Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/04/23 - MINUTES 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. r April 23, 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/Lapham; Kaptur absent) taking the following action: CASE 3.995 (Continued) . Application by ALLEN FENCE for architectural approval of 1200 feet of chain link fence to secure mostly vacant property at 815 Panorama Drive (hillside lot), R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Continued to May 14 at the applicant' s request. CASE 3.458. Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for J. Snedaker for architectural approval of final landscape plans for office/warehouse in business park, on Research Drive, between Farrell Drive/Computer Way, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Approved subject to: That details of the light fixtures be submitted for staff approval . CASE 3.773. Application by WESTSCAPE for D. Langman for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for house addition on El Portal , between Mesa Drive/mountains, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. Approved subject to staff review. CASE 3.953. Application by A. HORWITCH for architectural approval of final landscape plans for an art gallery at 1090 N. Palm Canyon Drive at ..� Tachevah Road/N. Indian Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to: 1. That a low planter (or pot shelf) be added along the Palm Canyon elevation also enclosing the trees in the southern portion of the frontage. 2. That no deciduous trees be located in the eastern parking lot. 3. That a minimum of 30" box size trees be used in the eastern parking lot and along Tachevah. CASE 3.864. Application by OASIS LANDSCAPING for Brown, Brosche Financial , Inc. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive, between East Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Restudy noting the following: 1. That both streetscapes be revised. 2. That the Palm Canyon landscaping plan be revised to emphasize the entry. 3. That the Indian Avenue landscaping plan be revised to compliment the landscape design on the property immediately to the south and that a section be submitted of this area. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.864. (Continued) 4. That an alternate species be substituted for the silk oak. 5. That the landscaping of the pool area be revised and augmented to provide more visual interest. CASE 3.991. Application by SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS for architectural approval of revised elevations for a multi-use building in Champion Business Park on Gene Autry Trail, between Sunny Dunes Road/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 20. Approved subject to the following condition: That the f ascia of the building be constructed per approved elevations for Building A in Phase I . ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R.P. WARMINGTON CO. for architectural approval of revisions to floor plan/balcony for 187-unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Planning Director stated that the Commission at its last meeting had reviewed this request and had recommended that an 18" offset be maintained to create shadows on the building face but that the AAC and Commissioner Lapham, who substituted at the AAC meeting, after reviewing the revised plans, recommended unanimously that the original approved design be used. He stated that the Commission requested a review of the various elements of the design because of narrowing of the spaces between the wall of the bedrooms and the sliding glass doors and the effect on the canopies. Mr. Knorringa, representing R.P. Warmington Company, stated that the Commission requested modification of the location of the balcony railings with respect to the exterior walls of the bedroom and that a 16" width had been designed. Planning Director stated that the AAC was concerned about the condition of the narrow overhang in its relationship to the canopies and recommended denial or restudy. W. Knorringa stated that he did not know that the AAC had recommended a restudy or denial . Commissioner Lapham stated that he had substituted at the AAC meeting and that the Committee recommended that the original design showing penetration be approved. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0360-PD-170. (Continued) Mr. Knorringa stated that Commissioner Kaptur commented at the April 9 meeting that the rooms should be larger, and that the changes made were those recommended by the Commission. Commissioner Lapham stated that the Commission had not seen the details of the balcony/floor plan revisions and that after reviewing them he changed his mind. Mr. Knorringa stated that the plans could be restudied. Chairman suggested more depth to the walls and also stated that the awning does not work with such a sharp angle. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel; Ealy abstained; Kaptur absent) for a restudy to capture the shadows and dept of the original design. CASE 3.0002. Application by DAN AINSWORTH for architectural approval of single-family hillside residence on Tuscan Road, between Racquet Club Road/Via Olivera, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0013. Application by SANG PAO WANG for architectural approval of .., single-family hillside residence on Crestview Drive, between Overlook Road/Mesa Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 27. Planner (Green) stated that the air conditioning units will require relocation of one unit and an AMM for the other. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel; Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That an a AMM be submitted for the air conditioning equipment encroachment into the setbacks. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0369 - PD-172 (Continued). Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Contractors Development Corp. for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a 79-unit apartment complex, including a density bonus on Las Vegas Road, between East Gate Road/Granada Ave, R-2 Zone, Section 34. Recommendation: That the Commission continue the application to May 14 for written response to the notice of preparation of environmental documents. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0369 - PD-172 (Continued) Planning Director stated that the notice was not published because of a delay in receipt of the notice by the newspaper. He recommended a continuance. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Ealy abstained; Kaptur absent) continuing the application to May 14. 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 south side of the west end of Mesquite Avenue, R-TP and 0-20 Zones, Section 22. Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a Draft Negative 'Declaration tentatively approving the application and continue the application to May 14 for a written response to Notice of Preparation of Environmental Documents. Planner (Green) stated that the report was reviewed in detail at the last meet and AAC and Commission subsequently took a field trip to the site. In summarizing the report he noted that the developable portion of the site is 6.7 acres with the overall site being approximately 30 acres, that a smaller than 40 foot setback is being considered adjacent to Mesquite because the site is at the end of Mesquite with no adjoining properties, that the code requires management, laundry and storage facilities which will be provided with the final development plans, and that there are environmental concerns such as flood control , archaeological and geological issues and that the AAC voted 2-2 for approval with member Mills and alternate Buccino dissenting. He stated that Mr. Mills objected to the location of the modular homes on the hillside (Lots 37 to 40) and suggested that Lots 39 and be 40 be used for parking for the recreation area, and that Mr. Buccino questioned the practicality of the swimming pool and recreation area at a high elevation and felt that it should be located where it is more accessible. He stated that the Tribal Council supported staff' s conditions for an archaeological survey and the extension of the horse trail to Mesquite with trailhead parking and also recommended compliance with the County's flood control conditions as to the the design, operation and maintenance of the flood control facilities. He detailed staff conditions of approval and stated that two drainage channels are onsite; one runs down the mountain and the other is on Gem Circle over which an extension of Parkview Mobilehome Park has been constructed without City approval . He stated that the City is taking action to have the situation rectified by requiring either a larger culvert or the site restored to its original condition by the owner of Parkview. Chairman declared the hearing open. Commissioner Kaptur arrived. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) W. Cumming, Expo Enterprises, the applicant, stated that he was present to answer questions, and that Expo had not been contacted by anyone from Parkview Mobilehome Park. Mrs. I. Kasser, 909 Gem Circle, 14 year resident of Parkview, stated that former mobilehome park residents were old but with today' s economy the population is young, and that she was speaking for herself and the young people. She stated that the proposed park is simply for greed on the part of the developers, that Parkview was built 18 years ago for 60 to 70 homes and now has 178, that the park cannot accommodate additional residents from the proposed park and that landlords are becoming greedier and it will be the downfall of the country. She stated that a person can fight City Hall . (Chairman reminded Mrs. Kasser that the Planning Commission purview does not deal with the use of Parkview' s facilities by this proposal . ) N. Barash, 313 Marble Lane, Parkview, cited noise both during and after construction and an increase in traffic and hazards from construction debris falling on Parkview from above and effects of the blasting above the park. He also stated the inadequacies of the Parkview facilities to accommodate additional residents, that ordinance requirements should be met, and took issue with staff's statement that the proposal is considered as an extension of Parkview. He stated that he felt the proposal is not an extension of Parkview Mobilehome Park and that he would be in opposition if it were proposed to be extended. He stated that although many people were not present because of the Jewish holidays and because of the end of vacations for Canadians, the residents were totally in agreement that the proposal should be denied. He stated that there are many good reasons to reject it. J. R. Lister, 711 Scenic View Drive, Parkview, stated that the dead end street appears to be improperly planned, that the easement is in question, that approval by the City would indicate that the easement exists, that right of access would be obtained before the plan is approved because if an easement does not exist the street is a dead end street. He questioned the legality of the improvements in the encroachments on Expo property and stated that a court case could result. He requested information on the 15 ft. boundary strip on which encroachments have been built. Planner stated that the improvements in the setback on the last portion of the site are without permits, that removal is a private matter, and that the City is not involved in the question. He stated that the City would require informal landscaping of the strip for privacy and that after obtaining legal advice the City position on the question of access is that it is a private matter between the two property owners. He stated regard to the location of the dead end street there is no planning related reason to deny the configuration since it is a private legal matter of access between Parkview and the new proposal . He stated that there would be no legal requirement from the City for the encroachments to be removed at this time. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) �... M. Natz, 511 Jade Lane, Parkview, asked the size of the recreation room proposed by Expo Enterprises. Planner stated that it was 3,000 square feet which is acceptable to the City. Mr. Natz stated that it was only the size of a large mobilehome for 160 people. He stated that if the City is considering the project because of need there are 21 mobilehomes for sale which have not been sold that other mobilehome parks have vacanciesm and that the mobilehomes are reasonably priced in today' s market. Chairman stated that the vacancy factors are not in the Commission' s purview. Mr. Natz stated that he did not realize that since sometimes a need is considered by the Commission, and that the street leading to Parkview is a speedway and traffic will increase with the addition of 40 more units. He stated that there will be problems of traffic, noise, and flooding. T. Jacobson, 398 W. 4th Street, San Bernardino, representing Parkview, stated that in review of the project he found that it did not meet code requirements and no reason for it not meeting requirements has been given, that the reason there are zoning requirements is to provide uniform development and consistency, and that substantial flood and soil problems have been glossed over with no mitigating measures indicated. Chairman stated that mitigating measures were read into the record and ,..,, were in the staff report. Mr. Jacobson stated that the problems were not addressed in proper detail , that the homes will not be comparative in price to those in Parkview, that there should not be access from Parkview, even if the City states it is not involved, that the right to use the facilities should be decided later if Expo Enterprises' access is confirmed and that the Commission should decide whether or not proper facilities are provided and access provided without traversing the Parkview development. Planner stated that the mitigative measures are part of the staff report and that the densities are within code requirements. I . Evans, 126 Jade Lane, stated that he had no idea why the proposal was before the Commission since it is dependent on easements. He requested more information on the easements since he is going to sue the developer on the basis that he does not have the easements. Mr. Evans questioned Planning Commission' s jurisdiction over the project. Chairman stated that the applicant owns the property. Mr. Evans stated that the applicant is using the term "easements" in plural , stated that a public easement allows anyone to use it and that hikers use the area at the present time. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) Chairman stated that the matter of easements is not addressed by the Commission and that the Commission recommendation on the project is based on the zoning and the use of the property. He stated that the easement is a matter between the property owner and the lease holder and the project does not need a easement to exist. Mr. Evans stated that Mesquite is narrow and will be a problem for access for utilities and emergency services. Chairman stated that the problems will be addressed in light of their mitigation and that the "tentative approval" mentioned on the agenda is a procedural question with final approval on May 14 for public response to the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration. He stated that the Commission had taken a field trip to the site. In reply to Chairman' s question, Planner stated that the Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the road width and finds it acceptable. B. Baughn, 729 Scenic View, Parkview, stated that he would be affected by the project since there is an easement next to his property, that flood control is important, that paving will increase the flood hazard, that flood control has not been given consideration. Chairman informed Mr. Baughn that the grading plan involves flood control measures. Planner stated that the 15 ft. area required by the City is between the properties on the eastern boundary of the site and that the 40 ft. width required is for the street setback from public streets. In reply to Mr. Baughn's question, Planning Director stated that there are a pool and a jacuzzis proposed. At Chairman' s request many people in the audience stood in opposition to the project. Mr. Cumming declined rebuttal . There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director stated that the Parkview development was built to the zoning requirements at the time and is approximately the same density of the proposed park, and that a previous application to build 47 units was never developed. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director state that there is little impairment to the new proposal and that the question may not have to be resolved in the courts. He stated that the Parkview owner allowed April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) the encroachment all although little was done leg ally g y by permits in the back area and that the owner probably intended to extend the Parkview development although the ownership has since changed hands and is now under separate ownership. In reply to Commission question, Planner stated that AAC member Mills dissented because he felt that the modular units were not appropriate for hillsides, that the plan shown will stand on its own (and that the City will require adequate facilities), that the issue of providing a cul-de-sac is clouded by the question of easements but that staff does not feel justified in denying the configuration of the road after reviewing the information supplied by the applicant. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if it is decided that the project should stand on its own, it should comply with the Ordinance. Planner stated that a cul-de-sac would be a logical development if it is legally determined that there is no access through Parkview, but that staff does not feel that the cul-de-sac is necessary at this time. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the road should meet requirements for the termination of a roadway. Planning Director stated that the project will stand on its own without easements and that the Commission can make a condition that the final design of the road can be altered if a usable easement is not determined, and can also make a determination that configuration of the road is not acceptable and is to be resolved in final detailed development plans. He stated that the Commission can require that the site plan be adjusted. Discussion continued on the easement. Planning Director repeated that if the easement were not in place; the project could still function and that the lot could be reconfigured if the street were closed. He stated that there is no standard being violated by the dead end street configuration. Chairman explained that the Commission cannot prevent a person from developing property, that the Commission has broad base powers regarding conditions, but that it is not a Commission concern that the project is one that can be accessed by the buying public and that leaving the property open is not an option of Commission. He stated that the City Council would not buy the property to use as open space. Planning Director at Commission request stated that the Commission could order the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approve the project and continue it to May 14 for response and final action ornegative action could be taken on the project. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Cumming stated that the 23 acres not proposed to be developed could be a gift to the City, but the question is not resolved, and that he had no authority to made the April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) decision for the principals. Planning Director stated that the property in zoned 0-20 and has no real economic use although one house could be built on it in accordance with hillside guidelines. Mr. Cumming, stated in reply to Commission question, that the size of the pool and recreational amenities will accommodate the 60 to 70 percent occupancy expected on a year-round basis. Discussion followed concerning the deadend street. Planning Director stated that there is no physical barrier at the deadend between the site and that the Fire Department has not recommended alteration of the plan. Planner stated that the Fire Department can use any access in an emergency. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that he believed that Parkview owner could place a wall around the mobilehome park with AAC approval (and meeting all code requirements) and that what was done on the Parkview property was independent of Expo. Planning Director stated that the existing access street is only one mobilehome space long on the Parkview side. Chairman stated that it seemed that there would be a built in easement by the nature of the street configuration. Discussion followed on fire emergency access. Planning Director stated that he was not sure of the Fire Department understanding of the access but there is an assumption that they can access through the easement. Mr. Cumming stated that he had discussed the situation with the Fire Department and that the road aids the Parkview development because if the Parkview entrance is blocked, the Fire Department can access from the Expo Park. Discussion followed on Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the parcel for the access is part of the approval of the Parkview project, but the owner sold the upper portion of the park and created a problem. He stated that he would vote for the approval based on the right to develop a person' s property, but since easements are being considered he could not vote for the proposal if the issue were resolved based on the presentation shown on the board. He stated that the access area should be addressed in approval of the project. Commissioner Curtis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Kaptur and that two mobilehomes should be eliminated and a cul-de-sac formed. Planning Director stated that the Parkview area was approved for a mobilehome but was paved over in anticipation of creating an access point, and that no road was shown at the time of approval . He stated that a redesign of the project showing access off internal streets could be reviewed in final development plans. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) Chairman stated that the public hearing will remain open to take testimony on revised plans. He suggested that the Parkview homeowner and representatives of Expo Enterprises meet to resolve access and easement problems since the problems are not as monumental as the participants think they are. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to May 14 for a resolution of the road dispute and review of the problems with staff and developer. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS The subject project is bounded by Indian Tribal land (Tahquitz Canyon) on the West and allotted trust-lands on the North (Single-Family Residence) East (Parkview Mobilehome Park) and South (Vacant) . The Planning Staff report notes that the project is included within 2 National Historic Sites. The subject project was reviewed by the Tribal Council from the standpoint of its potential impact on these trust lands, including cultural resources. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Concurred with conditions 6 & 7 of City Planning Staff report dated April 9, 1986, relative to requirements for an archaeological survey prior to submission of final development plans, and the on-site presence of a Tribal Council/City approved archaeologist during grading operations. The archaeologist shall identify possible cultural resources that may be discovered during excavation. 2) Recommend appropriate recovery/preservation measures for Tribal Council review and approval . 3) Noted that the preliminary grading plan includes a debris basin and a concrete lined drainage channel that will outlet onto trust- lands, including a portion of the Parkview Mobilehome Park. Comments and recommendations from Riverside County Flood Control District relative to the design, operation and maintenance of these facilities were not included in the City staff report referred to above. The Tribal Council strongely recommended that the final development plans, C.C. & R's, etc. include appropriate previsions to comply with forthcoming comments and recommendations of the Flood Control District. 4) It was noted that mitigation measures and staff conditions require that the existing equestrian trail locate northwesterly of the project site, be extended down to the westerly terminus of Mesquite Avenue and that trailhead parking be provided. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0389. (Continued) j The Tribal Council requested the opportunity to receive and review specific plans for these facilities prior to approval of final development plans for the proposed project. These plans would be reviewed from the standpoint of their compatibility with future development of the Tahquitz Canyon/Cove Area with respect to access, parking, security, interpretive center, etc. CASE 6.348-VARIANCE (Continued) . Application by ALBERT GOLDHAGEN for a variance for a freestanding addition within the setbacks for a residence at 301 Tamarisk, south of Avenida Caballeros, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. Recommendation: That the Commission deny the application for a variance. Planning Director presented the staff report and recommended denial . R. George, 301 Tamarisk, stated that records were not available on the addition but that it could be 20-40 years old, that the applicant has employed a title company for a record search which is now in progress, that a portion of the building has been in existence a long time, that the neighbors have no problem with the proposal since there is space around it for emergency access, and area is in a redevelopment project area and could incur undue expense if the redevelopment were to begin. He stated that the title company will have the title searched by the May 14 meeting and requested continuance. Chairman stated that review of permits may not necessarily affect the variance. Chairman declared the hearing open. A. Goldhagen, the applicant of Kenwood California, stated that he purchased the property for daughter and grandson and regarding the guest house he wished to cooperate with all ordinances of the City, that he had been a long time resident since 1945 that he had undergone much expense to have a title search, that he hoped it would be available and that he hoped it would be available by May 14. He stated that he has upgraded the exterior and has created an asset to the area and that he would upgrade the small building on an interim basis to satisfy everyone. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.348-VARIANCE. (Continued) Commissioner Lapham questioned City Attorney as to the difference a title search would make if this structure violated the Ordinance (constructed to the property). Assistance City Attorney stated that if the title company is able to determine that the building in question was built before the time the requirement was enacted that would make the structure illegal now, it would be a legal non-conforming use and significantly a different position and the variance application would moot. CASE 5.0344 - PD-164. Application by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS PROJECT-JOINT VENTURE for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a convention center and hotel on Tahquitz Way, between Avenida Cabal leros/Cal le Alvarado, C-1-AA, R-4VP, and R-4 Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Recommendations: The Planning Commission approved the application sub- ject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the design and parking issues of the pro- ject are still open and can be affected by the Commission and that the issues were not addressed previously because the financial package establishing the footprint was put together first. Commissioner Ealy explained that he would have to abstain since his law firm represents lessors receiving money on a percentage basis from the land. Chairman stated that his and Commissioner Kaptur' s places of employment are across the street from the project but that they have been told that they can vote by the Assistant City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney' s Office has done research on projects involving a series of decisions including the issue of project location. Members of the Commission who's sources of income might be affected by the location are required to abstain, but once the decision has been made on the location subsequent decisions not affecting sources of income can be made by those Commissioners. Commissioner Curtis had concerns of the architecture, landscaping and site plan and that the he did not want to spend time on decisions that have already been made. Planning Director stated that some of the AAC members had to leave the meeting at the time the design issues philosophy was to be discussed but that the design has not been finished, although the direction of the design has been established by City Council . He stated that there are AAC comments on the issue of shade control , landscape, open space deficiency, and that the Council is the final authority on the PD and has expressed a continuing desire to be certain that the architectural detailing of the project is the best that can be. Commissioner Curtis stated that discussion should be limited to decisions not already made to avoid wasting time. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued Planner (Green) presented staff report and discussed the first phase confirguration landscaping and service areas. He stated that there are two concepts for the landscaping - an informal streetscape with native materials and a formal landscape scene at the entries to the hotel and convention center. He described the parking areas regarding numbers of spaces, sizes of the areas, setbacks and open space. He stated that the project does not meet highrise setbacks in two areas - at the adjoining office building and the cultural center site and also on the office facility to the south. He stated that although by ordinance parking is not allowed to front on Tahquitz that staff feels that it is acceptable because the parking is out of the setback and is buffered. He stated that it is difficult to apply parking requirements to a large project of this type and that there is a possible parking space deficiency that will be seasonal . Shuttle bus service will be provided to other hotels for convention activities at the center and that there is other parking available for which covenants will be required in order for the facilities to use other lots for parking. He stated that Tahquitz parking area provides a setback to the highrise portion of the structure and that the layout of the site is the best for parking and that the parking is based on the revised ordinance requirements. He stated that there is a open space deficiency (11%) for the hotel and the convention center and that the quality of the landscaping is very important in light of the open space deficiencies. He noted that the trellises could be added to the parking lot to mitigate the deficiency and explained revised figures on setback deficiencies. He presented the mitigative measures in the environmental assessment/initial study and stated that some impacts cannot be mitigated and there is a statement of overriding consideration which states that the economic benefits outweigh items of the that adverse effect on the environment. He stated that the AAC had many items of concern and presented those items (AAC Minutes on file in the Planning Division Offices) . He stated that the Tribal Council reviewed the application and recommended approval concurring with the statement of overriding considerations, but made no comments on the architectural features and commented only on Phase 1. He stated that staff would add the condition that provision be made to the site plan for bus maneuvering prior to final development plan approval and that the project is moving ahead with grading plans, foundation permits and that staff has included conditions on their implementation. He explained that parking space requirements were spaced on consultants advice, review of reports, and UBC requirements. Planning Director stated that a facility consultant was used to determine the parking space requirements. He stated that there was a 25% deficiency but that it is difficult to apply standards since it is a Headquarters Hotel for the convention center with a possibility that by its nature will attract less cars, but eventually additional parking may have to be provided. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the blueprint is set, that the grading plan shows that Amado April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued Road will be higher than the parking lot and that the hotel will be higher than Tahquitz Way. He stated that the project engineer was in the audience and that the parking lot on Tahquitz will be set back 40 feet. He stated that the design team could clarify specifics. T. Lynch, Economic Development and Housing Director, stated that the staff report is very complete and that he was present to answer questions relative to the history of the various development agreements that constrained the feasibility to make modification to the plan, that the blueprint is pretty much fixed due to financing and grandf athered under a previous financing plan which is no longer possible. He stated that because of the financing structure there is no flexibility on the hotel but some flexibility on the Convention Center since various development agreements affect relationships to the convention center. He stated that the design was influenced by the Council and Council is the owner and has provided direction on the architecture and footprint. He stated that the architects have been constrained from the start and have tried to work according to the input from the City Council and that scheduling is for groundbreaking in April , construction on the hotel within a month and construction on the convention center in July or August with convention center taking less time and hopefully to be open in October in 1987 to develop work flow and style. He stated that the development team was present with new renderings and materials to present to the Commission. W. Guyler, of T & H Enterprises, Houston, Texas, hotel applicant, stated that his firm was happy to be part of the venture and that the plan addresses the major concerns. He introduced the development team. Chairman stated that there were many comments about the design in the joint study session on the project and that the comments were intended to be constructive. Mr. Guyler stated that everyone has the best interest of the project and the City at heart, and if there were no differences in opinion then there would be no project. W. Love, HNTB, 266 S. Oxford, Los Angeles, and J. Combs, project architect, presented renderings on the board and stated that they would not be making a detail presentation but wished to show features which became important design considerations and the driving forces for standards. He discussed the configuration of the hotel and described the unifying elements between the hotel and convention center as walkways, repeated architecture treatments and materials, and window treatments. He stated that the exterior material is lightweight and sun resistant and retains color. He noted that trellises and recessed windows are repeated to enjoy the view and that the glass material used for the hotel will provide energy savings and that wrought iron railings and red barrel tile are added for uniformity, and stated that walls are offset making the large areas human in scale. He discussed the porte- cochere and also stated that the tower depicted is for the elevator and is fifteen feet above the top floor. He added that the architects have tried to respond to suggestions. