Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/04/28 - MINUTES (2) • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 28, 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 - 15 5 Carrie Allan X 18 2 Richard Service - 17 3 Paul Madsen X 18 2 Darel Harris X 18 2 David Christian - 16 4 Peter Koetting X 19 1 Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Stephen Graham, Planner II • Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - April 26, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) Earl Neel Hugh Kaptur David Hamilton Absent: Peter Koetting & James Cioffi Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the April 14, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Page 5, paragraph 6 - Case 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 - delete "unanimously" from the motion carried. . Page 19, paragraph 8. Add after "Case 5.0221-CUP - and was sure that each Commissioner was provided with a copy of Mr. Dobbs ' letter." April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 • APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Cont'd. ) Page 20, add before Adjournment, "Planning Director stated that the video tape referred to in the "Reports, Requests, and Discussion" section of the March 24, 1982 Minutes had been recorded by Commissioner Christian. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Chairman and Vice-Chairman were absent; Acting Chairman introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Siegfried Siefkes, who will be attending Planning Commission meetings and meeting with staff for all agenda items. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, • action for filing, and final approval . No comments received. ) . Planning Director presented a brief review of the project and stated that the Commission had tentatively approved two additional conditions as follows: That the wall height of the individual homeowners in the area be respected, and that a sight-line study be submitted for each proposed single family residence. He stated that staff has met with members of the public regarding the case and they may be in the audience to provide further input. He gave the staff report and the Tribal Council comments on the project. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Tourtelot, 575 Fern Canyon Drive, explained that the wall next to his property would be eight feet above his driveway and would then step down below his existing wall . He stated that he felt that the solution to the wall height would be in the grading of the pads and that the four corners average should be taken for the height; noted that drainage problems can be solved by the engineers; that the developer is building on top of rocks on the property because of cost savings and excavation and to allow a better view; that the developer should communicate with present homeowners to make the project more compatible with each piece of property, and requested that input from both sides be generated. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 . Case 5.0217/TTM 18507 (Cont'd. ) In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director stated that it was his impression that all ten residences were to be built at one time although the character of the architecture and the size of the homes may be revised slightly. Commissioner D. Harris suggested that the developer construct walls around the individual residences only without a perimeter wall . J. Sanborn, Webb Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant will work with property owners individually and that there would be differences in pad elevations; that a wall is probably desired by existing homeowners; and that an equitable wall can be built adjacent to each property. Commissioner D. Harris commented that the wall is a major complaint of the homeowners in the area. Mr. Sanborn stated that it was the wall height, not the wall which was a problem to the homeowners since most property owners want walls for separation between neighbors; and that there are non-standard walls and fences in the area at the present time. Acting Chairman stated that the Commission condition regarding respecting individual walls referred to the wall height. Commissioner Koetting noted that there would not be walls within walls, . for individual residences, but a perimeter wall with individual walls meeting the perimeter wall . Discussion followed on resolution of the wall height problem with in- dividual homeowners. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the wall should be resolved by the Planning Commission or the City, and that a walled community in the area is not compatible. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission will review in- dividual residences with sight-line studies for each residence and that the overall grading and landscape plan would include the perimeter wall plan as a single element (as part of the common design); that the resi- dences would not be reviewed at a public hearing, but if the Commission desires, staff could contact property owners regarding review of final plans since the special notification is not atypical of sensitive projects. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Service & M. Harris absent; D. Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 subject to the following conditions: 1. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met • (Development Committee Minutes of December 17, 1981 & Supple- mentary Engineering Memo of February 19, 1982) . April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0217-CUP/TTM 18507 (Cont'd. ) 3. That the maximum fill condition adjacent to property lines be one to two feet, and that perimeter walls be limited to six feet above natural grade. 4. That all mitigative measures regarding the subsurface disposal system and archaeology be met. 5. That the tract C.C. & R. 's contain adequate provision for main- tenance of all common areas and other provisions to keep all common recreation landscape areas for the life of the project. Any future alterations shall be subject to Planning Commission review. 6. That night lighting on the tennis court be prohibited. 