Video index
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Calerdine called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Roll Call: 7 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was posted and available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 6:00 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2016.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
Planning Director Fagg reported the applicant has requested to postpone the hearing on Item 2D.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ROBERT BRUGEMAN, spoke in favor of Item 2A, said liked the Hacienda Cantina and encouraged the re-adaptive use of the building.
DAVID DRY, spoke in reference to Item 2B and 2C, thinks the environmental impact for both projects are outdated. He spoke about the many problems created by the adjacent Desert Palisades development including traffic, noise and blow sand.
BRAD KAIN, spoke in reference to Item 2B and 2C, spoke about the problems associated with the construction of Desert Palisades including 3600 trucks going up and down the hill, speeding and early morning construction.
FRANK TYSEN, spoke about the PDD process and problems of over-development associated with it and requested postponement of any PDD approval until important information comes back from the ad hoc committees.
ANDY LINSKY, spoke in reference to Items 2B and 2C, said he endorsed the letter submitted by the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Association. He requested the time extensions not be approved without an updated EIR.
MICHELE JOHNSON, spoke about over-development and the problems associated with it.
TANYA PATROVNA, spoke in opposition of Item 2B and 2C, requested denial of the time extensions.
TIM ERKINS, spoke in reference to Item 2B, 2C and 2D, noted all the hotels coming forward and said affordable housing is what is needed in this city especially with the college coming in.
There being no further speakers public comment was closed.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1A. RUDY DVORAK, CLIVE WILKINSON AND CHERYL SCOTT REQUESTING A SUMMARY VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE VACATED PORTION OF PATENCIO ROAD, BETWEEN LINDA VISTA DRIVE AND RAMON ROAD, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, S.B.M., (ENG. FILE R 15-14). (FP)
Motion to approve Approve Item 1A as part of the Consent Calendar. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Donenfeld.
Vote to approve Approve Item 1A as part of the Consent Calendar. (Approved)
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2A. DEVELOP GOOD, LLC ON BEHALF OF JOHN WESSMAN (LESSEE) FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 66-ROOM, THREE-STORY HOTEL BUILDING WITHIN THE PLAZA DEL SOL SHOPPING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (CASE NOS. 3.3937 MAJ AND 5.0177 PD-131 AMEND). (DN)
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed project as outlined in the staff report. He indicated that the applicant has added additional parking spaces to the west as requested by the Architectural Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Donenfeld requested clarification on:
-Is a tract map required for this site?
Commissioner Middleton requested clarification on:
-Does the original PDD include the entire 17-acre site? (yes)
-Is the 4% reduction in open-space calculated for the 17-acre site? (yes)
-Is there room for more development on the 17-acre site? If so, would this include a further reduction in open-space?
-If this project would not be on Indian land what height limit would apply to this site?
Commissioner Weremiuk requested clarification on:
-If this the open-space for this project was not being measured by the PDD how much open-space would be required under the High-Rise Ordinance?
-Is a list of public benefits available to utilize for this project?
-Will the large speakers be a part of the project? (no)
-Will the wood-framing (on the cabanas) that faces Palm Canyon on the Hacienda Cantina be replaced with modern tile?
-Was there a neighborhood meeting held?
Commissioner Hirschbein requested clarification on:
-Height standards and open-space requirements.
-How much is the 4% of open-space in square footage?
-Is the area that is not paved a part of the application?
-Parking requirements - exceeds by 37 parking spaces.
Commission Hudson requested clarification on:
-Were any other material boards/samples submitted?
Chair Calerdine opened the public hearing:
-CHRIS PARDO, Pardo Design, provided background history of the entire site and the existing building (formerly Hacienda Cantina). He described the hotel concept, rooms, setbacks, height, restaurant, tree shading, hotel entry, building fascade, balcony and mechanical screening.
FRANK TYSEN, spoke about how the Architectural Advisory Committee did not discuss how it would fit into the existing Plaza Del Sol and architectural style. He commented that the city needs eclectic character and there's over-development in the city.
ROBERT BRUGEMAN, does not think 66 rooms will ruin the local economy; noting that this is vacant building with a dirt lot behind it and is not useful to the city and its residents. He commented that the building design is eclectic style.
TANYA PETROVNA, said the restaurant was not financially viable and could have been predestined to be something else. Hope it works out for the best.
ROBERT FINELY, said he and his wife suffered from the Hacienda Cantina noise and appreciate the building as a buffer; and it sounds like an excellent project.
CHRIS PARDO, was available for questions.
There being no further speakers public comments was closed.
Commissioner Middleton requested details pertaining to:
-Neighborhood outreach efforts provided and requested they reach out to all the neighborhoods in this area.
-Similarities and differences between the Arrive Hotel and the Belardo Hotel.
-Will music event be held? (The applicant agreed with a requirement to provide public notice prior to the music events.)
-How will this building impact the sound reverabation from the mountains to the west.
-Monitoring sound levels for music events.
-Noise decibels.
