Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/05/14 - MINUTES 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 K aptur 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. May 14, 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 (Kaptur/Curtis) taking the following actions: CASE 3.995 (Continued). Application by ALLEN FENCE COMPANY for architectural approval -1200 ft. of chain link fence to secure mostly vacant prop- erty at 815 Panorama Drive (hillside lot), R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Removed from the agenda at the applicants request. CASE 5.0360-PD-170 (Continued). Application by R.P. WARMINGTON COMPANY for architectural approval of revisions to floor plans/balconies for 187 unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Continued to May 28 (pending receipt of revised plans). Abstention:Ealy. CASE 3.481 (MINOR). Application by EVERYBODY'S VILLAGE for architectural approval of parking lot lighting for center on Alejo Road between North Indian Avenue/North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Restudy of the light fixture. CASE 3.880 (MINOR). Application by GEORGE PAPPAS (CARVER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION) for Vineyard Limited Partnership for architectural approval of final landscape plans for French Restaurant in the rear portion of the Vineyard, South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following conditions: {orm 1. That Carolina Cherry Bright n' Tight in an upr1r eplace the Ficus Repens at the trash enclosure. 2. That Carrissa grandiflora be used as ground cover at the refuse enclosure. 3. That the vines on the trellis be the same as throughout the center. 4. That the details be reviewed at staff level . CASE 3.0038 (MINOR). Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of sign application and awning for Robann' s Jewelers at 125 South Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the awning should pick up the horizontal nature of the building. . 2. That the amount of overhang is to be reduced. 3. That the height of the awning is to be reduced. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0033 (Minor). Application by CHRIS MILLS for architectural approval of building for electromagnetic body scans located a Paseo El Mirador/R-4 Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to following condition: That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA SIGN APPLICATION (Ref. Case 3.505). Application by BUCCINO ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of sign application and water element for 100 unit condominium development on the northwest corner of East Palm Canyon Drive/Cherokee Way, R-G-A-8 Zone (I.L.), Section 30. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the facility is changing to a resort use with the name being changed to Cherokee Springs, the sign on the street removed and a sign for the identification of the complex integrated with a water element. He stated that through dedication of right-of-way the sign which originally protruded into the right-of-way is no longer a problem and the AAC recommended approval subject to con- ditions. He noted that the sign extends over the water element. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That a raised base be added for the sign and submitted for staff approval . 2. That working drawings be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.944 (MINOR). Application by RONALD VALENTINE for architectural approval of revised elevations for Valentine Hotel at 2095 North Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Planner (Green) stated that the approved redwood glu-lam beam detail was too expensive and would have had maintenance problems, and that the applicant is requesting a stucco fascia. He stated that the AAC recom- mended approval subject to conditions. M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That recesses (expansion screeds) shall be added per the original fascia. 2. That the radii on the fascia shall be removed. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM (Continued) CASE 3.944 (MINOR). (Continued) 3. That the fascia shall be dark brown. (A sample of the color shall be submitted for approval . ) CASE 3.947. Application by RICHARD LYNCH for architectural approval of interior lobby elevation and mechanical equipment screening for 6-plex motion picture theater at 789 East T ahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle Segundo, C-1-A Zone (I.L.), Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309) Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Williams) stated that the Commission had concerns about the view of the lobby interior from Tahquitz and also the mechanical equip- ment screening. Assistant City Attorney stated that since there are three abstentions on the Commission the vote would be required to be unanimous and that the non-voting members could be considered present to constitute the forum. M/S/C (Neel/Curtis; Ealy/Kaptur/Madsen abstained) approving the applica- tion subject to the following conditions: That the mechanical screen be modified to reflect the following: a. That there be no exposed bracing (fins are exceptable). b. That the screen have rounded corners. C. That both sides of screen wall be stuccoed. d. That an offset/overlap and roof break be designed to create a single plane. CASE 3.960. Application by PALM SPRINGS MALL for architectural approval of preliminary landscape plans for remodel of existing shopping center on Farrell Drive between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Baristo Road, CSC Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that the application was recommended for restudy by the AAC and should be continued to May 28. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That pedestrian links be identified/developed. 2. That turf be replaced with suitable groundcover in planting areas less than six (6) feet in width. 3. That decorative paving be used throughout (sidewalk areas) and to accentuate key areas or entries. 4. That the north main entry be redesigned to add more planting and reduce hardscape. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0369-PD-172 (Continued). Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Contractors Development, Inc. 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 Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 34. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . No comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and give final approval subject to conditions to PD-172. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for publishing in the Desert Sun & for response to preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration, and that no comments had been received. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Cioffi , 600 Tahquitz Way, project architect, stated that he was pre- sent to answer questions. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Lapham/Neel; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) approving the application based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That a planned development district is the proper application for the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use is a necessary and desirable use for the community. 