Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/02/09 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall . February 9, 1983 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 13 1 Hugh Curtis X 14 0 Darel Harris X 12 2 Hugh Kaptur X 13 1 Peter Koetting X 13 1 Don Lawrence X 12 2 Paul Madsen X 12 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Doug Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Stephen Graham, Planner III Tony Cucuzzella, Building Inspector Supervisor . Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - February 7, 1983 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Chris Mills David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Earl Neel Peter Koetting Absent: Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the January 26 meeting were approved as submitted. Minutes of the January 12 meeting were amended as follows: Page 17, Case 5.0255-MISC. , first paragraph, change date of March 1 to • "March 2,"(M/S/C Harris, Koetting; Curtis absent) February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0256-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the General Plan Street Plan to eliminate Rose Avenue as a collector street northerly of Stevens Road, Section 10. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . Comments received from Desert Water Agency.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Case 5.0256-GPA per staff recommendations. Planning Director stated that one comment had been received from the Desert Water Agency regarding maintenance of easements and access to the area; but that the needs of utilities are considered in these types of cases; and access will not be denied. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman explained to the audience that the "collector" street designation is the smallest street shown on the General Plan. • M/S/C (Harris, Koetting; Curtis absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0256-GPA per staff recommendations. Tribal Council comments : "While this proposed General Plan Amendment does not materially affect Indial Lands, it has been the policy of the Tribal Council to consider and comment on all General Plan Amendments . This Case was considered by the Tribal Council on January 25, 1983. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission the Tribal Council approved the filing of 2 Negative Declarations and reiterated its action of January 25 to approve this proposed amendment to the City' s General Plan Street Plan that would delete Rose Avenue, Northerly of Stevens Road, as a Collector Street." Commissioner Curtis entered the meeting at this point. • February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 . CASE 5.0222-PD-137 (Revised to 5 .0257-CUP) & TTM 14740 (Revised). Application by C. MILLS for W. Coble for a revised PD in-lieu of a change of zone for construction of a 44-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 previously given in conjunction with original review of PD-137. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.0257-CUP (formerly CASE 5.0222-PD-137) and TTM 14740 (Revised) subject to conditions. Planning Director explained that the project has been revised to meet requirements for a CUP. Planner III stated that the project is considered to have previously been assessed with no comments received although staff had discussed it with several property owners in the area who are attending the meeting. Planning Director stated that in discussions with the Assistant City Attorney, several revisions of the Development Committee conditions were made and a condition added to underground adjacent utilities. Planner III explained that the construction of phases will be • concurrent. Planning Director stated that since the project has been revised to a CUP, the Planning Commission has the final approval , not the City Council as required for a planned development district application. Discussion followed relative to architectural details, landscaping, and phasing. Planner III explained that additional architectural fees would be collected for Phase II which would be considered as another project (with no additional fees beyond that point) . Chairman declared the hearing open. H. Hampton, 1913 E. Amado Road, developer, stated that Phase I and Phase II terminology is misleading; that the phasing request was made so that the common amenities are constructed at Phase I but not the single family residences around the perimeter; that the walls, landscaping, residences and amenities will blend with the area although the square footage is not as large as could have been constructed in the past; that the proposed price range will be $85,000 to $95,000 for the duplexes and $110,000 to $125,000 for the single family residences; that the average lot size is 7,500 sq. ft. ; that the units being detached have not been determined although they will probably be on the corner lots, and reiterated that the project will essentially be constructed in one phase with one homeowner's association, and if any different elevations other than those approved by the AAC are proposed by a buyer, the proposal would be brought to the AAC and Planning Commission. