Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/03/22 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall i March 22, 1989 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences i Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 16 2 Gary Olsen X 14 4 Barbara Whitney - 13 5 Brent Hough X 16 2 Martha Edgmon X 16 2 Chris Mills - 14 2 Michael Dotson X 15 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Doug Evans, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - March 17, 1989 (Friday) Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Reuel Young Will Kleindienst William Johnson Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Whitney/Mills absent) approving minutes of March 8, 1989 with the following correction : Page 4, Paragraph 8: Delete, "but there is no vehicular access" . (Case 3.0477) . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The March 22, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, March 17, 1989. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 2 I CONSENT ACTION AGENDA I Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Whitney/Mills absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0527 MINOR (Continued) . Application by the GREENHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA- TION for architectural approval of security gates for the Greenhouse Condo- miniums on Alejo Road/Hermosa Drive, R-G-A(8) Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions : 1. That the color of the wrought iron match the building trim. 2. That oleanders adjacent to the fence on the Hermosa Drive elevation be allowed to grow to 6 feet. 3. That the two parking spaces nearest the access control at the vehicle entrance be striped as "no parking" spaces. 4. That trees which were removed at time of Alejo Road improvements be replaced as previously required by the City. CASE 3.0053. Application by ED KANAN for reconsideration of architectural approval of revised roof tile for an apartment complex on Ramon Road/Grenfall Road, R-2 Zone, Section 23. That the "S" tile, carports, revised colors and materials, and brick wall cap and incandescent lights are approved. CASE 3.0532. Application by INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION for architectural approval of single-family dwelling at 500 Via Miraleste, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0537 (MINOR) . Application by MARIOTT CORPORATION for architectural approval of additional exterior lighting parking area at the northeast corner of Hermosa Road/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone, Section 14. Exterior Lighting: Approved subject to the following conditions: Light standards shall be 2 feet shorter than existing light standards located in front of hotel but no higher than 12 feet 0 inches. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0537 (MINOR) . (Continued) Additional wall : Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the front portion of wall be stucco. 2. That the new wall turn and run parallel to street and terminate with a column using material to match the existing walls. CASE 3.0541 (MINOR) . Application by SBS, INC. for architectural approval of a modular home at 400 W. Mesquite Avenue, W-P-3 Zone, Section 22. Restudy noting the following: 1. Applicant must provide all four elevations. 2. Details on proposed buildings must match existing building. 3. Applicant shall provide pictures of the existing house. Abstention: Lapham. CASE 3.0545. Application by INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION for architectural approval of single-family residence at 535 Via Colusa, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0549. Application by PALM SPRINGS REGIONAL AIRPORT for architectural approval of seasonal banners for Airport Loop Road, A Zone, Section 12. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0503-CUP. Application by GREGORY/PIO PARTNERSHIP for , architectural approval of a revised parking plan for a day care center on the northwest corner of Gene Autry Trail/Chia Drive/Via Roberto Miguel , W-R-1-C Zone, Section 7. Approved as submitted. �„� Abstention: Dotson. I , Ii i March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4 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 3.0477. Application by DAVID CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of revised plans for Tony Roma 's Restaurant, Palm Canyon Drive between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Abbas) discussed the revised plans on the board and stated that the buildings are dramatically different from plans reviewed on March 8; that the site plan has changed and parking increased from 130 spaces to 137 spaces which is more than is required; that the Roma's building and building A are in the same location as the original submittal but parking and landscaping changes have occurred in the back. Commissioner Olsen asked if there were outdoor dining. David Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon, project architect stated that there is outdoor dining beneath the awning in the front. Commissioner Hough asked about phasing; Commissioner Edgmon questioned the exposed blank wall . Mr. Christian replied that although there is interest in building A there is no tenant but that building A will probably be started before Roma 's is finished; that there may be a free standing building for awhile; that the building can be built without a fire wall ; that the wall standing now is not part of the adjacent bank structure; that Roma's will do a reasonable finish on the exposed wall ; that the client wanted to ask questions about the dedication requirements on Indian and Ramon; and also wanted to get more retail on the site. He stated that although staff has been working to get a larger building the client has questions about pushing the retail building back because of the dedications. Commissioner Dotson stated that if building A were not built, he was con- cerned about the north elevation. Mr. Christian replied that it would be a blank plastered wall , but that the probablity is that the adjacent building will be built. He stated that it would be reviewed by the Commission. Larry Alman, Manhattan Beach, the applicant, stated that his inclination would be to build building B along with Roma 's because it will probably lease quickly, but that the demand for space is not occurring at the present time, and that a shell could be built along with Roma's so that there would not be a blank wall . He stated that he felt that the required dedications of 15 ft. on Ramon and 10 ft. on Indian and the requirement for curb and gutters, sidewalks, and signals, are excessive; and that the dedication will remove the corner retail (or professional ) space; that he ." wanted to get approval of Roma's building and building A or B and discuss the site plan conditions, the dedication, and the possibility of i March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0477. (Continued) building