7. That a specific wall plan (with the wall height of existing homes to be respected by the developer) and sections be submitted with the landscape plan. 8. That each individual residence be approved by the Planning Com- mission with a sight line and detailed grading plan to be sub- mitted along with typical architectural plans. Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of March 23 and April 13, 1982. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its prior actions to approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 18507 subject to the conditions recommended by City Staff, with the following exception: 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. 2. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the added mitigation measures recommended by City Staff. 3. Concurred with the City Planning Commission action of April 14, 1982 to add conditions requiring "that the wall height of existing homes be respected by the developer and that a sight line study be required for each home". • April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0221-CUP. Application by Y. DENEBEIM for conditional use permit to allow a daily prayer chapel on Avenida Ortega between Via Salida/Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA.) Planning Director stated that the item had been continued because of the Jewish holidays; that staff would recommend continuance to May 12 to allow noticing of one Indian lessor who had not been noticed and could not be contacted because of an unlisted phone; that concerns of neigh- boring residents had been heard at the previous meeting; that another letter from E. Dobbs protesting the use had been received; that staff had met with the Rabbi and the City Attorney; that a letter had been sent from the City Attorney's office which had not contained a cease and desist order, but the Rabbi indicated that the facility would not be used until action had been taken on the CUP; and that the project is not on Indian land, but that one Indian property owner within 400 feet was not noticed. Commissioner D. Harris suggested that the case be heard since the appli- cant has not been cooperative. Discussion followed. Planning Director stated that, based on the advice • of the City Attorney, the case could not be heard or comments taken until the Indian propety owner has been noticed unless there are persons in the audience who could not come to the May 12 meeting; and that the Commission might give some direction to staff on the cease and desist order. Commissioner D. Harris stated that since there was a Commission con- sensus on the cease and desist order, the applicant should receive formal notification. Planning Director stated that staff would issue the order. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Acting Chairman requested that the letter dated April 3, from Mr. Dobbs, be entered as part of the testimony. (Letter on file in Department of Community Development. ) Further discussion followed on the cease and desist order. Commission consensus was to direct staff to send a cease and desist order to the applicant. The item was continued to the May 12, 1982 meeting. • April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0223-CUP. Application by COBLE-BRAMBLETT CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COMPANY for a conditional use permit to allow offices at 1445 N. Sun- rise Way between Vista Chino/Chia Road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Planning Director stated that the applicant had requested by letter a continuance in order to meet with staff to resolve open space require- ments and that staff would recommend a 30-day continuance to May 26, 1982. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was continued to the meeting of May 26, 1982. CASE 5.0222-PD-137. Application by C. MILLS for W. Coble for a planned development district in-lieu of a change of zone to allow construction of a 120-unit residential condominium project on Escoba Drive between an existing radio tower/Los Compadres Stables, R-1-C Zone ( I.L. ) , Section 30. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recom- mendations and direction for Commission action and stated that staff had received a petition signed by persons at 23 addresses in the neighbor- hood; that the Tribal Council has requested continuance to review the compatability of the project with the area and that staff would have no objections to the continuance request. Discussion followed on location of the carport, the R-1-C Zoning, and the General Plan configuration of high density residential affecting the property. Planning Director stated that staff figures calculate that 100 units are allowed, not 120 based on a specific location of the high density residential designation, but that the General Plan is not in- tended to be interpreted absolutely literally based on graphics. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. H. Hampton, representing the developer, gave a history of the project and stated that the former application which had been approved at 36- units was not economically feasible; that the parcel was a problem one; that the high density portion has been treated sensitively with wide setbacks; that the condominiums will sell in the $40,000 to $50,000 range which addresses the housing goals of the City; and that there is a difference of opinion between staff and the applicant regarding density. He noted that the 120-units proposed would have the same effect of 100 units because of the treatment of the site and would have a negligible • impact which was no greater than the prior approved project. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 . CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Cont'd.) C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, the architect, stated that the 120-unit density was justified by the General Plan for the area; that there was a negligible impact difference between 100 and 120 units; described the differences between the formerly approved 36 unit project and the 120 unit project; and stated that the proposed project is more sensitive to the area. In reply to a question by Commission Christian, Mr. Mills stated that the average size of 96 of the 120 units is 648 sq. ft. and the remaining 24 units are 750 sq. ft. R. Mainiero, 777 E. Tahquitz, engineer for the project, stated that the project would not overload the capacity of the current sewer system and requested that the requirement for the El Cielo sewer line be deleted. He also requested that the requirement for the 20 ft. equestrian ease- ment be reduced to seven and one-half feet as was approved on the previous project. S. Millard, Escoba Drive, stated that she agreed with staff's recom- mendation for denial , citing additional traffic problems, especially at the corner of El Cielo and Escoba; that the project was not compatible with the expensive homes in the neighborhood and that the location of the driveway is a problem; and that she was not a signatory to the petition but was speaking as an individual . • J. Katmeyer, 3506 El Cielo Road, objected to the traffic and stated that the current residents and the proposed project would use the same street; that two of the persons who did not sign the petition were present and could add their names to the petition if they desired; that there was no objection to the former project since it had lesser density; that the proposed project increases traffic not necessarily at the intersection, but on the two-way street and would affect the residents, especially the children who use the route to go to school ; he noted that property values will decrease; and that the project is beautiful but the density is objectionable. Mrs. R. Sheehan, Escoba Drive, stated that the environment of the area is not a problem for the current 33 homeowners; and that the current residents knew of the stables and the radio tower when they bought their homes. R. Blevins, 3526 El Gaucho, agreed with other opinions expressed and stated that the traffic was the main concern since it is overwhelming at the present time when there are church functions. H. Curtis, 3569 Las Pampas, asked how a zone change is obtained. Acting Chairman stated that the project application is for a planned develop- ment district for mixed usage in-lieu of a change of zone. Mr. Curtis stated that he had observed the effect of a two-story or moderate cost housing project on a neighborhood since the San Jacinto apartments have • been built; that tenants of the apartment create disturbances; and that the current proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Cont'd . ) • H. Hampton (rebuttal ) , stated that the intersection of Highway ill and Escoba is a controlled intersection with a traffic signal and increased traffic is a fact of life; that the entry across from the church parking lot was changed from the previous application to make it more appro- priate and that if the parcel were analyzed, it would be more suited to higher density residential than single family residential . In reply to a question from Commissioner Madsen, Planning Director stated that the zoning is R-1-C; that the previous project of 36 units met R-1-C standards and General Plan standards; that the application is a planned development district rather than a zone change so that the Commission can make a judgment on whether or not it is compatible with the General Plan which staff feels it is not; that the staff had deter- mined that the General Plan would have to be amended to show higher density if this project would be considered; and that the reason the high density is shown is because of the graphic nature of the General Plan; and that the property was never intended to be of higher density; that the highway does not directly access the property; that all circu- lation is from local streets; and that if the applicant applied for another type of zoning, a zone change and a General Plan amendment would be required. Discussion followed on the density and character of the project. • In reply to a question by Commission Koetting, Planning Director stated that the access across from the church is in the most appropriate location; that no access agreement exists with Los Compadres Stables; and that too much traffic would be generated into the residential area if the access were located further east. Acting Chairman stated that the project uses single family residential to buffer the higher density; that it is not affordable housing and can- not receive increased density; that the intersection of Highway 111 and Escoba is very dangerous; and that she could not see justification for approval of the project. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission has not approved a change of zone to increase density except for implementation of housing goals. Commissioner Koetting stated that he had mixed opinions on the project; that it is well designed and fitted into the area properly; but that single family residential should not be built against the San Jacinto apartment complex; but that his main concern was access. He stated that the character of the area is lower density residential across the street, but that the consistency with the adjacent project is the San Jacinto apartments which are quite similar; and that it is unfortunate that there is only one access to the area. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director • stated that there was no overlay of higher density because of its being Indian land, and that the judgment on the density was made on General Plan terms. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Cont'd.) Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (M. Harris & Service absent; D. Harris abstained) den�inq the application for a planned development district in-lieu of a Change of zone based on the following findings: 1. That the planned development district lacks consistency with the intent of the General Plan for the area. 2. That there is a significant increase in density (230%) without any implementation of housing goals and objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. 3. That access to the project is inadequate. 4. That there will be an increase in traffic which may necessitate alterations to the existing traffic control program. 5. That public testimony indicates that the project would be detri- mental to the neighborhood. Tribal Council comments: "The Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Staff Report dated April 28, 1982, questioned the consistency of the proposed project with the . City's General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements. While the Staff Report recommended that the application be denied, the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study indicted that a reduction in density could mitigate the Land use impacts. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council requested that this case be continued to the City Planning Commission's next regular meeting for the purposes of further study and comments by the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant with respect to the issues reaised by City Staff, and to the compatibility of the proposed project with area development. CASE 5.0224-CUP & 6.322-VARIANCE (Ref. Case 3.475). Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION for a conditional use permit for a combination service station /convenience store as an adjunct to the overall facilities of the airport and a variance for hangar roof height located on Bogie Road be- tween Vista Chino/Ramon Road, "A" Zone, Section 13. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, (on Case 3.475) , action for filing, and final approval . No comments received. ) • April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 5.0224-CUP & 6.322-VARIANCE (Ref. Case 3.475) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recom- mendations and direction for Commission action for the variance, CUP and the architectural case. He stated that a staff condition would be eliminate the proposed convenience store, although there is a letter from the Airport Operations Manager stating that there is a need for it; that the gasoline industry is beginning to buffer their economics by adding facilities such as convenience markets to their stations but if allowed in one location in an "A" Zone, could set a precedent; that staff would recommend approval of the CUP for the service station subject to deletion of the market, approval of the variance for hangar height, approval of Case 3.475, and the filing of a Negative Decla- ration. Discussion followed on the size of the aircraft to be accommodated by the hangars. Planning Director stated that it would be the largest type of fixed base operation aircraft; and that the project should be approved as an overall master site plan, which may have changes in the future. Discussion followed on the abstentions at the AAC meeting of two archi- tects on the Committee. Commissioner Christian stated that there was no reason to refer the application back to the AAC for the architects' input since the same . architects will abstain again; but that he could not see any real problem since the Planning Commission can override recommendations of the Architectural Advisory Committee. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. H. Williamson, 690 Sierra Way, representing JIMSAIR, owner of the project, stated that the applicant and the engineer were present. He gave a brief history of the project and stated that the convenience store was necessary for the viability of the project; that the old type of gas station is no longer built; and that the complex will generate a considerable amount of money for the City. He requested that the street light and bikepath requirements along Bogie Road be deleted. He stated that the $6,000 per acre drainage fee requirement was a surprise since drainage is on-site; noted that convenience stores do not have liquor licenses, only beer and wine; and the name "convenience store" should be changed since it has a poor connotation; that one of the hangars can accommodate 727 aircraft which have become executive aircraft; and noted that the hangars would probably not service commercial aircraft except on an emergency basis. Discussion followed on the location of the convenience store in relation to the services provided. Mr. Williamson stated that gasoline companies do not build gasoline filling stations alone anymore. Commissioner Koetting stated that some type of convenience store could • be placed inside the airport terminal , and that a convenience store/gas station is not what the Commission envisions on Bogie Road. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 5.0224-CUP & 6.322-VARIANCE (Ref. Case 3.475) Further discussed ensued relative to operation of a car rental facility in the complex. Mr. Williamson stated that a car rental agency in the complex should have its own gasoline pump. Assistant City Attorney stated that a convenience store is not a per- mitted use and that the mini-market would have to be found to be a use similar to a permitted use at the airport and consistent with the "A" (airport) zoning. Acting Chairman commented that there is no mini-market in the airport at the present time. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Christian noted that the complex seems to be a private air- craft facility but that the primary function seems to have changed to merchandise gasoline on Bogie Road. He stated that the convenience store is in an inconvenient place for general aviation pilots and passengers. Further discussion followed on the function of the project and hangar height. Planning Director explained the FAA requirements for hangar height. He . stated that there would be a final architectural review of the terminal and the service station if the mini-market is deleted. Discussion continued on the location and height of the hangar. Planning Director explained the height requirement and stated that the height was needed to service aircraft. In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director stated that the street light requirement was established by the Traffic Engineer but that the Director of Community Development had recommended deletion at this time; that the bikepath will be required; that the drainage fees are required on all new development in the area based on the Master Plan; that $6,000 per acre is one of the lowest fees and may increase slightly based on the revised plan; and noted that the restau- rant would be a part of a future phase. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Service & M. Harris absent; Christian & D. Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving variance 6.322 for the airport hangar roof height, approval of CUP 5.0224 for a filling station (with- out a convenience store), and approving Case 3.475 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the exception that street lights be placed only at the intersection of Bogie Road at the southwest corner of the • northerly driveway. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CASE 5.0224 CUP & 6.322-VARIANCE (Ref. Case 3.475) 2. That detailed plans be submitted for each subsequent phase. 3. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted, including major tree forms to reduce the visual impact of the proposed structure. 4. That architectural working drawings be submitted and reviewed by the AAC and the Planning Commission. 5. That a revised site plan and elevations for the service station be submitted and approved prior to the conditional use permit be- coming effective. PUBLIC COMMENTS J. Cioffi , applicant in Case 3.487 stated that he was present to answer questions and that much study had gone into the project since the last meeting. R. Mainiero, 777 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, applicant in TTM 18329, requested that the Commission approve phasing of the project. . J. Sanborn, Webb Engineering, Inc. , engineer for TTM 18329, asked clarifi- cation regarding the type of bus shelter required. Planning Director stated that a shelter should preferably be designed to match the architecture of the project although a standard bus shelter could be used. Mr. Sanborn requested that the bikepath and landscaping along the dike be made part of the last phase. Planning Director stated that that was no problem. Mr. Sanborn also requested deletion of the ten foot minimum landscaping requirement on the north property line since it is an industrial property. G. Morris, 1445 N. Sunrise Way, applicant for TTM 18385, requested that the requirement for constructing a sidewalk be deleted since no other development in the area has one. He also requested deletion of the requirement for an eight inch sewer line since a septic tank can be utilized. J. Davies, 3295 Tigertail Lane, owner of residence in Case 3.401, stated that she had difficulties with the contractor and had thought revised plans had been approved since there had been City inspection of the site; that when the house was built, certain "dimple" details were eliminated because of the neighbors' objection; and that she thought a revised landscape plan had been submitted. She noted that the contractor is now in bankruptcy; that she has attempted to complete the home since the uncompleted project is unsightly; that a revised landscape plan will be submitted; and requested rescheduling of the application as soon as possible. In reply to a question by Commission D. Harris, Mrs. Davies stated that the color of the residence and the roof were approved by the Architectural Com- mittee of Southridge and she had been told by an assistant to the builder that the color had also been approved by the City. She stated that the color was similar to three other homes in the area and the roof would be a darker shade of the color. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 . 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. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18352. Application by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for R. C. Ellis for a subdivision of land for property located south of Ramon Road on the east side of Crossley Road, M-1 Zone (I.L. ), Section 20. Planning Director stated that the application was the first one in the recently M-1 Zoned area of Golf Club Drive and Crossley Road. He presented the map on the display board and stated that the bikepath and landscape buffer are necessary requirements including landscaping on the north and southerly property lines; that a portion of the landscaping next to each phase will be required to be put in including everything along Crossley Road with Phase I; and that Mesquite Avenue will not be constructed adjacent to this property. He explained the location and requirements for bikepaths in the City and stated that a bond could be proposed or an assessment district formed for this property; that it could be phased; that the landscape buffer on the interior of the project is for wind and sand abatement; that there will be no land- scaping unless the Commission requires it; and that the requirement is necessary to begin formation of a windbreak system for those properties • downstream, which in this case are residences. He recommended that ten foot landscape buffers be required on both the north and south property lines. Further discussion ensued on the landscape requirements. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (Service & M. Harris absent; Madsen dissented) ordering preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving TPM 18352 subject to all recommendations of the AAC and staff, including a designed bus stop and the inclusion of the bikepath in the last phase. The item was continued to the Consent Agenda of May 12, 1982. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the TribalCouncil approved the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration with the added mitigation measures recommended by City Staff, and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 18352 subject to the conditions recommended by City Staff, with the following exception: 1. The 25' landscaped setback area along Crossley Road shall include plant material and ground cover native to this area and requiring minimal irrigation. This type of landscaping should be more cost-effective than conventional greenbelts from the standpoint of maintenance and water energy con- sumption. 2. 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." April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 . CASE 3.487. Application by J. CIOFFI for W. Lansdale for architectural architectural approval of single family residence on private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. (Environmental assessment and tentative architectural approval . ) Planner III stated that the application had been continued for review of the mitigative measures which were to place the home at a lower height or place it at a higher elevation with restoration of the roadway; that the applicant had a computer graphic drawn on the topo and photos and literature on hillside homes had been presented; that a dye was proposed for the hillside cuts; and that the dye is like Dunn Dye but improved. Commissioner Koetting stated that he had visited the site and the appli- cant had devised a good solution to hide the hillside scarring. Planner III stated that natural clay barrel tile will be required and a sample board will be presented before construction begins. Discussion followed regarding having a Munsell color board for the Com- mission at the meetings. Planning Director stated that he would obtain one. Discussion continued relative to unapproved landscaping in the South- ridge area. Planner III recommended that mitigative measure No. 1 under "Aesthetics" be deleted from the conditions of approval . • Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Service & M. Harris absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving Case 3.487 with the following revision to the initial study: That No. 1 under "Aesthetics." (regarding location of the residence) be deleted. The application was continued to the May 12, 1982 Consent Agenda. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Com- mission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel map based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18329. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOC. for Equitec-80 for subdivision of land for industrial purposes on Bogie Road/San Joaquin Dr. , north of Mission Dr. , M-1-P Zone, Section 18. • (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval . No comments received.) Planner III stated that blowsand and flooding were the primary concerns. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 TTM 18329 (Cont'd. ) . Planning Director stated that there is no problem with the phasing request by the engineer, but that a phase plan should be submitted for comment by staff and review by the Commission. Planner III stated that the project phasing would solve the major problem of blowsand. Discussion followed on the problem of graffiti on the walls and the blowsand problem. Planning Director stated that landscaping would miti- gate the graffiti problem and that building permits could be issued during the windy season if a viable blowsand abatement program were sub- mitted by the developer; that a recent project without proper abatement was causing many problems; and that the Commission could make a require- ment that there be no grading from March to June. Commissioner D. Harris agreed; however, Commissioner Koetting stated that it was unreasonable not to allow building during the windy season because of economics, and that a perimeter wall should stop blowsand. Planning Director stated that grading permits are usually not issued during the windy season unless the developer can mitigate the problem but the requirement has sometimes been overridden by the Director of Community Development. He noted that large sites are difficult to water. • Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Christian, and unanimously carried (Service & M. Harris absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TTM 18329 subject to all recommendations of staff and Development Committee and with the following additional condition: That a phasing plan be submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (Cont'd. ) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18385. Application by BILLINGTON, INC. for C. Thompson for a subdivision of land between Racquet Club Road/Sanborn Way, one block west of Milo Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planner III described the map on the board and stated that sewers are a necessary requirement but that the nearest sidewalk is one-fourth to one-half mile away, although the construction of a sidewalk is an engi- neering requirement. Appril 28 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 TPM 183E (Cont'd. ) . Discussion followed relative to sewer connection and reimbursement. Planning Director stated that the applicant eventually will be respon- sible for only the portion adjacent to his property and that an assess- ment district is not feasible at the present time due to the cost; that connection to the sewer is a subdivision requirement only unless a project is within 500 feet of a sewer; and that reimbursement for sewer facilities in the area is provided to a developer when other properties connect to the sewer line. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Service & M. Harris absent; Koetting dissented) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving TPM 18385 with the deletion of the sidewalk requirement. The item was continued to the May 12, 1982 Consent Agenda. 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 3.401. Application by S. CAVALLERO for J. Davies for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family residence at 2395 Tiger- tail Lane in Southridge, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Planner III stated that the AAC recommended restudy of the landscape plan since it was not accurate and architectural details were deleted from the plans without approval ; that the Building & Safety Director was to have been present or a written report received from him but that he was in a meeting and could not attend; that the AAC recommendation recommends continuance so the project can be redrawn (as built) and that the colors originally approved have not been complied with. Discussion followed on the location of the residence. Commissioner D. Harris stated that it is very visible and an obnoxious color; and that perhaps nothing could be done except for a restudy. Discussion continued on the unapproved color of the house. In response to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Mrs. Davies stated that she had never seen the display on the board; that the two basic changes made were the removal of the curved appurtenances on the house and the deletion of the glass wall . Commissioner Koetting suggested that the applicant meet with staff to discuss the project to determine what can be done. Mrs. Davies stated that she would meet with staff and wanted as little physical changes as possible because of fiscal problems. • Discussion followed on whether or not photos or as-built drawings should be required. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.401 (Cont 'd. ) . Commissioner D. Harris questioned the reasons for the Building Division allowing the revisions without approval. Motion was made by Koetting and seconded by Madsen for a restudy with AAC conditions to be waived until staff can solve the problems with the applicant without redrawing the building elevations (later amended to delete AAC recommendation No. 1 that revised elevations and archi- tectural details be submitted) until an expeditious solution is reached, and for applicant to meet with staff to find a solution to the problems. Commissioner Christian left the meeting at this point. CASE 3.494 (Minor) . A plication by D. WEXLER for Spa Hotel for architectural approval of enclosure of existing swimming pool cover at 100 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director explained that the applicant is seeking to enclose a roofed outdoor meeting area and that no change in parking is antici- pated. • Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried (Service, M. Harris & Christian absent) approving the appli- cation as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION (Ref. Case 5.0067-PD-87) . Request by W. GIETTER for request of time extension on planned development district and map for one year beyond date of expiration of map to September 16, 1983 (Ref. TTM 17279) . Planning Director presented a brief staff report regarding the time extension request. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Service, M. Harris & Christian absent) approving a one year time extension for TTM 17279 and a time extension on PD-87 final development plans to coincide with the Tract Map extension subject to all original conditions of approval with the following additional conditions: 1. That the applicant dedicate easements for sewer purposes in Radio Road or provide 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 the extension of time. is 2. That the project be subject to storm drain implementation and/or drainage fees now required in this drainage area. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 • SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 16158. Request by J. HACKER & ASSOC. for Landusa Corporation for a second one year time extension for TTM 16158, a com- bination of property to allow construction of an 18-unit condominium project on the east side of Sunrise Way between Amado Road/Desert Palms Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that no new conditions would be required and that the School Impact and Drainage fees and/or mitigation had been required in approval of the first time extension. Commissioner D. Harris stated that he would not vote for the approval because school impact fees should not be placed on any project until the fees are approved by the Council . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Service, M. Harris & Christian absent; D. Harris dissented) approving a second one year time extension for TTM 16158 subject to all original conditions of approval . ARCHITECTURALAPPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0166-PD-124. Application by R. GREGORY for Palm Springs Baptist Church for architectural approval of final develoment plans (landscape) for • Phase I of expansion on the northeast corner of El Cielo/Escoba Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 19. Planning Director stated that the AAC did not want both bikepaths and sidewalks and would prefer a combination and requested that the Planning Commission and staff review the need for a sidewalk and a meandering bikepath. Discussion followed on whether or not action should be taken on the bikepath/sidewalk proposal by the AAC. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Service, Christian & M. Harris absent; D. Harris abstained) for a restudy of the landscape and for the bikepath to remain as planned. • April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 i 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 D. Harris, and unanimously carried (Service, M. Harris & 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 3.101. M. BUCCINO for Investor' s Real Estate for architectural approval of additional landscape plans for Phase I of condominium project on the northeast corner of Amado Road/Avenida Caballeros, R-G-A (8) Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved as submitted. CONTINUED ITEMS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18126 & CASE 3.439. ERVIN ENGINEERING for J. Cain for architectural approval of final grading and landscape plans for • residential condominium project on Vista Chino between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-G-A (6) Zone, Section 12. Continued to May 12, 1982 for receipt of landscape plans. DISCUSSION. PLANNING COMMISSION discussion regarding the concept of lacing lights on palm trees to light buildings on Palm Canyon Drive FRef. Case 2.960 - The Vineyard) . Continued to May 12, 1982. ITEMS 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 3.304/TTM 15945 (Revised) . J. COTTON for architectural approval of revised elevations for four 4-unit apartments on Avenida Caballeros between Vista Chino/Cottonwood Road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration. ) • Restudy to address overall lack of integration of the architecture and review of landscape concepts and materials. April 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 5.0080-CUP. OUR SAVIOUR'S LUTHERAN CHURCH for architectural approval of final landscape and exterior lighting plans for remodel and addition to church at 1020 Ramon Road, R-2 Zone, Section 14. Restudy of the street tree size and quantity, berm element adjacent to the parking area, and shrubbery on the proposed mounding to screen the parking. CASE 3.473. THOMPSON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP for Desert Associates for archi- tectural approval of final landscape plans for residential condominimu project bounded by E1 Segundo, San Andreas, Alvarado, and Amado Road, R- 4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Restudy to provide shrubs and groundcover plans, review of the planter area and plantings between the carport and to provide planters at the base of each column; and a review of the tree plan. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Staff to review with applicant, lighting on parking lot at the Racquet Club Plaza (Case 5.0127-PD-113) . • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Acting Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. MDR/mi LANNI G DIR TOR