Commissioner Hudson commented on the architecture of the building:
-The east and west elevations is an interesting technique to get sun shading for the rooms and balconies.
-There are ways of tying this complex with the other buildings - by using colors and materials (with tiles and modern materials).
-The north and south elevations of the building - the vertical windows need further strategy - jointing of stucco or perhaps a different material. The AAC may need to review further. The south elevation fronting the entry drive with the exterior fire escape doors and would like to see it shielded more or fully enclosed.
-Thinks the mountain view and shading for the swimming pool and outdoor dining will be a missed opportunity. He thinks moving the building 15 to the west and eliminating a bay area to address this situation.
Commissioner Weremiuk requested clarification on:
-How much area is the 4% open-space?
-Concurs with Commission Hudson with moving the hotel back and keep the open-space she prefers.
-Not excited about the architecture; appreciates the model. Does mind it being eclectic and doesn't believe in duplicating the 70's.
-The wood detailing on the Palm Canyon frontage appears to be more of a beach club; more detailing with the concrete detailing would improve the look of the hotel from the street on the exterior.
-Concerned about the public benefit and loss of open space.
-Would like to see the hotel moved back 15 feet and additional open-space for the hotel.
Commissioner Hirschbein made the following comments:
-Thinks its a great project.
-The model looks compressed and agrees with Commissioner Hudson about pushing back the building.
-He likes the notion about tying in the building with colors & materials and suggested a more sculptural staircase at the front entry.
Commissioner Donenfeld commented on:
-Thinks a great project as a hotel space.
-He thinks moving it back is fine but not certain that 15 ft. might be too far.
Commissioner Middleton made the following comments:
-Outstanding project and the transformation of this part of town has remarkable and this project will firm up the positive development. -Defer to collegues on the architecture.
-Extremely supportive of the project.
Commissioner Lowe spoke in support of this project and suggested blending-in the frontage on Palm Canyon.
Motion to approve Continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016 to allow the applicant to address suggestions made by the Commission as follows:
-Blend-in the colors of the existing building into the new building.
-Further articulation for the stairwell.
-Push back the building back 15 feet to create more open-space .
-Consider using a different material for the wood elements on the Palm Canyon fascade.
-Report back on neighborhood outreach. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Chair Calerdine.
Vote to approve Continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016 to allow the applicant to address suggestions made by the Commission as follows:
-Blend-in the colors of the existing building into the new building.
-Further articulation for the stairwell.
-Push back the building back 15 feet to create more open-space .
-Consider using a different material for the wood elements on the Palm Canyon fascade.
-Report back on neighborhood outreach. (Approved)
A recess was taken at 3:00 pm.
The meeting resumed at 3:10 pm.
Chair Calerdine stated that he will be recusing himself from Item 2B and 2C due to the EIR is a big issue; noting that his firm worked on the EIR nine years ago.
2B. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE BOULDERS; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31095; A SUBDIVISION OF A 30.4-ACRE PARCEL OF 45 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF VIA ESCUELA, SOUTH OF RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND NORTH OF CHINO CANYON ROAD, (TTM 31095) (ER).
Principal Planner Robertson provided an overview of the proposed one-year time extension request.
The Commission had technical questions pertaining to:
Commissioner Donenfeld:
-Clarification on the staff'recommendations for Items 2B and 2C.
-Clarification on the merits of the time extension.
-Consideration to re-open the Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Middleton:
-City Council's approval date of 2007.
-Has there been any legal impediments since 2007 for the developer to proceed with this project?
-Are mitigation measures for construction traffic to off-site addressed in the E.I.R.?
-Does construction traffic create an issue that should be re-visited in terms of the environmental impact report?
-Can it be verified that the original projections for traffic remain consistent and additional traffic created from other projects does not create new burden for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Weremiuk:
-Dates the final map, improvement plans and application was received.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk opened the public hearing:
MICHAEL BRAUN, developer, spoke about the background history on Boulders and Crescendo including the both projects the E.I.R., neighborhood meetings, market analysis for high-end homes, stabilization of market and an economic study performed on Boulder and Crescendo. Mr. Braun clarified that no changes have been made to Boulders and Crescendo only those imposed by the City with regard to the conditions of approval.
DENISE HOECTER, said she's lived in this area for a long time, commented on the developers running into a problem of moving the large boulders. She said a new E.I.R. is needed because the traffic has increased on Racquet Club Road and the land has been disturbed on Crescendo and will sit up higher and talked about the need for a new study.
TONY HOECTER, board member, Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, said the neighborhood as a whole agrees that a new E.I.R. needs to be determined. He stated that the topography has changed and the load to Racquet Club Road will be impacted.
NICKIE MC LAUGHLIN, chair, Friends of Palm Springs Mountains, spoke about the CEQA litigation settled with the applicant in May 2008. She stated that they feel that the current EIR is no longer valid due to the new surrounding projects that have impacted the neighborhood.