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344' Continued This discussion continued at the board regarding the elevations. Commissioner Curtis stated that recessed areas should be used in the sunny areas for sun control . Mr. Love stated that sun control can be accomplished through several methods and that the architects chose to use a combination of overhands, solar glass, limited fenestration, and meet State Energy standards. D. Hemry, of the Peridian Group, landscape architect, of Skypark Blvd. , Irvine of the firm stated that they have worked on numerous projects of tht desert and that the subject project is exciting, that the perimeter a eas will be developed as screening, that a berm wall surrounds parking 1 t area and groups of native type trees which should screen autos, that t ere will be specimen trees throughout the parking lot. He stated that t e entries to the center and the hotel will be similar in nature and d signed to create permanent view and that there will be similar fountain and tree forms in both the convention center hotel area with higher Palms grouped against the height of the buildings in a looser arrangement. He also explained the rest of the landscaping and the entry inner areas including the courtyards. Discussion ensued on AAC comments on landscaping. Commissioner Neel stated that the service yard for the hotel should be gated. The architects stated that more vines would be provided and perhaps some architectural relief to the service area. Planning Director stated that the project is lacking in open space and the site plan for the hotel is deficient 11 to 12 percent and suggested the Commission recommend trellises or upgrading of the parking areas, or perhaps the use of decorative paving. He stated that the Commission should state concerns to the Council and that staff will work with the phased development chain. Open space requirements were discussed. Planning Director stated that 50% open space is required for highrises and the project is 38% and that the convention center is 34% open space and with Phase 2 development the open space shown in green on the board will be reduced to 10 to 15 percent eventually. Planner presented the west elevation of the hotel . Planning Director stated that the graphic treatment will be repeated from the other sites rather than having material changes. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director suggested that the meeting be adjourned to a special session to review other issues of the project as necessary such as colors and materials. He stated that there are several issues yet to be addressed such as the trellises, walkway details, colors, materials, irrigation, signing, and exterior lighting. He stated that the architecture will not change and that the Commission should take action to improve the planned development district subject to conditions and adjourn the overall meeting to April 30 to address further details since April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE '5.0344 Continued k it is necessary for the developer to order structural steel to begin building and there is a 6 month delivery time. Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not believe that it mattered or made any difference what action the Commission took, that he did not object to the Planned Development District but that he was opposed to the architecture of the hotel , that he would vote for the PD only if the hotel architecture were denied. He asked about the design of the "monster" tower. Chairman stated that Commissioner Lapham's comments on the architecture are noted but it will not make any difference. Discussion followed on the type of action to take. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he supported the endeavor to bring the concept of the facility to the City but that he had deep concerns about the site plan as shown and whether or not the site plan is in the best interest of the City since the courtyard will be shaded by the five story building which will block out any sun from reaching the outside of the pool court. He stated that the structure framing the pool area does not allow any view of the mountains and surrounding area, and is completely contrary to those concepts which the City has always tried to incorporate into its architecture. He stated that he also had deep concerns about the architecture' s compatibility to the community and could not support the design concept. He stated that he agreed with much of the AAC comments. d.. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Ealy abstained) approving the Planned Development District based on the followings findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The convention center and hotel use at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Planned Development District application is authorized by this Ordinance. 2. The resort use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objec- tives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone. 3. The project does not comply with the setback and open space requirements of the high-rise section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The project does not comply with the C-1-A-A Zone parking location requirements. 5. The project does not comply with the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 7. The site relates to two major thoroughfares, Tahquitz Way and Avenida Caballeros, a secondary thoroughfare, Amado Road and a collector, Calle Alvarado which are properly designed and improved April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. 8. The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions: 1. That a Final Planned Development District documents shall be sub- mitted in accordance with Section 9407.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That all Mitigation Measures identified in the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report, dated May 1983; the Environmental Assessment for Case TPM 20485, dated September 24, 1984; and the attached Environmental Assessment, dated April 23, 1986, shall be complied with. (Attached) 3. That all conditions of the Development Committee shall be complied with. (Attached) 4. That detailed landscape, exterior lighting and irrigation plans shall be submitted with the Final Planned Development District application. 5. That parking lot lighting shall comply with the provisions of Section 9306.000.4 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: The light source shall not be visible from off the property, shall not direct light skyward, and shall be so arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and streets. Light standard heights shall be as per manufacturer's recommended photometics, but in no case shall the height exceed the maximum permitted building height of the zone in which it is situated or eighteen (18) feet, whichever is less. Graduated light standard heights within a site with lower heights in peripheral areas may be required by the Planning Commission to provide compatibility with adjoining properties and streets. Illumination levels in parking areas which require lighting shall be an average of one-foot candle with a ratio of average light to minimum light of three to one (3:1) . 6. That signs shall be subject to a separate application. 7. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 8. That detailed landscaping plans shall include street trees in accordance with the adopted street-tree plan for Tahquitz Way. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued 9. That curbs shall be located a minimum of two feet from the face of buildings and columns where adjoining driveways, and a minimum of five feet where adjoining parking spaces and driveways adjoining parking spaces. 10. That the City reserves the right to require the provision of up to an additional 86 parking spaces at such time as a determination is made that said spaces are deemed necessary. Full details of the provision of the 86 parking spaces shall be provided for the hotel at this time. These parking spaces shall be provided on land within the owned by the hotel and convention center developer or the off-site spaces shall be attributed to the user by a covenant designating the spaces and their hours of use to the subject use; or a lease agreement from the owner to the subject user specifying the spaces and their hours of use to the subject user. 11. That the hotel and convention center management teams shall cooperate during Phase 1 to develop a parking management plan to avoid both facilities having concurrent parking peaks. 12. That the headquarters hotel and convention center shall separately provide the City' s Planning Division with a quarterly audit of floor space, room and parking space occupancy under a program to be determined prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 13. Construction implementation program shall be agreed between the city, developer & utilities, and submitted and approved by the staff prior to issuance of building permits. The program shall include the following: a) Site plans which show the present & future location of all utilities (i .e. , water, gas sewer, electrical , telephone & television lines). b) A phasing program which details the times of removal & installation of the above utilities. NOTE: Relocation removal & installation of utilities shall be carried out in such a way as to minimize (1) disturbance & disruption of pavement & sidewalks; (2) Pedestrian & vehicle flows; (3) existing utility services. Details shall be provided for City approval . c) Project grading & construction activities shall take place between the hours of 7 a.m. & 6 p.m. d) Any trucks transporting soil to or from the project site shall be covered in such a way as to prevent the escape of soil (subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code). April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.,0344 Continued e) Plans for partial or complete roadway closures shall be coordinated with Caltrans, the City' s Traffic Engineer, City Police & Fire Depts. , Waste Disposal Services, Inc. , Springs Ambulance & the Sunbus. Full details shall be submitted to & approved by the City in writing prior to closure of streets. f) Details of routes, including destination, potential frequency of trips & loads of construction vehicles shall be provided for the approval of the City prior to issuance of grading permits. g) The developer shall be responsible for cleaning adjacent streets, as a result of the project, during the construction of the project & restoring adjacent streets after completion of construction. Details shall be submitted to the City for approval . h) Details of the location of construction equipment & worker' s vehicle parking areas shall be provided for City approval . i ) Details of temporary access/egress to the site during construction shall be provided for City approval . j) Details of erosion control measures shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Building Division. (NOTE: Paving & relandscaping of exposed areas shall take place as early as possible during construction. k) Details of temporary construction fencing shall be submitted to the City. The fencing shall be maintained throughout the project construction & kept in a neat condition by the developer. 