Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/08/24 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall August 24, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 2 2 Hugh Curtis X 3 1 Hugh Kaptur - 3 1 Peter Koetting X 4 0 Don Lawrence X 4 0 Paul Madsen X 3 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 3 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney John Terell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - August 22, 1983 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: Peter Koetting Earl Neel Chris Mills Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis William Johnson (Alternate) Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were no Tribal Council comments. (The Tribal Council will not meet in August. ) Approval of Minutes of the August 10, 1983 meeting will be deferred to the September 14, meeting. • August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS • CASE 5.0276-PD-148. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for E. Kaufer for a planned development district to allow an offsite parking lot to serve an exsiting office complex on the northeast corner of Mel Avenue/North Indian Avenue (Las Hadas) , R-3 Zone, Section 10. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve Case 5.0276-PD-148 subject to conditions as amended in addendum dated August 24, 1983 (on file in the Department of Community Development) . Planning Director stated that the case had been continued from August 10 to develop a mechanism to combine the two non-adjoining properties; that staff has prepared an addendum giving details on the parking conditions and is concerned that the parking counts at this time are less than use during the season although the present use in the complex does not appear to create a parking problem; that a covenant could be approved by the Commission for a two to three year time period with a new hearing held at the end of the period to determine whether or not the parking lot was necessary; that staff feels that a study should be undertaken to determine if projects such as this are overparked, although the current parking requirement seems viable for large projects but inadequate for smaller ones; and that addendum condition #2. should be inserted into Planning Division Development Committee recommendations with the wording • as follows: "After a period of two years, a new public hearing shall be held to determine the sufficiency of parking and whether or not the second lot should be installed and implemented. Staff shall study office parking in the City to determine if the Ordinance is viable." He stated further that condition #1. would freeze the use as established and it is important for a covenant to state that buyers of the condominium offices may be required to share costs of a parking lot in the future if required by the City. Commissioner Koetting stated that the covenant should require that the lot be built if necessary even if the project has become a condominium use. Discussion followed on the C.C. & R. 's and the method of providing the additional parking lot. Planning Director stated that C.C. & R. 's are not reviewed unless staff requests a copy of them. In response to question by Commission, Planning Director stated that the condominium buyers are now purchasing square footage in the project with the current parking and that a revised map would be required to be submitted for the additional lot; that the applicant had submitted a specific plan for the additional lot with a landscape plan; that the Commission can require construction within sixty days; that it will be necessary to develop the covenant to tie the parcels together; and that street improvements will be required. Chairman declared the hearing open. • August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0276-PD-148 (Cont'd. ) D. Christian, 2000 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , the applicant and architect, stated that one of the owners is also a tenant; that the remaining tenants are stable; that the parking situation should be more stable with tenants as owners rather than lessees; that most of the owners are physicians who are specialists and do not have large parking requirements; that the security service in the project uses the parking at night; that the desire of the owner is that the City be satisfied with the parking although the project is probably parked adequately; that the additional property is owned by the owner of the Las Hadas project; that if the land is not developed as a parking lot within two years, the owner desires to sell it. In reply to questions by Commission, he stated that the security service could leave and the night time use could convert to daytime use; that the current purchasers have not been informed that they may have to fund a parking lot although the ownership and development of the parking lot would be the responsibility of the partnership; and that he would have to verify the parking arrangements with his partner. Chairman stated that the City has never made the type of arrangement proposed; that he could not vote for any arrangement which would allow separation of a property although he could support deferring the construction of the lot; and that the applicant could reapply if the ordinance were changed after the staff study. • Discussion followed on eventual sale of the parking lot land. Mr. Christian stated that review in two years to see if the lot were still necessary is viable. Commissioner Koetting requested that the use be established as 5,272 sq. ft. of medical offices, 7,800 sq. ft. of non-medical offices, and 728 sq. ft. of retail as stated in the addendum staff report; and that the square footage mix be recorded in the C.C. & R. 's. Commissioner Lawrence noted that square footage usage of a condominium can probably not be dictated in the C.C. & R. 