ROBERT ROTMAN, resident, Little Tuscany Neighborhood, believes that a 10 year EIR does not reflect the current environment. He said there has been significant impacts by Desert Palisades and Tuscany Heights that were not included in their EIR.
FRANK TYSEN, said that so much has changed and it's time to start and terminate the two approvals.
MICHAEL BRAUN, applicant rebuttal, responded that CEQA is a good process but unfortunately it is being abused to stifle the project such as the Downtown project. He said both projects have been analyzed and there are no new findings based on the facts. He clarified that Boulders and Crescendo have not been touched in the past 9 years but by the other developers.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Middleton requested the applicant describe over the last 6 months to a year the outreach programs for working with the neighborhood and what plans are to mitigate construction traffic and the impact of construction on the neighborhood. Mr. Braun responded neighborhood outreach was extensively conducted in 2006 and 2007 to address all these issues. He said it is he belief that once a project is approved and gone into construction provided that the mitigation measures are met and the construction documents reflect what was approved no additional neighborhood outreach is necessary. That being said it is their plan once the final map is approved before construction begins to meet with the neighborhoods again to discuss how they can mitigate any impacts they have learned from Little Tuscany Heights and Desert Palisades and are willing to address any concerns.
Commissioner Middleton made a motion to deny the time extension. She stated that although she appreciates the financial demands that are placed upon a developer with undertaking a project of this size. Yet what the Commission is looking at is public policy input from the neighborhood that is nine years old. The individuals that are the most impacted by the construction of this project are not a getting an opportunity to weigh in on this project nor able to adapt the project to current circumstance. What we have is only a project that can be continued and decided almost a decade ago. Many issues need to be addressed not only on this project but others. The developer has had since 2008 to proceed on this project and has not proceeded. Cannot take the new residents where they are disenfrancised from having an effective voice over the appropriateness of this project.
Motion to approve Deny. Moved by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Commissioner Hirschbein concurred with the motion. He believes that the Desert Palisades project raised the bar on how hillside developments should be designed particularly by allowing the natural terrain and getting away from mass grading. He would like another opportunity to see how this project is graded.
Commissioner Donenfeld said he's very sympatetic to the neighbors but this project has been controversial since the date it was approved. However, as he understands the law the merits of the project cannot be re-litigated and their focus must be very narrow on the merits of the extension. He stated that if a new EIR is going to be requested we must have very solid ground upon to do so with concrete, demonstrable changes that are in significant in effect that require an EIR to be done. He does not believe anything heard today will allow them to deny the extension or request a new EIR because in good faith there was a significant economic downturn and we are talking about high-end homes. A mix of homes is needed in the community. For this reason he will be voting no on this motion.
Commissioner Lowe concurred with Commissioner Donenfeld noting that their focus is very narrow in terms of looking at the extension and whether the applicant has taken appropriate measures to move this project along and there is no evidence that they have not.
Commissioner Hudson noted this is a complicated case and agrees with both sides. He questioned if conditions could be imposed to address issues such as traffic safety in terms of the truck loads, noise and dirt.
Commission Weremiuk said she will second the motion for denial and believes this is an issue for Council.
Commissioner Middleton clarified that she did not make her motion based on the understanding that a new EIR was required but rather that public input is needed for a project of this scale nine years after it was approved. She believes the time for public input is before approval are obtained.
Mr. Braun responded that they are in construction documents and plan to meet with the neighbors to mitigate any concerns they may have. He explained that Boulders is a subdivision of 45 lots and each future owner will come with separate plans.
Motion to adopted Deny. Moved by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vote to approve Deny. (Declined)
MOTION FAILED.
Motion to approve Approve the time extension subject to:
1. The applicant to present logistics of construction mechanics to the Planning Commission upon submittal of construction plans and set-up a subcommittee to work with him on scheduling of truck loads and speed limits.
2. If rock crushing is allowed it shall be done with the most to date equipment and non-invasive as possible.
3. Moved by Commissioner Donenfeld, seconded by Commissioner Hudson.
Vote to approve Approve the time extension subject to:
1. The applicant to present logistics of construction mechanics to the Planning Commission upon submittal of construction plans and set-up a subcommittee to work with him on scheduling of truck loads and speed limits.
2. If rock crushing is allowed it shall be done with the most to date equipment and non-invasive as possible.
3. (Declined)
MOTION FAILED.
Planning Director Fagg stated that on the second failed motion this item will be deferred to City Council.
2C. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE CRESCENDO; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 42.2-ACRE PARCEL INTO 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 TO CONSTRUCT 79 CUSTOM HOMES AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE; (CASE 5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766) (ER).
Chair Calerdine previously noted his abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote on this Item.
City Attorney Daudt provided details on the status of the map; noting that it will not expire until 2019 and today's hearing consists of review of the extension of time for the PDD only.
Principal Planner Robertson provided an overview of proposed time extension request for Planned Development District 294.
Director Fagg pointed-out that unlike the Boulders project this is a Planned Development District that has been approved with relief from certain development standards.
