Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/04/09 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 9, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 18 0 Hugh Curtis X 18 0 Hugh Kaptur X 16 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 17 1 Larry L apham X 18 0 Curt Ealy X 13 0 Earl Neel X 9 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer Richard Patenaude, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Emily Perri , Economic Development Coordinator John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - April 7, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Alternate: Curt Ealy Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Kaptur) approving minutes of March 26, 1986 as submitted. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy) taking the following actions: CASE 3.955-MINOR (Continued) . Application by ALLEN FENCE for architectural approval of 1200 feet of chain link fence to secure mainly vacant prop- erty at 815 Panorama Drive (hillside lot), R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Continued to April 23 to resolve fence issues between the applicant and neighbors. CASE 3.902. Application by R. HARRISON for architectural approval of land- scape plans for single-family residence on LaMirada Road between Ramon/Sunny Dunes Roads, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Aleppo Pine be replaced with Stone Pine. 2. That the sizes of the Lupiloma Thornberi be two, 24" box size and four, 15 gallon. 3. That vines be added to the east side of the utility room. 4. That the revised parapet detail is approved (the metal cap is •—� acceptable). SIGN APPLICATION. Application by J. HOWENSTEIN, INC. for architectural approval of revised plans for main identification sign for Burger King on North Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved subject to the following condition: That the planter boxes be extended six inches on either side. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued). Application by DEBARTOLO CORPORATION for architectural approval of screening of lights under the parking struc- ture for Maxim' s Hotel and Desert Fashion Plaza on North Palm Canyon Drive between Tahquitz Way/Amado Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Green) presented an example of the light fixture used by DeBartolo in the parking structure. He stated that originally there were bare tubes which are now to be screened with a plastic screen, that the AAC recommended that the fixtures be moved under the beams (not just screened) to avoid seeing the light source from Belardo. He stated that DeBartolo spokesmen indicate that the light fixture is the best that can be obtained to meet lighting levels required for insurance. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the fixture is an interior type, and that it should be one designed for exterior use. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Continued). M/S/C (Lapham/Apf elbaum) for a restudy to review an alternate exterior type of fixture designed to be us—e —in the parking structure and the lighting to be relocated behind the beams (not directly under the beam). ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.900. Application by J. FRANKEL for architectural approval of a retail/commercial complex at 689 South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road/Camino Parocela, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Planner (Williams) presented the project on the board and stated that the Mr. Meat building will be razed and the subject complex constructed. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That working drawings be reviewed by the AAC and Planning Commission. 3. That the landscape be restudied for plant variety. CASE 3.945 (MINOR). Application by L. GREENBERG for architectural approval of revised elevations for bedroom addition at 1011 Cielo Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 3. Planner (Vankeeken) presented the project and stated that the deck loca- tion has .been changed (a minor revision) . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) approving the revised application as submitted. CASE 3.947. Application by T. BERKES for Metropolitan Theaters for architec- tural approval of working drawings for 6 screen theater on Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/El Segundo, C-1-AA, Section 14 (Ref. Case 3.309) . Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Williams) presented the working drawings and stated that the digital sign submitted by the applicant is not acceptable, and that the AAC recommended as one of the conditions that the air conditioning screening be restudied. She stated that the lobby plans will probably be on the April 23 agenda, that two architects are working on them, and that staff has seen only preliminary drawings. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.947 (Continued). Planning Director stated that air conditioning equipment should be screened or reorganized on the roof so that the view from future multi- stored buildings is attractive. Planner reiterated that the lobby area will be reviewed by the Commission. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Ealy/Madsen abstained) approving the working drawings subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant consider a main sign with a dark background and light letters in lieu of the digital reader board. 2. That a sample of the split face block be reviewed in the field prior to installation. 3. That the stucco areas remain as shown on the original elevations except the planter at the northeast corner of the building is to be split face block. 