Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/08/24 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES *Emergency Operations Center, City Hall August 24, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman - 3 1 Gary Olsen X 4 0 Barbara Whitney - 3 1 Brent Hough X 3 1 Martha Edgmon X '3 1 Chris Mills X 2 0 Michael Dotson X 1 0 Staff Present Douglas Evans, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Ray Balderas, Planning Technician Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - August 22, 1988 William Johnson, Vice Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Mike Buccino Barbara Whitney, Alternate Tom Doczi Chris Mills Will Kleindienst Martha Edgmon, Alternate Brent Hough * * Commissioner Olsen (Acting Chairman) called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Lapham absent) approving minutes of August 10, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: There were no Tribal Council comments. *Meeting held in Emergency Operations Center due to power outage at City Hall . * * * * * REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The August 24, 1988 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 19. August 24, 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 (Hough/Dotson; Lapham absent) taking the following actions: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by ROBERT RITCHEY for architectural approval of a main identification sign for the Bank of America in the Palm Springs Mall on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Continued to September 14 at the applicants request. CASE 3.0272. Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for Voss Investment Properties for architectural review of preliminary landscape concept for retail/restaurant complex on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. Landscaping: Approved subject to the followings conditions: 1. That landscape screening for the trash along the east property line be provided. 2. That there be a random split (5 ft. sidewalk and 8 ft. bikeway) of the bikepath and sidewalk combination. Roof Tile: Approved as follows: �-' 1. That the black curved tile for Building B (Japanese restaurant) is approved. 2. Suncrete tile in beige (color C-117) is approved for the remaining buildings. 3.0376 (MINOR) . Application by MARRIOTT CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised details of working drawings for Bob's Big Boy Restaurant at 1501 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following condition: That the proposed light shield come back to the AAC for review. Members suggested a standard metal shield for the florescent fixture available at all lighting providers. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY for architectural approval of a main identification sign for the African Queen Restaurant, 2665 E. Palm Canyon Drive, PD-107 Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Hough. August 2.4, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 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 revised site plans/grading plan 'and revised elevations for a single-family residence on Patencio Road/O'Donnell Golf Course, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Planner (Evans) explained that the original house submittal was restudied and the second submittal was approved but the the applicant wanted the original design and resubmitted it. He stated that the AAC felt that there was too much horizontal appearance; and that the applicant submitted another design which has not been seen by the committee. He stated that the Committee concerns were (on the original , restudied design) that it did not integrate with the hillside; and that the Committee almost denied the submittal but felt that if the elements were broken up the design would be acceptable. Commissioner Edgmon commented that although there has been some improve- ment, the elevations do not integrate with the beautiful setting. Al Coler, the applicant, stated that there have been many more changes in the new elevations; that side elevations would have shown the integration with the site; that the home is only 3% of the land surface; that breaking up the front further.adestroys the effectiveness of the appearance; that he has been trying to get approval for eight months; and that the house is not very visible. Discussion followed on the house elevations and entry. Commissioner Hough stated that Mr. Coler builds a quality product but the horizontal lines of the home concern him, especially on a prominent site. Acting Chairman agreed and stated that the home should complement the beautiful site. John Bund, La Quinta, project architect, stated that the design of the home is not a detraction; that the mountain behind the building is horizontal ; and that vertical lines would not integrate it into the setting. He stated that the balcony was removed as a compromise, and that he could put shadow lines on the elevations if would help the Commission. Acting Chairman commented that the AAC recommendation was 5-0 for a restudy. Mr. Coler again explained that his house is not visible; that compromises have been made; that other homes in the area have long walls which were approved, and he did not see how they 'could have been approved and his recommended for restudy. Acting Chairman stated again that the AAC recommended a more complementary design, and that the Commission listens to the AAC advice. Mr. Coler commented that he did not understand the restudy recommendation since he builds fine homes everywhere. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0262. Continued Commissioner Mills stated that when the original design was before the AAC, specific recommendations were made to improve it and that the AAC is frustrated because the original design was resubmitted to them. He stated that if a denial is needed to force the applicant to resign the elevations, that motion should be made although he did not want to deny the applica- tion. He stated that the architecture does not fit into the hillside. Planner, in response to Commission question, stated that a restudy action is appealable to the Council . Commissioner Mills stated that continuity is important to the entire eleva- tion and that the vertical and horizontal elevations should not be the only consideration for redesign. M/S/C (Hough/Dotson; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving the tennis court sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That the palm trees be added adjacent to the entry gate and east end of the court (approximately 6-10) . 