Commissioner Middleton asked staff for clarification on the appropriateness to continue this matter until a resolution has been reached by City Council on Item 2B.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk opened the public hearing:
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that no changes have been made to the project. Mr. Braun provided details on the pad elevations, explained all pad elevations, neighborhood outreach, in-fill project and was available for questions from the Commission.
DAVID DRY, resides across the development, commented that the Desert Palisades' environmental impact report should have been re-evaluated because of more than 15 - 20,000 of dirt and boulder needed to be removed from the project than projected. They had problems with blow sand and the city was unresponsive.
ROBERT ROTMAN, referred to the letter from Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, reiterated that the 10 year environmental impact report needs be examined again and does not think it addresses mitigation of construction on the neighborhood.
DENISE HOECTER, resides at Palermo Development, commented about the loud noises from rock crushing from the Desert Palisades. She thinks a new environmental impact study needs to be done because the traffic is bad and the site has changed.
TONY HOECTER, said that nine years is enough time and questioned where the line is drawn. He said the whole area has changed.
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that Desert Palisades project is a 100-acre and Crescendo is 40-acre project. He addressed the topography, traffic count and their intent to provide neighborhood outreach meetings.
There being no further speakers the pubic hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hirschbein preferred that the City Council direct the policy on this project.
Commissioner Middleton said she will vote to deny because it's important for the public to have the opportunity to re-visit projects of this magnitude and nine years is just too long. She pointed-out that in other time extension requests where there has been a mitigating factor that factor should be taken into consideration as to whether to grant the extension. However, this developer is stating that economically this project did not make sense to proceed during the approval time. She does not believe it is responsible public policy to grant to a developer a lifetime entitlement for a project. At some point in time the developer must return to the public process and obtain input regarding the magnitude of the project.
Motion to approve To deny. Moved by Commissioner Hirschbein, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk will second the motion and concurs with the previous two speakers. She believes nine years is sufficient time and the relief given with the PD is stale.
Vote to approve To deny. (Approved)
Chair Calerdine re-enter the Council Chamber at 4:41 pm.
2D. SUMMIT LAND PARTNERS, REQUEST FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION (PDD 384); A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 36969), TO SUBDIVIDE 10.2 NET ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED PARCEL INTO 92 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 92 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND MATTHEW DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 30 (CASE NO. 5.1384-PD 384/TTM 36969). (ER)
Motion to approve To continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Middleton.
Vote to approve To continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016. (Approved)
3. NEW BUSINESS:
3A. JOSHUA LEVY, OWNER OF STONEWALL GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, FOR A REQUEST TO REMOVE AGE RESTRICTION FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 40-BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 2150 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE PDD 362, (CASE 5.1293 CUP / PDD 362 AMND). (KL)
Associate Planner Lyon provided an overview on the proposed request to remove one condition of approval as outlined in the staff report.
JOSH LEVY, applicant, clarified there everybody that is living at the resort requires assisted living. There is no independent living.
Commissioner Middleton requested clarification on what age groups are being requested to be removed. She expressed appreciation for this type of work; however, she noted concern with the need for LGBT seniors to access this type of service.
Commissioner Donenfeld recalled this when it was approved and questioned if the elderly LGBT population will still receive the care needed.
Motion to approve Approve and remove Condition of Approval No. ADM. 1C. Moved by Commissioner Hirschbein, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vote to approve Approve and remove Condition of Approval No. ADM. 1C. (Approved)
3B. PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC FOR REVIEW OF THE DOWNTOWN PALM SPRINGS RENOVATION PROJECT SIDEWALK LIGHTING, AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD (CASE NOS. 5.1290 PD-361, 3.3605 MAJ, 3.3606 MAJ, 3.3607 MAJ, 3.3785 MAJ). (DN)
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed revised light fixture as outlined in the staff memorandum.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk noted that she was a part of the City Council subcommittee to review the landscape plan and said that this fixture was not proposed. Staff provided clarification.
-Concern with the foot candle of this fixture.
Commissioner Middleton said she likes how the light will reflect and supports approval of the light fixture.
RALPH RAYA, lighting consultant, addressed questions from the Commission pertaining to the lighting wattage and intensity of light.
Commissioner Hudson spoke in support of the lighting fixture and trusts the lighting professionals for the coloration. He noticed there are no special light fixtures along the parking lot behind the West Elm building and would prefer to soften these elevations.
Motion to approve Approve and determine project conditions related to landscape/sidewalk lighting have been fulfilled. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Chair Calerdine.
Vote to approve Approve and determine project conditions related to landscape/sidewalk lighting have been fulfilled. (Approved)
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND COMMENTS:
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned at 5:26 pm to a study session at 11:30 am, Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Large Conference Room, followed by the regular meeting at 1:30 pm, Council Chamber, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
Aug 10, 2016 Planning Commission
Full agenda
Share this video
Video Index
Full agenda
Share
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Calerdine called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Roll Call: 7 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was posted and available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 6:00 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2016.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
Planning Director Fagg reported the applicant has requested to postpone the hearing on Item 2D.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ROBERT BRUGEMAN, spoke in favor of Item 2A, said liked the Hacienda Cantina and encouraged the re-adaptive use of the building.