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0257-CUP (Cont' d.) C. Mills, 278 "C" N. Palm Canyon Drive, the architect, requested deletion of sewer and easement requirements on El Cielo Road and stated that deletion had been requested four years ago; that the orientation of the duplex units makes them appear to be single family residences; that the zero setback for the units in which two garages abut, is to allow for a common driveway for more street frontage; described the configuration of a single family residence; and stated that he was present to answer questions. Mrs. S. Millard, 3508 Escoba Drive, stated that she did not have enough information on the project to form an opinion since that all that was being shown was lots. She questioned the marketing and phasing program, the type of housing to be constructed on the perimeter, and the price range of the homes. Chairman stated that the Commission has no control over the price range of a development. Mrs. Millard stated that she was concerned about the integrity of the family-oriented neighborhood and when questioned by Commission, stated that she would prefer single family residences with driveways across from her home but that if a six foot wall were constructed the project would not be a problem to her. G. Olsen , 3576 Escoba Drive, stated that he did not object to the • project, but felt that a mixture of housing types would be a mistake; and that the project should conform to neighborhood standards . D. Harris, 3552 E1 Gaucho Circle, questioned the location of the entrance and stated that he felt it should be located adjacent to Los Compadres Stables; that the problem of the driveway should have been resolved previously because of neighborhood opposition to its location; that it appears that there are houses backing to Escoba Drive which is not aesthetically pleasing; that if the entrance were located off El Cielo Road, there would be no construction vehicles blocking Escoba Drive; that the entry should be redesigned; and that the proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood because of the size of the units, not the price. Planning Director explained that the present location of the driveway is the best because of less traffic impaction. Discussion ensued on the concept of a private driveway as opposed to individual driveways. Mr. Harris stated that no redesign of the driveway is necessary, only relocation of the entry. Discussion continued on the orientation of the houses. Mr. Harris stated that the homes in the neighborhood have approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of living space. Mrs. R. Sheehan, 3554 Escoba Drive, questioned the setbacks. Chairman stated that the setback to the wall changes from 20 ft. to 30 ft. because of the meandering design of the wall . Mrs. Sheehan stated that the neighbors were not getting a true picture of the project. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0257-CUP (Cont' d. ) A. Hersh, 3577 Escoba Drive, stated his concerns with the drainage on Escoba since water from storms and irrigation flow toward the residences. H. Hampton, the applicant (rebuttal ) stated that the project will help alleviate the water problem since the water will flow down the project side of the street; that the entry had been discussed with the City Engineer and the location across from the church is the most viable; that the configuration of the property determines the orientation of the houses which will not be seen because they will be behind a wall and landscaping; and noted that the application was incomplete because the homes have not yet been designed but they will be similar to the duplexes in the center portion and will range from 14,000 sq. ft. to 16,000 sq. ft. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the project was well designed but that the mixing of sizes of homes in the project with the size of homes in the neighborhood and also the "0" setback were not compatible with the area. Planning Director stated that the minimum residence size was 1,100 sq. ft. , not including the garage as required by the Zoning Ordinance. • Chairman stated that the project meets all zoning requirements; that the common driveway is viable; that Escoba Drive is a boulevard with a scenic parkway environment; that the project is not detrimental to the neighborhood; that the Assessor' s office does not lower property values because of the proximity of a condominium project to single family residences; that the project is of benefit to the neighborhood; and also hoped that the developer would be aware of the neighbors' concerns. Planning Director stated that "General " conditions 1. and 2. of the Development Committee recommendations should remain until the Master Plan of Sewers is amended. Chairman stated that Phase II should be an extension of the CUP process so the neighbors are aware of the Phase II architectural plans. Discussion followed on the concept of a mix of homes relative to property values, the concept of smaller sizes of homes in the future, and standards in abutting zones. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the applicant is really requesting a variance, and that there will be a mixture of incompatible types of people. Commissioner Madsen stated that the people buying the homes will be single families like the people living across the street, and that the project is basically an architectural approval type of application and meets ordinance requirements with added conditions of approval . February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0257-CUP (Cont' d. ) Discussion followed on the concept of noticing of property owners of the Phase II application. Assistant City Attorney stated that a CUP is subject to supplementation but that architectural approval is limited and that if there is a possibility that the application would be returning to the Commission or conditions added, the CUP could be amended or supplemented. Planning Director stated that the Assistant City Attorney and he may have a difference of opinion on the mechanics of the application. He stated that if a CUP were left open, it could be conditioned or denied possible with inconsistent results; but if the intent of the Commission were to review the architectural elements, a public hearing could be held to review the architecture and for public input, and would be considered a supplement, not an amendment to the CUP. