Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/07/27 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES y Council Chamber, City Hall July 27, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 22 3 Hugh Curtis - 23 2 Martha Edgmon X 22 3 Brent Hough X 23 2 Gary Olsen X 22 3 Barbara Whitney X 19 6 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Ray Balderas, Planning Technician Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Richard Patenaude, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - July 25, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi William Johnson Gary Olsen, Alternate Brent Hough Barbara Whitney, Alternate Mike Buccino Will Kleindienst Martha Edgmon, Alternate Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis absent) approving minutes of July 13, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: There were no Tribal Council comments. Planning Director introduced Sherri Abbas a new planner. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The July 27 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, July 22. July 27, 1988 PC 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 (Olsen/Edgmon; Curtis absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.375. Application by DAVE HAMILTON for the City of Palm Springs/Riverside County Flood Control district for architectural approval of final landscape plans for the Tahquitz debris basin. Continued to September 28 at the request of the Tribal Council . CASE 3.0387. Application by JAN S. KESSLER for architectural approval of final landscape plans for single-family residence at 320 E1 Camino Way, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0414 (MINOR) . Application by RIVERIA HOTEL for architectural approval of revised plans for a lobby building, pool area, and landscaping at 1600 N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Approved subject to the following condition: The transition area between the asphalt and concrete be expanded to make the joining at the radius points of the walkway. CASE 5.0144-PD-146. Request by SILVERCREST CORPORATION for architectural approval of deletion of a carport and addition of landscaping and parking spaces for mobilehome and residential (low and moderate cost housing) pro- ject on the northwest corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael , 0-5 Zone, Section 35. Restudy noting the following: That a combination of carports and land- scaping be used. CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TTM 22396. Application by COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS for architec- tural approval of revised landscape plans for a service/commercial/ industrial complex on the north side of Ramon Road adjacent to the airport, M-1 Zone (I .L.) , Section 18. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Filifera Palms be used in place of Robusta Palms. 2. That one additional tree variety be added to the Ramon Road frontage. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.0439-PD-189/TTM 22396. (Continued) 3. That the small planter areas between the bikepath and sidewalk be done in a desert landscape that includes boulders, mounding, and desert materials. * * * * * CASE 3.0423 (MINOR) . Application by FRANK URRUTIA for architectural approval of revised roof material for hillside residence located at 2466 Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0398 (MINOR) . Request by D&A SHADE COMPANY for Commission reconsideration of restudy of awning at "All That Glitters" jewelry store at 142 S. Palm Canyon, CBD Zone, Section 15. Removed at the applicant's request. * * * * * CASE 5.0463-PD-195. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Desert Sun News- paper for architectural approval of revised final detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for a planned development district to construct a newspaper publishing facility including a portion at a 50 foot building height on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah/Ramon Roads, M-1- �, P Zone, Section 7. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the mounding adjacent to the main entry be contoured to follow the curb radius. 2. That the mounding located on the north side of loading area be expanded and increased in height. 3. That the staff is to review the mounding and landscaping around the loading area to insure adequate screening is provided. * * * * * ITEMS REMOVED FROM 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 3.0262. Application by ALEXANDER COLER for architectural approval of a revised site plan/grading plan for a single-family residence located at Patencio Road/O'Donnell Golf Course, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0262. (Continued) Planner (Evans) stated that the present tennis court location is too close to the applicant's golf course, that golf balls have been landing in the location of the court, and that the applicant wants to move it. He stated that the AAC thought that a field trip was necessary to see the corners of the court (which will be staked) . M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Curtis absent) continuing the application to August 10 for the AAC and Planning Commission to review the court location. CASE 3.0406 (MINOR) . Application by GREAT WALL INTERSTATE, INC. for architec- tural approval of revised plans for an awning and dining patio at 362 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Patenaude) described the project and stated that the owner has responded to a recent restudy recommendation by the AAC and Planning Commission and that the rust color of the awning is the color of the signs at the center. He stated that the wall originally on the plans has been deleted. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Curtis absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the awning be designed as a freestanding element. 