DAVID DRY, spoke in reference to Item 2B and 2C, thinks the environmental impact for both projects are outdated. He spoke about the many problems created by the adjacent Desert Palisades development including traffic, noise and blow sand.
BRAD KAIN, spoke in reference to Item 2B and 2C, spoke about the problems associated with the construction of Desert Palisades including 3600 trucks going up and down the hill, speeding and early morning construction.
FRANK TYSEN, spoke about the PDD process and problems of over-development associated with it and requested postponement of any PDD approval until important information comes back from the ad hoc committees.
ANDY LINSKY, spoke in reference to Items 2B and 2C, said he endorsed the letter submitted by the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Association. He requested the time extensions not be approved without an updated EIR.
MICHELE JOHNSON, spoke about over-development and the problems associated with it.
TANYA PATROVNA, spoke in opposition of Item 2B and 2C, requested denial of the time extensions.
TIM ERKINS, spoke in reference to Item 2B, 2C and 2D, noted all the hotels coming forward and said affordable housing is what is needed in this city especially with the college coming in.
There being no further speakers public comment was closed.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1A. RUDY DVORAK, CLIVE WILKINSON AND CHERYL SCOTT REQUESTING A SUMMARY VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE VACATED PORTION OF PATENCIO ROAD, BETWEEN LINDA VISTA DRIVE AND RAMON ROAD, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, S.B.M., (ENG. FILE R 15-14). (FP)
Motion to approve Approve Item 1A as part of the Consent Calendar. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Donenfeld.
Vote to approve Approve Item 1A as part of the Consent Calendar. (Approved)
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2A. DEVELOP GOOD, LLC ON BEHALF OF JOHN WESSMAN (LESSEE) FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 66-ROOM, THREE-STORY HOTEL BUILDING WITHIN THE PLAZA DEL SOL SHOPPING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (CASE NOS. 3.3937 MAJ AND 5.0177 PD-131 AMEND). (DN)
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed project as outlined in the staff report. He indicated that the applicant has added additional parking spaces to the west as requested by the Architectural Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Donenfeld requested clarification on:
-Is a tract map required for this site?
Commissioner Middleton requested clarification on:
-Does the original PDD include the entire 17-acre site? (yes)
-Is the 4% reduction in open-space calculated for the 17-acre site? (yes)
-Is there room for more development on the 17-acre site? If so, would this include a further reduction in open-space?
-If this project would not be on Indian land what height limit would apply to this site?
Commissioner Weremiuk requested clarification on:
-If this the open-space for this project was not being measured by the PDD how much open-space would be required under the High-Rise Ordinance?
-Is a list of public benefits available to utilize for this project?
-Will the large speakers be a part of the project? (no)
-Will the wood-framing (on the cabanas) that faces Palm Canyon on the Hacienda Cantina be replaced with modern tile?
-Was there a neighborhood meeting held?
Commissioner Hirschbein requested clarification on:
-Height standards and open-space requirements.
-How much is the 4% of open-space in square footage?
-Is the area that is not paved a part of the application?
-Parking requirements - exceeds by 37 parking spaces.
Commission Hudson requested clarification on:
-Were any other material boards/samples submitted?
Chair Calerdine opened the public hearing:
-CHRIS PARDO, Pardo Design, provided background history of the entire site and the existing building (formerly Hacienda Cantina). He described the hotel concept, rooms, setbacks, height, restaurant, tree shading, hotel entry, building fascade, balcony and mechanical screening.
FRANK TYSEN, spoke about how the Architectural Advisory Committee did not discuss how it would fit into the existing Plaza Del Sol and architectural style. He commented that the city needs eclectic character and there's over-development in the city.
ROBERT BRUGEMAN, does not think 66 rooms will ruin the local economy; noting that this is vacant building with a dirt lot behind it and is not useful to the city and its residents. He commented that the building design is eclectic style.
TANYA PETROVNA, said the restaurant was not financially viable and could have been predestined to be something else. Hope it works out for the best.
ROBERT FINELY, said he and his wife suffered from the Hacienda Cantina noise and appreciate the building as a buffer; and it sounds like an excellent project.
CHRIS PARDO, was available for questions.
There being no further speakers public comments was closed.
Commissioner Middleton requested details pertaining to:
-Neighborhood outreach efforts provided and requested they reach out to all the neighborhoods in this area.
-Similarities and differences between the Arrive Hotel and the Belardo Hotel.
-Will music event be held? (The applicant agreed with a requirement to provide public notice prior to the music events.)
-How will this building impact the sound reverabation from the mountains to the west.
-Monitoring sound levels for music events.
-Noise decibels.
Commissioner Hudson commented on the architecture of the building:
-The east and west elevations is an interesting technique to get sun shading for the rooms and balconies.
