Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/04/14 - MINUTES (2) 5 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 24, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1981 - 1982 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Michael Harris, Chairman - 14 4 Carrie Allan X 16 2 Richard Service X 16 2 Paul Madsen X 16 2 Darel Harris X 16 2 David Christian X 15 3 Peter Koetting X 17 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas Evans, Planner III Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - March 22, 1982 • Larry Lapham, Chairman Peter Koetting James Cioffi Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Kaptur David Christian Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the March 10, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman was absent; Vice-Chairman presided. CASE 5.0210-CUP. Application by L. DELROSE for a CUP for conversion of existing apartment units to timeshare condominium for property on the northeast corner of Camino Real/La Jolla Road, R-2 Zone, Section 26. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA. ) NOTE: 6.321 Variance & TTM 18261 were withdrawn by the applicant. Planner III presented a revised staff report and stated that the applicant had withdrawn the map and the variance and was asking for action on the conditional use permit for timeshare use only; that correspondence had been received from Mrs. Sylvia Kay objecting to the proposal since the neighborhood is not ready for a timeshare use, it is not compatible with the neighborhood, that proper notification had not been made, and that a letter had also been received from Mr. B. Tomkin who stated similar concerns. Discussion followed on the type of ownership, setback and height requirements, and parking calculations. Planner III stated that the possibility of dens being converted to bedrooms was included in the parking calculation. • Commissioner Christian stated that he had designed the project originally but was no longer connected in any way. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Delrose, 1103 Anza, the applicant, stated that he had worked with staff for several months; that the zoning would allow hotels by right of zone; that the project is in harmony with the General Plan; that the project meets all requirements of the Timeshare Ordinance and will have no adverse effect on the rental unit market; that he lived near the project and wanted it to be of the highest caliber with a low key marketing program; and that it was time to change the timeshare image positively in the City. B. Laskowitz, 215 Bobolink Lane, stated that he had no financial interest in the project but was a long-time resident and visitor to the desert and the project would enhance the neighborhood; that his neighborhood was improved only after condominiums were built which had professional maintenance; that other projects of Mr. Delrose's were of high quality; and that the proposed project will not be detrimental to the residences behind it. R. Ferone, 524 Miraleste Court, realtor, requested approval of the project and stated that he had no financial interest in it, .but wished to see a small developer with a small project given as much consideration as a large developer. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0210-CUP (Cont'd. ) • W. Baldwin, 973 La Jolla Street, stated that he objected to the project because of overflow parking on La Jolla and additional noise that would be generated by timeshare uses; that the present occupants of the apartment are fine tenants; and that he was opposed to selling to timeshare uses. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, he stated that overflow parking would be a problem with timeshare users having two to three cars per family. J. Chasen, 1850 Camino Real , tenant of the project, stated that the project would be harmful to the community since it is forcing permanent residents to leave and converting the apartments to a hotel type of use; and that an undesirable precedent would be established in turning permanent housing into transient housing. Mrs. A. French, 1850 Camino Real , tenant of the project, stated that she had voiced her objection at the March 10 meeting and read a letter from Mrs. William Allbut who voiced concern about eroding the character of the neighborhood. L. Delrose, (Rebuttal ) , stated that he had reviewed the Timeshare Ordinance before purchasing the property; that it met all requirements; that there are 27 hotels in the five block radius of the project, two of which have daily rental signs; and reiterated that his project meets all requirements. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Allan stated that the Timeshare Ordinance was developed for review of proposed timeshares under CUP; that the proposed project is not being questioned visually and that it would probably be maintained, but she was concerned that the project does not meet all ordinance requirements; and that after much thought, she felt that the timeshare use increases traffic and parking. She stated that she could not support the project since it does not meet all of the Ordinance requirements. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planner III stated that any change in the redistribution of the amount of timeshares would require approval of the Department of Real Estate with the approval of the City; that if the sales structure were changed, the original CUP would be violated; and that bed tax was collected on a complex formula based on the value as perceived with the transient use and is collected whether or not it is occupied or sold. Commissioner Christian stated that -the use was more of a hotel than a condominium use; that the project had deficiencies; and that there is no specific timeshare guarantee for any proposal : Commissioner D. Harris reiterated concerns of the neighboring residents and stated that he could not support the proposal . In reply to a question from Commission, Planning Director stated that under a condominium conversion, every ordinance requirement must be met. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0210-CUP (Cont'd. ) Vice-Chairman stated that the main issue is one of intensity of use. Commissioner Christian stated that he felt the project should at least comply with the condominium conversion requirements. Commissioner Allan stated that in making a decision, the character of the developer is not judged, only the project. Commissioner Madsen stated that the did not object to the use, but felt that the project should meet all requirements. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent) denying the proposed CUP for timeshare use based on concerns expressed by the Commission. CASE 5.0211-CUP & 6.319-VARIANCE & TTM 17899. Application by E. WILLIAMS (Watt Industries) for a CUP to allow construction of a 7-unit timeshare/condo- minium project and a variance from rear yard setback and timeshare location requirements on the southeast corner of Arenas Road/Tahquitz Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 15. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval . No comments received.) • Planning Director stated that the application was previously continued at the request of the applicant for revision to the architectural elements and then gave a brief review of the project. Commissioner Koetting stated that the AAC felt that the project was pleasing and integrated well into the existing tennis club complex. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. B. Williams, El Paseo, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that a new architect had been employed who was sensitive to the site requirements and who had responded to direction from staff and the AAC; that the overall number of units had been reduced; that much money had been spent on the project; and requested approval . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that the condominium portion of the application was for marketing of fee interest on a timeshare basis. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the project does not meet all criteria of the Timeshare Ordinance, especially regarding the fact that it is not on a secondary thoroughfare; and that it was the Commission's duty to uphold the Timeshare Ordinance with the ability by the applicant to appeal to the City Council . Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission had ordered preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approved the cases and map at the February 10 meeting; and that the project has been requested by a Councilman to be reviewed at the Council level . March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0211-CUP/6.319-VARIANCE & TTM 17899(Cont'd. ) • Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that the project was an asset to the area. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Koetting, and carried (M. Harris absent; Allan & D. Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving the CUP and variance applications and TTM 17899 subject to the following conditions: i. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 3. That the timeshare proposal be annexed to the existing adjacent timeshare development, including the management thereof. 4. That the approval be exercised within one year of Council approval of the tentative tract map by the issuance of building permits. 5. That the timeshare meet all requirements of the City's Timeshare Ordinance, including but not limited to the payment of the Transient Occupancy Tax. • CASE 6.320-VARIANCE. Application by F. APOLLO for a variance from rear and side yard setbacks to allow existing carport and free standing open patio cover as built at 795 N. Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Planner III presented the revised staff report including findings, recommendation, and direction for Commission action. He stated that there are no grounds to allow a variance for the tennis court patio structure within setbacks and described the configuration of the masonry wall and the requested variance relating to the wall . He stated that the tennis court patio cover and the carport would be required to be designed by a structural engineer and that the project had been started without building permits and was discovered by the Building Division which halted construction. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. F. Apollo, 795 N. Patencio, the applicant, requested that the AMM be approved and that the 20% allowance for the tennis court's patio cover and the wall be approved. He stated that he would redesign the carport and move the existing support columns. It There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6.320-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on asphalt laid to the walls in the area causing vehicles to run into the walls. Planning Director stated that the area is rustic and the streets have soft shoulders which erode causing the residents to asphalt the areas and that there would probably be much opposition to curbs and gutters in that area. Commissioner Christian stated that he objected to the carport since its approval would establish an undesirable precedent. Commissioner D. Harris stated that although he did not condone building without building permits, he would support staff' s recommendations in order to resolve the problems. Vice-Chairman stated that the City is going through several stages of development; that sometimes the Commission has to do the best it can with what it has; and that he would not object to the granting of an AMM. Commissioner Allan left the meeting at this point. Motion was made by D. Harris that the variance be approved subject to findings and recommendations of staff and the AAC. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Christian, and unanimously • carried (M. Harris & Allan absent; Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 5z ft. wall is approved for 98% of the wall with a variance for approximately 2% of the length of the wall . 2. That the patio structure be redesigned by a structural engineer with a 15 ft. setback to the supporting columns and cantilevered approximately five feet into the required rear yard. 3. That the carport variance application is denied. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Commissioner Allan returned to the meeting. CASE 11.15 (STREET NAME CHANGE) . Application to change the name of Murray Canyon Drive to William Demarest Drive or Demarest Drive, Section 35. Vice-Chairman stated that the application has been withdrawn by the applicant and that the project will be removed from the agenda with no • further public hearings necessary. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507. Application by L. LAPHAM for G. McGlamary for a CUP to allow construction of a residential condominium project on Ramon Road between La Mirada Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone (I.L.), Section 22. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) Planner III presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that some of the neighboring homeowners are concerned about the size of the dwelling units; that action could be taken on the EA and the project continued to the next meeting for renoticing because the time of the meeting had been omitted in the original notice; that a dual sewer system had been reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board with no adverse impacts on an interim basis; and that no further archaeological reports need to be done since the project is on Indian land and being developed by an Indian. Planning Director stated that a perimeter wall would be constructed at the beginning of development and that the property to the south has another access point. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. • L. Lapham, 500 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , the applicant, stated that there are several anxious homeowners in the vicinity of the project so he will bring in a new floor plan for the next meeting; described the site configuration; stated that the Indian owner felt that security was important; that a CUP was required for the cluster type development including the installation of the security gate at the entrance to the project; that except for the gatehouse, the project would look like any single family residential development; that the houses would sell for approximately $500,000; that the houses are presold and will be built at one time as will the wall ; and that changes to the houses will be reviewed by the AAC and the Planning Commission. J. London, 566 Fern Canyon, stated that there is a delicate balance in the area; that grading or one to two feet of fill will be required for the dual sewer system; that large earth moving equipment will pose a danger to residents below the site; that the wall will be an eyesore; that La Mirada is at present a flood control spread basin; and questioned the drainage of the property. (Vice-Chairman stated that the project would drain to Ramon Road.) Mr. London stated that the wall would obstruct views and requested further review before action is taken. R. Moravic, 565 La Mirada, stated that he had a very expensive estate; that the project will obstruct his view; that property values will deteriorate; that he had been told by the developer that the house price was $350,000 which had suddenly escalated another $100,000; and that his property would be affected most by the project. (Mr. Lapham stated that the house prices would range from $375,000 to $500,000. ) Vice-Chairman explained that the price of the houses was not a subject for Planning Commission consideration. March 24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd. ) Mr. Moravic stated that he would be present at the April 14 meeting. K. Hinsvark, 770 W. Sunny Dunes, stated that he owned four acres adjoining the property on the south and described excavation on his property. Mr. Lapham stated that he would excavate and refill the area. Vice-Chairman stated that the excavation would be reviewed by the Building Department when plans are submitted. Planner III explained that for sensitivity the yards will be stepped down to meet the natural grade of the property; and this approach would be more sensitive than a retaining wall . Density was discussed. Planning Director stated that from 8 to 10 homes can be placed on the site under the R-1-A Zoning of the property. Clustered zoning was then discussed. Vice-Chairman explained that questions raised would be addressed at the April 14 meeting. Mr. Hinsvark stated that he wanted his questions answered to determine the impact of the project on his property; that he felt that the number of units should be reduced to eight; that he had been told that tennis courts were required to be 60 feet from property lines; and that the . proposed court was 15 feet. (Vice-Chairman stated that 15 feet was correct.) Mr. Hinsvark stated that ten residences will use the tennis court constantly and the courts should be placed in the center of the housing so any impacts are felt by the ten residents themselves. Discussion followed on the size of the units. Mr. Hinsvark stated that size indicates price and the size is too small . In reply to a question by Mr. Hinsvark, Vice-Chairman stated that timeshare is prohibited in the zone. Mr. Hinsvark stated that the zone could be changed and the neighborhood could deteriorate. Mrs. A. Dolley, 