3. That the proposed use including the 25% density bonus (15 units) is in harmony with the General Plan and the Housing Element. 4. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. 5. That the surrounding streets are of capacity to serve the site. 6. That the conditions imposed (Development Committee and Sewer Study) are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Conditions 1. That a portion of the units be set aside for low-/moderate-income level individuals in accordance with the requirements of the Economic Development Division to be finalized with final develop- ment plans. 2. That the conditions of the Environmental Assessment, as listed, shall apply. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0369-PD-172. (Continued) a. That bl owsand measures as outlined in Chapter 70 of the UBC shall apply. b. That a sewer study demonstrating adequate line capacity be completed prior to approval of final development plans. C. That improvements to the sewer system may be required based on the results of the study. 3. All conditions of the Development Committee as stated in their memo dated June 6, 1985, the Planning Conditions which are here- with listed: a. That the final landscape plan shall include a landscape buffer along the west property line (adjacent to the R-1 properties) that is a minimum of seven (7) feet in height. (8209.03.G) b. Final development plans shall include perimeter fence details and trash enclosure details. C. All parking areas shall conform to the parking standards of Section 9306.00E (planter areas every 10 spaces, and stall dimensions). �..• d. That the buffer along the west property line be increased by five (5) feet. (Planter area on east property line to be reduced to create additional area. ) e. That a sewer study be reviewed and approved by Engineering Division prior to approval of final development plans. f. That a minimum setback of 150 feet be maintained between any two-story buildings and the adjacent R-1 zoning. (9209.03.E.2) g. That final development plans be approved within two years of approval . CASE 5.0389-PD-177 & TPM 21324 (Continued). Application by WILLIAM CUMMING EXPO ENTERPRISES for a planned development district and tentative parcel map to allow a 40 unit mobile home development on the southside of the west end of Mesquite Avenue, R-TP & 0-20 Zones, Section 22. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . No comments received. ) May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBILIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Draft Nega- tive Declaration and give final approval subject to conditions to PO 177 and TPM 21324. Planner (Green) gave a brief report on the application and stated that the item had been continued for the applicant to provide a cul-de-sac or deletion of the access road connecting the proposed project to the Parkview Mobilehome Park, but that the developer had not submitted a revised plan nor does he wish to delete the access road nor provide a cul-de-sac. Chairman stated that the application was at the same point it was two weeks ago. Planner presented the project on the display board and stated that staff after receiving legal advice feels that the easement is a private matter between the two property owners. He stated that the Commission recom- mended that the layout be revised with closure of the road and a cul-de- sac provided, which the developer does not wish to do. He explained the drainage channel configuration and stated that the channel runs under an illegal extension of Parkview Mobilehome Park on which the City Attorney is taking legal action because of unsafe culverts (does not involve the applicant), that the City Engineer recommends a debris basin to reduce velocity and prevent downstream damage, and that the City will need to view the flood protection provided. He stated also that the recreation ..• areas were recommended to be in a more accessible location, and that one of the AAC members objected to location of modular housing on the hill- side. He noted that the applicant's claim regarding easements has been reviewed by staff and found to be valid. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Cumming, Project Manager, Indian Wells, stated that there was a 2-2 vote on the AAC for relocation of the recreation area, that the eleva- tion of this site at the entrance is higher than the pads previously graded, that the architect feels that the pads would not be adequate for parking, and that the removal of spaces for parking would be economically detrimental since the park has only 40 spaces. He stated that the project is well designed and engineered, that redesign of the road is unacceptable because removal of two lots would cost the appli- cant $200,000. He stated that the cul-de-sac is also unacceptable because a second entrance is needed for emergency access, and also that the cul-de-sac is not feasible because the applicant has legal and valid easements for the access road. He stated that staff has recommended approval on the facts submitted. S. Houseman, 2150 Tahquitz, Attorney representing EXPO Enterprises, stated that proof has been presented for the access through Parkview, the only question has been from Mr. Vidibor, one of the Parkview owners/operators, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs sent copies of the easement to Mr. Vidibor who has not taken action except for the employ- ment of an attorney, Mr. Jacobson, who appeared before the Commission at the last meeting. He stated that the Commission is not a forum for May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBILIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) land entitlement rights of which Mr. Vidibor is aware since he is an attorney and a real estate broker. He stated that the subject property owner, Mr. Cormichael , has the right to develop his property, that meetings had been arranged to resolve difficulties which applicant felt had been resolved and to which Mr. Jacobson did not respond. He stated that the applicant will not build a new road; that the road has been in existence twelve years since the time it was graded by Jack Marantz. Chairman stated that although the Commission is interested in the access road it cannot litigate the outcome. Commissioner Ealy stated that staff has indicated that the project stands alone and questioned the relationship between the two property owners on the sewer issue since the sewer line runs through the ease- ment. He asked whether or not the issue should be litigated before the project is begun. Mr. Houseman stated that the sewer line could run though Mesquite although it would be costly because it would require a pumping station, but that the applicant has a right to access through Parkview and those rights will be exercised. He stated that very little disruption of Parkview will occur when the sewer line is constructed. B. McClellan, of Neste, Brudin, and Stone Engineers of Palm Desert, representing Mr. Vidibor requested that the proposed Lot 20 not be developed because its height would