-There are ways of tying this complex with the other buildings - by using colors and materials (with tiles and modern materials).
-The north and south elevations of the building - the vertical windows need further strategy - jointing of stucco or perhaps a different material. The AAC may need to review further. The south elevation fronting the entry drive with the exterior fire escape doors and would like to see it shielded more or fully enclosed.
-Thinks the mountain view and shading for the swimming pool and outdoor dining will be a missed opportunity. He thinks moving the building 15 to the west and eliminating a bay area to address this situation.
Commissioner Weremiuk requested clarification on:
-How much area is the 4% open-space?
-Concurs with Commission Hudson with moving the hotel back and keep the open-space she prefers.
-Not excited about the architecture; appreciates the model. Does mind it being eclectic and doesn't believe in duplicating the 70's.
-The wood detailing on the Palm Canyon frontage appears to be more of a beach club; more detailing with the concrete detailing would improve the look of the hotel from the street on the exterior.
-Concerned about the public benefit and loss of open space.
-Would like to see the hotel moved back 15 feet and additional open-space for the hotel.
Commissioner Hirschbein made the following comments:
-Thinks its a great project.
-The model looks compressed and agrees with Commissioner Hudson about pushing back the building.
-He likes the notion about tying in the building with colors & materials and suggested a more sculptural staircase at the front entry.
Commissioner Donenfeld commented on:
-Thinks a great project as a hotel space.
-He thinks moving it back is fine but not certain that 15 ft. might be too far.
Commissioner Middleton made the following comments:
-Outstanding project and the transformation of this part of town has remarkable and this project will firm up the positive development. -Defer to collegues on the architecture.
-Extremely supportive of the project.
Commissioner Lowe spoke in support of this project and suggested blending-in the frontage on Palm Canyon.
Motion to approve Continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016 to allow the applicant to address suggestions made by the Commission as follows:
-Blend-in the colors of the existing building into the new building.
-Further articulation for the stairwell.
-Push back the building back 15 feet to create more open-space .
-Consider using a different material for the wood elements on the Palm Canyon fascade.
-Report back on neighborhood outreach. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Chair Calerdine.
Vote to approve Continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016 to allow the applicant to address suggestions made by the Commission as follows:
-Blend-in the colors of the existing building into the new building.
-Further articulation for the stairwell.
-Push back the building back 15 feet to create more open-space .
-Consider using a different material for the wood elements on the Palm Canyon fascade.
-Report back on neighborhood outreach. (Approved)
A recess was taken at 3:00 pm.
The meeting resumed at 3:10 pm.
Chair Calerdine stated that he will be recusing himself from Item 2B and 2C due to the EIR is a big issue; noting that his firm worked on the EIR nine years ago.
2B. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE BOULDERS; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31095; A SUBDIVISION OF A 30.4-ACRE PARCEL OF 45 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF VIA ESCUELA, SOUTH OF RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND NORTH OF CHINO CANYON ROAD, (TTM 31095) (ER).
Principal Planner Robertson provided an overview of the proposed one-year time extension request.
The Commission had technical questions pertaining to:
Commissioner Donenfeld:
-Clarification on the staff'recommendations for Items 2B and 2C.
-Clarification on the merits of the time extension.
-Consideration to re-open the Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Middleton:
-City Council's approval date of 2007.
-Has there been any legal impediments since 2007 for the developer to proceed with this project?
-Are mitigation measures for construction traffic to off-site addressed in the E.I.R.?
-Does construction traffic create an issue that should be re-visited in terms of the environmental impact report?
-Can it be verified that the original projections for traffic remain consistent and additional traffic created from other projects does not create new burden for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Weremiuk:
-Dates the final map, improvement plans and application was received.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk opened the public hearing:
MICHAEL BRAUN, developer, spoke about the background history on Boulders and Crescendo including the both projects the E.I.R., neighborhood meetings, market analysis for high-end homes, stabilization of market and an economic study performed on Boulder and Crescendo. Mr. Braun clarified that no changes have been made to Boulders and Crescendo only those imposed by the City with regard to the conditions of approval.
DENISE HOECTER, said she's lived in this area for a long time, commented on the developers running into a problem of moving the large boulders. She said a new E.I.R. is needed because the traffic has increased on Racquet Club Road and the land has been disturbed on Crescendo and will sit up higher and talked about the need for a new study.
TONY HOECTER, board member, Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, said the neighborhood as a whole agrees that a new E.I.R. needs to be determined. He stated that the topography has changed and the load to Racquet Club Road will be impacted.
NICKIE MC LAUGHLIN, chair, Friends of Palm Springs Mountains, spoke about the CEQA litigation settled with the applicant in May 2008. She stated that they feel that the current EIR is no longer valid due to the new surrounding projects that have impacted the neighborhood.
ROBERT ROTMAN, resident, Little Tuscany Neighborhood, believes that a 10 year EIR does not reflect the current environment. He said there has been significant impacts by Desert Palisades and Tuscany Heights that were not included in their EIR.