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Kaptur dissented; Curtis/Harris abstained) approving CUP 5.0257 and TTM 14740 (revised) with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the cluster residential development at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by Section 9206.01 .C.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. • 2. That the cluster residential development is desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is compatible in building height, density and general architectural character to existing uses and to uses specifically permitted in the zoning in which the proposed project is located. 3. That the 10.17 acre site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the proposed cluster residential use and meets or exceeds all yard, setback, landscaping and other features in order to adjust this use to existing and/or future uses on lands in the neighborhood. 4. That the project site, being located on Escoba Drive (a local street) is designed and will be improved to carry type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. CONDITIONS: 1. That Architectural Advisory Committee conditions be implemented. 2. That final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted within one year of City Council approval of the conditional use permit. A tree program for the east, west and south property lines shall be incorporated into the final landscape plans. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • CASE 5.0257-CUP (Cont' d.) 3. That project C.C. & R. ' s shall contain provisions for private yard landscape installation and maintenance thereof. 4. That Phase II development plans be submitted within one year of Planning Commission approval . These plans shall be submitted under a major architectural approval application with applicable fees. 5 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with staff to review Engineering conditions relative to the Master Plan of Sewers and the sewer easement. (Conditions 1 and 2, "General " . ) 6. That "Onsite" condition #6 be deleted (private sewer) . 7. That "General" condition #9 be deleted. 8. That architectural plans for Phase II be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review as a supplement to the CUP and noticed for public hearing. 9. That all adjacent utility lines be undergrounded per the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. • Tribal Council comments: "In reviewing Planning Commission staff report dated February 9, 1983, it was noted that this proposed cluster residential development meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9206.0I.C.5) , including the allowable density of 44-units. It was also noted that provision is being made (CC&R' s) for long-term maintenance of the large amount of open-space which comprises some 65% of the total site. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the conditional Use Permit for this proposed cluster residential development based on the findings set forth in Staff Report, and subject to the conditions outlined therein with the exception that 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. Concurred with Staff determination that no additional action is required relative to the environmental assessment. 3. Recommended that buyers be made aware of all adjacent land uses, including the equestrian facilities, flood control channel , and church activities ." * * * * * February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 6.333-VARIANCE. Application by V. MURPHY for a variance in side yard setback requirements at 803 Monte vista, R-1-C Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the variance application. Planner II stated that the applicant has made several findings which are not grounds for a variance in staff' s opinion. He then described the project on the display board and stated that a permit was issued to construct the garage wall subject to submittal of a variance application to determine the legality of the structure; that the work on the garage was done without inspections or without a variance application; that a Building Inspector discovered the situation after construction had begun; and that the slab (Structure B) is for a single story addition and built by the present resident. Planning Director stated that flat work does not require a building permit although construction over 30 inches does. Chairman declared the hearing open. V. Murphy, 803 Via Monte Vista, the applicant, explained his stance on • the legality of the construction to date. He stated that to demolish the structure (Structure A) would cost $80,000 since his home is attached to it; that the person complaining about the structure is no longer in the neighborhood and the structure hurts no one; that many houses in Las Palmas are close to the property line; that he did not build the addition, and was not asking for a variance; that structure B was proposed for a pool table or exercise room; and that he had owned the home for 12 years. Discussion followed with Mr. Murphy to determine chronology of construction, and Mr. Murphy's awareness of that chronology. Mr. Murphy stated that he had not obtained a permit for Structure A on the north side of the house because he had not built it. Chairman stated that the contract City Attorney finds that any illegal work is inherited by the purchaser of a property and that it had been four years since Mr. Murphy was notified of the illegal structure. Mr. Murphy submitted photographs of the structure and the view. Mrs. J. Dyer, 635 Leisure Way, stated that she was interested in what was going to face her property on Leisure Way and did not understand for what the variance request was made. There being no further appearances , the hearing was closed. Building Inspector Supervisor stated that no review of the structure in the field had been made because no one was permitted inside the building; and that to his knowledge no plans have been received for Structure B. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 6.333-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that the applicant was required to apply for a variance because of Building Division and City Attorney recommendations and if the variance were granted, it would continue to allow the structure on the property, but that Mr. Murphy has protested the requirement from the beginning. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he would recommend continuance for the inspector to inspect the building with a report to the Commission since the building will be costly to modify; and that there are some homes in the area which have no setbacks. M/S Lawrence/Koetting, to continue the application for review and inspection by staff with the applicant. The vote was as follows: AYES: Koetting, Lawrence NOES: Curtis, Harris, Kaptur, Madsen, Service ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. NOTE: Planning Director explained, after the motion, that violations of • setbacks in Las Palmas seem to be divided between the old and new sections since portions built before 1938 conformed to the County ordinance which had no setback requirements. Commissioner Lawrence stated that an inspection should be made to determine the type of use for which Structure A would be used and rapport established with the applicant so if the variance were denied, the applicant would understand the reasons. Further discussion followed on the background of the variance. Building Inspector Supervisor explained that apparently a permit was issued for repair of the south wall of the garage due to water damage and that Structure A is a wing wall built across the front of the residence which was subsequently roofed without permits. He stated that it is not a garage, but a storage area with no light or ventilation; and that a permit could not be issued for it. Chairman stated that more investigation might not help the legality of granting a variance. Planning Director stated that a 20 foot side front yard setback is required. M/S/C (Harris/Kaptur; Lawrence dissented) denying Variance 6.333 based on the following findings: February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 6.333-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) 1 . That no special circumstances apply to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) which would dictate that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical classification. Alternative areas of the site are available for construction of extensions to the dwelling and garage without encroaching into required yards. 2. That conditions could be placed on the variance application that would assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone. • 4. The granting of the variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 5. There is no approved application for the garage to the north of the property. 6. Ordinances in the City have never allowed a side yard of less than five feet in this area. 7. The existing garage could be demolished without rendering the existing house structurally unsafe. 8. The existing garage could be modified to render it structurally sound per the Uniform Building Code. 9. One complaint has been received by the City regarding the proximity of the garage to the northern property line. NOTE: After action for denial was taken, Commissioner Lawrence stated that he voted against the motion because he was in opposition to what was being done on the site and felt that the two-week delay for inspection would have been valuable. Chairman informed the applicant that he could appeal the Commission decision. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS R. Wiley, applicant in Cases 3.505 & 3.553 requested time to address the Commission when the items were heard on the agenda. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following 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. TPM 18787. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOC. for Golden West Equity Properties for a subdivision of land for industrial purposes on Ramon Road between Bogie Road/San Luis Rey, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with the CZ 5.0160-CZ.) 0 Planning Director explained that response had been received by letter (on file in the Department of Community Development) from the City of Cathedral City relative to a property line in Cathedral City which is needed for access to San Luis Rey; that Cathedral City is requesting the following: 1. That the City of Palm Springs maintain the proposed 6-phase traffic signal at San Luis Rey/Ramon Road. 2. That along the west side of San Luis Rey, a minimum 25 ft. wide landscape strip be provided with turf and shade trees and other appropriate materials and with a six foot block wall . He stated that staff, in reviewing the request, will discuss the traffic signal with the Traffic Engineer; that there is a five foot landscape strip along San Luis Rey which will be maintained by the Developer; that a six foot block wall exceeds Palm Springs requirements; that the developer is concerned about redesigning the 40 foot access roads to 50 foot industrial street standards which will be addressed by the Traffic Engineer; that the developer' s concerns are mostly landscaping, signalization and access to San Luis Rey; and that staff would recommend approval subject to Development Committee and Cathedral City conditions . Traffic Engineer stated that there is a problem with on-street parking with a 40 foot street and that 50 feet would give adequate width; that it was critical that there be access to San Luis Rey; and then described future traffic problems on San Luis Rey stating that future planning dictates a secondary access to San Luis Rey. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • TPM 18787 (Cont' d.) Discussion followed on Ramon Road as a secondary access, traffic hazards on Ramon Road, and traffic routes leaving and entering the project. B. McDonald, 1949 State College, Anaheim, the applicant, complimented staff of both cities for expediting the access matter and stated that he was not involved in the maintenance of the traffic signal , that a six foot wall is not needed; that he had submitted an appeal to the Council regarding conditions recommended for the project; and that he opposed widening the 40 foot street since 40 feet can accommodate parking on both sides and no large trucks will use the street. Planning Director stated that a "no parking" provision would have to be enforced if the 40 foot street width were allowed. Commissioner Curtis requested a dense landscape buffer between the property line and the buildings to obscure discontinuity of the buildings. Planning Director explained that a 25 foot landscape buffer is required and includes the private streets. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there had been a preliminary site plan with preliminary landscaping that was recommended for restudy but showed basics of the Bogie Road and Ramon Road frontages. Planning Director stated that the map would be conditioned to submit a landscape plan for the common areas and described the total 33 foot wide landscape setback • configuration; that AAC recommendations Nos. 1 & 4 had been deleted and that there is a bikepath on both sides of Ramon Road on the Master Plan of Bikeways. M/S/C (Madsen/Harris; Curtis dissented) approving TPM 18787 subject to staff and Development Committee conditions with the deletion of AAC recommendations 1 & 4. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.328. Request by staff for a Planning Commission determi- nation that an outdoor bar in conjunction with a full service restaurant or resort hotel is an acceptable accessory use to outdoor dining. Planning Director stated that the determination had originated from the City Council , a Planning Commission question, and a letter from an applicant to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, asking if such a facility were acceptable with the City; that the ordinance allows outdoor dining in commercial zones; that outdoor bars have been questioned as an acceptable outdoor use; that the Planning Commission can define accessory uses and similar uses in various zones; that staff finds that full-service restaurants and resort hotels would be a proper control ; that the Chief of Police has no problems with the concept • unless police problems arise; that the AAC has no problems; that the Health Department has sanitary problems with insects in outdoor areas; that the Police Chief wants some control so if problems arise, additional conditions can be placed; that the proposed land use permit would do this; that staff finds that an outdoor bar is not an acceptable February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • DETERMINATION 10.328 (Cont' d.) main use but is allowable as part of a major main use such as a resort hotel ; and that an "outdoor" area is anything not within an enclosed building. Discussion followed on the parameters and restrictions of an outdoor dining facility. Consensus was that an oudoor bar should not be accessible or visible from the street. M/S/C (Koetting/Harris) determining that an outdoor bar which is not accessible nor visible from the street in conjunction with a resort hotel or full-service restaurant with an internal courtyard is an appropriate accessory use where outdoor dining is allowed. 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 3.265. Application by CHRISTIAN & ASSOCIATES for P.S. Airpark for archi- tectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for a light industrial park adjacent to the airport, east of Farrell Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Planner II stated that the mechanical equipment will be screened as a condition of approval . In response to a memo from the Transportation Director, Planning Director stated that water flow problems can be mitigated by designing mitigation measures into the project although sheet flow will be intensified with no appropriate solution. In reply to Chairman' s questions, Planner II stated that the City Engineer has been informed about the problems of water flowing into the airport and that the applicant has stated that any nuisance and ten-year storm water will be retained on-site. M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence) approving Case 3.265 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met including the previous environmental review in conjunction with this application. 2. That wood or other such material be used for the soffits. 3. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • CASE 3.505. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for Palm Canyon Associates for architectural approval of working drawings for residential condominium development on the northwest corner of E. Palm Canyon Drive/Cherokee Way, R-G-A (8) Zone (I .L.) , Section 30. In response to question by Chairman, R. Wiley, architect, stated that the french doors and windows were bronze-finished aluminum with a grid fastened over them. Chairman stated that the renderings show paned windows. In response to questions by Planner II , Mr. Wiley stated that the columns will be square instead of round; and the round decorative details will remain; and that sliding glass doors will be used instead of french doors because of the cost and cost of maintenance. Discussion followed on integrity of the project as detailed in the working drawings. Consensus was that the project had lost character. Mr. Wiley disagreed with the consensus and stated that integrity has remained; that the client approves the design; that the sales brochures reflect the continuity and integrity of the architect and the developer; that the project will be a contribution to the community; that the aluminum grid windows look similar to French windows and obtains a feeling of individual panes with more ease in cleaning; and that on some parts of the working drawings, the window grids are indicated. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the grids are contemporary more than Spanish in style; that after window cleaning, the grids will not be replaced and continuity will be lost; and that the grids do not look like wood mullioned windows. Discussion followed on the front and rear elevations of Plan No. 4. Chairman stated that although he liked the project, he would not vote for it if aluminum casement windows were substituted for the wood mullioned windows; that the integrity of the project had not been preserved in the working drawings; and that the Commission wants to review working drawings at times because of details being omitted. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the design concept originally approved was what the Commission wanted. Mr. Wiley stated that he intended to retain the concept. Further discussion followed on the concept. Commissioner Harris stated that he liked the fresh look of the project. Discussion continued on the mechanical details on the exterior of the buildings . Mr. Wiley stated that these details had been anticipated and designed into the architecture. Discussion continued on the building details. M/S/C (Harris/Lawrence; Kaptur dissented) approving Case 3.505 working drawings subject to the following conditions: February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • CASE 3.505 (Cont' d. ) 1. That window grids be retained as shown on the original plans with materials left to the developer. 2. That the decorative railing be retained as shown on the originally approved elevations. 3. That columns be retained at the larger size shown on the originally approved elevations. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That rafters be retained as shown on the orginally approved elevations. 6. That the garage doors retain the elements of design shown in the originally approved elevations, i .e. , divided squares but eliminating the glazing elements. CASE 3.553. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for architectural approval of 184 condominium units on Avenida Caballeros between Saturnino Road/Arenas Road, R-4 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing & final approval . ) R. Wiley, the architect described the roof materials and stated that the concept was affordable housing close to downtown with a varied treatment on Avenida Caballeros because of the project's length on that street; that the project was deficient 16 parking spaces, but that the AAC felt that parking could be reduced further to provide more open space on the site; that the applicant is requesting a 10% reduction in parking; and that compact parking provided will meet requirements. Discussion followed on the request for reducing parking on site. Planning Director stated that eventually Avenida Caballeros will be red- curbed when the entire street is completed. Commissioners expressed concern that the residents closest to Avenida Caballeros will park on that street. Commissioner Koetting suggested that if the project is approved, a perimeter wall be designed for the file in case the homeowners association requests a security wall in the future. Discussion continued on reorientation of the project. Planning Director stated that there was no room to reorient the buildings in question, that the reduction proposed could be approved through an AMM, and that the applicant is achieving R-4 density on the site with a two-story design. Further discussion ensued relative to the entry gate and the amenities of the project. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • CASE 3.553 (Cont' d. ) Planning Director explained that a 10% reduction in parking is discretionary with staff but is used mostly in unusual circumstances. He stated that staff would prefer the project meet code by eliminating units since additional parking would be placed in already constricted areas and that the present configuration shows a space and a half of parking per unit. Commissioner Koetting stated that perhaps parking on the project should be reviewed in a study session since parking might be superfluous with non-auto users and single car owners. Discussion followed on roof materials. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there was too large an expanse of asphalt shingles. Mr. Wiley stated that texture would be provided by the tapering and orientation of the building. Commissioner Koetting stated that the AAC requested that a substantial amount of roofing materials be provided to the AAC for review. Further discussion followed on parking and the orientation of the two rear units which Commissioner Koetting found constricted. Discussion followed on the amount of parking reduction requested by the applicant and continued on the setback requirement. • M/S (Curtis/Harris; Madsen abstained) to approve the project subject to conditions of the AAC and for AAC review of the roofing material with a six foot reduction in parking through an AMM. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Harris , Service NOES: Kaptur, Koetting, Lawrence ABSENTION: Madsen ABSENT: None There was a tie vote. (No action taken. ) Motion was made by Harris to approve the application subject to a 10% parking reduction. The motion died for lack of a second. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Harris dissented; Madsen abstained) for continuance for the applicant to address Planning Commission concerns to be reviewed by the AAC. (Concerns were refinement of the site plan and elevations. ) Discussion followed on Planning Commission concerns regarding parking reduction and the location of the reduction on site. Tribal Council comments : "This Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of January 11 and January 25, 1983. Although it is the general policy of the Tribal council to abstain from acting on cases involving only architectural approval , it was noted that this case constitutes a major development in Section 14 which is an area of the City of particular concern to the Tribal Council . February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • CASE 3.553 (Cont' d. ) After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions : 1. Reiterated its action of January 25 to: a. Approve the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated January 12, 1983. b. Approve the conditions recommended in Development Committee Meeting Minutes dated December 16, 1982 with the exception that 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. Made no comments and/or recommendations on the architectural features of the project except to note that revisions to the site Plan and landscape plan, modifications to elevations and architectural details, etc. were submitted by the applicant and approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee on February 7, 1983." • ADDED STARTERS - ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. CIOFFI for architectural approval of identification sign for restaurant at 292 E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. (Ref. Case 3.561) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign is exposed neon. In response to a question by Commissioner Harris, Mr. Cioffi , the architect, stated that the sign is designed to trail around the corner as a unifying element since the building has two exposures. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Harris dissented; Kaptur abstained) approving the sign application as submitted. NOTE: The AAC commended the design of the sign. INFORMAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ITEM CASE 3.559. Application by EISNER-SMITH for Palm Canyon Associates for archi- tectural approval of revised site plan elevations for a 270-room hotel on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Cherokee Way/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 30. Planning Director stated that the project had been reviewed informally by the AAC on February 7 , and the applicant requested direction on the revisions. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 • CASE 3.559 (Cont'd.) R. Smith, the applicant, stated that after the study session in January with direction by the AAC to retain the frontage road, the applicant felt that the frontage road plan as submitted was not acceptable, and that several Commission concerns were addressed by a meandering frontage road and a site plan redesign. Commissioner Koetting stated that the AAC had given input to the applicant regarding revisions to the elevations, and that the frontage road problem has been resolved. Consensus was that the site plan had been improved addressing Commission concerns. M/S/C (Lawrence/Harris) approving the frontage road concept plan as submitted in the third revision. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) TTM 12049. Request by J. WHITE for phasing plan to construct models for 30- unit condominium project on the northeast corner of E1 Cielo/Sonora Roads, R-1-C and W-R-1-C Zones, Section 19. (Ref. Case 5.0053-CUP) • Planning Director recommended that the phasing plan be approved including model construction and street improvements on E1 Cielo Road and Sunrise Way with a temporary turnaround on the cul-de-sac. Discussion following on the proposed phasing concept. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence) approving a phasing plan for TTM 12049 subject to original conditions of approval and the recommendations of the Development Committee for the phasing plan including construction of full off site improvements along Sonora Road and E1 Cielo Road with the construction of the models. WIND ENERGY PROJECTS. Request by STAFF for Planning Commission review of wind energy projects located outside City limits currently being processed by Riverside County. Planner III gave a brief overview and stated as follows: No. 446 - In the sphere of influence and being processed for a public use permit. No. 443 - Located on Whitewater Hill with turbines proposed on the north side of the hill . No. 447 - Located on Dillon Road south of the current Edison turbines. No. 443 & 447 - Hearings will probably be continued because the applicant is not complying with requested