Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/04/24 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 24, 1985 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 18 0 Hugh Curtis X 17 1 Hugh Kaptur X 17 1 Don Lawrence - 15 3 Paul Madsen X 16 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 15 3 Vacant Position - - - Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Kenneth Feenstra, Redevelopment Director Heather Cameron, Assistant Director of Community Services Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - April 22, 1985 • James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Michael Buccino Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were no Tribal Council comments. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) approving the minutes of April 10, 1985 with the following corrections: Under "City Council Actions": Page 17, paragraph 9, change "easterly" to "westerly" (Case 5.0258-PD 147) . Page 17, paragraph 9, separate first line. Make new paragraph beginning with "Planning Director stated that the arguments for the easterly alignment. . .". (Case 5.0258-PD 147) IS M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) approving minutes of March 27, as submitted. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Lawrence absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.514 (Ref. Case 6.327-Variance) . Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for T. Sykes for architectural approval of revised roof color for single-family hillside residence at 2321 Araby Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Approved, subject to the following condition: That the colonial red color be used for the roof. CASE 3.689. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for L. Campbell for architectural approval of revised landscape/grading plans for industrial building on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Chia Way, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.814 (Minor. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for architectural approval of landscape plans for Excalibur Motor Co. at 335 E. Sunny Dunes Road, C-M Zone, Section 23. Continued to May 8 at the applicant' s request. CASE 3.823 (Minor) . Application by DGB COMPANY for architectural approval of conversion of existing sales room to walk-up window at 1690 E. Ramon Road, C-1 Zone, Section 14. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the window be revised to be a uniform horizontal element with brick below. 2. That the door be relocated to the northern end of the fascia. 3. That the brick "stacked bond" be extended across the fascia. 4. That a south elevation be submitted. 5. That landscaping be added to screen the air conditioning. 6. That details of #1 through 5 be submitted for staff approval . ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following item involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.817 (Minor). Application by DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN for architectural approval of an exterior elevator for an existing building at 1793 E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 25. Chairman stated that there is a barrier keeping the driveway between the Downey Savings and Loan and the shopping center from being open. Planning Director explained that a condition of approval for the Bank of America was that the driveway be opened, but that Downey Savings and Loan has refused to have the curb cut and it remains a barrier to inte- grating the shopping center traffic circulation. Planner I (Vankeeken) presented the application on the display board. Chairman suggested that the driveway be opened to integrate the shopping center. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Lawrence absent) approving the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the driveway be re-opened to integrate traffic circulation in the shopping center. 2. That the door and window frames be painted to match the existing . wall color. 3. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Discussion followed on adding the condition regarding re-opening of the driveway. Planning Director stated that the condition could be added and that the applicant can appeal to the Council . Chairman stated that the condition relates to the case since anytime a change is made, the entire file is opened and the Commission has a chance to review problems. He stated that the center should be inte- grated. CASE 3.642 (Cont'd.). Application by C. MILLS for J. Hobson for architec- tural approval of revised exterior colors on 12-unit condominium project on Stevens Road between Kaweah/Via del Sol , R-2 Zone, Section 10. Planner III (Green) reviewed the application on the display board and stated that the applicant wants to leave the color its present gray and that the AAC concurred. • J. Hobson, the developer, stated that the indigo colored arches were aesthetically pleasing in the drawings, but were too intense in color in the construction stage. He stated that the stains on the building have been "fogged" in small areas and not obvious and that he understood that the change needs approval . April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.642 (Cont' d) M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Lawrence absent; Apfelbaum, Curtis dissented) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.802 (Cont'd.) . Application by L. DISCENSO for architectural approval of revised plans for restaurant on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Via Escuela/Via Olivera, C-1 Zone, Section 3. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Lawrence absent) for restudy, noting the following: 1. That the proportions of the porte-cochere and method of attachment to the building on Palm Canyon Drive be revised. 2. That North Elevation #3 be used. 3. That a hipped roof be added to the porte-cochere on the east elevation of the building and a more massive support element used. 4. That the proportions, size and location of windows be revised throughout (occasional breaks of roof line suggested) . • 5. That the quality and mass of details throughout be refined (including, but not limited to, use of wood windows, adobe plaster, barrel tile roofs, radiusing of corners, etc. ) . 