4. That the air conditioning screening be restudied noting that the corners are to have a radius and the transition from the high to low roof be improved. The air conditioning shall be reviewed as to its appearance from adjacent buildings and additional treatment may be necessary. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0369-PD-172. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Contractors Develop- ment Corporation for a planned development district to allow construc- tion of a 79 unit apartment complex including a density bonus on Las Vegas Road between East Gate Road/Granada Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 34. Recommendation: That the Commission order preparation of a Draft Nega- tive Declaration; tentatively approve the application; and continue the application to April 23 for response to written comments on the Draft Negative Declaration. Planner (Williams) presented the project on the board and stated that the applicant is requesting a 25% density bonus for low to moderate income individuals (which would be 15 units), and that the AAC reviewed the project and recommended approval . Economic Development Coordinator stated that the applicant is not requesting mortgage revenue bonds, that the density bonus would require that 25% of the units be set aside for low or moderate income housing, and that the rental guidelines will be provided and monitored by the City. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Cioffi , Project Architect, 600 Tahquitz Way, stated that he was pre- sent to answer questions. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 Case 5.0369-PD-172 (Cont'd. ) Reverend Rollins, Minister of the Palm Springs Baptist Church, stated he in favor of the project because it will fill a housing need for the area but that he had concerns, because of its proximity to the church, about what type of management operation will be employed. He stated that he is also worried about the obstruction of the view of the church by the project' s wall and maintenance and upkeep of the project. Chairman stated that the Commission reviews land use and architectural issues and that the management of the property is not in the Commission's purview. He stated that the Economic Development Division could comment on the management issues. Economic Development Coordinator stated that the City would not be involved in the management of the project. She stated that renters would be screened to assure clients meet income requirements for afford- able housing (at a minimum annually). Reverend Rollins stated that project management sometimes causes problems for the area, and that the community is requesting that project management address problems decently. Chairman reiterated that project management of a project is not a City concern, and that the developer can employ anyone he wishes to manage his project. Reverend Rollins stated that he was indicating concerns of the com- munity. Since there were no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Discussion ensued on the Las Vegas Road alignment. Planner stated that the line is offset but is not a problem. Planning Director stated that street alignment appearsto be correct. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission is not in a position to provide assurance to Reverend Rollins regarding management of the project, although the developer who is pro- bably in the audience can note Reverend Rollin' s concerns. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Cioffi stated that property ownership is not local , but that the applicant is familiar with the type of project and probably could meet with Reverend Rollins to discuss his concerns. M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Lapham; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving the application, and continuing the case to April 23. Note: Commission requested that the applicant meet with Reverend Rollins regarding his concerns. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) �..,� CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324. Application by WILLIAM CUMMING (EXPO ENTERPRISES) for a planned development district and tentative parcel map to allow a 40 mobilehome development on the southside of the west end of Mesquite Avenue, 0-TP & R-20 Zones, Section 22. Planner (Green) presented the application on the board. He stated that development issues include the necessity for access into the proposed Tahquitz Regional Park and onto City owned land, requirement to construct a parking area and a trail from the termination of Mesquite to the Lykken Trail , archaeological requirements because the site although extensively graded is a national historic site, environmental issues of flooding and drainage because of the site' s proximity to the foothills of Mount San Jacinto. He stated that there is also a problem with the possibly illegal extension of Parkview Mobilehome Park into the natural drainage flow and that deficiencies exist in the servicing of the units (lacking in management office , laundry, and storage facilities). He stated that the developable portion of the site is only six acres (20 acres is the ordinance requirement), and that there is only 10 feet of landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way for Mesquite (the ordinance requires 40 feet). He stated that some of the units in Parkview have encroached over the property line (which is a separate legal matter to be resolved between the two property owners), and that there is also a deficiency (although possibly adequate because of the location of the site) in recreation space. He stated that amenities that are now lacking will be indicated in the final detailed plan stage and that staff has received many complaints from Parkview Mobilehome Park �-� residents about the proposed project's use . of facilities and roads in Parkview, but that this is a private legal matter. He stated also that the Tribal Council is requesting continuance for review, that staff recommends approval and that an on-site review is recommended for the Commission to see existing grading and other details. He described the proposed buildings as modular, that a petition has been received containing the signatures of 120 people opposing the proposal; that there are two private roads connecting at a point in Parkview where a mobilehome space was left open, and that Parcel #2 is hillside. He explained that Parcel #1 is the parcel that would be developed, and Parcel #2 may be dedicated to the City as open space. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Cumming, Project Manager, 2150 Tahquitz Way, stated that laundry facilities will be included inside the units and that storage units will be adequate. He stated that the proposed site visit should resolve questions and that the architect, engineer and attorney for the project present to• answer questions. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that he did not have the authority to dedicate Parcel #2 to the City, that the principals wish to accomplish dedication, but that no formal dedication has been made. J. Abraham, 707 Scenic View, Parkview, stated that in 1974 when he bought space in Parkview the air conditioner was placed at the rear of the coach. He stated that he has been told to remove it or that it will be removed by the developer of the new park, but after 12 years he feels it should be allowed to remain. He also stated that in reviewing the plans he noticed that the proposed mobilehome park has no swimming pools, laundries, or recreational amenities. He stated because of April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324. encroachment there will be legal matters and that the residents of Park- view are old and cannot withstand harassment. D. Cliffenburg, 398 W. Fourth Street, San Bernardino, Attorney repre- senting Parkview requested continuance for further public input before action is taken, and requested that more time be allowed to review the proposal by Parkview homeowners. He stated that there is a claim by the applicant to access the common area easement which the City Attorney feels is a private legal matter, but if the road is shown on the plans the intent is to make use of the Parkview property. He stated that the easement document is not of record with the County or other agencies, is filed with only the local Indians, and that Parkview residents dispute feasibility of the proposed access. He requested continuance to allow the residents in Parkview to discuss the easement problem and stated that it is an obvious intent by the applicant to use the common area facilities of Parkview, especially the clubhouse, because of insuffi- cient common area facilities in the proposed project although the City indicates the facilities will be provided. He stated that the project will downgrade the area since Parkview is a attractive park, and that there is an overlooking problem caused by the proposal which invades the existing rights of privacy of the Parkview residents. He stated also that the beauty of the foothills will be spoiled by the proposal and requested again that the item be continued and no action taken on the dedication. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Cliffenburg stated o that the applicant waived his right to use the Parkview facilities on the easement agreement. He stated that the question of whether or not the proposal is a second phase of Parkview should be addressed to the applicant. I. Evans, Parkview resident, stated that most of his concerns had been addressed by the previous speaker and voiced concern over the noise and possible slide damage that could be caused by construction. He requested a six figure insurance policy coverage by the applicant to cover potential property and life damage. He asked if the City were willing to widen the road 75 yards to accommodate the additional traffic caused by construction and future residents and stated that a large amount of money is involved by the City for the construction of 40 units. Chairman and Commissioner Kaptur stated that City requires bonding which the developer supplies. Mrs. B. Nissenson, resident of Parkview, stated that the issue is human- ities (not legalities) and requested priority because Parkview residents are permanent and interested in Palm Springs. She stated that the residents do not want to take legal action, that the project is unneces- sary, that if the residents go to court they would be the losers and that people in Parkview do not have the strength to fight battles. Chairman reminded the residents that the owner of the property adjacent to Parkview has a right to develop it. B. Bond, 729 Scenic View, Parkview, stated that he was concerned about flood control because of the location of his home beneath the highest wall , questioned the 15 ft. rather than 40 f t. easement in the rear and April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324. the 6 acre rather than the 20 acre site. He stated that the easement road is next to his home and questioned whether or not it would be sur- faced. He also questioned provisions for access for fire vehicles. He stated also that security and traffic during construction are concerns. Mr. Evans questioned if there is no easement, the amount of security provided to Parkview. Chairman stated that the easement is a matter between the private owners and is not in the Commission' s purview. Mr. Evans stated that if there is no easement, the applicant cannot build. Chairman stated that the Parkview legal counsel did not agree with Mr. Evans' interpretation. Mr. Evans replied that if the applicants have a public easement, anyone can come through Parkview and use the facility. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the use of the facility would depend on the type of easement (which at this time is unknown). Planning Director in reply to Commission question stated that the sub- division is a self contained project with access off Mesquite (extended) and if the easement were deleted, the only problem would be drainage. He stated that the project does not need an easement to operate. Mr. Evans stated that the residents of the proposed park can enter off Mesquite which is very narrow. Planner stated that the Fire Department has approved the plan. Mr. Evans replied that there is not enough planning on the project for the Commission to consider it. Chairman asked those in the audience who were opposed to the project to raise their hands (many hands were raised). W. Cumming (rebuttal ) stated that he is in sympathy with the Parkview residents statements, and that the answers to questions are available in the City files. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that the easements are to be used and are signed by the U.S. Government and the lessors of the land and are legal and legitimate. He stated that the road would be used in and out of Parkview because easements go with the land and the purpose is for utilities and sewer lines. He stated that the remainder of the documents show validity, and that the issue is between the two property owners but that the owners of the Parkview property will not discuss the issue. Chairman requested that the applicant meet with Parkview representatives to resolve basic misunderstandings. Mr. Cummings replied that Parkview representatives can reach him at his office. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Cummings stated that the applicant has purchased the property and easement rights to the facilities within Parkview. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324. G. Marantz, owner of Happy Traveler Mobilehome Park stated that there are no easements because the Marantz family kept the easements when Parkview was sold. He stated that the applicants lack sewer and road easements and that he was neither for nor against the project. He stated that the easement document does not show the name of the developer but that of the Marantz family. In reply to Chairman' s question, Planner stated that the front yard set- back is allowed at 10 feet rather than 40 feet because the site is located at the end of the street with the adjacent neighbor being a large single family home set in vast grounds. He stated that the set- back is to provide the parkway along the street, and that staff feels that adequate parkway is provided. Planning Director explained that there is a question of how Mesquite will be used in the future, and to insure an interim access, the road will be improved to the entry. He stated that eventually access to Tahquitz Canyon probably will be in another location. Commissioner Kaptur questioned review of the project with the legal issues unresolved. Planning Director replied that the project can exist independently of the easements, and that if the courts find that the easements do not exist, the connection point can be closed. He stated that the easements do not show on the documents reviewed by the Commission, and that the plans are being reviewed irrespective of the claims between the two private property owners. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the project is being reviewed at one-third less size than what is normally required which is allowable under P.D.D. procedures; that there has been a fairly extensive history of review when the site was proposed to be developed under two separate applications, although neither application became a reality. He stated that there was grading on the site with the first application, and that the proposal was a logical extension of Parkview and is residential in character, and that hillside open space is being assured by the project. He stated that the AAC and the Tribal Council both requested continuance for further review. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) continuing the application until April 23. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Noted that the proposed project is located within a National Historic Site and adjacent to developed Indian trust land (Park- view Mobilehome Park) . 2. Noted that the Environmental Assessment indicated that the pro- posed project will impact the existing drainage system within the Parkview Mobilehome Park and may impact cultural resources of the Agua Caliente Band. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324. 3. Expressed concerns relative to reference in the staff report to possible impacts on the privacy and aesthetics of the Parkview Mobilehome Park. 4. Noted that copies of the Site Plan and the preliminary grading plan referenced in the staff report, were not included in the packet received from the Planning Department. CASE 6.348-Variance. Application by ALBERT GOLDHAGEN for a variance for freestanding addition within the setbacks for a residence at 301 Tamarisk south of Avenida Caballeros, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the variance. Planner (Williams) presented the application, stated that staff is recommending denial , and that the AAC did not review the application because it is not in an architectural area. Planner Director stated that the AAC should review the application because it is two-story. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. George, representing Mr. Goldhagen the applicant, requested that the item be continued to April 23 in order for the applicant to review the staff report and to review options. He stated that the applicant is ill but could attend the April 23 meeting. In reply to Commission question, Mr. George stated that the applicant bought the property in November of 1985 and that it has been difficult to understand the ramifications of the situation. He stated that the applicant thought that the portion that was added on was the problem. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Commission questions, Planner stated that there are no alternatives to allow the use and that records are sketchy, but if approved, the structure would not meet uniform building code standards and that the original guest house is non-conforming. She stated that the ordinance allows for additions but that they are required to conform to zoning and building code requirements, and that the violation was discovered when there was fire damage to the guest house structure, at which time the property owner was notified but took no action. She stated that records are not in existence for the addition but the main house was probably built around 1954. Planning Director stated that the City' s concern is for the addition which is in the setbacks. Planner stated that the guest house is two story and may have been a garage since there is no garage on the site. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.348-Variance. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy) continuing the application to April 23 at the request of the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM CASE 3.997 & TPM 21492. Application by B. J. CRAWFORD for approval of a 3- story condominium complex and tentative parcel map (consolidation of three lots into one) on E1 Segundo between Ramon Road/Saturnino Road, R- 4 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 14. Planner (Green) stated that the elevations are on the board but the, Commission review is for environmental impact. Planning Director stated that the environmental assessment only would be reviewed since there is difficulty in assembling the property owners list. Planner presented the elevations on the display board. After discus- sion, Chairman stated that the project seemed very urban and inward. C. Mills, 121 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that one of the important considerations in a high density project is the streetscape, and that the buildings are set back into the site and stepped creating a �.. minor impact on the street. Commissioner Lapham commented that it is a hotel zone (R-4 density). M/S/C (Apf elbaum/Kaptur; Ealy abstained) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to May 14 for noticing. Tribal Council comments: See attachment "A". ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0010. Application by WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for architectural approval of 104 unit apartment complex on Belardo Road/Morongo Trail intersection, R-3 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 22. Chairman abstained, Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Green) presented the project on display board. Planning Director stated that an alternative design has been submitted on the entry carports and that only part of the project can be gated. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Ealy/Lapham; Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions. 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That working drawings be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0010. 3. That detailed landscaping, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted. (Plans to include screening of the end elevations of the carport from Belardo Road. ) CASE 3.952 (REF. CASE 5.0735-PD-170 & TTM 16581). Application by D. MARTIN for architectural approva of revised elevations for a 192 unit apart- ment complex on Sunrise Way between Racquet Club Road/Francis Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 2. Planner (Green) presented the project on the display board. He stated that several restudies have been made and that the AAC concerns were the integration of the elements of the building since the committee feels that the two story buildings appear as though they are two one-story elements stacked. He stated that the AAC was also concerned about the roof pitch. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that AAC Chairman Cioffi almost voted in favor of the revised project. D. Levinson, project architect, stated that several designs and attempts have been made and that stacked units attain relief from fin walls and overhangs. He stated that any of the four elevations is acceptable with landscaping and shadows cast, and that straight lines have been eliminated. He requested that the Commission make a decision. In reply to Commission question, Planner stated that at the Architectural Advisory meeting of April 7 architects liked the single story eleva- tions and wanted their character reflected throughout the project but that the two story elements appeared stacked. He stated that staff showed pictures of a similar project in Palm Desert and that the vote at the AAC was a tie with the architects dissenting. Chairman stated that the original design was preferrable, and that he liked the applicant' s project in Palm Desert. Discussion ensued on the open space in the project. Planner stated that the architects felt the one in Palm Springs is more open. Commissioner Kaptur stated that there should be a restudy because the Commission always has second thoughts after approving a marginal project. Motion was made by Kaptur for a restudy. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested that the applicants return with a land- scaping plan to be approved with the architecture. D. Martin, the applicant, requested approval of the building with a landscape plan to be submitted in the future because of the length of time necessary to prepare the plans. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that Commissioners feel that two plans are intertwined. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.952 (REF. CASE 5.0735-PD-170 & TTM 16581). Mr. Martin stated that it is a philosophical issue, that he is not an architect but feels he knows what is attractive, that one of the AAC members was too busy to meet with him to discuss the plans but he was told he should understand what the Commission wanted. Further discussion followed. Consensus was that elevation No. 3 was the most acceptable. Planning Director stated that the roof pitch is important to the appearance of the project. M/S/C (Neel/Ealy; Curtis/Lapham abstained; Kaptur dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the elevations of plan No. 3 be implemented. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 3. That the roof pitch be six/twelve. CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R. P. WARMINGTON CO. for architectural approval of revision to floor plan/balcony for 187 unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 & R-3 Zones, Section 26. Planner (Williams) stated that the applicant is requesting a change in the exterior balcony in order to add square footage to the rooms and that the revision would eliminate the shadow-casting recessed areas of the balcony. He stated that the AAC recommended denial . M. Knorringa, the applicant, stated that the change allowed for the com- bination of jacuzzi , shower, and tub in the room; and that the elevation of the project is not changed by the revisions although less shadow line is apparent. He stated that the revisions shorten the space between the sliding glass door and the wall of the bedrooms and that the exhibits presented are rough because he thought they would be reviewed by staff only. Mr. Kaptur stated that bathrooms usually are placed on an inside wall because they do not require windows thus opening the exterior wall for glass to lighten the rooms. He stated that valuable exterior wall space is being lost and questioned the reasons. Mr. Knorringa stated that is the way the product was developed for units without a view, but that he had no explanation for the reasoning. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he would support the change because room size is important and has been increased with a minimal affect on the exterior. Commissioner Lapham agreed. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the extended wing wall is to allow privacy to the guests on the balcony. Planner stated that the balcony' s `-� height is not a full one. In reply to Commission questions, Mr. Knorringa stated that if the bathrooms were enlarged they might be in the setbacks. Discussion continued at the display board. Consensus was that the revision does eliminate the shadows which are necessary to the April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0360-PD-170. appearance of the exterior. Commissioner Kaptur stated that enough shadows could be obtained by recessing the walls 18 inches. Consensus was that the AAC should review the 18 inch recess. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Knorringa stated that the bathrooms are not equipped for handicapped, but the doorways meet handicapped requirements. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Ealy abstained) for a restudy for a revision to the project showing an 18 inch separation between the balcony and the wall and continuing the item to April 23 for AAC and Planning Commission review. CASE 3.0019. Application by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for concept approval of fire training facility located at the east end of Alejo Road adjacent to Municipal Airport, "A" Zone, Section 12. Planning Director stated that the Fire Department is requesting concept approval and has responded to the Commission recommendation to move the training facility away from a residential neighborhood, that the facility is now on the airport at the east end of Al ej o, and that it is a concrete structure. He discussed AAC recommendations and stated that the Airport Commission recommended that the burn pits be located away from the property line. Fireman Mike Rowe stated that the facility �—' meets FAA requirements and has been approved by the Airport Commission. He explained the types of training that will be conducted at the facility, stated that the site is near the runway for emergency access, that burns are conducted six times a year with a minor amount of smoke and that mid-rise training (6 stories) can be accomplished at the facility. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final detail landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the landscaping use arid/drought tolerant plants. 4. That the setbacks be increased on the street frontage. 5. That the burn pits be relocated. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS TPM 21407. Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Friedman Ventures for approval of tentative parcel map to allow development of commercial office/warehouse complex at Gene Autry Trail/Sunny Dunes Road and Calle San Raphael/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 20. M/S/C (Lapham/Apf elbaum; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) approving TPM 21407 on the condition that all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. TPM 21108. Application by SANBORN/WEBB for G. Patel for approval of parcel map to consolidate 3 lots into one on the southeast corner of Vista Chino/Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 11. (Ref. Case 5.0352-PD-166). M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) approving TPM 21108 subject to the conditions that all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. CASE 3.0017 (MINOR) REF. CASE 2.98 4-HOA. Application by ALAN ROBBINS for architectural approval of a patio enclosure at 385 E. Via Escuela in Riviera Gardens condominium complex on Via Miraleste between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Planner (Williams) stated that the applicant has enclosed a second story balcony (to create a living area) in the Riveria Gardens condominiums without a building permit and without a home owners letter of approval . A. Robbins, 365 Via Escuela, the applicant, stated that he was a Lt. Colonel , that the open patio was unbearably hot, that after a closure, tinting of windows and placement of blinds, the area is now comfortable. He circulated pictures showing exterior and interior views, and stated that other homeowners feel that the enclosure is an improvement and that no one from the AAC had gone to see the revisions. He stated that the changes do not show on the street and that the planner stated that he does not have homeowners approval . (Chairman stated that the City does not have homeowners approval . ) He stated that he requested homeowners approval but was not approved or disapproved because the homeowners association feels it is not within itsjurisdiction and not within its regulations as a violation of the law. He stated that the patio below is enclosed and that 15 other patios in the complex have also been enclosed or roofed without permits from the City or homeowners association because neither body has any jurisdiction over the patios belonging to the homeowners association. He stated that in one unit sliding glass doors were requested and questioned wheither or not they were approved. Planner stated that staff had an application to enclose an identical frontage on Via Escuela which was approved by the Commission in 1984, but the glass enclosure was never constructed and noted that this enclosure did not conform to the approved plan. Planner stated that there are no records showing any other approval by the City except for the glass door enclosure. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 3.0017 (MINOR) (Continued) . Chairman noted that if the enclosures are illegal , the City does not know about them. A. Robbins stated that since another applicant was approved, he has the right to enclose his balcony as well . Commissioner Kaptur stated that since it is the intent of the Commission to keep architectural integrity in condominiums and the applicant feels that his is superior in appearance , and (if approved by the Commission) , the other condominium owners should be required to make a change as well . He stated that the Commission cannot tolerate individuals changing the architecture at their whims. Chairman agreed with Commissioner Kaptur. Commissioner Lapham stated that there is no building permit, no homeowners approval , and that the revision should be denied and abated. A. Robins questioned Commission's denial of this revision when sliding glass doors were approved by the Commission. Chairman explained that the other approval is not relevant to the issue. A. Robins disagreed with Chairman and stated that he would make a formal complaint that 15 other units have illegal enclosures and that nothing has been done about the it. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) denying the application for the balcony enclosure. PUBLIC HEARINGS(Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. Initiation by the City of Palm Springs of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . Planning Director explained staff' s recommendation on the procedures on reviewing the revisions to the zoning text. He stated that there would be review of the amendments at the Planning Commission study session April 16 and explained that the entire ordinance is being addressed. He stated interested parties will probably not review the amendments until it is time to adopt them. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the Zoning Text Amendment to May 14. Tribal Council comments: See atticfMnt ' A". PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Commissioner Kaptur requested the consideration of some type of vehicle to be signed by condominium owners that no exterior changes on approved projects can be made. Assistant City Attorney stated that that type of restriction should be placed in the CC & R's. Commissioner Ealy stated that CC & R' s state that the homeowners must have approval by the architectural committee of the homeowners association and that the terminology "in addition receive Planning Commission approval" should be added. Discussion followed. Planning Director stated that perhaps the provision should be included in the Zoning Ordinance. Assistant City Attorney stated that approval by the homeowners association is not approval by the City, and that the action is between the homeowners and the association only and the City action is solely independent. Commissioner Lapham stated that the applicant at the Riveria Gardens enclosed a patio without a building permit which is in violation and that the AAC and the Planning Commission did not approve what he had done. He stated that the subject case is different. Assistant City Attorney stated that it is irrelevant whether or not A. Robins received approval from the homeowners association and is of no concern to the Commission. Commissioner Lapham stated that homeowners approval is desirable for harmony. Assistant