2. That the walls follow the existing contours and have less of a geo- metric form. 3. That the rock wall and, landscape incorporate boulder size is to be proportionate to existing topography and boulders. 4. That the landscape plan incorporate limited varieties of desert plant materials. 5. That the cut slopes and exposed rocks be treated with synthetic desert varnish material . and Restudy of the elevations: 1. That the west end of the residence engage the hillside with use of boulders. 2. That the elevations be completely restudied to increase the scale of architectural elements and relate to the hillside site. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS TTM 23764 (Continued) . Application by KNUTSON CAPITAL INVESTMENTS for a tenta- tive tract map to subdivide a 40 acre parcel into 36 individual lots for an industrial development on Crossley Road/San Luis Rey/Sunny Dunes/Mesquite Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 20. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the application subject to conditions. Planner (Abbas) presented the map and stated that a condition on mitigative measures for flooding has been completed, which the applicant has accepted; and that some editorial changes have been made on which the Commission does not need to have concerns. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. Gary Knutson, P.O. Box 1400, Cathedral City, the applicant, thanked the Commission for continuing the map from August 10 to resolve problems and stated that he accepted the conditions except for the condition requiring no direct access on Crossley. He stated that a limited compromise should be allowed, that there should not be a series of driveways but that a reciprocal driveway for Lots 5 and 6 should be approved. He stated that individual projects on the lots will be reviewing the site plan and that the backs of the lots front on Rio Blanco in order to avoid driveways coming off Crossley. Planner (Evans) stated that staff is recommending limiting access off Crossley to help the circulation pattern; and that the TTM 19544 also had a restriction on access to Crossley Road. /auto mall Traffic Engineer explained that Crossley will have restricted access because of current and increased volume; and that there is no room for expansion of the street. He stated that it will reach total design capa- city at build-out; and that it is posted for 45 miles per hour but traffic travels less than that because of the curves; and that staff is recom- mending against access unless a traffic study is prepared. Mr. Knutson (rebuttal ) stated that only one driveway is being requested and would not cause much added traffic conflict, and that he has a part owner- ship in land which was to have been in the Auto Park (since moved to Cathedral City) ; and it needs access to Crossley from a center parcel in the property. He stated without access there is a hardship. Acting Chairman asked if flexibility for the future could be part of the map approval . Planner (Evans) repeated that the only way driveways would be supported is if a traffic study were performed and a positive recommendation made by the Traffic Engineer. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 23764. (Continued) Mr. Knutson, in reply to Commission question, stated that it is difficult to have a traffic study when the uses on Lots 5 and 6 are unknown; and that he would rather not have a driveway if required to do the study. He stated that there would not be a problem with access. Acting Chairman stated that the Commission is discussing a requirement for a traffic study when the lots are developed. Discussion followed on access. Traffic Engineer stated that Mesquite will be one of the access points adding to the stacking problem on Crossley; that no parking is allowed on Crossley; and that Crossley will be/capacity. at Commissioner Mills stated that he could understand the frustration of the developer; that a traffic study would be a waste of time since the worst condition would be chosen for the study; that one driveway shared by several lots and no parking on Crossley should be acceptable, and that Mesquite will probably never be extended. Planner (Evans) stated that there is no reason today to prohibit access to all of the lots but that Crossley Road, a secondary thoroughfare, flowing at maximum design would force cars to wait one of two times to get through the signal and direct access would be a problem. He stated that Section 20 may have four to five hundred acres in industrial development in the future and as it develops, more traffic will develop. He explained that the Mid- valley Parkway may be next to the wash with anintersection at Mesquite and Crossley; and Mesquite and Crossley could become a key element to the traffic circulation. Acting Chairman commented that it is unfortunate that the ingress to the project is not in line with 44th Street to leave the option of access off Mesquite. Mr. Knutson stated that reversing the plan had been reviewed but the original design was best for interfacing with surface lines (water, sewage, drainage) and is the best solution. He stated that the drives would be 400 feet apart. Commissioner Mills stated that Mesquite will become a major thoroughfare and probably will have more traffic than Crossley. Planner (Evans) stated that Crossley will be operating at full capacity and the Mid-valley Parkway will add to the traffic load. Discussion continued on future traffic loads on Crossley. Traffic Engineer stated that Crossley is well used presently and more and more development will compound the traffic problems. He stated that if driveway cuts are made, there will be further problems and that staff recommends eliminating drives. He stated that there has been no decision on whether medians are best for City streets. Commissioner Mills stated that it would be advantageous on Mesquite for common driveways for the six lots. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 23764. (Continued) Mr. Knutson stated that common driveways for the lots would be an accept- able compromise. Commissioner Mills commented that Mesquite is as much a problem as Crossley. Commissioner Hough suggested that the cost be shared with property owners to the north. Commissioner Edgmon stated that she agreed with the Traffic Engineer and Acting Chairman commented that there seem to be some options without a traffic study. Planner stated that if the Commission wishes to allow driveways there should be a right in and a right out turnout and a median prohibiting a left turn in and out thus allowing access to the site. Mr. Knutson noted that some kind of driveway is needed; that the planners suggestion would eliminate left turn problems; and that the compromise is acceptable. Acting Chairman stated that eventually a traffic study will have to be done. M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Dotson dissented; Whitney/Lapham absent) ordering the preparation of a draft negative declaration and approving TTM 23764 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the proposed lot configuration, including width, depth, and overall area, is in conformance with the minimum development standards of the M-1 Zone. 2. That the proposed industrial subdivision complies 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 setbacks, walls, fencing, landscaping and other features required to adjust the use to existing or permitted uses of land in the area. 4. That the site is serviced by Mesquite Avenue and Crossley Road (secondary thoroughfares) , Sunny Dunes Road and San Luis Rey (collector streets) designed and improved (according to project con- ditions) 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. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 23764. (Continued) �—' Conditions: That the Development Committee conditions as amended dated July 28, 1988, shall apply. NOTE: Changes to conditions are as follows: Condition 3 under Planning Division shall read: "The final map shall delineate the prohibition of direct access to Crossley Road for parcels 3, 7, 8 and 9. Parcels 5 and 6 shall be allowed one reciprocal , right turn in and out only with a control island point of access, to Crossley Road. A condition shall be added which shall read: "Access to Mesquite Drive shall be limited to 3 shared drives to be located between parcels 31 and 32; 33 and 34; and 9 and 10. CASE 5.0475-PD-197/TTM 23662. Application by RALPH WILCOX for a revised planned development district and tentative tract map to construct a complex of 40 individual homes on 34th Avenue between Rush Street/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 restudy the application and continue it to September 14. Planner (Patenaude) stated that changes have been made to the project addressing concerns of the Commission as follows: Elevations: AAC recommended approval . Interior Street Width: Widened from 32 ft. to 36 ft. for parking on both sides of the street, thus alleviating the lack of guest parking. Setbacks: Some units moved back from the street to create a varied set- back. Overhangs: Low overhangs are provided, especially over windows. Color: Applicant wants a common color throughout to make the project appear larger. (Planning Commission had recommended varied colors.) Sidewalk: Sidewalk added for school children at the request of the Crossley Tract residents to the south. Entry: Preliminary landscape plans submitted. The new entry has been flared and an island placed in the center to allow turnaround. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475. (Continued) �- Exterior Wall : Wall has remained straight because of laser beaming for security but softened by landscaping and mounding, which is acceptable to the AAC. Site Plan: AAC recommended that the site plan be rearranged for better use of open space, and more landscaping of the units, and recommended a better street flow and larger setbacks from the streets should be provided. The corner has been radiused for more open space. Flood Control : County Flood Control states that there is a potential flooding problem because there is a soft-lined dike and recommended denial until improvements can be made to the dike. If the applicant wants interim measures he should take steps necessary for an assessment district to hard line the dike. Any mitigative measures for the dike require acceptance from Riverside County Flood Control . Planner stated that the AAC recommended a restudy, that the project could be continued to September 14, so it does not have to be renoticed, and that an additional condition should be placed for approval of the CC&R's by the City Attorney for landscaping and common wall maintenance. In reply to Commission question, he stated that some garages are set back 5 feet and the bedrooms are 10 ft. from the street and the applicant would have to participate in the formation of an assessment district for flood control purposes since there is none in place. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. Nick Snyder, 7200 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that the situation is confusing and frustrating for him since action on the project seems to depend on who is attending the meetings. He stated that changes have been made to open space and set back to the units; that the point is missed that the development is not a high-priced one and has binding conditions; that fees are one-third of the cost of the project; that banks stipulate price levels; that the applicants are willing to take a lesser percentage of profit; and that there have been many restudies without concrete directions for improvement. He stated that details of the walls have been changed due to Commission concerns; that the site plan has been redesigned; that the*color can be changed in tone although the roofs *house should remain the same color; that a second pool is not included because of the cost; and that flood control problems are being addressed. He stated that he wanted to rebut any conditions made by the Commission so that he can understand the reasons for restudy. Ralph Wilcox, 2091 Business Center Drive, Irvine, the applicant, stated that the project is for moderate income people; that the purpose is to have a golf-oriented and security-gated and guarded community, and that one pool *to and putting green have been included *reduce common area costs; that only $50 a month has been budgeted for maintenance; that the bank has approved financing for the plan as submitted; that advice has been given by a land- scape architect, a local engineering firm and a registered architect who has designed a, project in Palm Springs`; and that alternatives have been reviewed and the current plan is the best alternative. He stated that larger single-family