have a detrimental impact on the privacy and line of sight of adjacent properties. He stated that if it `�- is developed it should be lowered, and that the pads along the boundary should also be lowered to no greater than two feet above grade (or lower). He stated that the boundary calculations should be reviewed because the tentative map indicates encroachment of improvements by Parkview. Planner showed Lot 20 on the board and stated that the view from the lot would be over the top of the adjacent properties. He stated that most of the pads along the eastern boundary are at the same level as Parkview or two feet above, and that there is a fifteen foot buffer between the landscape strip and the property line of Parkview. He stated that the AAC recommended that an informal theme be devised for the landscaping and more materials added for privacy, and that a landscape plan would be required. R. Smith, Mainero Smith Engineers, representing EXPO Enterprises, stated that the natural grade could be lowered on Lot 20 and the unit moved further away from Parkview property. J. Abrahams, 707 Scenic View, adjacent to the proposed project, stated that the Commission has adequate evidence of the opposition of Parkview residents on the project, that 123 people are in opposition to it, and that there are many difficulties with the project. He requested Commission denial . N. Barash, 313 Marble Lane, Parkview, requested that if the application is approved, the plan meet Zoning Ordinance requirements and took exception to a staff statement that the project was viewed as an exten- May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) sion of Parkview. He requested that the density and setbacks meet Ordinance requirements and also requested that the cul-de-sac be required for emergencies. Planner in response to Commission question stated that the density proposed on the project site is less than Zoning Ordinance requirements. At Chairman' s request, many people in the audience raised their hands in opposition to the project. S. Houseman (rebuttal ) stated that an agreement has been made with the owner of the mobilehome adjacent to Lot 20 who has a covered patio, and that the roof of the patio is all that can be seen from Lot 20, that the boundary dispute had been litigated and won by the applicants, and that all litigated measures except for the cul-de-sac have been met. He stated that the applicant will not construct the cul-de-sac, that it is foolish to have only one access point, and that the access road is a benefit as well as a legal right. There being no further appearance, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Curtis stated that density and easements are not a concern but that the site plan is since it affects the Parkview project below the proposed project. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Houseman regarding egress and ingress and that these problems could be resolved with staff and that the problem of lack of coordination by the people in .. opposition could have been resolved. Commissioner Ealy stated that staff feels that the project meets Ordinance requirements and can stand on its own regarding utilities. Chairman stated that he was interested in both the agreement with the adjacent property owner regarding Lot 20 and also the access road. He stated that he felt there should be a cul-de-sac or some kind of definition between the two properties since the road makes it appear as one project. Mr. Houseman stated that the agreement with the adjacent property owner in Parkview was that the water course would be slightly shifted. He stated that the road will have a bridge over the watercourse which will be a visual definition, and that (regarding the access road) the appli- cant has the right of access which should not impinge on Parkview since it is easier to access off Mesquite. He stated that the reality of use would restrict the traffic. Mr. Smith stated that the elevation can be reduced on Lot 20 to lower the height in the final grading plan, and the unit can be moved away from Parkview to help the line of sight. He suggested a five foot differential . Mr. McClellan stated that without seeing the plan it would be difficult to tell whether or not moving the unit and lowering the pad two feet would be acceptable, but that the engineer is moving in the right direction. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) Woman from the audience no name was( given) questioned whether or not the size of the project site was large enough to accommodate recreation amenities and also provide space for 40 units. Planning Director stated that the site allows for 40 units and amenities. Mr. Curtis stated that the access road should exist for emergency use. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel; Madsen dissented) approving the application based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the appli- cation is properly one for which a Planned Development District application is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the proposed use is necessary and desirable for the community since it will add to the existing stock of mobile housing in the city. 3. As conditioned, the application is in harmony with the General Plan. 4. As conditioned, the site is adequate in size and shape to accom- modate the use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, land- scaping and other features. 5. As conditioned, the site relates to Mesquite Avenue, a collector street which is designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. 6. That conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions 1. That project CC & R' s shall include a maintenance program for all flood projection and landscape improvements. The maintenance shall be undertaken in common by all residents. 2. That project CC & R' s shall be submitted with the Final Planned Development District application for Planning Commission approval and should require City approval for any changes that affect main- tenance provisions. 3. That a trail shall be constructed by the developer to the satis- faction of the City's Community Services Division from the northerly termination of the surfaced Mesquite Avenue to the north westerly boundary of the site. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) 4. That a laundry, management office, and storage facility shall be provided in accordance with Section 9213.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That a Final Planned Development District application shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9407.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. That a survey of the site shall be undertaken by a City approved archaeologist. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prior to submission of final development plans to the Planning Commission. 