City Attorney reiterated that homeowners approval has nothing to do with the Planning Commission. Discussion continued on language to eliminate exterior changes to condo- miniums. Commissioner Kaptur stated that most condo owners have not read the fine print in the CC & R's and do not realize that changes cannot be made. He stated that the condition must be presented more strongly. Commissioner Ealy stated that in the CC & R's there is usually one section stating that to obtain architectural approval for revisions, approval by the homeowners associate must be given, and that the provision should probably include approval by the City as well . Assistant City Attorney stated that the deed restriction for approval of alterations exists because of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Lapham stated that the condo owner would be on notice if the provision were included in the CC & R' s. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. �..� CASE 3.0014 (MINOR). Application by CRAMER PAINTING INC. for architectural approval of repaint of Texaco Station on northeast corner of Vista Chino/Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 1. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0014 (MINOR). (Continued) Planner (Vankeeken) presented the proposed paint colors and stated that a sign program will be submitted. M/S/C (Neel/Lapham) approving colors of the repaint as submitted. CASE 3.0005. Application by RICHARD LAWRENCE for architectural approval of bed and breakfast facility at 175 E. E1 Alameda, R-3 Zone, Section 10. Planner (Patenaude) explained the Mediterrean-style remodel and stated that a CUP will be required for the revised wall which is in the future right-of-way. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed final landscaping, exterior lighting and irrigation plans be submitted. 3. That a CUP be submitted for the wall which is located within the survey right-of-way. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS COMMISSION, REPORTS AND DISCUSSION - Commissioner Apfelbaum' s Election to the City Council . Commissioner Apfelbaum thanked Commission and staff for their guidance and interest during her three year tenure. She stated that she had one suggestion for consideration by the Commission and staff - that of preparation of a brochure and pictures depicting the type of architecture that the Commission prefers as an aid for out-of-the-area architects. - Vacancies on the Commission. Chairman reminded staff that in addition to the seat vacated by Commissioner Apfelbaum, Chairman's seat would be vacated in June. - Resident Survey. Planning Director requested input from the Commission by Friday, April 11 on the resident survey which is the forerunner of review of the General Plan goals. He requested that the answers be "yes or no' s" because of computerization. - City Special Census. Commissioner Lapham commented that he and many of his neighbors were missed in the survey. Planning Director stated that he would mention the fact to Economic Development Division. April 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update of City Council actions. TTM 21407 - NAHODIL. Map denied by the Council per Planning Commission recommendation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meet- ing at 5:20 p.m. AA(hrVS PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml Memorandum Page 2 April 8 , 1986 \Tribal ew of the impacts and concerns noted above, Council respectfully requested that this ntinued to the City Planning Commission' s arly scheduled meeting for purposes of pro- itional time to obtain and review the site , iminary grading plan and the mitigation measures propos in staff report dated April 9 , 1986 . F ITEM No. 3 . CASE 5 . 0400-ZTA. Initiation by the City of Palm Springs of revi ions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . (Env' ental Assessment; tentative approval. ) It was noted that this case will be continued to the City Planning Commission' s meeting of May 14, 1986 .. The Tribal Council will submit recommendations on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments after receipt of further comments and recommendations from- an Planning Commission and Tribal Planning_EeCTant. ITEM No. 10. CASE 3.997 & TPM 2149 Application by B.J. CRAWF.ORD for approval of a 3-s ory condominium complex and �.. tentative parcel map (consolidation of three lots into one) on E1 .Se ndo between Ramon Road/Saturnino Road, R-4 Zone I.L. ) , Section 14 . The Tribal Council noted that copies of the Site Plan and tentative parcel map were not included in the packet received from the Planning Department. In order to have adequate time for the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant to review this proposed. project, the Tribal Council respectfully requested that this Case be continued to the City Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting. e Tribal Council has noted all other uses and matters on the Ci Planning Commission agenda of April 9 , 1986 since such matt s do not materially affect Indian trust-lands. Copy to: rank Bogert) L anov) Y d Mar Y Q� Bil Foster) DickBi lr) ) TO: City Manager' s Office Eli distribution attachment "A" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 23, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 18 0 Hugh Curtis X 18 0 Hugh Kaptur X 16 2 Larry Lapham X 18 0 Curt Ealy X 13 0 Earl Neel X 9 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Monica Tuchscher, Planning Technician Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - April 21, 1986 Chris Mills Substitutes: Mike Buccino Earl Neel Larry Lapham Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) approving minutes of April 9, 1986 as submitted.