homes in the location would not be marketable; that August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475. (Continued) County Flood Control inherited the project from Coachella Valley Flood Control which has caused problems; a meeting has been scheduled with County Flood Control , and that he is also a grand-fathered member of a storm drain district and some money has been received back from the district which is also a problem. He stated that the review of the CC&R's is acceptable, and that the project meets all Zoning and City conditions. Dr. Friedman, 235 S. Indian, Palm Springs, asked if the project would be a low/moderate income one or affordable housing, and asked that the price range be stated. He stated that there is a one year wait in the City for . low income housing. Acting Chairman stated that it is not in the Commission's purview to approve or disapprove a developer's price range for his product. Cindy Chason, Cathedral City, stated that her mother lives in the Crossley tract. She asked if the height of the frontage wall were the same as the adjoining walls. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the wall is 6 ft. high and the adjoining walls are 42 ft. with landscaping that grows up above the wall height. Ms. Chason stated that she wants the wall to have an acceptable appearance; that the project would enhance the area, that blowsand in the area is a problem, and that the project should improve the community and bring it ., back to its former higher standards. There being no further appearances; Acting Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Edgmon commented that she also was concerned about the 5 ft. setbacks and some windows being set back less than 10 feet. She stated that the quality of the overall project worries her, and it seems that there is excess space on the other side of the project. Commissioner Mills stated that the center cross street could be moved back 10 feet and the site plan changed slightly and that if the design were changed slightly as described, there would be only two tight places. Mr. Wilcox stated that there is no problem with moving the units back. Commissioner Dotson commented that the project would be acceptable if the flood control problems were solved; and that the units could be staggered on the east side of the project. Commissioner Edgmon restated her concerns for the small setbacks. Commissioner Hough stated that he did not vote for a restudy because he thought with some adjustments the plan was acceptable as long as flood control problems were resolved. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475. (Continued) M/S/C (Mills/Edgmon; Whitney/Lapham absent) ordering the filing of a Nega- tive Declaration and approving TTM 23662 and Case 5.0475-PD-197 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings 1. That a Planned Development District is the proper application for this project. The developer is proposing various design conditions which differ from standard zoning requirements. These include zero- lot lines, private streets with a possible gated entry, common recreational areas and certain reduced setbacks. 2. That the proposed use is a suitable and desirable use for the community. The proposed type of development and density is con- sistent with the single-family residences and low-density condominium communities in the area. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The existing designation is Residential Low Density - 6 units/acre; the proposed density is slightly less than 5 units per acre. 4. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. The site layout is of an orderly design. 5. That the surrounding streets are of capacity to serve the site. The street plan designation for 34th Avenue has been reduced to a collector street based on the ultimate buildout of the area. This is the last undeveloped parcel along 34th Avenue and is being developed at a lower density than that ultimately allowed. 6. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Conditions 1. That the conditions of the Development Committee as listed in its memo dated June 30, 1988, apply. 2. That the mitigation measures set forth in the Environmental Assess- ment be implemented. 3. That final detailed landscaping and wall plans be submitted including irrigation and exterior lighting. 4. That the center units be moved to the north on the site plan. 5. That the interior street be moved to the north to increase setbacks. 6. That Flood Control approve flood control mitigation for the project. 7. That CC&R's for maintenance of the landscaping and common wall be submitted for City Attorney approval . August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0475. (Continued) 8. That details be submitted for the wall , landscaping and turn-around along the 34th Avenue frontage; CASE 5.0485-CUP. Application by JUNE WOOD for a conditional use permit to convert an existing garage into a guest house on Dolores Court between Robles Street/Via Vadera, R-1-P Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the CUP subject to conditions. Planner (Abbas) presented the case and stated that the applicant has started conversion on the garage and has been stopped by a stop work order and that the guest house meets all mandatory requirements of the zoning ordinance for lot size and main building. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. June Wood, 1133 Dolores Court, the applicant, stated that she would have been outraged if she had received a hearing notice about a garage conversion because the neighborhood is beautiful , but that she had not L.- ruined the environment or added people because she would not sell the house. She stated that the view from the property is wonderful . Dan Carter, 1133 Dolores Court, the applicant, stated that the guest house was originally a recreation vehicle garage and was converted to a guest house; that few changes will be made and nothing changed outside; and that it is a retreat for him and his wife when their families come to visit. There being no further appearances; Acting Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Edgmon/Mills; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving CUP 5.0485 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the guest house with kitchen facilities may be considered for a Conditional Use Permit under the provision of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That adequate on-site parking exists for both the main house and the guest house. 