655 La Mirada, stated that after living in the area, a resident learns how to protect his property; that she was concerned about the boulder removal since it is very expensive and foresaw them remaining, thus heightening the elevation; that Indian property is allowed to be developed regardless of the wishes of the neighbors or the Planning Commission; and that she hoped that those building in the area would note the fears of the residents regarding flooding of their homes. J. Tourtelot, 575 Fern Canyon, owner of adjacent property, stated his concern of the wall height which will obstruct his view; that traffic will be increased on a very narrow road; and that there will be more flooding on Ramon Road. A. Jessup, 599 Fern Canyon, voiced concern over the height of the wall It which will not be compatible with the area; that the same requirements should be required of the proposed development as were required by those who have already built in the area. March 24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd.) K. Craft, 592 La Mirada, stated that he would have a bird's eye view of the condominium project; that the area would not be enhanced by the project; and requested that the area be kept as it is. J. Fascinato, 596 La Mirada, stated that he would not have bought his lot 13 years ago nor built on it 8 years if had known that a condominium project would be built in the area. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. (There was no rebuttal .) Commissioner Koetting stated that many of the problems voiced would be problems if the development were single family homes on regular lots. He requested that staff review (at the April 14 meeting) traditional subdivision of land vs the proposed type of project. CommissionerChristian commented that it was unusual when expensive homes are viewed as deteriorating a neighborhood. Discussion followed on the wall height. Planning Director stated that the six foot wall request came from the developer. Commissioner Allan stated that she felt that the project would not enhance the area since the homes are like tract homes. • Commissioner D. Harris concurred and stated that the area is sensitive. Motion was made by Madsen and seconded by Allan to continue the application. After discussion regarding requests made of staff, Commissioner Madsen withdrew his motion. Discussion continued on action to be taken since aesthetics were a problem and might affect the environmental assessment. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent) continuing the application to April 14 with staff to present a detailed site analysis of the project. Tribal Council comments: "The Environmental Assessment/Initial Study referenced in the City Staff Report was not received by the Tribal Planning Consultant. It was noted that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing at this time, but continue the matter and re-notice the case (the specific time of the hearing was not indicated in the Notice of Public Hearing) for the next Commission meeting when final action can be taken. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the Conditional Use Permit and • Tentative Tract Map No. 18507 subject to the conditions recommended by Staff, with the following exception: March 24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd. ) Action on the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff. Since the Staff Report indicated there were three areas requiring mitigation, i .e. , grading, subsurface sewage disposal system, and archaeology, action on the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration was withheld pending receipt and review of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study." CASE 5.0218-CUP & TTM 11559. Reapplication by C. G. DUNHAM for a CUP to allow construction of a single story condominium complex on Mesquite Avenue between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-1-C and W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 5.0033-CUP which has expired.) Planning Director stated that the developer had requested continuance since property configuration may change;that the project should be re- noticed since the time was not included in the original notice; and that the map had been held pending its processing with the new CUP application. . Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open and stated that no questions would be answered at this time but Planning staff could be contacted for answers. There being no appearances, the hearing was closed and the item removed from the agenda pending renoticing after a revised property owners list has been submitted if the property is reconfigured. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take the same action as in ITEM NO. 5, (Case 5.0217-CUP), and hold the pubic hearing, continue the matter for re-noticing, and take final action at the next Commission meeting. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council withheld action at this time pending further review and recommendations by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant with respect to those conditions recommended by Staff requiring dedication of lands to the City or the granting of public open space easements, and prohibiting future grading activities within the 100-year flood plain." • March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS J. Cioffi , applicant in Cases 3.486 & 3.487/TTM 18280, stated that he was present to answer questions. A. Jurdi , 2323 N. Palm Canyon Dr. , requested that the Commission approve his request to open a mini market in the Bahama Hotel . P. Trenchard, applicant for TTM 18370, stated that he concurred with staff recommendations and was anxious to move ahead with his project. J. Wessman, Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, requested that