7. That an archaeologist shall be present on-site during any excava- tion. Upon discovery of historic resources excavation which would affect the resources shall cease. The archaeologist shall prepare an analysis of the resource and recommendation and submit to the City and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. As soon as possible, and in no event no later than 14 days after cessation of construction, the City upon consultation with the archaeologist shall determine whether the artifacts shall be preserved and, if so, the developer shall undertake appropriate and feasible measures to remove the artifacts from the site and allow the City access to the site to do so. The City shall cooperate with the developer to minimize interference with the construction schedule and the economic viability of the project. 8. That all mitigation measures detailed in the Environmental Assess- ment shall be complied with. 9. That all conditions of the Development Committee shall be complied with. 10. That site be redesigned to accommodate Development Committee and staff recommendations. TRIBAL COUNCIL CONVENTS Since the site is bounded by Indian Tribal/Allotted Lands including the existing Parkview Mobilehome Park on the East, and is included within a National Historic Site this case was considered by the Tribal Council on April 22, 1986. The subject project was reviewed from the standpoint of its potential impact on the Indian Lands. Noting that no information has been received, and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council reiterated its actions of April 22, which were as follows: 1. Concurred with Conditions 6 & 7 of City Planning Staff report dated April 9, 1986, relative to requirements for an archaeo- logical survey prior to submission of final development plans, and the on-site presence of a Tribal Council/City approved archaeo- May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0389-PD-177. (Continued) logist during grading operations. The archaeologist shall identify possible cultural resources that may be discovered during excavation and recommend appropriate recovery/preservation measures for Tribal Council review and approval . 2. 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 strongly 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. 3. It was noted that mitigation measures and staff conditions require that the existing equestrian trail be located northwesterly of the terminus of Mesquite Avenue and that trailhead parking be provided. 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/Cone Area with respect to access, parking, security, interpretive center, etc. Chairman stated that Parkview residents can voice opinions on the project at the City Council meeting. Note: Chairman dissented because he felt a cul-de-sac or other definition between the two projects should be provided. CASE 6.348-VARIANCE (Continued) . Application by ALBERT GOLDHAGEN for a variance for a freestanding addition within the setbacks of a residence at 301 Tamarisk, between Via Miraleste/Indian Avenue, R-1B Zone, Section 11. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the variance. Planner (Williams) gave the history of the case and stated that the addition is the portion pertaining to the variance. She stated that staff finds no grounds for approval and recommends denial . Chairman stated that the item had been continued for the applicant to research the title on the property. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.348. (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Darmody, 301 Tamarisk, stated that a title search had been conducted which showed previous owners and one owner, a Mrs. Hendrickson, resides currently in Indio and was sent a letter requesting history of the house, but had not replied. He stated that the structures were probably built before permits were required, and that no original permits were found. There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Lapham stated that a long search could be conducted on the history of the project, and that the project should be denied and reviewed in the future if the applicant finds the necessary information. Assistant City Attorney stated that the violation had been litigated with two previous owners, that there is a court order to correct the violations, and at the time of the litigation the previous owner had the opportunity to raise a defense that the use is a legal non-conforming one but did not. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) denying the application based on the following findings: 1. There are no physical conditions that distinguish this property from others in the neighborhood. The lot is similar in size, shape and dimensions to other lots in the vicinity. Several of these lot swill also be reduced in area when dedication is granted for the widening of Tamarisk Road. 2. Granting of the variance could constitute a special privilege by allowing a guest house that exceeds the Zoning Ordinance maximum size by 1241 sq. f t. and allowing a non-hillside structure to exceed 15 feet in height. 3. The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public safety in that it is unlikely that the structure as it exists could meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code and struc- tures without setbacks can eliminate light and air and block views from surrounding properties and spread fire. 4. The variance could have an adverse affect upon the General Plan because it is contrary to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, a specific document design to further the objectives of the General Plan. Chairman explained that the applicant can appeal the action to the City Council . May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued). Initiation by the City of Palm Springs of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . Planning Director suggested that the item be tabled to the end of the meeting so that it could be more fully discussed. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) tabling the item to the end of the meeting. CASE 5.0398-PD-180. Application by LAWRENCE PIERCE for a Planned Development District to construct a 91 unit, 3-story hotel on South Indian Avenue between Calle Encilia/South Indian Avenue, south of Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1-AA Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Planner (Green) presented the staff report and stated that Indian density allows more density than what is proposed, but is eight units per acre over Zoning Ordinance density and that the "Yards" section does not meet setback requirements. He stated that the open space require- ments meet zoning standards and that the increased density creates more traffic from the site, but the City Engineer feels that there is not problem with this increase. He discussed the mitigative measures, and stated that the staff recommends restudy of the architecture per AAC recommendations, the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuance to May 28. L. Pierce, 12080 Redbud Road, Desert Hot Springs, the applicant, stated .. that the project and landscaping will be redesigned per AAC recommend- ations. He stated that he would not make the building a single unit as recommended by the AAC, because it is necessary to have free circulation to alleviate the coldness and dampness of the site. He stated that the center building is the laundry and storage center and that a single building is not aethetically acceptable. In response to Commission question, Planner stated that there is a 15 foot setback to the stairwell as a compromise between the Indian Zoning and City Zoning requirements. Planning Director stated that the setback proposed is acceptable. There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing. Planner explained the single building referred to by the applicant was not the intent of the AAC. He stated that the Committee commented that the design was repetitious as one design repeated and recommended that the 3-story building be redesigned as one 3-story building with a base and architectural elements. He noted also that some of the buildings did not relate to the open space and should be relocated, and that there was no specific requirement to have a single building. C. Boyer, 1380 W. 48th Street, San Bernardino, project architect, stated that it was difficult to make changes to the design and to relocate the buildings because of the narrowness of the site. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0398-PD-180. (Continued) Commissioner Curtis stated that he agreed with the AAC and felt that the design was monotonous, that he was concerned about the lineal view of the walkways between the buildings, and that this design should be addressed. Planning Director explained the Indian Zoning Ordinance density which allows more densities that the City Ordinance. He stated that the Ordinance allows 100 f t. height as opposed to 60 f t height on non- Indian land and stated that staff hopes to incorporate the Indian Ordinance into the revised City Ordinance, and eliminate the separate provisions. Commissioner Kaptur stated that Mr. Pierce is aware of the problems and the design will be revised accordingly. M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy; Lapham abstained) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to May 28 for a restudy of the architectural design noting the following: Total Architectural Restudy 1. That the building be designed . as a 3-story entity (rather than repeating the same design for each story) . 2. That the architecture should be less basic and rudimentary. 3. That the architecture shall be completely revised and made more substantial . 4. That a different roof the shall be substituted. 5. That the buildings and open space should be more related. Landscape Restudy_ 1. That the landscape concept shall revised for less random placement of materials. 2. That landscaping should relate to the city program for Indian Avenue. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Concurred with the findings and conclusions contained in Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 14, 1986. 2. Approved the Preliminary Planned Development District subject to the conditions recommended by City staff. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 8.229-SIGN VARIANCE. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for Plaza Motors for a sign variance for two additional signs above Ordinance requirements for auto sales company at 290 North Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. and CASE 3.0039 (Minor). Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval to revision of existing sign program for automobile agency at 290 N. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. (Ref. Sign Variance 8.229. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the application for a variance. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the location and configuration of the existing sign, stated that the service entrance sign will be replaced by a new sign, and that the three existing signs will have color changes. He stated that the AAC reviewed the six signs and recom- mended approval (from a design standpoint). He explained that the two additional signs, which require the variance, have been requested for visibility. Discussion continued. Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the sign locations on the diagram accompanying the staff report. Commissioner Kaptur stated that one of the signs in the variance could be allowed if a glass window were placed in the front of the structure, which enclosed it, since any sign., 3 ft. behind the glass is not considered a sign. Planning Director stated that in the event the structure were enclosed by glass, it would be required to have an architectural approval application and the sign would then be viewed differently. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign would be legal if reduced in size to 5 sq. ft. , that it could be double-faced, and that it would be more acceptable than the 20 sq. ft. sign requested. Chairman explained that the hearing is on the sign variance which is for two additional signs, and that the findings must support the variance for it to be allowed. Planning Director stated that findings could not be made over the total range of situations that a variance addresses, and that architectural character of the building is one of the considerations, but that it was not a consideration in the subject case. He stated that there are many buildings in this city with recessed areas and sign applications would be a problem if the findings were to be that the recessed areas were similar to glassed areas. He stated that there are other issues such as landscaping, parking, and setbacks to consider if an area is enclosed. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that a determination could be made by the Commission whether or not a glass or non-glass wall would allow placement of a sign. Chairman repeated that glassing in the area is not the issue. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0039 (Minor). (Continued) Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council requested continuance for review by the Tribal Council of the applicant's reasons for requesting the variance. He stated that the Tribal Council will use whatever criteria it wishes if the application is denied by the Commission and appealed to the Tribal Council . J. Engle of La Quinta, representing the applicant, stated that the pro- posed sign which is 75 f t. back from the street is not pedestrian- oriented and circulated a picture of the area. He stated that the pro- posed sign could not be seen at 5 sq. f t. in size, and an identification sign is needed for visibility at the corner of Indian Avenue. He stated that the service entrance is also the main entrance to the building. Planning Director stated that sign "C" faces private property and would not be allowed and does not face the street but could be moved back to the location of sign "D". He stated that a monument sign on Indian Avenue was suggested, but was declined by the applicant. Mr. Engle stated that a monument sign would be too low and its view blocked by the neighboring building. He stated that special circum- stances exist because all of the signs are blocked by the design of the adjacent building and also by City trees, and that a safety hazard exists in exiting the building because of visibility. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director stated that the fact that the sign is on Indian land does not affect Commission action. M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy) continuing the application to May 28 for Tribal Council review. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 14, 1986, did not include the information normally submitted by an applicant, such as written state- ment including showings, exhibit, etc. , in support of his request for a variance. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Noted there was a lack of information on which to evaluate the merits of this request for a variance. 2. Requested that the City Planning Commission continue this Case until its meeting of May 28, 1986, and that the applicant be requested to submit the information referred to above, prior to that meeting. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0220-MISC. Request by PHYLLIS SILVER for Planning Commission approval of minor expansion of nightclub at 1445 North Sunrise Way, R-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 11. Planning Director stated that the request is for minor changes to the Comedy Haven nightclub in the Old Ranch Club project and that the application for a teen nightclub was approved previously by the Commission. He stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Control requested that the teen nightclub be separated from the alcoholic beverage area and stated that the operator, Phyllis Silver, intends to expand into the former illegal beauty shop area. He noted that in 1982 the Planning Commission recommended the denial of the application to extend the Ranch Club use but was overruled by the City Council and the use was extended to 1992, at which time the entire use will be abated unless extended by the Commission and Council . He stated that there were several areas of non-conformity with the conditions of extension of the use (which is not the problem of the current operator) and that there is a new owner. He stated that no compliance has been made with the provision of the exten- sion of several years ago and that the approval of the teen nightclub permit was less intensive than the original nightclub use but the use is now being expanded by Mrs. Silver. Mrs. P. Silver, 1705 N. Sunrise Way, the applicant, stated that the expansion will allow teen traffic to be diverted from the condo side of the project into an empty lot and avoid the problem of homeowners com- plaints and also removes the teenagers from the alcoholic beverage area. Planning Director stated that the complaint with the teen nightclub use has subsided and that staff does not have a problem with the expansion. He stated that the success of the teen nightclub has been greater than anticipated. Commissioner Lapham stated that the City Manager can rescind the dance license if there are problems. Motion was made by Kaptur for approval . It died for lack of a second. Discussion continued. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy) approving the minor extension of the teen nightclub. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Planning Director stated that the H orwitch Gallery (Case 3.953) had been reviewed informally by the AAC but was not on the agenda. �..s May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 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 3.983. Application by ROBERT STEELE for architectural approval of in ustrial building on Oasis Street between Del Sol Road/Indian Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 34. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all conditions of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting plans be submitted. CASE 5.0303-PD-153. Application by JAMES TEMPLE for architectural approval of Phase 4 wall , final golf course, bike path, and equestrian trail plans for 600 unit condominium project and golf course on Ramon Road/El Cielo Road/Sunrise Way, R-1-C, W-R-1-C, and R-G-A-8 Zones (I.L. ), Section 24. Planner (Evans) presented the recommendations of the AAC. He stated that the driving range was to have been desert landscaping but is now turf for which the AAC recommended approval , and that the bikeway was built without approval although the AAC and the homeowners feel that it is acceptable. He stated that maintenance agreements will be resolved with the developer and will be tied to a deed restriction and referred to staff and to the City Attorney' s Office. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur; Ealy abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the equestrian trails as built (turf) are approved subject to re-working areas where slope transitions occur, access is restricted and the installation and on-going maintenance of the approved sign program. 2. That Phase 4 property line wall is to be deleted and the chain link fence and landscape is approved as-built. 3. That the driving range is approved as built. 4. That the Phase I bikeway is approved as built. 5. That a deed restriction for a maintenance agreement be formulated with details referred to staff. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission updates on City Council actions. CASE 5.0344-PD-144. Council approved concept of the Planned Development District for the Convention Center and hotel subject to submission of details such as colors, materials, and landscaping. The Resolution was less strong than staff thought it would be and was a 3-1 vote in favor with Councilwoman Apf elbaum voting against the architecture and PD concept. There will be additional discussion at an adjourned Council meeting at 12 noon on May 20, with the Committee appointed to review the project. Commission will receive a report on that meeting. The concept of a subcommittee review of details was not the reason the project was not totally approved. Council wants the subcommittee to resolve details. Also much more material and exhibits were submitted by HNTB and Council wanted the Commission to review the new submittals before action is taken on the revisions. 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 5.0344-PD-144. Applicatin by HNTB for architectural approval of architectural details, colors, and materials for convention center and hotel on Tahquitz Way between Avenida Cabal leros/Cal le Alvarado, C-1-AA, R-4 4 P, and R-4 Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director presented an overlay prepared by the landscape architect addressing Commission and AAC concerns of a regimented tree program at the entry of the Convention Center and Hotel and screening of the loading dock at the Convention Center. He stated that the major service areas between the two restaurants will be screened and that the trellis details are recommended for restudy. He described planting areas which have been made more dense and stated that the AAC recommended more informality at the entry and more detailed pedestrian orientation and vines against the wall . He explained that screening will be provided in the loading dock areas so that trucks will be screened from view from the street, and that the portico will be landscaped with vines in the openings of an egg crate configuration, that the open space deficiency has not been resolved, and that the land- scape concept will be more massive with decorative paving a strong part of the