reported that there has been no update from the Tribe to staff at this time. Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Chairman Klatchko asked Director to report regarding the status of the Design Review Committee. Director reported that the City Manager has asked for options (e.g. keep the same as current, adopt draft amendments to Ordinance, or form a hybrid of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee) for improving the current system and will present those options to the City Council in January to get additional direction. He also stated that the City Attorney will be working on some legal issues and concerns and that he will report back to the Planning Commission. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building