he be allowed to speak relative to the sign program for Case 5.0177-PD-131 and was requested by Chairman to wait until the item was heard on the agenda. Mrs. Y. Smith, 1881 Araby Dr. , requested that horse and hiking trails on the top of Araby be provided access by the developer of the residence in Case 3.487. J. Wessman requested that items be addressed first for those present in the audience. D. Graf, Fredricks, Inc. , applicant in Case 5.0144-PD-116, stated that he was present to answer questions. W. Gietter, applicant in Case 5.0067-PD-87, stated that he was present to • answer questions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. CASE 3.486 & TTM 18280. Application by J. CIOFFI for architectural approval of addition and remodel of bar, lounge and additional parking for Billy Reed's restaurant on North Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. (Environmental assessment, tentative architectural approval , and tentative approval of map and case. ) Discussion ensued on the signing program, parking requirements and the height limitation. Planning Director stated that the sign program will be reviewed by the AAC and Commission, that parking meets requirements, and the height is below the 30 ft. height limitation. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the case and map, and continuing the application to the Consent Agenda of the April 14 meeting for final review and action. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.487. Application by J. CIOFFI for W. Lansdale for architectural approval for single {amity residence on private road 0-20 Zone, Section 25. (Environmental assessment and tentative architectural approval .) Planner III presented the environmental assessment and initial study and stated that the staff recommendation would be to utilize the lower building site, although the applicant wants the higher site because of the view; that the recommendation would be to utilize the lower pad or require full slope restoration program for less visual scarring; that in response to the question about horse trails, there is a requirement that the trail be relocated either onsite or offsite before building permits are issued; that the applicant has agreed to this requirement; that staff recommends the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentative approval of the application using the lower pad location; and that any other type of development would require a zone change which has been discouraged by staff several times. Motion was made by Christian and seconded by Madsen that the application be approved subject to staff and AAC recommendations with the site as proposed by the applicant with mitigative. The vote was as follows: AYES: Christian, Madsen, Service • NOES: Allan, D. Harris, Koetting ABSENT: M. Harris There was a tie vote; therefore no action was taken. Discussion followed on mitigative measures. Commissioner Koetting stated that the road was his main concern since three years of visual scarring is too long and that perhaps native planting or boulders could be used. Planner III stated that a further analysis of the roadway would involve a final drainage plan with mitigative measures and that staff could work with the applicant to reduce the scarring. Motion was made by Allan and seconded by D. Harris approving the application subject to the utilization of the lower pad with mitigative measures. The vote was as follows: AYES: Allan, D. Harris, Koetting NOES: Christian, Madsen, Service ABSENT: M. Harris There was a tie vote, therefore no action was taken. • In response to question by Commissioner Madsen, J. Cioffi stated that he could not live with a tie vote; that a sensitive landscape architect would be required for treatment of the site; that the project will be fenced to keep construction crews onsite; and that mitigative measures would be taken on the roadway immediately. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS - CASE 3.487 (Cont'd. ) Further discussion followed. Mr. Cioffi stated that there are ways to cut and fill without dumping the debris over the side of the mountain and that the major scarred areas are next to the residence and would be landscaped immediately. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (M. Harris absent, Service dissented) continuing the application to April 14, 1982. Commissioner Koetting requested that the applicant expedite the landscaping concept. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18370. Application by WEBB ENGINEERING INC. , for P. Trenchard for subdivision to allow construction of 18-hole golf course with 38 single family residential lots and four multiple family lots between Ramon Road/Mesquite Avenue/Cerritos Road/El Cielo Road, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with Case 5.0173-PD-127. ) Planning Director explained the map stating that it was a follow-up map for the proposed golf course; that the map defined certain individual single family lots, showed tentative lot lines for the larger multi- family lots on Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, and delineated the clubhouse lot area; that no final development plans have been developed for any of the development; that there is further clarification in the new Development Committee recommendations; that the Tribal Council is requesting continuance although only a small portion of the project affects Indian land; and that there was little comment from the Tribal Council at the beginning of the project. Commissioner Allan stated that if there was little comment at the beginning, then there would be no reason to continue the map approval . Vice-Chairman commented that right-turn lanes should be required for traffic on Ramon Road turning south on Farrell Drive from Ramon Road since the Traffic Engineer stated that right-turn lanes enhance traffic flow. Further discussion followed on right-turn lanes on other projects. Planning Director stated that requiring right-turn lanes on Ramon Road should be no problem and that the Traffic Engineer can review the proposal at the submittal of final development plans. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent; Christian & Madsen abstained) approving TTM 18370 • subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and with the additional condition that a right-turn lane be added to Ramon Road turning south on Farrell Drive from Ramon Road. March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18370 (Cont'd. ) Tribal Council comments: "A Staff Report and/or Development Committee Meeting Minutes was not received by the Tribal Planning Consultant prior to the Indian Planning Commissioner meeting. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council requeted that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for purposes of review and comments by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant with respect to Staff recommendations." MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Appeal from Planning Director's denial of retail use located within a non resort hotel , 2323 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Planning Director presented the staff report including recommendations and stated that commercial uses are currently prohibited in hotels in the C-1 Zone although they were permitted before 1965. Discussion followed on uses permitted in hotels. Planning Director stated that accessory uses are not technically allowed although hotels have vending machines. Vice-Chairman stated that the proposed market was not in a lobby area but a free-standing building. Commissioner Allan stated that if there were a necessity for the service, she would feel more comfortable but there are commercial establishments only a block away to supply the needs of hotel guests. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent) denying the request for a mini-market in view of the facts presented by staff and because of the closeness of other facilities to serve the guests. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0067-PD-87 (Ref. TTM 17279). Request by W. GIETTER for time extension for planned development district to allow construction of a professional building and mini-warehouses on the southeast corner of Las Vegas Road/Granada Avenue, M-1 and R-2 Zones, Section 34. Planning Director presented the staff report and recommended approval of a time extension to September 16, 1982 so that the planned development 40 and the map can be extended concurrently. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (M. Harris absent) approving a time extension for the planned development district to September 16, 1982 subject to all original conditions of approval and with the following additional condition: March 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Dedication of easements for sewer purposes in Radio Road, or a letter allowing the sewer main to remain in its present location pending the dedication of the sewer easement prior to City Council approval of extension of time. The applicant, W. Gietter, protested the four month time extension, stating that it is not long enough. Planning Director stated that the reason for the short time extension was so that both the planned development district and the map could be extended together. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 5.0144-PD-116. Application by FREDRICKS/AFCOM for architectural approval of revised site plan, elevations, and landscape plans for Phase I of modular housing project, PD-116, Section 35. Planning Director presented the AAC comments for the project and stated that insulation materials have been increased over normal requirements. . Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that the end elevations were of concern to the AAC; that a major concern was energy demand because of lack of overhangs which the Fredricks Company states are too costly to add; that transport of the buildings over State Highways requires a certain width and if overhangs are included, the width of the buildings have to be reduced; that Fredricks Company feels that it cannot add any more cost to the residences in the park; and that the first phase will be stick-built with the same plan as modular units across the street to determine which is less costly. Commissioner Christian stated that evaporative coolers do not always work in the desert and air conditioning should be provided. Discussion followed regarding the use of coolers vs air conditioning. Planner III stated that the AAC felt that a trade-off for use of the coolers would be to have more exterior appendages to control heat gain and loss. Commissioner Koetting stated that everybody sympathizes with idea of low cost housing but some of the members of the AAC felt that the energy costs would be prohibitive; that the applicants are working under a cost control program with the City; that small items add to the cost of the residences; that possibly the City should become more involved in the project or the housing size should be reduced; commented that house • payments will be $650 per month; and that the AAC had discussed predesigned trellises over the windows; and that the AAC feels the City should investigate its involvement in better sun control for the housing. March 24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS - CASE 5.0144-PD-116 (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on the possibility of utilizing air conditioning with additional ducting for coolers. Commissioner D. Harris stated that his utility bills have never run over $175 a month. Double glazing of windows was discussed and Planning Director stated that