3. That the proposed site is adequate in size (15,681 square feet) and shape to accommodate a guest house. 4. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the area as well as the single-family nature of the neighborhood. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0485-CUP. (Continued) 5. That the proposal complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will not be detrimental to existing or future uses permitted in the zone. 6. That the main building is a permitted use. Conditions 1 . That the guest house be solely for the use of non-paying, temporary guests of the resident family or the resident family itself. 2. That the roof mounted mechanical equipment be screened in such a manner as to be architecturally compatible with main structure. (To be submitted for staff review and approval .) 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. TPM 23597. Application by MAINIERO SMITH AND ASSOCIATES for Desert Hospital for a tentative parcel map to reconfigure existing parcels located on the east side of North Indian Avenue, north of Tachevah Drive, R-4/R-2 Zones, Section 11. (An Environmental Assessment was previously prepared for the property in conjunction with Case 5.0421-PD-185.) Planner (Patenaude) stated that the map application has been submitted as a conditional of approval for the Planned Development District for the Desert Hospital expansion, that the map will reconfigure parcels (12 small parcels into 3) , and that joint access agreements will be required. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. Robert Mainiero, project engineer, Tahquitz Way, representing Desert Hospital Company, Desert Hospital Authority and Desert Hospital District, stated that he was present to answer questions. Vince Dundee, Jr., 455 The Palms, asked why the proposed heliport for the hospital was not shown on the map. Planner explained that only existing improvements were shown. Mr. Dundee asked the process for closing the street. Acting Chairman stated that the street closure was not being addressed �, at the meeting. t, August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 23597. (Continued) -' Planner stated that the Planned Development District was approved with a vacation of a portion of E1 Mirador as a condition, and that it will be vacated to the hospital . Mary Lawler, 2268 E N. Indian, resident of Palm Springs Townhomes, voiced opposition to any further actions which would allow construction of the heliport. Val Winiecki , 2286 A N. Indian Avenue, President of the Board of Directors of Palm Springs Townhomes, also voiced opposition to the map approval because it would allow construction of the heliport. Acting Chairman stated that the map action has nothing to do with the heliport. Mr. Winiecki asked how he would find out when the heliport would be constructed, and Acting Chairman answered he would be notified if it affects him. Vincent Dundee, 455 The Palms, voiced opposition to approval of the map for legal reasons. Planner stated that staff had also received a letter from Robert Silberstein, who lives on The Palms, opposition to vacation of a portion of E1 Mirador since Mr. Silberstein uses the street for access to his home, (and has for a long time) , and that when he bought the property it was an open street. Commissioner Dotson asked if the map were for hospital organization. Acting Chairman stated that the map is to consolidate 12 parcels into 3. Commissioner Edgmon commented that the application is a procedural one. M/S/C (Edgmon/Dotson; Mills abstaining; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving TPM 23597 based on the following findings and subject to the following con- ditions: Findings 1. That a parcel map is the appropriate application for the proposed subdivision and is required by the conditions of approval for Planned Development District 185. 2. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed subdivision. 3. That the proposed subdivision has been designed to consider the location of both the existing and proposed structures. 4. That conditions have been imposed to insure that the proposed map will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 16 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 3.0259-A (Continued) . Application by MICHAEL BUCCINO for Harold Matzer for architecturala— pproval of a revised parking and pool area and grading plan for a single-family residence at 555 Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planner (Evans) stated that the Commission has seen the property and that if approved the existing landscaping should be reviewed for compatibility with the hillside and for non-native plants. Mike Buccino, landscape architect, 74133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, stated that in most instances improvements should blend with what is existing but, in this case, the existing conditions should not be enhanced; that the applicant wants to deviate from the plaster walls which are obtrusive and obnoxious; that the wall has to be flat with boulders and graded carefully; that the wall design concepts should be placed in the City's ordinance for hillside development; that the proposed wall has integrity; and that the applicant would be happy to compromise. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Buccino stated that four Palo Verde trees, which will not be seen from below, will be placed to screen the residence next door; that the trees are indigenous; that the rocks proposed are natural and manufactured. In reply to Commissioner Dotson's question, he stated that the guest house conditions have not had to be addressed in regard to the wall . Commissioner Edgmon asked if the other wall on the property could be camouflaged. Mr. Buccino stated that one way would be to make it stone. Discussion continued on the walls in the area. Planner stated that impacts of the guest house have disturbed the hillside; that an engineer will have to design the 9 ft. high retaining wall on the steep slope; and that there will have to be a reconfiguration of the hill- side. Mr. Buccino stated that the slope will be restored; that the wall will be a beautiful addition, not an intrusion; that the stairway will be cut care- fully into the slope; and that the owner does not want to disturb the site. Discussion followed on problems of the site. Commissioner Mills asked why the AAC changed conditions from the previous meeting and now approved the project. Planner stated that the Committee reviewed the changes as only adding boulders to the wall . Acting Chairman stated that there is much sloughing off in the spa area and wondered if the spa could be moved back. Planner stated that what is being constructed is a severe project and footings have to be dug and the site has to be restored. Mr. Buccino suggested that the City put conditions on the project to not disturb certain areas. Acting Chairman commented that he had concerns on the quantity of work and stated that it is visible. He stated that he was worried about the effect of all the changes. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 17 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0259-A. (Continued) Commissioner Hough also expressed concerns stating that because of the severity of the site, improvements will probably be made in the field and he was not sure of their appearance even if Mr. Buccino is a recognized landscape architect. He stated that he would like to see the concept of boulders and wall . Commissioner Dotson asked if a line of site study had been done on the parking area and its visibility from the valley. Planner stated that 3 ft. would be seen. Commissioner Dotson asked if the guest house conditions had an effect on the landscaping. Planner replied that the conditions of the guest house did not address the area specifically, but that the ordinance requires that disturbed areas be restored. Commissioner Edgmon stated that she was opposed originally and that the Commission needs to be definitive and protect the City's hillside resources. Commissioner Mills commented that all the work is for the applicant to put in a parking area for two cars and that the applicant has nine parking places now. He stated that the work required to put in two more parking places is too disruptive and also that he was against the trees on the east side of the wall , since they are out of place. He stated that the reason the wall is there is to hold the earth for the plants. Mr. Buccino agreed, but stated that also the house needs to have a place to end. Acting Chairman commented that the work should progress a little at a time because it is difficult to see what conditions of approval are appropriate. Commissioner Dotson commented that he did not want a walkway and additional parking and that a restudy is necessary. M/S/C (Dotson/Mills) for a restudy to eliminate the walkway and parking area and to have more definite plans for the patio/pool area and land- scaping. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Mills, Dotson Noes: Olsen, Hough, Edgmon Absent: Lapham, Whitney The motion failed. Mr. Buccino stated that there is no addition of landscape, only the rocks and the mountain. He stated that Palo Verde trees would be used and that what is proposed is less obtrusive than what exists. He stated that an appropriate desert water system would be installed. Commissioner Dotson commented that the Palo Verde trees are not indigenous. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 18 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0259-A. (Continued) Mr. Buccino agreed, but stated that there are existing Palo Verde trees. Commissioner Mills commented that the purpose of the trees is to shield Mr. Cheroske's lot; that the applicant should not shield the neighbor's view because it is a hillside situation. He stated that people below will see the trees. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Mills/Dotson dissented; Lapham/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the small wall be resolved with staff (guniting is to be considered) . 2. That the existing landscaping on the upper portion of the property be changed to natural landscape materials. 3. That the parking area walk and spa area are approved. 4. That the existing stucco wall be rock faced to integrate with the existing rock. 5. That the four Palo Verde trees proposed to screen the neighboring properties be deleted. 6. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 7. That a desert irrigation system be installed. NOTE: Commissioners Mills and Dotson dissented because they were opposed to the walkway and parking area. CASE 5.0463-PD-195. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Desert Sun News- paper for Planning Commission review of plaster specifications for a news- paper publishing facility on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Road/Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Planner (Evans) explained that one of the conditions of Commission approval was that the applicant return to Commission with stucco specifications and that the AAC voted 3-O to approve the specs. He stated that two members abstained feeling that the AAC should not take any action on stucco speci- fications. He stated that the applicant's changed from drive-it to stucco requires that they perform a high quality plaster job; that a 30 ft. wide panel will be placed on the building for quality control and reviewed for adequacy before the remainder of the building is stuccoed. He stated that the experts reviewed the plaster specs, &found that the specs are the best that can be written, but the application in the field will be the crucial test. Commissioner Mills stated that he voted against plaster because of the large area to be covered and because there will be consistency problems and cracks. He stated that a large surface requires a material that has August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 19 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.0463. (Continued) consistency built into it and that drive-it should have been the surface treatment. He stated the Maxim's Hotel is example of a poor stucco finish and that the Desert Sun condition will be the same, although he knew that the Council had already approved stucco. Commissioner Hough stated that he wanted drive-it too and the stucco will be only as good as its application. Acting Chairman commented that the building should have been a monument and that it is unfortunate that it is not. M/S/C (Hough/Mills; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving the application as submitted. 