exhibits. February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 • WIND ENERGY PROJECTS (Cont' d. ) Planner III stated that the law suit with the County has been settled. He described the information received in the packet distributed to the Commission and explained the materials showing the County and City proposals and the compromise reached. He stated that supplemental information will be distributed before the February 16 study session and requested Commission input on the amount of material to be reviewed at the study session; and that although the turbines are visible, the projects are acceptable in relation to the settlement and much of the mi- tigation will rely on code enforcement. Chairman stated that the Commission will review the material submitted by staff for discussion at the February 16 study session. The item was continued for review at the study session. 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. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen) 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 5.0063-CUP. S. KASSOVIC for the Riviera Tennis Club for architectural approval of revised roof material for tennis club on the east side of N. Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Approved as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for P.S. Ltd. for architectural approval of main sign for business (former Ford agency) on E. Palm Canyon Drive, west of Cherokee Way, C-2 Zone (I .L.) , Section 30. Approved as submitted. ADDED STARTER ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont' d. ) CASE 5.0086-PD-84. Application by FORSUM, SUMMERS for Freeman Properties for architectural approval of wrought iron pool fencing for condominium complex on E . Palm Canyon Drive between Cerritos Road/Andee Drive, R-3 & R-1-C Zones, Section 24. M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting; Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: That details of landscaping for the fence be submitted for staff approval . February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd) CASE 3.364. Application by W & J ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES for Columbia Savings & Loan for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for savings and loan branch office on E. Palm Canyon Drive between S. Palm Canyon Drive/W. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. M/S/C (Kaptur/Harris) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That landscape/hardscape be included in-lieu of concrete to the north of the property adjoining the fountain. 2. That arch windows be used on the northeast and southeast elevations. 3. That vertical wood/tile be introduced under the arches on the west elevation. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That windows be recessed into the southwest elevation. 6. That the landscape area be widened on the east elevation. • 7. That landscaping be introduced on the southeast elevation. 8. That the tower element be lowered three feet. 9. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 3.560 (Minor) . TRINIDAD HOTEL for architectural approval of repaint of exterior of hotel at 1900 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Continued at the applicant' s request. • February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 • 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. HEATHMAN HILL ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of as-built landscape plans for professional condominiums on the south side of Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP (I .L. ) Zones , Section 14. Restudy to return to the original landscape plan. Tribal Council comments: "In view of this project' s proximity to the Tribal Cemetery, the Tribal Council has heretofore reviewed and conditionally approved building elevations, site plan, and landscape plans for the subject project. The conditional approval included an agreement and understanding with the developer that he would install and maintain additional landscaping at his expense, in order to mitigate any visual impact on the Tribal cemetery could best be determined. The follow-up site inspection referred to above was conducted by members of the Tribal Council and the developer on February 7, 1983. On the . basis of this inspection and discussion with the developer, the Tribal Council approved the as-built landscape plans as submitted by the developer, with the understanding that landscaping of the Northwesterly corner of the site (not incuded on the as-built plans) will be coordinated with current plans for expansion and landscaping of the Tribal cemetery. As a supplement to its comments/recommendations on Commission agenda items for February 9, 1983, the Tribal Council is submitting follow-up comments on previous cases that it considered." ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CASE 3.309. Application by H. KASSINGER for the Bank of Palm Springs Center for architectural approval of entry canopies and revised sign program for retail center on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Calle El Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-4-VP & C-1-AA Zones (I .L. ) , Section 14. Removed for staff approval . February 9, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Planning Commissioners institute in Monterey March 2 - 4. Planning Director stated that all reservations and registration had been made for the Commissioners' institute. Cathedral City General Plan. Planning Director reminded Commission that they were invited to attend the Cathedral City Planning Commission joint study session at 7:30 p.m. , February 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. ` CANNING I CTO�0n-- MDR/mi WP