's and requested clarification from the Assistant City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney stated that the best method would be to designate certain sites as medical , non-medical, and retail and make the designation part of the deed restriction. Mr. Christian stated that in the building where his architectural offices are located, changes in use are restricted by current zoning and that pricing in the Las Hadas project is different for different uses of space. Commissioner Lawrence suggested that purchasers should be made aware of the limited usage by their inclusion in the C.C. & R. ' s. Discussion followed on easements, map requirements and the inclusion of • the usage in the C.C. & R. 's. Planning Director stated that modifications to C.C. & R. ' s are required to be returned to the Department of Real Estate. Chairman stated that the objective was to prevent a change in use for the project by making stringent requirements. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0276-PD-148 (Cont'd. ) Mr. Christian stated that the concern was logical and that there should be a vehicle to attain the requirements. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that a long-term lease for the parking lot could be signed with the Homeowners Association after it owns the property. Discussion ensued on wording of the covenant conditions. Commissioners noted that condominium sales negate the City's control of the usage of the building and also that street improvements on Indian Avenue are necesary. The Commission also reviewed appropriate wording for the conditions in the addendum, the possibility of easements, and deferring of construction of the lot until it is needed. Planning Director stated that a date certain could be set (after Council approval of the PD) for review of the parking. Chairman suggested that the mechanism for combining the parcels and providing for the lot should be left to the applicants, their attorneys, and the City Attorney. Planning Director stated that the project would be reviewed again during the final development plan stage. • M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence; Curtis/Madsen abstained; Kaptur absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving the case subject to staff findings and conditions, including Addendum Conditions 1 & 2. After further review, staff determined that a Negative Declaration should be ordered prepared by the Commission and the case tentatively approved and continued to September 14. M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence; Curtis/Madsen abstained; Kaptur absent) amending the previous motion to the following: Preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentative approval of the application subject to staff findings and conditions, including Addendum Conditions 1 & 2, and continuing the case to September 14, 1983. CASE 5.0277-PD-149. Application by J. DAMERON for St. Theresa's Catholic Church for a planned development district to construct a multi-purpose building addition to an existing church complex at 2800 E. Ramon Road between Compadre Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 13. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative • Declaration, approve the concept of Case 5.0277-PD-149 subject to conditions and submission of detailed development plans including a restudy of the architecture. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0277-PD-149 (Cont'd.) . Planner II explained that a restudy had been recommended twice by the AAC, and the architect is in agreement with the recommendation. Chairman declared the hearing open, there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director explained that final approval could be given on the concept subject to submission of detailed final development plans. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Kaptur absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and continuing the item to the September 14 meeting for review of the revised architecture. CASE 5.0289-CUP. Application by EISNER-SMITH PLANNERS for Palm Canyon Assoc. for a conditional use permit to construct a 58' bell tower for a 270- room hotel on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Cherokee Way/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 30. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the case be continued to September 14 for staff review of details of the application. • Planner II stated that the bell tower has been reviewed by the AAC and the original review of the entire hotel project and that no new plans have been submitted. Chairman declared the hearing open. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project noting concerns such as marring of the view; setting of a precedent; height of the project in conjunction with the adjoining residential area; project review to be held until Fall when homeowners have returned; tolling of the bell ; and proximity of the bell tower to the mobilehome park: S. Hall , Seven Lakes Condominiums (across from the project) , representing Seven Lakes Homeowners Assoc. A. Webb, 2145 Southridge (petition presented of area homeowners) . Mrs. J. Salvo, 2153 Southridge. Mrs. R. Levin, resident of Horizon Village Mobilehome Park (did not receive notice of the hearing) . Commissioner Koetting stated that the bell tower is very narrow and should not obstruct the view. Planning Director explained that the C-2 Zone allows highrise buildings. • Chairman stated that there would be no decisions made at the meeting but that testimony would be taken; that the Commission, by law, is required to expedite the planning process, that the case would not be postponed; and that the property owner of Horizon Mobilehome Park would have received a notice, not the tenants of the park. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0289-CUP (Cont' d. ) M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting; Kaptur absent) continuing the case to the September 14 meeting. CASE 6.335-VARIANCE. Application by R. FRAGEN for a variance from side yard setbacks to allow an existing carport for single family residence at 1208 Calle de Maria, R-1-C Zone, Section 23. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny Case 6.335-Variance. Planner III presented the staff report and stated that a letter had been received from E. Mysicka, owner of property at 1107 Calle de Maria objecting to the variance. Discussion followed on the configuration and materials of the carport. In reply to a question by Commission, Planner III stated that carports are anchored to the ground and are considered to be structures, and if cantilevered would exceed ordinance requirements. In reply to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that the Commission previously received a request to allow carports in setbacks, • and at a study session with the AAC, the Commission had discussed the issue and recommended to staff that the ordinance not be changed although no formal action was taken. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Fragen, 1208 Calle de Maria, the applicant, requested approval and stated that there are special circumstances; that permanent residences are affected by lack of shade for their cars; that transformers arced and burned a stand of trees that had originally provided shade for his cars; that none of the owners had been invited to the study session relative to carports; that structures like this should not be considered carports since they are awnings and should be considered as temporary structures; explained the location of his carport; stated that it was obscured by landscaping and was not visible from the street; and requested that his structure and similar ones be allowed. Chairman stated that in reviewing staff findings, it was clear that there were no special circumstances which meet the legal sense of the law. Dr. Fragen stated that the structures could be removed in case street improvements were required; and that his structure had been erected approximately four to five years ago after the fire burned his shade trees. Planning Director stated that substandard street improvements exist in the area; that the situation probably would not change; and that it is similar to other situations in the City. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • In reply to question by Commission, Dr. Fragen stated that new trees could not be planted because they cause arcing if they grow too near the transformer. Discussion continued on the location and the configuration of the carport. M. Harris, 252 NE Cerritos, stated that he was not representing Dr. Fragen as an attcs,ney but was interested in the carport situation; that persons legally enclosing carports should not be penalized if a solution can be found to shade their cars; that the desert heat does present special circumstances for shading vehicles; that only a limited number of persons would be requesting variances for this type of problem; that the General Plan would not be endangered; that the health, safety and welfare would not be affected although staff found to the contrary; that the Commission could establish a good precedent by granting a variance but if the variance were not granted, other means could be employed to shade vehicles such as berming, landscaping, or arbors; that the ordinance should be changed; and that he would donate his time to help in reviewing and , evising the ordinance. Commissioner Curtis stated that he felt a precedent would be set and many people would be asking for variances. Chairman stated that a variance could not be used to set a precedent. • In reply to a Commission question, Mr. Harris stated that he was on the Commission when a study session was held in which the Commission stated that the ordinance should not be revised. Discussion followed on setback requirements for the area, enclosure of garages in general and relocation of the subject carport. Commissioner Madsen stated that there are many people with special circumstances; that the ordinance should be reviewed for limited non- permanent shade devices but that he would support the findings in the subject case. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she was in concurrence with Commissioner Madsen, and that special circumstances must apply to property, only, per the Zoning Ordinance; and suggested a study session to define shade structures. Discussion followed on the continuance of the case for review of the ordinance. Dr. Fragen stated the carport was built 12 years previously; that he was encouraged by the discussion relative to shade structures; and that the carport was adjacent to the roof line, (not part of the structure) and covers a portion of the existing driveway. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. • August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • Commissioner Koetting stated that there may be special circumstances since there will probably be no future street improvements and perhaps the variance request should be continued for further discussion and consideration; that "permanent" structures should be defined in light of shade structures; and that the future roadway width should be considered for the carport since the road will probably not be widened. Chairman stated that from past Commission actions, it would be unfair to grant a variance unless the ordinance were changed since there are no grounds for the variance; that the applicant made the decision to forego the shade of a garage to add living space to his home; and that he could not support a variance. In response to a Commission question, Planning Director stated that the only carport variance overridden by Council recently was one with an irregularly shaped lot and mature landscaping. Discussion followed on whether or not to continue the case. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent; Service dissented) to continue the case for thirty (30) days (later amended to September 28) for review of the ordinance at a study session on September 21 and for staff to calculate the number of homes affected and to develop a definition of "carport" or other means to provide vehicle sun protection. • Discussion followed on the proper action to take on the case and notification procedures for the study session. Planning Director stated, in clarification, that the Planning Commission has information required to make a decision; that the AAC felt that by allowing a variance for carports, structures in the setbacks would eventually be enclosed and storage in the front yard would be forthcoming; and that the situation would be applicable to every house in the City. Commissioner Curtis stated that in the interest of precedent setting, a study session is probably necessary. CASE 6.336-VARIANCE. Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for I. Greenberg for a variance from side yard setbacks to construct a garage for a single family residence at 1011 Cielo Drive at intersection of Panorama Drive, R-1 Zone, Section 3. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the variance per staff recommendations, i .e. , a five foot yard variance allowing a ten foot side yard setback for the subject property with one parking space allocated in the existing parking facility. Planner III stated that in finding No. 1, the wording "property is adjacent to a property with a ten foot building setback" be deleted at the request of the Planning Director; and that staff recommends conditional approval of the variance. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 6.336-VARIANCE (Cont' d. ) • Discussion ensued on an alternate location for the parking. Planner III stated that an alternate location would be difficult because of the topography and mature landscaping on the site. Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Essen, Ervin Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that the proposal was for an enclosed garage; that the location proposed was most desirable since grading would be required on staff-proposed locations; that the proposed location cannot be seen; that if the extra four feet could be approved, an excellent final project would result; and that the applicants are ecologically aware and would make the garage in accord with the house. He described the configuration of the recreation area on the lower level and requested that the variance be granted. In reply to question by Commission, he stated that there is an existing carport under the living quarters. Planner III stated that there is a wrought iron gate covered with canvas on the carport which is a safety and screening detail . In reply to question by Commission, Mr. Essen explained that the applicant has a physical problem which necessitated placement of the garage. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the proposed single car garage. Planner III stated that an alternative would be to have a single car garage and a carport in tandem which could be approved by the Planning Director who has not had time to investigate the proposal ; that tandem parking was not acceptable to the applicant and is not encouraged by the City in single family zones. Discussion continued on the orientation of the house. Commissioner Curtis stated that he could not support the application, and that maybe an alternative would be to have a garage on each end of the residence. Planner II stated that the property owner at 1109 Cielo Drive has submitted a letter in support of the project. Planning Director stated that the side yard setback was increased from ten feet to fifteen feet in 1965, and that the adjacent carport is legal but is nonconforming. M/S (Curtis/Koetting) for denial of the variance as submitted. Discussion followed on whether or not to reword the motion so that the variance is approved subject to staff recommendations. M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting; Kaptur absent; Service dissented) approving the variance application with the following findings and subject to the • following conditions: August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 6.336-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • FINDINGS: 1. That the property is irregular shape, is substandard in lot area by 10%, is fairly steep (10 ft. fall to the street) , has existing mature landscaping and trees; therefore the strict application of the setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood and under similar circumstances. 2. That conditions of approval have been added which will insure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed on other property in the neighborhood and R-1-A Zone in which the subject property is located. 3. That the granting of a variance application with conditions will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect • the General Plan for the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That a five foot side yard variance is approved resulting a ten foot side yard setback for the subject property which would accommodate a one-car carport or garage and would require that one additional parking space be provided on the subject property. 2. That one parking space be allocated in the area of the existing parking facilities (which will be enclosed for additional living space) . 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Planner III explained that the tandem parking would be reviewed with expansion plans for the house under a minor architectural application by the AAC and Planning Commission which would determine whether or not it is acceptable. Chairman explained that he could not support a variance when the existing house meets the current code, and a variance would break a code that does not need to be broken, particularly when there are two covered parking spaces. • Planning Director explained that the applicant had grounds for a variance; that the house was reviewed in light of the changes requested and to develop a new two-car garage or similar site expansion would disrupt the lot because of the hillside and the mature landscaping; and that the grounds for a variance exist. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 6.336-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • Chairman stated that he understood the logic, but it was difficult to find no grounds for a variance in the preceding variance application with the only difference between the two being topography. Further discussion followed on the findings for the variance. Planning Director stated that the subject case was an unusual circumstance, that there are grounds for the variance, but that granting it is discretionary with the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 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 maps 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 sig- nificant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TTM 18087-Revised. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for Andreas Hills, Inc. for approval of a revised map to subdivide property for lot sales on Bogert Trail , east of Palm Canyon Drive, W-1-R-B Zone, Sections 35 and 36. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Discussion ensued on the history of the case. Planner III stated that the map had been revised by the applicant after a field trip by the Commission and staff; explained the lot configuration including the flag lot and the roadway configuration, summarized the revisions and explained the Epstein project which had been approved under a PD in the area. Chairman stated that he was concerned about buyers of the lot not realizing that they may have to fund an 80 foot secondary thoroughfare in the future. Planner III that the Director of Community Development feels that there is no need to require improvements until Palm Hills is developed and that the right-of-way will be dedicated as a condition of approval and stated in the C.C. & R. 's; and that money for street improvements would be required from a project developer off-site whenever the City • determines that an 80 foot roadway is necessary. In response to questions by Commission, he explained for example that developers south of Avenida Granada are funding an extension of the sewer line as a condition of approval . August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 TTM 18087 (Cont'd. ) • Discussion followed on the access point to the Canyon area. Chairman stated that the Commission feels that there should be two accesses whether or not the Atajo project is developed although staff feels that one access is sufficient. Planning Director explained the traffic study in the Canyon area and suggested that wording for the possibility of a purchaser being made aware of the 80 foot roadway could be as follows: "Buyers shall be apprised of the fact that it is a secondary thoroughfare and may be connected to Barona Road". He stated that this condition could be in the C.C. & R. ' s or other document. Further discussion followed on the requirement to fund the roadway. F. Razzar, 1350 S. Farrell Drive, the applicant, stated that he had no objection to the dedication of additional land although he felt it was not fair; that buyers will be aware that eventually full street improvements will be required although it is not necessary now; that the buyers should not have to pay for the street improvements since they will not benefit or create a need for the road but the need will be created by someone else; that the purchasers will enjoy only grass until a road is constructed since permanent structures or trees could not be placed in the grassy area; and requested that the plan be approved as revised. • M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Lawrence; Kaptur absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TTM 18087 as submitted subject to Development Committee recommendations and provisions of language in the C.C. & R. 's or other document to indicate that street improvements will be required in the future. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. CASE 3.573. Application by BENEFICIAL STANDARD PROPERTIES for architectural approval of revised entry elevations & revised store front for the Bank of America building at the Palm Springs Mall on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Farrell Drive/Baristo Road, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planner III presented the revisions to the project on the display board and stated that the roof element had been finished without the tower which is a high-rise condition; that the AAC made two motions, both of which were deadlocked; explained that the Bank of America portion of the Mall has been requested by the applicant to be acted upon expeditiously; and that there are two separate applications - one for the exterior • revisions and one for the Bank of America. R. Gentry, representing Beneficial Standard Properties, requested that the Bank of America portion be approved to expedite obtaining building permits since it does not affect the overall concept. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 3.573 (Cont'd. ) • In response to Commission question, Planner III stated that the Von' s, Thrifty, and Miller's portions of the project were approved and that the applicant requires discretionary approval for the entry height but has decided not to go through the public hearing process at this time which has resulted in resubmittal of the entry area without the tower; and that the applicant is requesting removal of the trellis element since he feels that the same feeling can be achieved by screening through landscaping. Mr. Gentry stated that the glue lam beam was a superfluous addition to the architecture since there was no signing proposed there; that landscaping would not obscure the signing; that if grandfathered signs are required by tenants, it would be preferable to place them on the sign fascia; and that he would rather utilize the budget for landscaping. Discussion followed on revisions to the elevations. Mr. Gentry stated that the Commission had approved a basic massing of the Miller's corner of the building and that the corner could not be opened due to structural problems. Commissioner Koetting stated that an open space area should be provided in that important corner of the building. Mr. Gentry stated that some of the tenant requirements must be met; that • a six foot canopy would be provided for pedestrians on the east side of the corner building; and that the glue lam beam would be deleted on the east elevation since it serves no purpose. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Curtis dissented; Kaptur absent) approving the revised elevations with the addition of the glue lam beams as originally approved. Mr. Gentry objected strenuously to the inclusion of the glue lam beam element and stated that he had not expected the motion to include that particular element; that the element was placed in the plans to get Commission approval originally and should be able to be removed if the applicant desires it. Planner III stated that in a former motion by Commissioner Kaptur, the glue lam element was to be placed at 18 inches in front of the windows but was extended when landscaping was submitted; and that originally the Bank of America revision was the only submission but revised elevations for the frontage were submitted by the applicant at the AAC meeting on August 22. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission has not been unfair to the applicant but that the project lacks design character; that he could not support it as submitted (since it is on an important street and could be much better) ; and that the tower element was important. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 3.601. Application by SOUTHWEST RESTAURANT for D. Cohen for architectural • approval of revised elevations and parking area for restaurant at 424 S. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, Section 15. Planner III stated that the applicant wishes to upgrade the parking area and make outdoor dining; and that the colors of pale yellow, green and peach are an unusual combination for the desert. John Neal , the applicant, explained the location of the signing. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Curtis abstained; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That final detailed landscape, irrigation, exterior lighting and signage plans be submitted. 3. That a planter with a platform for plant pots be included on the Indian Avenue elevation. 4. That a metal canopy be used for the the windows. 5. That any pots be fixed and irrigated. • CASE 3.613 (Minor) . Application by ROSE HILL ASSOCIATION for architectural approval of security gates for closure of Rose Avenue northerly of Stevens Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (Ref. Case 5.0256-GPA) M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the arch elements on either side of the gateway be increased in mass. 2. That automatic watering be provided. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.609 (Minor) . Application by M. HABER for architectural approval of addition to existing lounge by enclosure of terrace for restaurant at 701 Baristo Road, R-2 Zone, Section 15. (Ref. Case 5.0266-CUP - Doubles Restaurant) Planner III explained that the recommendation for a restudy by the AAC was because the Committee felt that the enclosure of the existing terrace was not done with character; that there was concern whether it should be enclosed at all; that the applicant feels that the terrace is under-utilized; that the terrace area is included in the parking • calculations; that the building was designed by William Cody and is a simple design; and that the AAC felt that the enclosure increases the mass. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.609 (Cont'd. ) • M. Haber, 700 W. Stevens Road, the applicant, stated that he did not know whether or not approval of the enclosure of the terrace was in the purview of the AAC, but that it is being under-utilized because it lacks climate control which can be achieved by enclosure; that the vacant area is detrimental to the restaurant since it is at the entrance; that the design element is simple but the rendering does not depict the depth accurately since it does not show the regular roof line into which the enclosure blends; and that two walls are solid for environmental reasons. G. Konqui , the designer, stated that the rendering does not show the attractive interior of the restaurant which will be seen since the wall is glass. Discussion followed on the perspective shown in the rendering. Mr. Konqui stated that the intent is to continue the Cody look. Commissioner Curtis suggested that the applicant submit a colored rendering for AAC and Commission review, noted that the building is a magnificent one with an exceptional view, and stated that the AAC was concerned with the "boxy" look which needs to be addressed. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) for a colored presentation by the applicant and restudy of the architecture. 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 Curtis, seconded by Apfelbaum, (Kaptur absent) and unanimously carried 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 3.520. D. JUNG for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for Phase I of condominium project complex on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I .L. ), Section 14. Condition: That trees be included to terminate the cul-de-sac between beams of carports. SIGN APPLICATION. IMPERIAL SIGNS for Pomona First Federal Savings for archi- tectural approval of sign for business on Tahquitz-McCallum Way, between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I .L. ), Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.403. ) • Condition: That a flat finish be used. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont' d. ) • CASE 3.505. (Removed from Consent Agenda) Application by DESIGN HAUS for Palm Canyon Assoc. for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for condominium complex on the northwest corner of E. Palm Canyon/Cherokee Way, R-G-A(8) Zone (I.L. ), Section 30. Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended a restudy of the bikepath/sidewalk with occasional separation; that the bikepath and sidewalk combination were approved previously; that the applicant wishes to retain the combination as originally approved; and that any other design would be inconsistent with the previous approval . M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That 15 gallon citrus be used. 2. That the design of the combination bikepath/sidewalk approved originally be used. 3. That trash enclosures be located two feet from the curb. 4. That areas where patio walls are in close proximity to roads be restudied. • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE 3.582. Application by A. WILKES for a condominium/apartment hotel on Baristo Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received.) Planning Director explained that the notice of preparation had been published and the Commission has not ordered the filing of a Negative Declaration for the project. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration for Case 3.582. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.608. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for R. Pond for architectural approval of single family residence on Dunham Road between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Road, R-1-8 Zone, Section 1. • M/S/C (Curtis/Lawrence; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 2.949. Application by B. MILLER for architectural approval of final lighting plans for a single family residence on Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the concealment of the conduit. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by DAIRY QUEEN for architectural approval of main identification sign for business in Copper Square, 266 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Kaptur absent) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.584. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for Old World Restaurant for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for addition of roof over existing outdoor open dining area, 262 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. • Planner II presented the proposed "European" color combination on the display board. D. Christian, 2000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, the architect, gave a slide presentation on the Italian style restaurant, stated that exact color chips will be submitted for AAC review; and that if the exact colors cannot be obtained, new colors would be chosen. Commissioner Koetting stated that the original rendering submitted showing desert colors was preferable. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Kaptur absent; Service abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That staff review the design details. 2. That exact color chips be presented for AAC review. • August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 3.480. Application by S. MARLOW for architectural approval of as-built elevations for a single family residence at 1610 Dunham Road between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Kaptur absent) continuing the item to September 14, 1983 at the request of the applicant. CASE 3.487. Application by ACTFAP (Hamilton) for W. Lansdale for revised entry and landscape plans for single family residence on private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. M/S/C (Madsen/Curtis; Kaptur absent) continuing the item to September 14, 1983 at the request of the applicant. CASE 3.588 (Minor) . Application by SECURITY PACIFIC BANK for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for revised drive-up canopy and parking area, C-1 and R-2 Zones, Section 23. Continued to September 14 at the applicant's request. CASE 2.984: INCORRECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The following project description is correct: CASE 5.0063-CUP. Application by S. KASSOVIC for the Riviera Racquet Club for • architectural approval of landscape and minor architectural revisions to a tennis club on the east side of North Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Continued to September 14 at the applicant's request. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CASE 3.612 (Minor) . Application by NUTRI-JUICY for architectural approval of awning and sign for juice bar in Copper Square, 266 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following item was removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittal has been processed. CASE 3.611 (Minor) . J. TAMMEN for architectural approval of planter and re- vised entry for restaurant at 440 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy for consideration of a larger awning complimenting the design of the building and landscaping in-lieu of the proposed wall . August 24, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 COMMISSION DISCUSSION, REPORTS AND REQUESTS - DeBartolo project (Case 5.0275-PD-147) and Trenchard Golf Course (Case 5.0173-PD-127) study session. Commissioners were reminded that there will be a joint City Council , Planning Commission, and AAC study session on August 30 in the Large Conference Room at 3 p.m. for review of the DeBartolo project design issues and general review of the Trenchard golf course project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/m WP/PC MIN