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 3.0428 (Continued) . Application by PERRY FREEMAN for architectural approval of revised plans for 168 room hotel (Compri ) on the corner of Tahquitz Way/Avenida Caballeros, C-1-AA/R-4-VP Zones (I .L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Planner (Evans) stated that one of the site plan issues is that the drive- way is not aligned with the driveway across the street which would affect the whole area of the hotel and that the applicant finds it difficult to change. He stated that the applicant, at his own risk, is willing to leave the driveway where it is and contact the property owner across the street to redesign his driveway alignment. He stated that the AAC also felt that detailing of the architecture, screening of air conditioning, and the depth and relief of the elevations were acceptable. Brad Nelsen, project architect, Phoenix, Arizona, stated that off-sets have been added to break the elevation, additional screening for the windows on the second and third floor and on the porte-cochere have been added; and that there is a 1 to 1.5 ft. relief across the building. He stated that the decorative grill work is bronzed metal which will be painted bronze- tone enamel to avoid pitting from sprinklers, and that the enamel will match the window frames. Acting Chairman questioned when the pool would be in the shade. Mr. Nelsen stated that it had not been calculated. Acting Chairman stated that in the winter the pool area will be in shade by 2:30 p.m. which would be unfortunate. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0428. (Continued) Mr. Nelsen replied that the pool shading was discussed at length and the pool was shifted to the east for more sun, but that the applicant feels that the hotel is a business travel-oriented one, not a destination resort, and the pool is only a convenience. Acting Chairman commented that when there is sun in the winter, the pool chairs are full around hotel pools. He stated also that people like to look at the mountains and the view is a wasted asset if people are not using the pool . Mr. Nelsen replied that several alternatives were studied, but if the plan were reversed the parking is in the wrong place and cannot be buffered. Acting Chairman commented that the shade falls from the mountain around 3:40 p.m. in the winter anyway. Commissioner Mills commented that the orientation of hotels to keep a pool in the sun has been discussed over and over again with applicants, but that the final decision lies with the developer, and often developers choose not to design this amenity. Commissioner Dotson asked if there were alternative plans if the ingress cannot be changed. Mr. Nelsen stated that if the alignment cannot be changed, the ingress will �.., be aligned with the parking lot and some landscaping will be deleted. Planner stated that a sewer study has been given to the City Engineer, and if there is a problem the applicant can appeal to the Council or come back to the Commission. He stated that the sewer study seems to be acceptable. Mr. Nelsen stated that one of the conditions was to extend the sewer line from Arenas to the site, but the sewer study shows the line can be connected to the Caballeros sewer line and impacts will be less than what was calculated for the site. He stated that the applicant does not want to put in a sewer line which he will not use. Planner stated that the study will be reviewed by the City Engineer immediately after approval of the project. M/S/C (Edgmon/Dotson; Hough/Mills dissented; Whitney/Lapham absent) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That painted enamel be used for the grill work. (A sample of the material to be provided during working drawing review, if possible.) 2. That drainage from the roof areas be internal through the walls. (No exterior downspouts or scuppers.) 3. That the working drawings be reviewed by the AAC. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0428. (Continued) 4. That the porte-cochere revision, in respect to the transition between the column and roof area, be reviewed by the AAC at any time prior to or during working drawing review. 5. That the landscape concept needs study, particularly along the street frontages, and the use of date palms as depicted in the elevations is encouraged. 6. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. NOTE: Commissioner Dotson dissented because he felt that the pool could be better located for sun and view exposure. Comissioner Mills dissented because he felt that the 1.5 ft. recessing does not remove the repetition problem. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0490-MISC. Commission review of a non-conforming restaurant use and related parking requirements for a hotel at 2249 N. Palm Canyon Drive, to determine whether the use is to continue, whether the use is to conform to current standards, or whether a time extension is granted. (The building has not contained a restaurant in excess of 180 days and the non-conforming status had lapsed. ) (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Planner (Patenaude) stated that staff recommends continuing the use of the space for retail purposes; that through the years the space was a series of restaurants; that no additional parking is required for retail but would be for restaurant use; that the applicant would be required to make up the difference between the parking requirements of retail and restaurant within 300 feet of the restaurant, perhaps by agreement with surrounding property owners; and that the restaurant is now vacant. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that the applicant has four spaces after the retail use is deducted which would mean 12 restaurant seats, and that there are approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of space in the building. Mr. Latimer, the applicant, stated that he wants 10 tables. Planner (Evans) stated that building has a very small kitchen and a large dining area. Planner (Patenaude) stated that if credit is given for the retail spaces the applicant would need at least 7 additional spaces for the restaurant. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. Mr. Latimer, the applicant, 2249 N. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that parking could be provided by agreement with Riccio's Restaurant (an old non-con- forming parking condition) . August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 22 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0490-MISC. (Continued) Commissioner Mills stated that the applicant would be forced to upgrade the parking. Planner (Evans) stated that if a restaurant is allowed the parking spaces have to meet current standards. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the existing non-conforming spaces would not have to be brought up to standards; that most of the spaces are bay parking which is not allowable to that street; and that there is no backup space on the north side of the property. He stated that these reasons are why staff is recommending retail use only. Mr. Latimer explained that the space is designed for a restaurant. Acting Chairman commented that the use can be allowed; that adequate parking must be provided; and that the parking requirement cannot be waived. In reply to Commission question, Planner Evans stated that the application is a public hearing and is published in the newspaper. Mr. Latimer commented that no one parks on either side of Palm Canyon at the restaurant's location; and that a vacant lot which is long on Palm Canyon frontage could be used for parking and also vacant fields in back of the building. He stated that valet parking could be arranged; that the building was built as a restaurant and there is really no other use for it; that the location is good since it would be the first restaurant in Palm Springs; and that without a restaurant income the hotel may have to close. He stated that he did not know there was a problem when he bought the building, and that he wanted to lease out the space as a restaurant. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Dotson commented that the hours could be limited to nighttime to facilitate parking (with parking agreements with owners of buildings not open at night) , and that the applicant cannot use a field. Commissioner Edgmon commented that parking across Palm Canyon from the restaurant is dangerous for patrons. Planner (Evans) stated that Commission approval is required on a joint agreement. Planner (Patenaude) , in reply to Commission question, stated that there was a restaurant in old business directories in 1979 and that no records of complaints have been kept for this use. Acting Chairman suggested continuance to allow agreements to be prepared and resolved with staff. Commissioner Edgmon explained that she thought a restaurant would be a good use, but not just for nighttime. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 23 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0490-MISC. (Continued) Mr. Latimer stated that either day or night would be a good use; and that he thought of a liquor/deli combination but did not feel it was a good idea because of the families in the Tramway Inn. In reply to Commission question, Planner (Patenaude) stated that the Commission could authorize the use as a restaurant without meeting current parking requirements. In explanation, the City Attorney stated that a non-conforming use can be reinstated after the 180 days of non-use; that the Commission has the power to approve, deny or reinstate subject to conditions; and that the Commission is not required to require current parking standards, and that the use can be reinstated to the previous use when it was a legal non- conforming one. He stated that if the Commission requires current parking standards, the action is not reinstatement of a non-conforming use. Commissioner Dotson stated that he would like to visit the site; that if there is only a small kitchen area, the space could be used for retail , and asked if the applicant had thought about conversion to hotel rooms. Mr. Latimer stated that it would be difficult because of the way the building is designed. Commissioner Mills noted that he would like to see what is inside, and that he is considering allowing the non-conforming use with parking as it was �...., before. Commissioner Hough agreed, and stated that the applicant should try to make some kind of parking arrangement agreement. M/S/C (Dotson/Edgmon; Whitney/Lapham absent) continuing the application to September 14 for Planning Commission individual field trips to review the inside of the building. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. No report given. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. None. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. August 24, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 24 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Acting Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. PLANNING IRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 14, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 4 1 Gary Olsen X 5 0 Barbara Whitney X 4 1 Brent Hough - 3 2 Martha Edgmon X 4 1 Chris Mills X 3 0 Mike Dotson X 2 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sherri Abbas, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning {aEorcement Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - September 12, 1988 William Johnson, Vice Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Mike Buccino Barbara Whitney, Alternate Martha Edgmon, Alternate Tom Doczi Will Kliendienst Brent Hough Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Mills/Olsen; Hough absent) approving minutes of August 24, 1988 with the following corrections. 1. Page 21, Paragraph 4, Case 3.0428 should read "Commissioner Hough dissented" . 2. Commissioner Mill ' s name was removed from AAC membership. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The September 14, 1988 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1 :30 p.m. , Friday, September 9. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 14, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 4 1 Gary Olsen X 5 0 Barbara Whitney X 4 1 Brent Hough - 3 2 Martha Edgmon X 4 1 Chris Mills X 3 0 Mike Dotson X 2 0 Staff Present Marvin D . Roos , Planning Director Sherri Abbas, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning {w#orcement Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - September 12, 1988 William Johnson, Vice Chairman Absent: Gary Olsen, Alternate Mike Buccino Barbara Whitney, Alternate Martha Edgmon, Alternate Tom Doczi Will Kliendienst Brent Hough Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Mills/Olsen; Hough absent) approving minutes of August 24, 1988 with the following corrections. 1. Page 21 , Paragraph 4, Case 3.0428 should read "Commissioner Hough dissented" . 2. Commissioner Mill ' s name was removed from AAC membership. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The September 14, 1988 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, September 9. i