a smaller building at the corner of Ramon and Indian; and that improvements will be made to the parking lot and to the landscaping. Chairman explained that the Palm Springs Saving Bank had to dedicate 10 ft. on Indian. Planning Director stated that he would have to check the dedication on the Thrifty's complex because he did not know whether 15 ft. were required in their remodel in 1974. He stated that dedication is required on new con- struction and that improvements are required city-wide. Chairman explained that the requirements were not unusual and in alignment with the General Plan; and that the neighboring properties were required to make dedication to bring streets into compliance with the General Plan. Planning Director stated that moving the curb on Indian Avenue might be deferred until the curb is moved along a major section. Chairman stated that allowing an additional building on the corner would depend on its use. Mr. Alman stated that the building would not be built until there was a tenant and probably would be a retail store or professional building which would be an attractive addition to the corner. He stated that Roma's would be open for lunch and dinner. Chairman stated that dual purpose parking is usually allowed for restaurants. Mr. Alman stated that the main business and bar business would be in the evening. He asked about the 50 ft. dedication off Ramon because the building on the corner would have no room for a sidewalk. He asked if dedication requirements were common. Chairman stated that the curb would be built out to the public right-of- way so there there would be room for a sidewalk, and that dedication is always required for new construction/onntiguously owned property. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the owner is responsible for landscaping on the dedicated land and that the issue of the corner building would have to be reviewed since it would not meet setbacks nor parking requirements . He stated that probably not all uses would be operating at all hours, but if portions were only open at night, a building on the corner could be considered. Chairman suggested that egress off Ramon be deleted to give more room for the building and since the most intense use of Roma's would be at night, the applicant could consider dual parking. Mr. Alman stated that the size of the corner building could be scaled down to 2500 sq. ft. and that the architect would comment on Romas's service area. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0477. (Continued) Mr. Christian stated that the buildings were designed as a unit with Roma's building being first and the others later; and that if the second building is not built, a walled enclosure will be designed for the service area. He stated that the applicants are receptive to the idea of a shell building along with Roma 's. Commissioner Dotson stated that if Romas's is approved, there will not be a service yard regardless of the intensity of the use. Planning Director stated that staff will bring the application back to the Commission if necessary, and that the area could be turfed or landscaped in the interim. Mr. Christian stated that the service yard would be built at the beginning. M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Mills/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That final working drawings be approved by the Commission prior to issuance of a permit. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347 (Continued) . Application by VACATION INTERNATIONALE LTD. for a planned development district and tentative tract map for 66- unit time share project at the Oasis Water Park Villa Hotel (formerly Cherokee Village) , 4190 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-G-A-8 Zone (I .L.) , Section 30. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the application subject to conditions. Planner (Evans) stated that the application was continued for further research into the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) ; that the City Attorney determined that the project would be subject to the tax; that the components of the application include a planned development district and a map; that only four sales had been made originally and nothing has been heard from the four property owners; that the particular use is a time- share use privilege vs. an estate (land) timeshare; that a marketing program has a potential for conflict although there is no intent to bring in large numbers of people; and that a parking management program will be required for managing parking at the peak use of the property. Chairman declared the hearing open. i I March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) i CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347 .(Continued) . (Continued) Bonnie Guss, 801 E. Tahquitz, attorney representing the applicant and the Oasis Water Resort Hotel , stated that the goals of the project were summarized well by the planner; that the clients accept the conditions. She stated that a representative of the project, Landon Estep, and Jim McGillvrie, the project engineer were present. Jim McGillvrie, Sanborn-Webb Engineers, stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions except for the requirement for a 10 ft. setback on the common lot building. He stated that the s tback is almost 10 ft. around the tennis courts, and this could cause a problem. Planner stated that the adjustment could be made with an agreement between staff and the applicant. Landon Estep, Bellview, Washington, stated that there would be no difficulty with the conditions; that the conditions relate to the original conditions of approval except for the restaurant conditions since the restaurant was not built; that any conditions not completed will be; that the marketing program involves bringing people in to stay at the resort while a sales presentation is made; that people will not be coming on a day to day basis; and that the volume of people will not be any different from the original resort use. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Hough asked if the TOT issue were resolved. Planning Director replied that it was not at the present time. He stated that any time there is payment for lodging of less than 30 days the TOT would be collected. Planner stated that the correct number for parking required is 378 and the correct number for parking provided is 417. Commissioner Dotson asked why the tennis courts were not included in the common use area and also if the time share were excluding the use of the courts. Planner stated that the timeshare users will have use of the courts in a reciprocal arrangement with the hotel and that there will be no separate gates. Planning Director stated that the application would be voted on only for a map and a planned development district and that the original resort use was approved under a CUP. M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Whitney/Mills absent) approving PD-200 and TTM 24347 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the timeshare and resort hotel uses applied for at the location set forth in the application is property one for which a Planned March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347 (Continued) . (Continued) Development District and Conditional Use Permit are authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the proposed timeshare use is an acceptable resort use for the development of the community, is in harmony with the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. 