they help very little. D. Graff, representative of Fredricks Company, the applicant, explained the company's decision to "stick-build" a portion of the first phase with mobile homes to be the remainder of the phase. He stated that all of the mobile homes will look like regular houses; that the first phase would be a theme type of environment; that the State is interested in promoting mobile homes and Fredricks has a contract for a no interest second; that there will always be a conflict between mobile homes vs stick built; and that Fredricks will do its own study in this regard to determine costs. He explained the difficulty of transportation of mobile homes with overhangs and stated that the size of the homes would have to be reduced if overhangs were used; that the company has taken over from AFCOM Group who had not provided the needed type of housing; that Fredricks has upgraded the landscaping and amenities of the project and the units themselves; that mortgage revenue bond issue controls the price of the homes (which the company hopes to make cost effective) , of good quality, and a good neighborhood. Discussion continued on the stick built and mobile home type of house. Planning Director indicated that staff was not aware of the proposal to use mobiles rather than modulars. Planner III stated that the AAC had not voted on the revised material but had reached a consensus that there are concerns and that because of time constraints, the concerns would be sent to the Commission. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting at this point. Discussion followed on the aesthetics of the project. Commissioner Christian stated that if the project were not subsidized, the AAC would never approve it since it shows very little sensitivity to the severe climatic conditions and has poorly designed elevations. Motion was made by Christian and seconded by Allan to approve the revised application subject to recommendations of the AAC. Commissioner Allan requested that the motion include the utilization of air conditioning instead of evaporative coolers and was informed by Chairman to make a second motion. Commissioner Christian withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried . (M. Harris & Koetting absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That air conditioning be a requirement with the investigation of evaporative cooler ducting for future use. March 24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS - CASE 5.0144-PO-116 (Cont'd. ) • 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the City Council review the project noting the fallowing AAC concerns: That the overall building elevations are not sensitive to the local climatic conditions due to poor solar control and site orientation; that the proposed buildings' energy demands will be excessive, therefore long-term affordability to the buyer may be in jeopardy; that an alternative roof design should be provided to reduce the uniformity of the street scene; that evaporative coolers should be considered in-lieu of the proposed air-conditioning units; and that final exterior colors and textures should be returned to the AAC for review and approval . Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Christian, and carried (M. Harris & Koetting absent; Madsen dissented) recommending to the City Council that block grant money assist in improving the conditions of the units for the desert climatic conditions. Further discussion followed. A suggestion was made to obtain block grant money for 15-gallon eucalyptus trees with a drip system for future shade for the houses. SIGN PROGRAM-CASE 5.0177-PD-131. Application by R. ALTEVERS for J. Wessman for architectural approval of final development plans for shopping center on Highway 111 between Morongo Road/Belardo Road, C-1 & R-3 Zones ( I.L. ) , Section 22. Planning Director presented the sign program for the project on the display board and noted the restudy recommendations of the AAC. J. Wessman, the applicant, requested clarification on the status of the radius curb discussed at the March 10 meeting. He stated that it cannot be accomplished without severe cuts in the slope and reduction of the size of the parking lot; that the road would have to stay as it appears on the revised plans; that he could not obtain the right-of-way from the property owner and is being sued by that property owner because the tenants were not removed from the trailer park soon enough; that he would remove the sign program completely and have each sign individually approved if necessary with the exception of two signs for Ralph's Market (or the market's lease would be revoked). Discussion ensued on the number of signs for Ralph's Market, the restaurant, and tenant signing. Planning Director stated that the restaurant sign needs to have approval but the tenants ' signs do not. Mr. Wessman stated that he did not want three signs for Ralph's Market. Vice-Chairman suggested that the sign program be approved in concept with details to be resolved with staff. March 2 4, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS - CASE 5.0177-PO-131 (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Christian, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried (M. Harris & Koetting absent) approving the sign program concept with the following conditions: 1. That there be two Ralph Market signs as indicated. 2. That the sign program details be resolved with staff. Planning Director stated that staff will resolve the cost of paving Belardo Road more equitably by reaching an agreement with Larry Olinger regarding sharing of the cost. Commissioner Christian left the meeting at this point. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. • Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (M. Harris, Koetting & Christian absent) approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.046 (Ref. TTM 10855). D. JUNG for M. Tupaz Assoc. for architectural approval of revised landscpe plan for Phase I of 140-unit condominium project on the northwest corner of Avenida Caballeros between Ramon Road/Baristo Channel, R-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Conditions: 1. That 80% of the street trees located in the areas facing public right-of-way be increased to 24-inch or 36-inch box size. 2. That larger Sterculia be added to the outer corner areas. 3. That a revised shrub plan with increased sizes be submitted to staff. Abstention: D. Harris. 40 March Z4, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) SIGN APPLICATION. BRITE LITE NEON for Robinson's Department Store for archi- tectural approval of sign on Baristo Road for department store at 333 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Condition: 1. That the existing sign form and size be utilized with the new lettering, scaled accordingly. 2. That working drawings be submitted for staff approval . 3. That the proposed electrical wiring be completely concealed and subject to field inspection. CASE 3.099. G. GRAY for G. Kossler for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family, hillside residence on Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 24. Condition: That the perimeter Ficus be replaced with Carolina Cherry. CASE 3.342. J. WALLING for architectural approval of access road for pre- viously approved single family hillside residence on Crescent Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 2.949. B. MILLER for architectural approval of revised landscape, wall , and railing plans for single family hillside residence on Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Conditions: 1. That the proposed railing detail is approved. 2. That the proposed wall element is approved without the security gate and the beam element. 3. That the proposed landscape plan is approved subject to deletion of the lantana and with the addition of Palo Verde, African Sumac or Mesquite to be reviewed by staff. 4. That the pilaster is approved subject to the northerly pilaster being reduced two feet and the southerly pilaster being reduced one foot. March24 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 ITEM FOR RESTUDY The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.403. H. KAPTUR for Heathman-Hill Assoc. for architectural approval of revised elevations for bank in professional condominium complex on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I.L. ) , Section 14. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Planning Director stated that there was a conflict in dates with the April study session and a management meeting scheduled by the City Manager and that he would discuss the matter with the Chairman. - Commission requested that staff investigate the Brown project on El Cielo and Ramon Road relative to landscape maintenance. - Commission requested that the parking lot of the Unity Church be reviewed since it is operating without a wall and landscaping. - Commission requested that a large sign stating "Wholesale Imports" on the "Variations" store on North Palm Canyon Drive be investigated. - Commission requested that a wall on Mesquite is directly on the sidewalk with its lowest section not below five feet. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. A'PVLNNI G DIRECTOR MDR/mi WP April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 Approval of Minutes (Cont 'd. ) Page 14,. add after last paragraph: Tentative !,Parcel Map 18385. Application by BILLINGTON, INC. for C. Thompson for subdivision of property between Racquet Club Road/Sanborn Way, one block,/west of Milo Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Removed from Agenda pending receipt of letter from the Flood Control District. " Page 9, paragraph 6; Motion for Cate 5.0177-PD-131 should indicate Madsen and M. Harris abstained. Minutes of the. March 24, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following additi`nns: Page 9, paragraph 7 - Case 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 - add after "tract homes" , "and are not of the caliber of the homes the Commission has required in this area" . Page 16, paragraph 2 - Case 5.0144-PD-116 - change "utility bills" to "electric bills". CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507. Application by L. LAPHAM for G. McGlamary for a • CUP and map to allow construction of a residential condominium project on Ramon Road between La Mirada Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone ( I .L. ) , Section 22. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) Planning Director reviewed the history of the project and stated that the applicant had made no major changes since the last meeting; that lot sizes on La Mirada average 14,164 sq. ft. and lots on Fern Canyon average 13,933 sq. ft. ; that houses range in size from 3,247 sq. ft. plus garage on Fern Canyon and 3,864 plus garage on La Mirada; that three lots have been combined by one individual into a total of 50,000 sq. ft. ; and that the Tribal Council recommends approval with the exception of drainage fees while staff recommends approval as the project is compatible with the area in regard to house, lot size and design. He defined the project as a classic PUD in the sense of common maintenance of frontage areas. He stated that the custom designed houses will be revi.ewed by both the AAC and the Planning Commission and noted that the motivation for the wall is for security and marketability. In reply to a question by Commissioner Service, Planning Director stated that in theory, Ramon Road could be vacated and become a private street if requested by the affected property owners. Chairman declared the hearing open.