2. That no wall be provided in the landscape area; plant materials shall be used to provide barrier around dining area. 3. That the landscape plans be submitted to the AAC for review. CASE 3.0416. Application by JAMES JEFFORDS, SR. for architectural approval of a single-family hillside residence on Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. Planner (Evans) described the application and stated that the house will be built on an existing pad with little additional grading; and that it is a contemporary house with plaster, wood and a copper fascia. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0419 (MINOR) . Application by CANYON ASSOCIATES for architectural approval — or exterior remodeling of the Vineyard Shopping Complex, 245 to 285 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. (Reference Case 2.960.) Continued to August 10 for field trip by the AAC. CASE 3.0346. Application by DENNIE AUSTIN for architectural approval of revised plans for single family hillside residence on Vista Drive/Via Livorno, R-1- B Zone, Section 3. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the footprint remains the same although the design has changed in response to restudy recommendations that the lands- cape palette is good, and that there is a gully (which is not a major drainage ditch) on the property line. He stated that one member of the AAC dissented feeling that the house did not fit the topography of the slope. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen; Curtis absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0475-PD-197/TTM 22362. Application by RALPH WILCOX for a planned development district and tentative tract map to construct a complex of 40 individual homes on 34th Avenue between Rush Streets/Whitewater Wash, W-R- G-A(6) Zone, Section 20. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received, action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declar- ation and give final approval to the application subject to conditions. Planner (Patenaude) described the project. He stated that the Planning Commission felt that there was a tunnel effect along the west street at the July 13 meeting, that in response two of the structures have been moved back; that the applicant wants to paint all the homes one color, although the AAC advised a variation and that trees have been added to the rear lots in response to Commission and AAC concern. He stated that the applicants want to leave the open space as it is for less maintenance and less main- tenance cost, and that the applicants feel that 14 of the 40 lots are pool sized so that a second pool is not necessary. He explained that the AAC recommended that the entry have a better design to allow vehicular stacking; that the straight wall on 34th Street is acceptable provided landscaping alleviates the straightness of the appearance and that the overhang design of some of the homes will be submitted with final develop- ment plans. He stated that the Committee was sympathetic with the applicant revising an older approved project with Engineering conditions developed in 1979 and that the one dissenting vote was because the architect felt that July 2.7, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475-PD-197/TTM 22362. (Continued) �• the interior layout should be designed to provide better distribution of open space. He explained that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the 36 foot wide street requirement to a 32 foot width with parking on one side of the street. He stated that the size of the units is 1382 to 1607 sq. ft. and that the sidewalk recommended along 34th Street is in the revised plans. He explained that staff feels that guest parking should be provided on site, because the driveways to units are very short and provide no parking and there is very limited street parking and that two car garages have been provided. He replied in response to Commission question that staff recommends 36 foot wide streets or that visitor parking be included and that restrictions to on-site street parking are a signage and enforcement problem and difficult to police; and that trash trucks and emergency vehicles may find it difficult to maneuver with the narrow 32 ft. wide streets if cars are parked on both sides. Commissioner Edgmon asked if the Commission were restricted in its actions because of the previous approval . Planning Director explained that there are no restrictions because the former application has expired and the applicant must meet current regula- tions. Chairman declared the hearing open. Nick Snyder, 72600 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that he had been involved with the project since last spring; that he is a builder and broker; that a builder should be able to live in any house he builds; that he will be living in one of the homes; that the concerns voiced have been addressed as much as possible with economics taken into consideration; that he did not feel that the condition for no parking on the street is enforceable; and that there is room to provide off street parking in the northeast corner of the project, but it will not be used (by guests since it is not convenient; that on the perimeter or interior streets there is room for one car per unit for guest parking; that it would be better to have 32 ft. wide streets with parking on one side by red curbing or signage) ; that the project is not large; that there is a per- centage of drives long enough for off-street parking; that the 10 spaces in the northeast corner could be used in conjunction with one side street parking, but that the corner was to have been used as a small park. He stated that the applicants had done everything they could to comply. Ralph Wilcox, 20901 Business Center Drive, Irvine, California, the appli- cant stated that he and,a partnerwould have residence in the project; that there will be a homeowners association for maintenance; and that comments have been addressed. He requested a 32 foot wide street. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Olsen commented that the applicants have always asked for changes in required conditions and that so many changes have been made that the project is no longer very good. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475-PD-197/TTM 22362. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney stated that she felt the project would be unattrac- tive; that her concerns were that the entry was too narrow; that one color for all houses is not acceptable; that a 36 ft. wide street should be pro- vided because today's families have two cars and to enforce one sided street parking is difficult. Commissioner Hough stated that he felt that providing 10 spaces in the northeast corner for guests would not serve a purpose because people will park on the street, and that one sided parking on a 32 foot wide street might work but the parking cannot be enforced. Commissioner Edgmon explained that she was hindered at the AAC meeting by thinking that the project's previous approval should be considered; and that she felt that the project is marginal ; and that more than one pool should be provided. Planning Director commented that the streets at the Village Racquet Club are 32 ft. wide and that the design for the subject property does not allow for street parking because there are driveways on both sides of the interior streets in some sections; and that staff could review the plan to see how the parking areas could be designed, and that 32 ft. wide streets do not leave much space. Commissioner Whitney stated that single-family residences require more parking than condominiums. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis absent) for a restudy noting the following: 1 . That a restudy of the entry area is to be reviewed by the Architec- tural Advisory Committee. 2. That details of the wall and landscaping along 34th Avenue are to be submitted for review by the AAC. 3. That overhangs be provided over the window sections of the residences with plans to be submitted for AAC and Commission review. 4. That the site plan be redesigned noting Commission concerns regarding the tunnel effect, the lack of guest parking, and noting that the houses should be varied in color, and a second pool and more open space should be provided. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0460-PD-194 (Revised) . Application by MERICKEL DEVELOPMENT for a revised planned development district in lieu of a change of zone to R-3 to allow construction of a residential condominium complex at the southeast corner of Baristo Road/Avenida Caballeros, R-G-A-8 Zone, Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; action, no comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and give final approval subject to conditions. Planner (Patenaude) described the project which was previously approved by the Commission but returned by the City Council due to concerns of the residents of the adjacent Rose Garden Condominium complex to the east. He stated that the density of the project, the perceived loss of views, and lack of amenities and open space were concerns of the Council , and that the AAC approved it as revised. He explained that the parking has been moved away from the Rose Garden complex, lessening the mass facing the Rose Garden has been done; that a putting green will be a buffer, and the access has been moved to Caballeros with only an emergency access on Baristo. He stated also that the colors have been revised and the density has not been changed, but the pool has been enlarged and the height not mentioned as a problem by the Council . He stated that the complex has some two story elevations but that the elevations next to the Rose Garden are single story and the size of the units range in size from 601 sq. ft. to 846 sq. ft. Richard Baker, 2700 E. Mesquite North, the applicant, stated that density has not changed from the last submission; that the General Plan on the pro- ject is high density; that the R-4 designation also includes the Rose Garden; that the project was abandoned by another developer and his company bought it; that the density is between R-2 and R-3 in the project; that the open space and height are comparable to that of the Rose Garden; that the needs of the Rose Garden have been analyzed and the project is workable; that no views are obscured; that the Rose Garden back wall is six feet in height with 14 ft. oleanders which obscure the view of the subject complex and that the pool has been widened. He stated that the recreation building is 600 sq. ft. with a bar and small amphitheater and TV and has views to the pool ; and that the building is approximately 1500 sq. ft. including the offices; that the project is across the street is a successful apartment complex; and that the area is conducive to the project since it is within walking distance of downtown and the convention center; and that the floor plan has been successful before. March Davison, 1475 Tiffany Circle Road, Rose Garden, voiced opposition to the project stating that he had paid $100,000 for his condominium; that it is difficult to get $85,000 at present; that the Rose Gardens has unsold units; that the subject property will not help the Rose Garden units to sell ; that he had hoped that the Convention Center and hotel would upgrade his property; that the subject application has apartments with small square footage; that the valley is overdeveloped in condominiums; that the La Palme project has many unsold condominium units although they advertise weekly in the Los Angeles newspapers, and asked what chance the Rose Gardens residents have to resell their properties. He stated that Villa -- Caballeros in the neighborhood had gone bankrupt, and he wondered how the developer of the subject property could make any money. He asked if the July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0460-PD-194 (Continued) units would be sold cheaply and stated that near the Rose Gardens are rental units which also lowers the resale market. Ben Teitelbaum, 1121 Tiffany Circle, South, Rose Gardens, stated that when he bought his unit ten years ago he was told that the zoning was 6 to the acre and the subject project will have 64 units on 3 acres. He stated that the project is in a good location but choking in 64 units where there should be 6 is not acceptable; and that the zoning chokes the people in the Rose Garden now. He stated that he has a petition with 37 signatures in opposition to the project. Planner stated that staff had received a form containing 37 signatures and one letter both in opposition. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman explained that the surrounding Indian land is zoned R-4 because of the Indian land zone changes in 1981. Planner stated that there is a one foot drop in elevation between the parking lot abutting the Rose Gardens and the project. Commissioner Olsen commented that he liked the appearance of the project and that the rezoning of the area is a monumental zoning problem, but that the project should be built. Planning Director explained that R-4 zoning is more dense and allows more hotels at three stories and the R-G-A-8 does not allow hotels except for a resort hotels and allows eight units per acre and one and two story development. He stated that the application is a request for a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone. Commissioner Hough commented that he felt the project was good and that the timing at the City Council review was poor originally; and that is the reason the Commission is reviewing the project again; and that the project is the best that can be obtained for the property. Commissioner Edgmon stated that the current market is different; and that the developer has been sympathetic in response to the needs and concerns of the Rose Garden residents. Chairman commented that with the 75% parking area to the wall of the Rose Garden and with 14 ft. high oleanders the residents cannot see the project. Commissioner Hough stated that the new design pulls the mass closer to the property line and does not obscure views. Chairman commented that it is a good project and a good solution to the corner and if the Council wants a lesser density it can take that action. He stated that the project is a good transition. `•.- M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Curtis absent) approving Case 5.0460-PD-194 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0460-PD-194 (Continued) Findings 1 . That a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone is the proper application for the proposed use due to an increase of density of the subject property designation. 2. That the proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the elements and objectives of the General Plan. 3. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required. 4. That the site is served by Avenida Caballeros and Baristo Road which are adequate in size to service the traffic generated by the project. 5. 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 detailed final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00 and Section 9404.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the developer shall submit proof of payment of the Palm Springs Unified School District Impact Mitigation Fees prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. That all conditions of the Development Committee shall be imple- mented. 4. That all mitigative measures of the Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study shall be implemented. a. That the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code blowsand abatement measures, as amended by the City, shall be implemented. b. City Engineering Division conditions require that the site accept and convey to any approved drainage carrier flood and/or nuisance waters that impinge upon the site. Also, the City Engineer requires that flood and/or nuisance waters leaving the site will not cause erosion, nuisance or damage (See Development Committee Conditions, Engineering, General 10 & 11) . July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0460-PD-194 (Continued) �✓ C. That the development is similar in nature and compatible to the surrounding types of residential developments; there fore, the impact should be minimal . Impacts from the lights can be mitigated through fixture type and location. d. That the developer shall provide a complete sewer study by a Registered Engineer, exhibiting the current sewage discharge and load of the tributary. The study shall also show the effect of the development upon the existing discharge system by calculating its future sewer discharge. That payments of the sewer surcharge fee be provided prior to issuance of building permits. CASE 5.0477-CUP. Application by LOWELL WOODEN for a conditional use permit to allow a full service automated carwash/service station on Ramon Road between E1 Cielo Road/Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 18. (The project is located within Planned Development District 189.) (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order filing of a Negative Declaration and approve CUP 5.0477 subject to conditions. Planner (Williams) stated that the carwash/service station is one lot of an overall Planned Development District of mixed uses. She stated that the project is a carwash/service station and a freestanding self-service station; that Paseo Dorotea will be signalized for access; that the archi- tecture was recommended for approval by the AAC as submitted although there was a dissenting vote on the site design because of the quick decision motorists have to make on whether or not to go to the carwash or to the self-service station at the entry. She stated that the hours are approxi- mately to 6 or 7 p.m. , and in response to Chairman's question that the decibel level on the street and from the airport is higher than the car- wash. Lowell Wooden, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that he has a state of the art carwash in the complex which will surpass American Carwash in Palm Desert; that the project architect is well-known in the desert; that the technology is somewhat better than the carwash in Cathedral City; that the hours of operation will be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that the self-service station will be open from 6 a.m. to 10 or 11 p.m. , and that a hand carwash is part of the detail shop. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Whitney asked about colors of the project. Planner described �..� the colors and materials board. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0477-CUP. (Continued) M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Curtis absent) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and approving CUP 5.0477 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings: 1 . That a Conditional Use Permit is the appropriate application for the use proposed. 2. That the proposed use is in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan Zoning Ordinance and the State Map Act. 3. That the proposed use will not have a significant affect on the environment based upon the environmental assessment and mitigation measures included therein. 4. That the proposed use served by Ramon Road and Paseo Dorotea with Ramon Road being a major thoroughfare (100-foot right-of-way) and Paseo Dorotea being a collector (60-foot right-of-way) , both streets are of adequate capacity to serve the site. Conditions • 1. That the Development Committee conditions dated July 11, 1988, shall apply. 2. That the mitigative measures of the environmental assessment shall apply. 3. That the facility comply with the Noise Ordinance provisions of the Municipal Code. 4. That the complex be limited to one sign per frontage. 5. That landscaping be provided along the east side including tree forms in a minimum of a five foot wide planter. 6. That the trash area be relocated to the south side of the open parking and surrounded with landscaping. 7. That the planter walls along the south frontage be coordinated with the bikepath. CASE 5.0478-CUP/6.363-VARIANCE. Application by LARRY BERKOWITZ for a Conditional Use Permit to light an existing tennis court including a variance from height restriction for light standards at 580 Stevens Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the application to August 10 at the applicant's request. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0478-CUP/6.363-VARIANCE. (Continued) Planner (Williams) stated that the existing tennis court is supposed to be night lighted and has greater height than allowed under the ordinance (which is the reason for the variance) ; that the height request is 22 ft. (ordinance: 10 ft.); that the lot is hillside; and a large portion of the pole height is not visible from the street. Planning Director stated that the poles will be sunken at the north end; that the court surface on the north end is 595 ft. which is three feet below the natural grade, the surface is two feet below the natural grade on the east and that the west side court surface is 603 ft. In reply to Chairman's question, Planner stated that there are no neighbors to the north (a vacant lot) . In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the requested height is for a better quality of play. Chairman stated that eventually there will be a house on the vacant lot and it is not acceptable to have a 20 ft. high light against the property line. Planning Director explained that irr 1976 revisions were made to the Zoning Ordinance regarding tennis courts and required them to have a CUP for reduced setbacks or lighting and that the 10 ft. light standards allowed are a compromise to no lighting. He stated that the applicants have requested a two week continuance, but that the Commission should be apprised of the application, and that the applicants were told that their request was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Kenneth Heggstrom, 591 W. Stevens Road, voiced opposition stating that he was familiar with tennis; that he owns an old home which would be affected by the proposal ; that he wondered why the public hearing was in July when residents are gone, and also wondered about a tennis court fence and the elevation of the court relating to the neighboring property. He stated that the tennis court is only sunk six inches; that the standard will be 34 ft. above his floor level and asked about the type of landscaping proposed to reduce noise and the type of trees that are best for the environment. He also asked about the history of revocation of CUP's because he felt that once a CUP is approved, it is almost always permanent. Chairman explained that the applicant has a right to submit an applica- tion even though staff informed him that the application would be recommended for denial . Mr. Heggstrom stated that his son owns a tennis club and that the light standards are 18 ft. which is the maximum, that 10 feet should be the height for a residential court and, that a 10 ft. height is adequate for viewing a lob shot. Mrs. Bernard Silverman, 1455 Vine, at the corner of Stevens, a neighbor of the Heggstrom's, voiced opposition stating the standards and lights would impact her view of the mountains and that the noise of night play �.. would affect her. She stated that there have never been lighting July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0478-CUP/6.363-VARIANCE. (Continued) standards of that height in Las Palmas and if approved, it would be precedent setting and would affect all other lots in the area. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Curtis absent) continuing the application to August 10. CASE 6.362/TPM 23769. Application by PATRICK KELLY for a variance for sub- standard lot frontage and a tentative parcel map for subdivision of lots on the west side of Prescott Drive, north of Mountain View Place, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (Previously given Environmental Assessment in conjunction with the original TTM 22406.