6. That the roof pitch be increased to 5 or 6 X 12 and that full hips be used (rather than cut-off hips) . CASE 5.0303-PD-152 (Cont'd.) . Application by E. JOHNSON for Mesquite Country Club for architectural approval of revisions to golf course to allow a driving range on Farrell Drive, south of Mesquite Avenue (I.L.) , Section 24. Continued to May 8 at the applicant' s request. CASE 3.785. Application by R. EHRLICH for architectural approval of a 150- unit apartment project on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Farrell Drive/Compadre Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Lawrence absent) for a restudy, noting the following: 1. That the site plan is hard and rigid. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS • CASE 3.785 (Cont'd) 2. That there should be more pool areas which should be integrated into the site. 3. That more creative open space and more variety be introduced. 4. That the architecture does not conform to the busy site design. A more simple architecture or site design is needed. R. Ehrlich, the applicant, stated he would answer questions and also that the project would be restudied. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by D. HOAK for architectural approval of a neon main identification sign for business in the Vineyard shopping complex, S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented the project on the display board and stated that the background of the neon is proposed to be mirrored, that the mechanics are not visible on the outside, and that the AAC • recommended approval , subject to the mechanics of the sign being approved by the AAC. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he could not second the motion because whenever "red" has been proposed, the color has usually been changed to rust by the Commission. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that "Olive Oyl ' s" sign was appoved and that it is red neon. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission has been critical of neon and that he did not want the mechanism of the sign visible. Motion was made by Commissioner Apfelbaum to approve the sign, subject to conditions; the motion died for the lack of a second. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he did not disagree with using red, but that the Planning Commission policy has been not to approve it. D. Hoak, the applicant, stated that the store sits far off the street with an overhang which darkens the small entry and that a sign which could be seen is essential . In reply to Commission question, he stated that red was the color chosen. • Commissioner Kaptur stated that neon has only been approved in the past, when the Commission felt that it was appropriate, and that the Commis- sion has guarded against its use to attract attention. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS SIGN APPLICATION (Cont' d) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated, in regard to proliferation of sign- ing, that there are only 10 or 12 neon signs in town; and that Commis- sion has been consistent in changing red to rust. He stated that the applicant cannot make the neon rust in color, that the Commission has approved two pink and one red sign, and that perhaps it is not the problem of precedent setting, but whether or not a neon sign should be placed at the proposed location. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that a neon sign had been approved at the Plaza which did not relate to the architecture, that the subject case is a special one because of the hidden entry, and that the design is well done which was the basis of approval of the other signs. Commissioner Curtis stated that the sign is well designed, but that the mirrored background will radiate color, and that he has no idea of the appearance of the mechanism. He stated that the Planning Commission has been very stringent in approvals of neon because of the possibility of proliferation, and suggested a restudy to review the sign mechanism. Mr. Hoak stated that the sign hangs 6 inches from the top of the window with 6 inches of chain visible from the outside, that the housing will be on the wall inside, above the window, and that the transformer box . will be hidden by another box on the inside wall . G. Pappas, representing the Carver Co. , owners of the shopping complex, requested a neon sign to increase the visibility because of the store' s large frontage on Palm Canyon, and stated that the abstract sign program approved for the Vineyard allows different types of sign treatment. He stated that many of the original sandblasted wooden signs were stolen and that neon is the alternative signing solution. He noted that there has been increased traffic flow in the Vineyard because patrons use the doors at the rear of the store to enter the Vineyard courtyard. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that there will be a reflection of red against the mirrored background. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the reflection will make the sign diffi- cult to read and suggested a restudy. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Kaptur; Service abstained; Lawrence absent) approving the concept without the mirrored back, subject to submission of details of the mechanism and transformer box. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0357-PD-167 (Cont'd. ) . Application by L. SANDOR for a planned devel- opment district to allow construction of a 119-unit apartment building, including density bonus for low/moderate cost housing on the northeast corner of San Rafael Drive/MacCarthy Road, R-2 Zone, Section 34. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0357-PD-167 (Cont' d) . (Final approval .) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve PD-167, subject to conditions. Planner II (Williams) stated that the project had been restudied for site design and architecture with a third revision displayed on the board. She stated that staff recommends a 25% density bonus which would reduce the 120-unit count to 119 units. Discussion followed on the distance between the parking area and the units. Planner II stated that it was 200 feet and that approval of the planned development district massing concepts would be preliminary. Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Sandor, the architect, stated that most of the AAC concerns have been addressed by the revisions and that a more interesting streetscape and building type and better orientation of parking has resulted. He stated also that most of the buildings have been oriented north and south for energy conservation, and that the buildings are under 10,000 sq. ft. which has eliminated the cost of sprinklers. He suggested that some • points be given because of the covered parking, which is not a require- ment and requested that the one unit over density be allowed to keep equal numbers in the buildings. In reply to Commission question, he stated that there is no pool proposed, except for a whirlpool and barbecue area, but that a pool could be considered. M. Simpson of R. L. Simpson and Associates, the applicant, stated that a pool would be constructed if the Commission made it a condition of approval although there is a consideration of economic feasibility since the rents were not established with maintenance of pools included. He stated that 25% of the building 'types are targeted as low- and moderate-income units. C. Ambuter, resident of Palm Springs Villas II, requested that since the board members were not notified of the meeting, it should be postponed to contact residents of Palm Springs Villas. Planning Director stated that renotification is not required and that he did not know if the Palm Springs Villas II were within 400 feet. Mr. Ambuter stated that he was representing the board of directors which is opposed because of the possible use of the pools and jacuzzis by the tenants of the project, since there are no pools proposed and also for security reasons. Mrs. B. Ott, 351 Hermosa, representing the board of directors of Palm Springs Villas II, opposed the project because of adding to an already densely populated neighborhood which has resulted in problems at Palm April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0357-PD-167 (Cont' d) . Springs Villas. She stated that the occupants of the Villas have considered placing lights on the roofs to light the area and planting pyracantha to prevent persons climbing over the walls. She stated that electrical wiring of the walls has also been considered because of the thievery problem. Chairman suggested that Mrs. Ott confine her remarks to supporting or not supporting the project, since the project is not the cause of problems suffered by the Palm Springs Villas homeowners. He explained that this State mandates that any developer may request at least a 25% density bonus, if he is going to provide low- and moderate-cost housing and that is the reason for the public hearing. He stated that neither income nor age of the tenants is known, but that the largest single group of persons requiring housing in the City are elderly. Mrs. Ott also questioned the ethnic makeup of the prospective tenants and stated that she was directed by the board of directors regarding questions to ask. M. Cameron, 675 Felices Circle, Palm Springs Villas II, requested that the CC&R's of the proposed project be similar to those of private devel- opments such as Palm Springs Villas regarding maintenance with a • mechanism for appeal to the City Council if maintenance is faulty. Chairman stated that the project must conform to City requirements, and that there is an immediate avenue of complaint and action for property owners feeling that maintenance of neighboring projects is unsuitable. He stated that the owners and operators of a substantial apartment complex will maintain it suitably. M. Simpson (rebuttal ) stated that the project is being processed through HUD and the City, and that an application will be made for tax exempt financing. He stated that both the City and the federal government will require the owner to enter into a regulatory agreement that addressess the concerns expressed by the neighbors. In reply to Chairman' s ques- tion, Mr. Simpson stated that a management plan will address mainte- nance, and that although the document is not specific, a condition could be placed in it regarding repair of cars in the complex. He stated that a renter' s profile has not been developed, but that the project is designed for families, and that the developer wants the project open to all persons, not just the elderly. He described the project rents as follows: 1 Bedroom: Market Rate - $420/month. Low income - $260/month. Moderate income - $372/month. 2 Bedroom: Market Rate - $490/month. • Low income - $290/month. Moderate income - $434/month. He stated that the rents were dictated by the City. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0357-PD-167 (Cont' d) . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planner II stated that staff recommends adding the condition that the applicant comply with the standards required by the Economic and Housing Division of the City regarding density bonuses as a safeguard for the project. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that some type of entertainment be provided, such as a pool . Planning Director stated that a playground has been provided. Discus- sion continued on the amenities of the project. Chairman stated that he believed the expense of a pool is considered under HUD programs. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Lawrence absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration, and approving PD 167 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: • 1. That a PD application is appropriate for consideration of the proposal . 2. That the proposal , including a 25% density bonus (total of 119 units) , is in harmony with the elements of the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. 4. That the site is serviced by San Rafael Drive and MacCarthy Road, both of which are adequate to service the site. CONDITIONS: 1. That the unit count be 119 units (25% density bonus) . 2. That a swimming pool be provided on the site. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 4. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study be implemented. 