FRANK TYSEN, said that so much has changed and it's time to start and terminate the two approvals.
MICHAEL BRAUN, applicant rebuttal, responded that CEQA is a good process but unfortunately it is being abused to stifle the project such as the Downtown project. He said both projects have been analyzed and there are no new findings based on the facts. He clarified that Boulders and Crescendo have not been touched in the past 9 years but by the other developers.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Middleton requested the applicant describe over the last 6 months to a year the outreach programs for working with the neighborhood and what plans are to mitigate construction traffic and the impact of construction on the neighborhood. Mr. Braun responded neighborhood outreach was extensively conducted in 2006 and 2007 to address all these issues. He said it is he belief that once a project is approved and gone into construction provided that the mitigation measures are met and the construction documents reflect what was approved no additional neighborhood outreach is necessary. That being said it is their plan once the final map is approved before construction begins to meet with the neighborhoods again to discuss how they can mitigate any impacts they have learned from Little Tuscany Heights and Desert Palisades and are willing to address any concerns.
Commissioner Middleton made a motion to deny the time extension. She stated that although she appreciates the financial demands that are placed upon a developer with undertaking a project of this size. Yet what the Commission is looking at is public policy input from the neighborhood that is nine years old. The individuals that are the most impacted by the construction of this project are not a getting an opportunity to weigh in on this project nor able to adapt the project to current circumstance. What we have is only a project that can be continued and decided almost a decade ago. Many issues need to be addressed not only on this project but others. The developer has had since 2008 to proceed on this project and has not proceeded. Cannot take the new residents where they are disenfrancised from having an effective voice over the appropriateness of this project.
Motion to approve Deny. Moved by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Commissioner Hirschbein concurred with the motion. He believes that the Desert Palisades project raised the bar on how hillside developments should be designed particularly by allowing the natural terrain and getting away from mass grading. He would like another opportunity to see how this project is graded.
Commissioner Donenfeld said he's very sympatetic to the neighbors but this project has been controversial since the date it was approved. However, as he understands the law the merits of the project cannot be re-litigated and their focus must be very narrow on the merits of the extension. He stated that if a new EIR is going to be requested we must have very solid ground upon to do so with concrete, demonstrable changes that are in significant in effect that require an EIR to be done. He does not believe anything heard today will allow them to deny the extension or request a new EIR because in good faith there was a significant economic downturn and we are talking about high-end homes. A mix of homes is needed in the community. For this reason he will be voting no on this motion.
Commissioner Lowe concurred with Commissioner Donenfeld noting that their focus is very narrow in terms of looking at the extension and whether the applicant has taken appropriate measures to move this project along and there is no evidence that they have not.
Commissioner Hudson noted this is a complicated case and agrees with both sides. He questioned if conditions could be imposed to address issues such as traffic safety in terms of the truck loads, noise and dirt.
Commission Weremiuk said she will second the motion for denial and believes this is an issue for Council.
Commissioner Middleton clarified that she did not make her motion based on the understanding that a new EIR was required but rather that public input is needed for a project of this scale nine years after it was approved. She believes the time for public input is before approval are obtained.
Mr. Braun responded that they are in construction documents and plan to meet with the neighbors to mitigate any concerns they may have. He explained that Boulders is a subdivision of 45 lots and each future owner will come with separate plans.
Motion to adopted Deny. Moved by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vote to approve Deny. (Declined)
MOTION FAILED.
Motion to approve Approve the time extension subject to:
1. The applicant to present logistics of construction mechanics to the Planning Commission upon submittal of construction plans and set-up a subcommittee to work with him on scheduling of truck loads and speed limits.
2. If rock crushing is allowed it shall be done with the most to date equipment and non-invasive as possible.
3. Moved by Commissioner Donenfeld, seconded by Commissioner Hudson.
Vote to approve Approve the time extension subject to:
1. The applicant to present logistics of construction mechanics to the Planning Commission upon submittal of construction plans and set-up a subcommittee to work with him on scheduling of truck loads and speed limits.
2. If rock crushing is allowed it shall be done with the most to date equipment and non-invasive as possible.
3. (Declined)
MOTION FAILED.
Planning Director Fagg stated that on the second failed motion this item will be deferred to City Council.
2C. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE CRESCENDO; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 42.2-ACRE PARCEL INTO 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 TO CONSTRUCT 79 CUSTOM HOMES AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE; (CASE 5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766) (ER).
Chair Calerdine previously noted his abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote on this Item.
City Attorney Daudt provided details on the status of the map; noting that it will not expire until 2019 and today's hearing consists of review of the extension of time for the PDD only.
Principal Planner Robertson provided an overview of proposed time extension request for Planned Development District 294.
Director Fagg pointed-out that unlike the Boulders project this is a Planned Development District that has been approved with relief from certain development standards.