concept. He presented renderings which had been completed for the groundbreaking ceremony, and stated that some changes had been made since then. W. Love of HNTB, project architects, explained the working model depicting colors and materials. He described the tile for the porte cochere roof as being barrel tile with a three color blend and stated that ceramic tile will become a stairstepping motif throughout the pro- ject and will project away from the facade one foot creating depth and shadowing on the windows. He explained that the stucco will be a three color treatment to give a stairstep effect and that there will be energy saving bronze glass windows which will be mirrored on the interior. He May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0344-PD-144 explained that the roofed walkways will be separated from the building to prevent water proofing problems. He stated that economics will dictate the form used and that other materials such as Cantera stone will be used depending on budget constraints. He discussed the bus entrance areas and stated that a column at the hotel porte-cochere was eliminated for manuevering purposes for buses, and that the convention center has a separate bus entrance with a unifying scheme between the two buildings of lattice work for screening and shadow lines, and a unifying walkway. He stated that the project is one and half million dollars (7%) over budget at the present time and the team is reviewing ways to save money. He stated that the applicants have applied for building permits. In response to Commission question, he stated that the elevator tower has been reduced in height 15 ft. that there was a mistake on the drawing that depicted it as higher, and that the tower will be only 12 ft. above roof level . He stated that the element will be a strong design element and part of the overall building. He noted that the estimated cost of the hotel is 25 million dollars and the convention center is 15 million dollars, although the group is trying to lower the hotel below 24 million and the convention center to 12.5 million, (which does not include landscaping and other amenities) and that the total construction budget for the two structures is between 37 and 38 million dollars. Planning Director stated that the AAC reviewed landscaping and made recommendations that landscape materials be contract-grown to increase in size during the course of construction, that landscaping at the base of the hotel may not be possible because of parking areas, and that the footprint has been established. He stated that the elements of the architecture that are creating problems are predetermined, and that the AAC recommended that it not review any more details, and that the sub- committee review these items. He stated that the dissenting votes on the AAC recommended constructive criticism rather than denial , and that the Council understands the Commission's decision on prior Council approval of the project, but that the Council has requested that the Commission give input on details of the architecture, landscape and other items. He stated that most of the constructive comments have been incorporated from previous Planning Commission and AAC recommendations. Mr. Love, in reply to Commissioner Lapham' s question, stated that the group has applied for foundation permits. Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not understand the reason for a subcommittee. Planning Director explained that the footprint which has already been established was a financing technique and based on preliminary plans prepared by the HOPE Architectural Group, and that some aspects of the footprint are not flexible. He stated that Council is interested in revisions to the concept that can be accomplished without great cost and that HNTB architects are not preparing anymore details until after the Council study session of May 20. In response to Chairman' s question, he stated that the three-color concept for intensity and color range but is May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0344-PD-144 not specific and will come back to the Commission for review and that the Commission may wish to send details to the subcommittee or the AAC. He stated that the idea of the subcommittee is to expedite the process and make recommendations to Council , and that the AAC recommended that the subcommittee review details. Chairman suggested that although the Commission and AAC are frustrated, the Council appointed the groups to aid in decision making, and that the AAC and Commission should do the best they can. Commissioner Lapham stated that he was not sure if the details would help the project and that the colors will be important. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was concerned about the towers at the corners since they accentuate the height of the mass and do not relate to it. He asked if they could be eliminated and stated that the towers give a medival appearance to the project and one expects to see flags flying from them (like castles of the past) . Discussion ensued on the termination of the buildings at the roof line. Planning Director stated that if the towers were removed the roof line would have to be stronger. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the architects review the banding of the building to give the structure a terminus. He stated that the pyramids are acceptable except for the non-relating towers. Mr. Love stated that the towers are staircases and help to break up the height of the mass and add scale to avoid monotony. He stated that the turrets add character, interest, and height to the building and keep the appearance more square, integrate the concept, and recall the tile element. NOTE: The tower elements are room balconys turned 450. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the towers accentuate the height since they are turned at a 450 angle. Mr. Love replied that the element is the front door of the hotel , and if it were eliminated there would be a long mass of the same element. Commissioner Kaptur replied that the turrets appear "tacked on" . Mr. Love stated that the architects want them as part of the design. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the color scheme is interesting and that he was trying to help the project. He noted that the angles of the turrets do not relate to the architecture and accentuate the height. He stated that the pyramid effect is lowering the mass and the towers are unnecessary. Mr. Love stated that the rendering made the towers appear taller than they are but that the element would be reviewed by the architects. May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0344-PD-144 Commissioner Kaptur repeated that eliminating the towers would make the hotel mass have more continuity with the mass of the convention center because the towers are a foreign element. He suggested that they be taken off the angle and put in line with the line of the building. He stated that he had been asked by several councilmen for suggestions on the design and he replied that he really did not know what to do except that sketches and layouts be done to achieve a good design. Planning Director stated that the concept of the building is a stairstep material change and three color system, and that without this there would be a five or six story hotel block. He asked if making the stairstep elements bolder could be considered. Discussion ensued on this concept. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the stairstepping element of the building could be widened with the towers less strong in appearance and not angled. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the building pyramid upwards with the corners flat. Planning Director sug- gested that the architectural details be remanded to the subcommittee and staff with the major colors and materials and landscape plans brought to the Commission and Council . Mr. Love stated that a large scale color sample will be painted on the building but that someone would have to be available to review the colors and to make a decision. He requested that the colors and materials be reviewed and a decision made if possible by the Commission, and stated that the architects have been in a difficult situation and have tried to listen and respond to all suggestions. Discussion followed. Chairman stated that the architects are responding to the Council . Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission's posi- tion is difficult and the Commission is trying not to be derogatory. Chairman explained that the Council is requesting that the Commission make the best decision it can (even though some of its decisions have been removed). Landscape architects for the project explained the landscape concept on the board as formal (to integrate with the formal and symmetrical con- cept of the building). Planning Director stated that the AAC felt that since the building is symmetrical and formal , the landscaping should be less so. The architects explained that the palm tree concept has been made freer. Mr. Love explained that the three color roof tile contained one-third of the total of each color. Discussion continued on the colors proposed for the building. Mr. Love stated that the idea is to reinforce subtly the form of the building through color, and that the colors will be tested in the field. In response to Commission question, he also stated that the hotel roof line would be studied. Discussion followed on the type of Commission action. `� Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that it was difficult to critique the project since it is almost fully designed. Chairman May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0344-PD-144 replied that all buildings are in general critiqued by the Commission, and Commissioners should help in critiquing the frontage. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission is asked to critique the colors, materials and landscaping at the present time. He stated that the AAC had had good comments on the landscaping. Chairman stated that the Council had not asked for a critique on the towers and that the profes- sionals (architects) on the Commission feel that the architecture is not acceptable as a whole but have made suggestions where possible, and are not making comment on the architecture as a whole. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he did not know how to vote and that the colors seem accept- able but he did not know how they would look on the building. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Ealy abstained; Commissioner Kaptur declined to vote) taking the following actions: 1. Colors and Materials: Preliminary approval subject to final sub- mittal and review of colors in the field. as follows: 2. Landscaping: Adopted comments of the AAC./ (Final landscape plans to be reviewed by the AAC and Commission. ) a. That landscaping shall be revised to screen the hotel loading dock. b. That the landscaping along Amado Road shall be revised to provide a hedge and/or planter to protect pedestrians. . C. That more decorative paving be used in the parking lot and on the Tahquitz Way sidewalk. d. That materials should be contract grown. e. That project landscaping shall blend with existing landscaping to the east and west of the proposal . f. That Bignoni Twediana (or other hardy vines) be used on the trellis. g. That increased landscaping shall be added at the base of the hotel . h. That detailed landscape, lighting and irrigation shall be submitted. 3. Architecture: Not approved. M/S/C (Lapham/Neel; Kaptur/Curtis dissented; Ealy abstained; that small details of the architecture be reviewed by the subcommittee; colors, materials, and landscaping to be reviewed by AAC and Planning Commission. NOTE: Commissioners Curtis and Kaptur dissented on the above recom- mendation because they felt the subcommittee rather than the Commission May 14, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0344-PD-144 should review all aspects of the convention center and hotel . Commissioner Kaptur declined to vote on recommendations 1, 2 and 3. Commission Kaptur noted that there are too many people reviewing the project from an architectural standpoint and wondered what would happen if they all disagreed. He stated that the City Council appointed a sub- committee, and the Commission should no longer be involved. Chairman stated that the Council is still requesting an opinion. CASE 3.864. Application by BROWN, BROSCHE, FINANCIAL, INC. for architectural approval of revised roof tile for hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between E. Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. The item was removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised tile. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued). Initiation by the City of Palm Springs of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis) removing the item from the table. Planning Director explained that the Commission will "brainstorm" the Zoning Ordinance revisions at the study session of May 21 and that an updated copy of the revised ordinance will be available prior to the June 11 meeting. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur) continuing the item to June 11. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS City Planning Staff has indicated that this case will be continued for one month. Since the proposed revisions are City-wide in nature and affect both developed and undeveloped Indian trust lands, the Tribal Council will consider the final draft of the proposed revisions and sub- mit comments and recommendations prior to the City Planning Commission' s meeting of June 11, 1986. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTO MDR/ml ✓ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall May 28, 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 20 0 Hugh Curtis X 20 0 Hugh Kaptur X 18 2 Larry Lapham X 20 0 Curt Ealy X 15 0 Earl Neel X 11 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 Richard McCoy, City Engineer Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Jerry Gonzalez , Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - Tuesday, May 27, 1986 William Johnson Absent: J. Cioffi , Chairman Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ) approving minutes of May 14, 1986 as submitted. •