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the variance and. map subject to conditions. Planner (Evans) gave a staff report and showed the location on the board. He stated that the purpose of the subdivision is to resubdivide the property the way it was originally in 1925; that the subdivision is consistent with the neighborhood; that correspondence and phone calls have been received voicing concern over making large lots smaller which the neighbors feel downgrades the neighborhood, and that a lawyer representing one of the neighbors has voiced opposition to the proposal . Chairman declared the hearing open. Carl Beckley, Hacker Engineering, 490 S. Farrell , stated that his clients agree with the Development Committee conditions; the intent is to return the lots to their original subdivision configuration; and that he had subdivision maps that the audience could review. Karen Tabbah, 584 S. Camino Real , spoke in favor of the project stating that making two lots from one will encourage building in the area, which is sorely needed, and that the lots will be saleable. Linda Morrow, 222 Hermosa Place, voiced opposition stating that she had bought her home eight years ago and had done extensive, expensive remodeling believing that the lot would remain as a large estate lot, and that subdividing the large lot will change the character of the neighborhood since most properties have large frontages. She stated that many of the residents are gone and do not realize what is proposed and asked if any additional information that the Commission has could be revealed. Chairman stated that one person who contacted staff stopped her opposition to the subdivision after the proposal was explained because at first she did not realize the property was being returned to its original configuration. r July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.362/TPM 23769. (Continued) Mrs. Morrow stated that most of the lots in the block are large and that some of the lots are three combined ones. Chairman stated that he thought all the lots were two lots combined. Mrs. Morrow described lots 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 86 as having large frontages and lot 85 as having a smaller frontage. Chairman stated that lot 82 is only 102 ft. deep but has a large frontage. Mrs. Morrow explained that the variance is on the size of the frontage which would make the lot different than any other. She volunteered to take Commissioners around to see the lots in the neighborhood. Planning Director stated that the section map shows how the properties are addressed, and that one lot pairs with another but that the rest are individual homes. Mrs. Morrow stated that the applicant told her that the houses proposed on the lot would be in the $250,000 range which is far less than her home on which she has spent $750,000. Planner stated that the applicant wants to build a nice personal residence. Phil Klatchko, Burton Way, lawyer representing Mrs. Ponder, owner of Lot 82, stated that the prior property owner voiced Mrs. Ponder's con- cern; that Lots 83 and 84 originally were held by a single owner; that the applicant bought the property owned by Kirk Douglas with the intent to develop it as a large lot; that all of the neighbors contiguous would be in opposition to the reduction of the frontage; that a 130 ft. reduced requirement to 102 ft. is substantial ; and that the time of the year and the 10-day noticing has been a factor in the neighbors not responding. He requested a continuance if possible for 90 days or into the Fall for people to have a chance to learn of the application and stated that he was in contact with Mr. Wasserman's lawyer who told him that it would be several days before he could contact Mr. Wasserman, (a neighbor) . Chairman stated that Mr. Klatchkio's client's lot is smaller than any of the other lots and is substandard. Mr. Klatchko answered that he was aware that the lot is smaller, but the frontage is much larger and Lots 75, 76, 77, 80, and 81 are large estate lots. He stated that the proposal for subdivision will create much smaller lot. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Mr. Beckley (rebuttal ) stated in clarification that the applicant `•- estimates that the homes built on the two lots will be in the $800,000 range. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.362/TPM 23769. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney asked if Mrs. Morrow's complaint was because of the value of the property if the homes were built. Mrs. Morrow explained that she is concerned about the frontages which are not adequate to maintain the estate appearance of the area. She stated that the map does not represent homes in the Merito Vista area which are on larger lots. Commissioner Olsen stated that he would like to look at the area to see if the character has changed. He stated that some of the more expensive homes in town have small frontages and the neighborhood would not be downgraded by the proposal . Commissioner Hough stated that a lot of 102 by 250 is not substandard and that he would like to review the area to see the pattern of the estate appearance. Commissioner Edgmon agreed. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Curtis absent) continuing the application to August 10. TTM 22406 (Revised) . Application by HACKER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. for John Rocca for a revised tentative tract map subdividing property into 13 lots for residential development at Morongo Trail/Araby Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with original TTM 22406.