5. That a percentage of the units be rented as low- and moderate- income housing as determined by the Economic Development and Housing Division. 6. That final development plans be submitted within two years of City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0357-PD-167 (Cont' d) . In reply to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that there was no problem with noticing of the application. CASE 5.0359-PD-169 (Cont'd. ). Application by WARMI NGTON/STAHL DEVELOPMENT CO. for review of revised site plan for a planned development district to allow construction of an apartment complex (with density bonus) on North Palm Canyon Drive between Cortez Road/Alvarado Road, C-1 Zone & R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; final approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission give final approval to PD-169, subject to conditions. Planner II (Williams) presented the project on the board, and stated that the AAC concerns have been addressed and that the applicant would be required to delete two units to achieve a 25% density bonus. She stated that the minimum setback of 25 feet is not provided on Alvarado. • Planning Director stated that staff recommends re-orienting the carports away from the street although the AAC feels that landscaping would hide the opening; and that the project has not been modified to meet setback requirements. He stated that the AAC Chairman was concerned that placing the project 10 feet back, which would tighten the site, is too much of a change and should be reviewed in the preliminary stage rather than at the final development plan stage. He stated that a con- dition should be added that a percentage of low-/moderate-income housing as determined by the Economic Development and Housing Division be pro- vided. Chairman declared the hearing open. G. Paulus, 37700 Peacock Circle, Rancho Mirage, representing the devel- oper, stated that the applicant is pleased that the initial site plan was preferred by the AAC, that there was a misunderstanding by the developer about distribution of the 1- and 2-story units around the site, and that the intent is to have the landscaping similar to that of the Temple project at the entrance of the City. He stated that the open carports can be hidden by additional landscaping. M. Lescault, of McMahan Partnerships, representing Warmington-Stahl , stated that he could show the Commission the distribution of the 1- and two-story units, that the initial plan reflects better distribution on site, and that setback requirements can be achieved with minimal change in the appearance of the project. • April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD-169 (Cont'd) . In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the zoning allow one and two stories, and that the project is not immedi- ately adjacent to single-family zoning. He stated that the AAC felt that the design concept was good. Mrs. J. Hahn, 303 Cabrillo, member of the board of directors of Sundance Villas, stated that there would be a homeowners meeting of Sundance Villas on April 27 in Los Angeles and that the property owners are upset about the proposed project. She stated that objections to the project are that the traffic situation on Cabrillo has worsened, since Loehmanns opened and since there is no longer egress on Cortez Road; that security has had to be increased and the additional cost borne by only 19 home- owners at Sundance Villas; and that lower income people cause problems in the neighborhood. She questioned whether or not a signal would be required at the corner. Chairman stated that he did not know whether or not a signal is proposed for Alvarado. Planning Director stated that there is no signal proposed in the Capital Improvement Program; that signals are determined on a warrant basis on a State Highway (a particular number of vehicles per day); and that the . warrant system would require that there be more traffic than is present currently. He stated that the intersection could be reviewed regarding signalization. Mrs. Hahn stated that it is difficult to turn left onto the Highway from Cabrillo; and that the project would bring an additional 150 cars onto the small streets in the area, which would endanger children. She stated that she felt traffic was underestimated for the project; that the situation should be reviewed; and that she hoped that the property owners objections could be voiced more formally after the homeowners meeting. In reply to Chairman' s question, she stated that one property owner attended a previous Planning Commission meeting; and that she understood that there was no re-noticing. She stated that the density and lower income would affect the neighborhood; that Sundance Villas is a project of high quality, and that the proposed project will affect property values and privacy. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Paulus stated that the roof tile would be an "S" randomly colored tile, not barrel . Planning Director stated that the tile would be reviewed in final devel- opment plans. Commissioner Kaptur stated that barrel tile is of higher quality and has • more variations, and that "S" the is lower priced without the barrel tile options. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS • CASE 5.0359-PD-169 (Cont'd) . In reply to Chairman' s question about the 25% density bonus, Planning Director stated that the Commission could find that the project is not appropriate on the basis of incompatibility with the neighborhood, i .e., traffic and sewer impacts, scale, and land use (introduction of apart- ments into a hotel and commercial strip) . He stated that also that some of the conditions resulting from studies may affect the project economi- cally; and that the Commission has wide discretion and is not required to approve the proposal . Chairman questioned the reasons the developer wanted to include the additional units for low and moderate housing in the site plan. Mr. Paulus replied that the numbers are for economic reasons and that the applicant had considered (because of the location of the project and its high quality) requesting a 30% moderate housing ratio. Commissioner Curtis stated that there are several areas of concern, such