Commissioner Middleton asked staff for clarification on the appropriateness to continue this matter until a resolution has been reached by City Council on Item 2B.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk opened the public hearing:
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that no changes have been made to the project. Mr. Braun provided details on the pad elevations, explained all pad elevations, neighborhood outreach, in-fill project and was available for questions from the Commission.
DAVID DRY, resides across the development, commented that the Desert Palisades' environmental impact report should have been re-evaluated because of more than 15 - 20,000 of dirt and boulder needed to be removed from the project than projected. They had problems with blow sand and the city was unresponsive.
ROBERT ROTMAN, referred to the letter from Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, reiterated that the 10 year environmental impact report needs be examined again and does not think it addresses mitigation of construction on the neighborhood.
DENISE HOECTER, resides at Palermo Development, commented about the loud noises from rock crushing from the Desert Palisades. She thinks a new environmental impact study needs to be done because the traffic is bad and the site has changed.
TONY HOECTER, said that nine years is enough time and questioned where the line is drawn. He said the whole area has changed.
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that Desert Palisades project is a 100-acre and Crescendo is 40-acre project. He addressed the topography, traffic count and their intent to provide neighborhood outreach meetings.
There being no further speakers the pubic hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hirschbein preferred that the City Council direct the policy on this project.
Commissioner Middleton said she will vote to deny because it's important for the public to have the opportunity to re-visit projects of this magnitude and nine years is just too long. She pointed-out that in other time extension requests where there has been a mitigating factor that factor should be taken into consideration as to whether to grant the extension. However, this developer is stating that economically this project did not make sense to proceed during the approval time. She does not believe it is responsible public policy to grant to a developer a lifetime entitlement for a project. At some point in time the developer must return to the public process and obtain input regarding the magnitude of the project.
Motion to approve To deny. Moved by Commissioner Hirschbein, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk will second the motion and concurs with the previous two speakers. She believes nine years is sufficient time and the relief given with the PD is stale.
Vote to approve To deny. (Approved)
Chair Calerdine re-enter the Council Chamber at 4:41 pm.
2D. SUMMIT LAND PARTNERS, REQUEST FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION (PDD 384); A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 36969), TO SUBDIVIDE 10.2 NET ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED PARCEL INTO 92 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 92 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND MATTHEW DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 30 (CASE NO. 5.1384-PD 384/TTM 36969). (ER)
Motion to approve To continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Middleton.
Vote to approve To continue to a date certain of September 14, 2016. (Approved)
3. NEW BUSINESS:
3A. JOSHUA LEVY, OWNER OF STONEWALL GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, FOR A REQUEST TO REMOVE AGE RESTRICTION FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 40-BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 2150 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE PDD 362, (CASE 5.1293 CUP / PDD 362 AMND). (KL)
Associate Planner Lyon provided an overview on the proposed request to remove one condition of approval as outlined in the staff report.
JOSH LEVY, applicant, clarified there everybody that is living at the resort requires assisted living. There is no independent living.
Commissioner Middleton requested clarification on what age groups are being requested to be removed. She expressed appreciation for this type of work; however, she noted concern with the need for LGBT seniors to access this type of service.
Commissioner Donenfeld recalled this when it was approved and questioned if the elderly LGBT population will still receive the care needed.
Motion to approve Approve and remove Condition of Approval No. ADM. 1C. Moved by Commissioner Hirschbein, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk.
Vote to approve Approve and remove Condition of Approval No. ADM. 1C. (Approved)
3B. PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC FOR REVIEW OF THE DOWNTOWN PALM SPRINGS RENOVATION PROJECT SIDEWALK LIGHTING, AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD (CASE NOS. 5.1290 PD-361, 3.3605 MAJ, 3.3606 MAJ, 3.3607 MAJ, 3.3785 MAJ). (DN)
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed revised light fixture as outlined in the staff memorandum.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk noted that she was a part of the City Council subcommittee to review the landscape plan and said that this fixture was not proposed. Staff provided clarification.
-Concern with the foot candle of this fixture.
Commissioner Middleton said she likes how the light will reflect and supports approval of the light fixture.
RALPH RAYA, lighting consultant, addressed questions from the Commission pertaining to the lighting wattage and intensity of light.
Commissioner Hudson spoke in support of the lighting fixture and trusts the lighting professionals for the coloration. He noticed there are no special light fixtures along the parking lot behind the West Elm building and would prefer to soften these elevations.
Motion to approve Approve and determine project conditions related to landscape/sidewalk lighting have been fulfilled. Moved by Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Chair Calerdine.
Vote to approve Approve and determine project conditions related to landscape/sidewalk lighting have been fulfilled. (Approved)
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND COMMENTS:
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned at 5:26 pm to a study session at 11:30 am, Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Large Conference Room, followed by the regular meeting at 1:30 pm, Council Chamber, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
<iframe title="Swagit Video Player" width="640" height="360" src="https://palmspringsca.new.swagit.com/videos/15083/embed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Disable autoplay on embedded content?
Download
Download
Download Selected Item