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve TTM 20406 (revised) . Planner (Williams) stated that the application had been reviewed pre- viously at 13 lots with private streets and the City required that a homeowner's association be formed for maintenance of the private streets and the landscaping but the applicant did not want to form an association and redesigned the project to have public streets; and that two letters have been received supporting the project. She stated that the environmental assessment had been prepared in conjunction with the original map; and that architectural approval will be required on all lots and that there will not be a homeowner's association. Chairman declared the hearing open. Karl Beckley, Hacker Engineer, project engineer, stated that the map had been changed to reflect concerns of the City's and that the applicants agree with the findings. Sylvia Logan, 2766 Anza, owner of the adjoining property, requested that 30-year old landscaping remain because much time and money had July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 22406 (Revised) . (Continued) .,, been spent on the property line landscaping by her family through the years under an agreement with the former owner of the property. Chairman stated that if the landscaping is on Mr. Rocca'sproperty, there is nothing that can be done about leaving them. Mr. Logan stated that part of the landscaping is on the Rocca property and part on his. Assistant City Attorney explained that he noted that it was a condition with regard to a covenant for maintenance for a portion of Lot #10 because of the unique configuration of that condition on the back portion, and that a similar condition could be faced with Lots 8 and 9 (the Logan's lot) if the Commission decides to keep landscaping even if the landscaping were on Mr. Rocca's property. Commissioner Edgmon asked about a survey to determine the ownership of the landscaping. Mr. Beckley explained that a survey had not been done but would be with the final map stage. Planner explained that the condition on Lot #10 if a wall is built is to provide access along Morongo Trail for landscape maintenance because it would be visible to other lots as a side yard. Planning Director explained that landmark vegetation is reviewed and a condition is often placed on the property to retain it. He stated that the Commission could take action to retain the shrubs and landscaping on the subject project as part of the landscaping plan (to be reviewed at the time the final tract map is submitted) , or when house plans are submitted for the lots and an accurate survey is made. Chairman stated that the Commission will review the final development plans and place a condition to show the nature and location of the vegetation for a decision since if the vegetation hampers building a wall , for example, it would not be fair to retain it. Commissioner Olsen stated that there should not be a condition: that would not allow a property owner from removing landscaping on his property. Planning Director stated that conditions requiring keeping vegetation are often made, and that the owner should submit a survey of the property to see what other significant vegetation is on it such as smoke trees. Assistant City Attorney explained that a decision should be made at the time of approval of the tentative map. Planning Director suggested that a condition be placed to review landscaping plans individually for the homes. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 22406 (Revised) . (Continued) Chairman remarked that part of the map approval is that all houses receive architectural approval . M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Hough abstained; Curtis absent) approving TTM 22406 (revised) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the proposed lots although they have irregular shapes are in conformance with the minimum development standards of the R-1-B Zone. 2. That the proposed single-family residential subdivision comply with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Map and is not detrimental to existing or future uses permitted in the zone. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use including yard setbacks, walls, fencing, landscaping and other features required to adjust the use to existing or permitted uses of land in the neighborhood. 4. That the site is serviced by Morongo Trail and Araby Drive which are both collector streets, designed and improved (according to project conditions) to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. 5. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions 1. That the mitigative measures of the Environmental Assessment apply. 2. That the revised Development Committee conditions stated July 18, 1987 apply. 3. That the houses be subject to architectural approval . 4. That any wall constructed on Lot #10 be provided with an access along Morongo Trail for landscape maintenance. 5. That a covenant for landscape maintenance be provided for Lot #10. 6. That a survey showing all existing landscape material on the subject property be submitted for Planning Commission review prior to filing of the final map. The Planning Commission reserves the right to add conditions concerning the disposition of any existing landscape materials. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Frank, 555 N. Cahuilla, asked if the Saturday's Restaurant building on the Crowe Hotel site south of Mesquite on S. Palm Canyon Drive had ., ever been reviewed as an historic building. Chairman commented that the stone wall is historic, but that the building is in disrepair and probably cannot be saved. Planning Director explained that the building was reviewed by a subcommittee of the Historic Site Preservation Board and fell far short of reaching the level necessary for historic status. He stated that perhaps some of the rockwork could be maintained in the landscaping and will be investigated if the Commission feels in should be saved. He stated that staff discussed the building with other architects but had not received any input to save the building. Chairman stated that the building has never been maintainedproperly but the landscaping and stonework are magnificent and that tying it with the corner landscaping should be investigated. Planning Director suggested that the applicant, staff, and chairman meet on the site to review the stonework and landscaping and determine what can be saved. Mr. Frank also explained that there are some very good murals inside the buildings, that he did not want to see the building razed, although it needs much restoration. He stated that visitors often comment on it. Karen Tabbah, realtor, asked about building single family homes on lots on Santa Catalina. Planning Director stated that he would review the lots after the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. Emergency Ordinance. Council reintroduced the Emergency Ordinance on Palm Canyon which extends the CBD uses and standards to Tachevah. LUP's and CUP's were included in the Ordinance. Change of Hwy 111 and Indian Avenue. Council remanded the issue to staff to review with Mainstreet, the merchants, and property owners before the changes are made. It is very expensive because of relocation of traffic signals and would be a year in processing through the State. City has to guarantee maintenance of the new configuration of the State Highway for five years. Some of the Mainstreet members feel the reconfiguration would allow a more village like atmosphere to the City but it is not a consensus. - New Commission Appointments. Council is finished with interviews and will be selecting Commissioners soon, perhaps by the August 10 meeting. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 20 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. Town Hall Meeting. 6:30 p.m. at the Pavilion, July 27. Mainstreet is trying to get organized for the Fall but many people are gone. Main- street is working to expand the list of long time merchants to become involved. Presentation on the East Area Specific Plan (EASP) . The EASP presenta- tion was held July 20 at the Wyndham Hotel . The format did not allow dialogue until the end of the meeting and many people had left. Back- ground was given on what is being attempted. The concept of commercial manufacturering sites has been altered. Horse racing is still being reviewed as well as corporate retreats, a golf course, and amphi- theater. All uses being studied would take up more property than the primary site and is likely multiple sites would have to be considered. Chairman asked about a destination hotel . Planning Director explained that a destination hotel could be a Phase II plan due to current marketing conditions because there is a satur- ation of hotels and a new one would be difficult to market today. He stated that the corporate retreat/golf course combination could be built and a site left for a hotel , but that direction from the Council is not to compete by adding another hotel . He explained that Council felt that a recreational theme would begin to fill hotels as opposed to a destination resort. He said that he told the consultants that a destination hotel is the one area that the City is not totally competi- tive with the rest of the valley. Chairman stated that local hotels cannot compete as destination resorts because they lack the amenities of a golf course, and other facilities within the complexes, and a viable meeting center/restaurant and a golf course are vital . Planning Director suggested that the Commissioners help to explain these concerns to the consultants. Chairman stated that horse racing is not viable. Planning Director stated that part of the direction is coming from the Council , not the consultants. He stated that marketing is being done by a prestigious firm as are the other components of the classic and that racing of Arabian horses, quarter horses and harness racing have been mentioned with parimutuel betting included. Chairman stated that the proposed amphitheater and horse racing will not make money. Planning Director stated that figures have to be developed regarding revenue generation and that no demonstration has yet been given that there are better long term benefits to the City than what is there now. Chairman stated that restaurants and room tax revenue are what is �, needed. July 27, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 21 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. - Complex at Sunny Dunes and South Palm Canyon. The new project will not encompass the existing gas station. If the project becomes economi- cally successful , it may take in the gas station and carwash in the future. The property could be combined under the redevelopment process. Planning Commission Meeting of August 24. The meeting which is usually cancelled because of vacation schedules will be held this year. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. &***A A PLA DIRECTO MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall August 10, 1988 • 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Gary Olsen X 23 3 Barbara Whitney X 20 6 Brent Hough X 23 3 Martha Edgmon X 23 3 Chris Mills X 1 0 Mike Dotson (not sworn in) Larry Lapham, Chairman X 23 3 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Richard Patenaude, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - August 8, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate William Johnson Barbara Whitney, Alternate Mike Buccino Brent Hough Martha Edgmon, Alternate Tom Doczi Will Kleindienst Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Hough absent) approving minutes of July 27, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman welcomed two new Planning Commissioners , Chris Mills, architect and long time resident, and Michael Dotson, former Palm Springs Planner, now associated with a valley engineering firm. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The August 10, agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, August 5.