1 ) Where pedestrian access is provided, it shall be maintained to insure safe & adequate pedestrian access to the satisfac- tion of the City. m) Details of any concrete manufacturing plant to be located on the construction site shall be supplied for the approval of the City. n) Details of on-site construction lighting shall be provided for the approval of the City. o) Measures for the safe and convenient disposal of occasional flood waters from the construction site shall be supplied for the approval of the City. i April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued p) That access shall be retained to surrounding developments off Tahquitz Way, Avenida Caballeros, Calle Alvarado and Amado Road at all times during construction to the satisfac- tion of the City Traffic Engineer. M/,S/C (Lapham, Kaptur; Madsen dissented; Ealy abstained) adopting AAC recommendations as follows: Landscape: Restudy noting: a) That a landscape design shall be submitted for the west elevation (include clumps of trees and other landscape materials to enhance this elevation and future entrance to the facility) . b) That the proposed formal landscape concept (including fountains) for the entries to the hotel and convention center shall be revised to be informal . An informal landscape design for these areas would complement the proposed streetscape and provide a counterpoint to the formal style of the architecture. c) That both service yards (to the hotel and convention center) require further extensive landscape screening. Vines and land- scaping shall be added to the internal easterly wall of the hotel service dock. Murals/graphics were also suggested to visually improve this area. Further studies of the landscaping of the Convention Center service dock shall be submitted, including sections through to Amado Road. Explore also the use of screen walls in this location. d) That pots shall not be used, and materials shall be planted in the ground. (Pots are not practical in a desert climate. ) Bignonia was suggested as a vine. e) That palms shall not be soldier-coursed, but placed informally in clumps. The heights of palms shall be varied, 8-14' high specimens shall be placed along the street, and higher palms 40- 50' high shall be placed against the hotel . Palm heights shall be varied immediately in front of the hotel facade to provide a foil to the continuous hotel building height. (Washingtonia Robusta, Phoenix Reclinata and Chamerops Humilis were suggested as palm types. ) f) That the trellis shall be revised to include wooden cross members in lieu of proposed wire. g) That the plant list shall be reviewed and substitutions for Parkinsonia and certain native species shall be made. h) That landscaping shall be added to the court between the hotel and the convention center (eastern connecting point) . 4,. i ) That native boulders be also included on the street frontages. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued Site Plan. Restudy: a) The committee noted it was poor site planning to have the hotel loading dock as the focal point to Andreas Road since this elevation will be a future entrance from the cultural center and is a pedes- trian entrance to the Convention Center from Palm Springs. As noted above (Landscape 3) the committee recommended redesign of both the hotel and convention center loading docks. Gates were suggested as a less preferable screening alternative to redesign. Larger scale elevations and sections shall be submitted. b) That the pedestrian access from Alvarado Road shall be redesigned architecturally and/or with landscaping to add visual emphasis. Architecture. Denial . a) AAC recommended the walkway link connecting the hotel and convention center shall be revised to separate completely the portico from the structure. b) It was noted that a new element (a 78 ft. high elevator tower had been added to the hotel ) . AAC recommended that the tower be square and that it be integrated architecturally with the remainder of the structure. c) AAC were concerned that the architecture had a total lack of sun control , both on the exterior and interior court elevations. The committee noted that the structure should be designed to respect the desert climate (ie. integrate shading of windows within the structure). d) Submitted elevations do not show tile roofs over walkways on the Alvarado and Amado elevations. AAC recommended that tile roofs be added to these structures. AAC also noted that the following information shall be submitted to complete the application. 1. A full set of elevations completely colored showing all sides of all buildings. 2. Detailed colors and materials for the project (on a materials board(s) maximum size 8-2" x 11") . 3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation, exterior lighting, signing, irrigation and wall plans. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS The subject project is located on Indian trust-land. It is also bounded -' on all sides by vacant and/or developed trust-land. The Draft EIR for the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project Area was considered by the Tribal Council in June 1983 at which time the Council generally concurred April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0344 Continued with the findings that the following issues need to be addressed for future specific projects, and mitigation measures implemented to reduce significant impacts: 1. Adverse noise levels in existing and residential areas. 2. Regulation of high-rise development. 3. Deteriorating air quality. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted that the design of the project plus the conditions and mitigation measures recommended by staff, address the potential significant environmental issues referred to above. 2. Concurred with the statement of overriding considerations with respect to the environmental impacts which can either only be partially mitigated or not mitigated at all . 3. Found that the proposals to mitigate possible deficiencies relative to peak parking demands appear to be practical and capable of implementation. 4. In keeping with its normal practice, the Tribal Council did not comment on the architectural features of the project. 5. Limited its review and comments to only Phase I of the proposed complex, also the headquarters hotel and Phase I of the Convention Center. 6. Approved the Preliminary Planned Development District subject to the conditions contained in Planning Commission staff report date April 23, 1986. CASE 5.0402 - PD-181. Application by CATHOLIC CHARITIES for a Planned Development District to allow emergency housing/shelter in an existing hotel on De Anza Road, between Pico Road/Sepulveda Road, R-G-A(6) Zone, Section 3. Recommendation: That the Commission give final approval subject to conditions. (No environmental assessment will be prepared; the action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planner (Vankeeken) presented the staff report and stated that the property would be upgraded by the applicants, that staff recommends final approval, and the action is exempt from environmental assessment. Chairman declared the hearing open. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0402-PD-181. (Continued) G. Godoy, County of Riverside Housing Authority, stated he was in concurrence with the conditions of approval except for Engineering Conditions regarding sidewalks and curbing, parking, roads and sewer connections. Planner (Green) stated that Engineering requirements had just been received by staff and recommended that they be discussed and resolved with the applicant at staff level , or if not resolved brought back to the Commission. Mr. Godoy agreed to the recommendation. Mrs. R. Sweet, Ironwood County Club, representing Catholic Charities, stated that she appreciated staff' s aid and expediting of the project and stated that the shelter would not be a home for battered women, (which needs a particular kind of help which will be available in the valley if a drive for a facility succeeds) . She stated that the Catholic Charities helps displaced families. Mr. L. Timberdile, 3030 DeAnza Road, stated there has been vandalism and disruption in her area and disturbances from household pets as well as lack of parking space because of the hotel that is in existence at the present time and which is proposed to be used as a shelter. Mrs. Sweet explained that no animals will be allowed on the property and promised to help change the conditions that are affecting the neighborhood. She stated persons availing themselves of the facilities must sign an agreement to cause no problems. She stated that she felt the neighbors would be pleased and surprised by the proposed facility. J. Haney, 3030 DeAnza, Palm Springs, requested an environmental review of the area because of the proposed facility. He stated that he resided near the Alano Club and the existing hotel , and wondered whether or the not the Commission wished the neighborhood to have that character rather than private homes. Chairman stated that the area has multi-family zoning. Mr. Haney also remarked that he was concerned about control of children of the families using the shelter. Mrs. Sweet stated there is a resident manager, that all applicants are screened and that a signed statement is required that there will be no problem. She stated no additional units were planned for the facility and that it would be better supervised than it is presently. Mr. Haney also questioned the need for sidewalks since there are none in the neighborhood presently and questioned the numbers of people who will be in the neighborhood without jobs. A. Gorcey, 3555 Selpuveda Road, stated that the hotel has been detrimental to the neighborhood because of the numbers of cars, emergency vehicles, and constant entering and leaving of the hotel at all hours of the date and night. He stated that there is high speed April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0402-PD-181. (Continued) traffic that police are called often, and that garbage and trash are left in the lots of the neighborhood. He stated that the Alano Club is in the neighborhood and treats both alcoholics and drug addicts, and the traffic caused by the meetings is heavy. He explained that the neighbors keep their homes in good repair and even clean the gutters. He showed pictures of County-operated homes which he has been hired to repair which showed trash and debris in the yards, broken walls and railings in the homes. Mr. Godoy stated that he stated he did not know where the units were located since the County does not have subsidized housing in the City. Mrs. J. DiAmico, County of Riverside Housing Authority of Palm Desert, stated that the units in the pictures were in the Gateway area and had County contracts for rent subsidies at one time, but because of the conditions are no longer on the program and that subsidies are given only if applicants comply with regulations. L. Dahl, 350 Sepulveda, requested continuance saying thathe`!,had not been notified in time,that his neighbors had also not received their notices, and from a legal standpoint were not properly notified. He asked if the use would change the zoning law. Chairman stated that the area is zoned for its present use. and that the zoning has not been changed. Mr. Dahl stated that he was concerned about development of the area, which up to this time has been slow and has allowed beautiful views of the mountains. He stated that there are some detractions such as the Alano Club, and also that the Lucky Store on Racquet Club was recently closed because of people loitering at night. He stated that the neighbors want to improve (not degrade) the neighborhood. ' G. Godoy (rebuttal ) reiterated that the County wants to upgrade the property and remove the cars and trash and that the use will be a benefit to the community and more attractive for development. Mrs. Sweet stated that she understood that the neighbors were concerned about their property and the treatment of alcoholism, addicts, and police action. She stated that Catholic Charities has never treated alcoholics or addicts since an emergency shelter is an inappropriate place, and that other agencies have the facilities and staff for treatment and counseling. She stated that shelter is provided for the families of the alcoholics and addicts. Planning Director, in response to Commission question, stated that the property owners within 400 feet were noticed in accordance with the latest tax assessment rolls which could be a year out of date, but that Mr. Dahl could contact staff, and be added to the list, and that he can be noticed for the City Council hearings. Chairman stated that the area beyond 400 feet is not noticed. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0402-PD-181. (Continued) Mrs. Sweet stated that the average length of stay is 30 days except for those with health problems and that counselling and job development for families is given. Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not see any change in use of the existing structure other than more supervision under a Planned Development District. Chairman stated that the case will go to City Council . M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ) approving the Planned Development District applica- tion based on the following findings, subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That a Planned Development District application is appropriate for consideration of this proposal . 2. That the proposal conforms with the elements of the City' s General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate this use. 4. The site is served by De Anza Road, Pico Road and Sepulveda Road, all of which are adequate to service the site. 5. This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Conditions: 1. That all Development Committee conditions of the April 14, 1986 meeting be met with staff to work out details of sidewalk requirements. 2. That all buildings shall comply with the latest adopted uniform fire and building codes. 3. That the site and buildings shall comply with the requirements of the Health Department. 4. That the Catholic Charities shall use the existing facility on DeAnza Road for the purpose of short-term accommodation of families and individuals in need of shelter and assistance. When the facility ceases to accommodate families and individuals in need of shelter and assistance as described in the staff report dated April 23, 1986, the use of the facility shall be discontinued and shall revert to the previous use of apartment hotel . April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 27 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.353 - VARIANCE. Application by EDWARD WHITING for a variance to allow ^� covered automobile parking within the setbacks at 282 South Via Las Palmas, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Recommendation: Denial . Planner (Vankeeken) presented the project on the board and stated that the carport is completely in the setbacks. She explained the positioning of the structure and stated that the entire issue would have to be in the setbacks if approved. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. E. Whiting, 282 S. Via Las Palmas, explained that she would speak to avoid stress for her husband, that she felt that she had caused the problem, that the word "variance" exists to allow a variance occasionally. She explained the configuration of the property and her own residence, and stated that the property line was created around the pool area with an easement. She described the revisions to the house made by a contractor and asked consideration for her findings, she stated that a special circumstance applied not to shape, size and topography but because of the former land use. She stated also that special privileges must have been granted to 23 residences and distributed pictures with measurements of the setbacks but no addresses. She stated the use is not detrimental since the carport will be strengthened to meet code and also that no neighbors objected. She presented a petition with the names of persons who approved the project and requested that the variance be granted since it does not harm anyone. In reply to Chairman's question, Mrs. Whiting stated that the carport was part of the old carpet structure which has been reroofed. She stated that if they had been known of any violations they would have used other space on the property. Planner stated that the carport was stopped during construction because the Whitings had no building permit and is nearly finished, well constructed but not painted. Commissioner Lapham asked Mrs. Whiting if the contractor knew he needed a building permit. Mrs. Whiting stated that she lost the contractor, dealt with subcontractors and thought that she had a permit. She stated that plans had been submitted to the City for the entire project, but were not submitted for the repair. Planner stated that one carport is on record, but there is no permit for the addition. Dr. G. O'Brien, 247 W. Vereda Del Sur, stated that he had met the applicant because of their mutual interest in collectible cars and also because he had looked at the house in the past, and that the work that is being done is impressive, not tacky. He stated that the property has a wall and a gate and that there is an existing carport. He stated also that the increase of 4 ft. in one direction and 6 ft. in another will not be visible from the street with the gates closed, and that the April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 28 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.353. (Continued) existing carport cannot be seen. He requested that the Commission review the addition in the field and stated that if there were a reason for granting a variance this application would fit because it would be invisible against a back wall . He requested that the Commission decision not be cast in concrete. Mrs. M. Rowe, 247 W. Vereda Del Sur, stated that she had sold property for 14 years and requested that the variance be granted because the applicants wanted to upgrade their Las Palmas property and provide two car parking which does not affect the exterior and the integrity of the neighborhood. Mrs. M. Clark, 272 N. Via Las Palmas, stated that adding a 2-car garage will not create an eyesore and will improve the area. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planner stated that one letter had been received by staff requesting the granting of the variance. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission has discretion to grant or approve only if findings can be made and once that threshhold is crossed the Commission has discretion, but unless the Commission can make the findings, it is necessary to deny the application. Chairman stated that the Commission must disapprove the variance because it cannot find special circumstances. He asked if aesthetics could be addressed. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission is discussing the physical characteristics of the property not allowing the use to the fullest extent. Commissioner Kaptur asked if the easement could be construed to fall into the above mentioned category. Planning Director stated that if the only aspect causing the encroachment in the setback was the easement line, staff would recommend approval , but that the only consideration is the relationship with the side property line, which is closer than the 15 ft. required by the Ordinance. Commissioner Curtis stated that if people would come to the City Hall and research their properties before changes are made, there would be no problem, and that the variance application does not qualify to be granted. Commissioner Ealy stated that findings must be made, and that the building permit should have been applied for which would have negated the situation, and that the action could be appealed the the City Council . April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 29 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 6.353. (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) denying the variance application based on the following findings: 1. That there are no special circumstances that are applicable to the property which relate to size, shape or topography which deprive this property of rights enjoyed by properties in the R-1-A Zone. 2. Granting of this variance to extend the carport would be granting a special privilege to this property not enjoyed by the other properties in the neighborhood. 3. Granting of this variance could be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the neighborhood. 4. The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the policies of the General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. Commissioner Lapham left the meeting. 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 3.0024. Application by CHARLES TSANG for architectural approval of a senior retirement hotel on Tachevah Drive, between North Palm Canyon Drive/North Indian Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the project is aimed toward senior housing and that there is not 45% open space unless decorative paving is counted, that the 34 ft. roof height is no problem, and that the AAC recommended against window air conditioners showing on the exterior. He stated that forthcoming engineering comments could be reviewed to the Commission if the applicant has concerns, that the conditions of the Planning Division are relatively minor and that there is an historic monument on site (the flag pole base of the old E1 Mirador). He stated that this flag pole base will be included in one of the plans. K. Paddock, architect, stated that he was present to answer questions and requested that the 34 ft. roof height be approved and the 13 ft. 6 inch clearance for emergency vehicles discussed with staff and resolved. He stated that he was agreeable to not having window air conditioners in the project. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 30 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0024. (Continued) M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the ground floor arch details on the Tachevah elevation shall be revised. 2. That adequate shading shall be provided to exposed windows throughout. 3. That there shall be no exposed air conditioning units (including interior elevations) . 4. That the plaster shall have an authentic "California Mission" finish. 5. That barrel tile with 60% mortar shall be used. 6. That the trash enclosure shall be screened. 7. That the roof plan shall be revised to reflect the elevations. (Note no parapet shall be used. ) 8. That a combination of a wall and informal landscaping shall be used around the perimeter. The color and materials of the wall shall match the building. 9. That some 54" box trees shall be included in the street trees. 10. That more shade trees shall be included within the parking lot. 11. That the landscaping of the pool area shall be refined (include more materials, create more intimate spaces with plantings, explore relocation of pool ). 12. That special paving shall be used for the Tachevah sidewalk to match the proposal across the street to the south of Tachevah. 13. That columns shall be increased in mass and the arch soffits shall connect with the main structure on the elevations throughout. 14. That working drawings shall be submitted for the AAC and P.C. review. 15. That detailed landscaping plans and working drawings shall include a bus shelter designed to be integrated with the project to the satisfaction of Sunline Bus Co. and the City with maintenance guaranteed by the project. 16. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 31 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION. Planning Commission determination that the sale of surplus �-% property on Gene Autry Trail adjacent to the Oasis Water Park is not in conflict with the City' s General Plan. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Lapham absent) determining that the sale of surplus property on Gene Autry Trail adjacent to the Oasis Water Park is not in conflict with the City' s General Plan. CASE 85.107-CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. Application by RICHARD SQUIRE for Certificate of Compliance/Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate two lots on Valdivia Way, between Campana Way/Tachevah Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 7 (Ref. Case 3.794) M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Lapham absent) approving the Certificate of Compliance/Lot Line Adjustment (Case 85.107) . COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSIONS Vacant Commission Positions. Chairman requested that the other Commissioners give names of persons who they feel would be suitable for the Planning Commission because there is one position currently vacant and one position on July 1. Discussion followed and several candidates were mentioned. Chairman stated that he would meet with the Chairman of the nominating committee of the City Council regarding the candidates. �-� - Field trip to Mesquite County Club. Field trip to Mesquite County Club to review final details will be at 1:00 April 30. Commissioners and staff will meet at clubhouse. (CAse 5.0303-PD-153). Special Study Session. Planning Commission Special Study Session on April 30, 3 to 5 p.m. , in the Large Conference Room at City Hall for further review of the Zoning Ordinance. - Tahquitz Debris Basin. Meeting at City Hall on April 23. Indians, Mayor, Councilmen and County Flood Control representatives discussed the project which may be underway within a year. Discussion is being held regarding an Indian Interpretive Center to contain Indian artifacts and relics. Convention Center (Case 5.0344-PD-134). Planning Director stated that any constructive ideas from the Commission will be welcome in areas of design and site plan. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. No report given. CASE 3.0021 (MINOR). Application by CARL ROSE for architectural approval of garden wall/entry gates at 708 West Ramon Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. (The application was withdrawn by the applicant. ) April 23, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 32 ADJOURNMENT M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ; Lapham absent) adjourning the meeting at 6:45 p.m. to April 30, 3 to 5 p.m. in the Large Conference Room at City Hall . X 1�2 41r,- I AA r � PL NN NG D CT R MDR/ml I i i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 14, 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 19 0 Hugh Curtis X 19 0 Hugh Kaptur X 17 2 Larry Lapham X 19 0 Curt Ealy X 14 0 Earl Neel X 10 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 Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Monica Tuchscher, Planning Technician Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee - May 12, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: Curt Ealy Chris Mills Earl Neel Alternates: Mike Buccino William Johnson Larry Lapham Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy) approving minutes of April 23, 1986 as submitted. Election of Officer: M/S/C (Ealy/Neel ) unanimously elected Vice-Chairman. •