as traffic and sewer problems. Planning Director stated that no special traffic study has been done; that staff evaluates traffic needs on what is allowed by right-of-zone, which in this case is commercial ; and that the project in many ways would have less traffic impacts than a shopping center. He stated the • area' s circulation was impacted by the positioning of the Racquet Club which blocked east/west collector streets leading to a very circuitous route. He stated that the off-setting configuration of the streets makes signalization difficult; and the Traffic Engineer has not had a particular problem with the traffic generated by the project because it is less than that of a hotel or shopping center (which could otherwise be allowed). He stated that staff has received letters and some phone calls from people concerned about the project, and that a traffic study could be done in-house. Commissioner Kaptur requested that a map of the area be made showing the project and its related streets in order to understand the circulation problems. Discussion followed on the concerns. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she felt that the project should be continued for a traffic and a sewer study and to address the concerns of the AAC Chairman. Chairman stated that he could not support the project until the architect presents exactly what is being proposed. He also suggested that, if the building is pulled back from the corner, a right turn lane be constructed. Planning Director stated that there is width for center turn lane, but there is parking on the street, which would have to be removed. Chairman suggested that a separate right turn lane be explored because • of the acute angle as cars come from the south. He stated also that the AAC concerns regarding orientation of the buildings and dispersement of 1-and 2-story apartments should be addressed; and that greater traffic would be allowed with right-of-zone uses. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0359-PD-169 (Cont'd) . Commissioner Kaptur stated that he could not support any more than a 25% density increase. Chairman stated that the Commission needs to review correct setbacks and actual configuration of the buildings on the site; and that the roof tile should be a credit to the neighborhood. He stated that he felt that "S" the would not be appropriate. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) to continue the application to May 8 for a traffic study and further review of the site plan, building design, massing, and materials. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Commissioner Curtis left the meeting at this point. • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0275-PD-147. Request by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to reconsider fencing along Belardo Road by O' Donnell Golf Course in conjunction with the remodel of the Desert Inn Fashion Plaza project and 207-room hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz Way, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Redevelopment Director stated that he was representing the City Council and requesting Commission reconsideration of denial of the 25-foot high fence along Belardo Road by O'Donnell Golf Course. He stated that the Council is concerned about wayward golf balls striking cars on the reconfigured street, which was until recently a parking lot; and that the City will incur more liability, since the parking lot is now a street. He stated, in response to Commission question, that the golf course, not the City, is liable for damage from balls from the first hole; and that the Council requires action by the Commission because the appeal period has lapsed on the original denial by the Planning Commission. Chairman questioned the reasons for taking action since there have been errant golf balls for years. Redevelopment Director stated that the City is concerned over liability_ if someone loses control of a car after the vehicle has been struck by a golf ball . • Commissioner Kaptur stated that the fence would probably not solve the problem, since there are other holes where errant golf balls are a problem; and that the aesthetics of the fence would not be pleasing from the Maxim' s Hotel which overlooks the golf course. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont' d) . Chairman stated that, if the Council decides on a fence, there should be a sunset clause so that it can be removed after the eucalyptus trees on the site mature. Redevelopment Director stated that a study could be done for different types of screening in front of the trees. Commissioner Kaptur suggested warning signs be placed along Belardo. Chairman stated that a precedent will be set for other golf courses in the City, if the fence is allowed. Commissioner Apfelbaum commented that the fence does not solve the problem. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) reiterating that a 25- foot fence would not be in harmony with the aesthetic values of the area and would be a poor precedent for other golf course-street conflicts. Commissioner Kaptur declined to include in the motion experimentation with types of fences in front of the 8th tee. CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R. P. WARMINGTON for review of revised architectural and site plans for a 187-unit hotel on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Camino Real/Arquilla Road, R-2 & R-3 Zones, Section 26 (informal only) . Planning Director stated that the hotel architecture and site plan are on the agenda for architectural review, and the planned development district has been re-noticed for public hearing on May S. Planner II (Williams) presented the project on the display board and stated that the room count has been reduced from 195 to 187. Commissioner Kaptur critiqued the elevations by stating that although the style is pleasing, the porte cochere columns should be heavier and the massing of the project greater. He stated that he would depend on the AAC recommendations regarding the site plan, since he had not had time to review them and suggested that the arches be deeper (3 feet) to give an authentic Spanish flavor to the project. Chairman questioned the orientation of the hotel on the site. R. Sakahara, the architect, stated that the balconies orient to an interior space in order to avoid the motel-look; and that recessing creates an undulating facade to the streetscape. He stated that the balconies have become heavier by the use of plaster rails; and that the overall design is heavier because of the cupolas. He explained that the rooms overlook the courtyards; and that the parking pockets create a green belt along the streets. He stated that he would restudy the April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0360-PD-170 (Cont'd) . scale; described other detailing which enhances the project; and invited the Commissioners to view room models in Costa Mesa at the Warmington office. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the architect measure columns at Ralph' s Market on South Palm Canyon Drive which are of the proper dimen- sion. In reply to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that under a Planned Development District three stories could be considered and perhaps three-story elements should be introduced (away from Twin Palm Drive) to add interest to the building. He stated that detailing helps the appearance, but perhaps the applicant could be convinced to have some three-story elements. He stated that he knew that working within the Ordinance is frustrating for the applicant, but that this is an opportunity to produce a high-quality product on Palm Canyon without sacrificing efficiencies desired in tourist accommodations. Mr. Sakahara stated that he would like to introduce three-story massing and that a rendering has been prepared for a three-story lobby, but he thought the three story height was critical to the staff and AAC. . Commission consensus was that three stories should be considered. Planning Director stated that the Commission may be concerned about the project because the concept is not carrying through and the massing is a problem. M. Noringer, representing Warmington/Stahl , stated that the developers would be happy to revise the plans to make them more interesting, but there are time constraints on the purchase agreement. Planning Director stated that the revisions would not change the time schedule. Chairman stated that the Commission did not want to be an adversary, but the project should have a better design and that he could not support it if action were taken at the meeting. Commissioner Kaptur requested that the architect meet with the Planning Director for advice on the architecture. Planning Director stated that there could be final action on the project at the May 8 meeting if the design warrants it. Chairman continued the application to May 8. • April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20623. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOC. for B. Djordjevic for tentative parcel map to create two lots for hillside property located on Southridge Drive between Rim Road/E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-1-A, W-R-1-B, & 0-20 Zones, Section 25. Planner II (Williams) presented the map on the display board and stated that the City Engineer recommends a hydrology study because Parcel 2 is subject to flooding from the Palm Canyon Wash and that staff recommends that no development occur on the parcel until flood control is satis- fied. In reply to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that the City has a perpetual right for emergency access to Rim Road; and that this will not automatically mean further approvals for the property. In reply to Chairman's question, R. Mainiero, engineer, stated that he did not believe the client placed fill in the Wash and that he did not know whether the client wanted to use the fill as a building pad. Chairman stated that there had been a name change from Eulalia Circle to Araby Circle. Mr. Mainiero stated that the street name would be clari- fied on the final map. • M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent; Madsen abstained) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the item to May 8. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Added Starters) CASE 3.816. Application by C. AMUSSEN for architectural approval of addition to single-family dwelling at 591 N. Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planner III (Green) presented the project on the display board and stated that a variance approved on the property required that an archi- tectural approval application be submitted for the details of the addi- tion to the house with an AMM to be submitted, if architectural approval is given. He stated that the AAC recommended a restudy because the roof forms on the new building are not integrated with the existing building, that staff has met with the applicant who is in agreement with the changes proposed and is requesting approval with details to be submitted with working drawings. He stated that street improvements would be explored if the Commission directed it; and that some calls have been received regarding invasion of privacy because of windows in the struc- ture overlooking other properties, but it is a moot question, since there is an overlooking condition from the two properties already exist- ing on the hill . He stated that, although, the AAC recommended restudy, • the applicant desires to have the application approved with the existing conditions except that the applicant is not agreement with changing the roof forms. (He showed photos depicting details of the property.) April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Added Starters) (Cont'd.) CASE 3.816 (Cont' d.) Mrs. C. Amussen, the applicant, stated that the drawing showing the proposal was inadequate, but that a better drawing was not prepared because the proposal was only an addition to an existing building; that the addition did not look into houses with windows on a second story; that there would not be invasion of privacy; and that the balconies will be removed. She stated that the roof line does not show from the street and that the property is heavily landscaped. (She circulated pictures of their home in Mission Viejo showing the same style of architecture.) Chairman commented that privacy is not the issue, but that the roof plans are difficult to read and show no continuity with the elevation. Mrs. Amussen stated that the photo is the final result and that, if the roof line is changed, the interior of the house will be affected. Commissioner Kaptur stated that revisions to the roof line will be in the attic area and will not change the interior and advised the appli- cant to meet with staff for explanation. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving the applica- tion, subject to the following conditions: 1 That the roof forms be revised to integrate with the existing building (per original variance submittal ) . 2. That the balcony design be revised to integrate with the proposed building forms. 3. That the cupolas be revised to reflect the existing design. 4. That the second-story overhang (between the first and second story) be revised per the original variance submittal . 5. That the materials and details of the proposed building reflect the materials and detailing of the existing building, including, but not limited to, wooden headers, surfacing rafters, roof tile, painted block, etc. 6. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.717 (Ref. TTM 14899-Revised) . Application by D. HAMILTON for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of landscape plans for an industrial park on Gene Autry Trail between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 20. Planner III (Green) presented the landscape plans on the display board • and stated that they were in conformance with the Gene Autry Trail streetscape concept, except for lawn. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving the application as submitted. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0351-CUP (Cont' d.). Application by SNEDAKER CONSTRUCTION CO. for the Department of Motor Vehicles for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch office at the southeast corner of Research/Farrell Drives, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; action for filing. No comments received.) M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Lawrence absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration. CASE 5.0356-PD-168 (Cont'd.). Application by J. KOCOUREK for Oasis Water Park for review of Development Committee conditions for access road/public road for a planned development district for a water park off Sonora Road (extension) at Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 20. Planning Director explained that the Director of Community Development is concerned about the width of the access (20 feet) on the south half of a street which isn't on the General Plan; and that staff recommends a 24-foot wide, two-way drive and a five-foot landscape buffer, which will result in a completed driveway access existing. He stated that staff recommends that revised conditions of approval be adopted and sent to the Council; and that the applicant is in agreement. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving the conditions for access road/public road subject to recommendations of staff. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18787 - TIME EXTENSION. Request by GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC. for a 12-month time extension for a parcel map on the north side of Ramon Road (from Gene Autry Trail to San Luis Rey), M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Planning Director stated that the revised soils report showed a much wider extent of fill material than was previously reported to the Commission. He stated that the Commission could either deny the map and consider refiling the map, or require that the final map reflect the extent of fill as shown and a notation placed on the plans that development of Lots 7 through 13 will involve a site restoration plan prior to development occuring on the lots. He stated that some of the fill is 18 feet deep. Chairman stated that he did not want to grant a time extension with caveats. Commissioner Madsen stated that the map should be refiled; and Commissioner Kaptur stated that his firm may be retained by the appli- cant and he felt he should abstain. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Curtis, Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained) continuing the item to May 8, due to a lack of a quorum. April 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.829 (Minor) . Application by TKD ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised landscaping for single-family hillside residence at 1505 Rose Avenue, R-1-C Zone, Section 10. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis, Lawrence absent) approving the application as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update of City Council actions. Planning Director gave no report. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION City/County Planning Commission Spring Conference to be held at Salvatore's in Fontana, 16689 Foothill Blvd. on May 9. Planning Director requested that Commissioners wishing to attend contact him as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:00 P.M. IPLANNING DI ECTOR MDR/ml • WP/PC MIN 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall ' May 8, 1985 �. 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 19 0 Hugh Curtis X 18 1 Hugh Kaptur - 17 2 Don Lawrence X 16 3 Paul Madsen X 17 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 16 3 Larry Lepham X 1 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Emily Perri , Housing & Economic Development Specialist George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 6, 1985 James Cioffi , Chairman Absent: Michael Buccino Earl Neel Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were no Tribal Council comments. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) approving the minutes of April 24y 1985 with the following additions (Case 5.0357-PD-167): 7. That the double carports be separated to introduce planting and light areas between bays. 8. That the northern bank of carports be coordinated and tied to the pedestrian walks. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Commission Chairman welcomed Larry Lapham, a long time resident, and former Commissioner who is replacing Commissioner Koetting who resigned.