3. That the proposed 25.7 acre site is adequate in size and shape and design to accommodate all necessary improvements. 4. That the site is located on Cherokee Way, a collector roadway, and E. Palm Canyon Drive, a state highway, both of which are improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the development. 5. That conditions of approval have been required which are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. That the proposed three lot tract map complies with all property development standards. 7. That all notifications as required by Section 9315.00 have occured. 8. That the subject property has operated as a resort hotel since 1986 and no adverse impacts have been identified. 9. That on-site management services will be provided. Conditions: 1. That the project comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with specific emphasis to Section 9315.00. 2. That Case 5.0505-PD-200 is a planned development district for the proposed timeshare use incorporating an existing conditional use permit for the remainder of the property for hotel use. All conditions referenced in Case 5.0417-CUP shall be implemented. 3. That a parking management program be provided which addresses peak use and/or occupancy. Said management plan shall provide for on-site parking for all condominiums, timeshares, restaurant, meeting rooms, employees and prospective buyers. Off-site parking may be approved by the Planning Director. 4. That the developer install one undersidewalk drain under the meandering bicycle path fronting East Palm Canyon Drive. The location shall be determined by the Public Works Inspector, and the design shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5. That the Department of Real Estate Public Report/Permit and project codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) shall inform prospective buyers that the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Section 9315.00 March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347 (Continued) . (Continued) requires compliance with the provisions of Chapter 3.24 of Palm Springs Municipal Code. This chapter requires payment of transient occupancy tax. Copies of the public report and CC& R's shall be pro- vided to the City. 6. That all proposed lot lines on the proposed TTM shall provide a 10 foot setbak to all structures inclusing tennis courts. 7. That prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit an amended planned development district application and legal description which fully describes the entire Oasis Resort Villas property and operation. This information shall be submitted prior to City Council consideration of these applications. 8. That prior to close of any escrow on any unit a smoke detector inspection is required per City code. Said inspection is to be done by the Fire Department. (Therefore, depending on time frame restric- tions, contact the Palm Springs Fire Department as soon as possible at 619/323-8186.) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Concurred with the findings outlined in Planning Commission staff report dated March 22, 1989. 2. Approved the request for a Planned Development District (PD-200) and approved Tentative Tract Map 24347, subject to the conditions recommended in staff report dated March 22, 1989. The Tribal Council also approved a Conditional Use permit for establishment of a time share use within parcel 1 of TTM 24347 and PD-200. CASE 5.0507-CUP. Application by ADRIAN GUEVERA & ASSOCIATES for a conditional use permit for a dance studio and nightclub at 1243 Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Tachevah Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the application subject to conditions. Planner (Goodwin) gave the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a non-alcoholic nightclub use at the present time and that staff recommends a condition be added: that the parking lot lighting level be verified by an engineer for nighttime usage. In reply to Chairman's question, she stated that the applicant is requesting a non-alcoholic use and that for a alcoholic use he would have to reapply. Chairman declared the hearing open. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0507-CUP. (Continued) M.D. Bronroueaou , 215 N. E1 Cielo, stated that he was a new local business man in the area; that the City needs a meeting place for people of all ages, even though the applicant is taking a chance economically by not serving alcohol ; that there is a lack of places for people to meet in the City and they go downvalley; and that places such as the nightclub will help put Palm Springs back on the map. Linda Elson, Desert Dance Studio, next door to the nightclub, stated that the addition of the dance studio and nightclub would be an enhancement and will center dance activity in one area; that everyone is looking forward to the establishment of the club; and that it will be good for the community, non-drinking adults and also for children. Adrian Guevara, 1243 Gene Autry Trail , stated that after he quit smoking and drinking he found that there were many others who neither smoked nor drank, and that that is the reason he is taking a chance in investing money in a nightclub without alcohol ;that he has always liked new concepts and wants to act on his ideas; that non-drinkers want entertainment, too; that most of the nightclubs are tourist traps; that the nightclub would be the first in the desert with no alcohol ; that the use will provide entertain- ment for the whole family; and that he owns a liquor license but is selling it. Antoinette Revell , 5711 West 74th Street, Los Angeles, stated that she owned property north of the dance studio and has no objections to the concept but concerned about the parking and about destruction of property from loiterers and cars. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Planning Director stated that the parking will be adequate for the occupancy load during nighttime use; that there is some car connection to other properties in the parking area, but the way the lot is designed it is not convenient to park off the property; that Mrs. Revell could chain her parking area off if she desires. Planner stated that the building is 3600 sq. ft. with adjacent 3600 sq. ft. to be used in the future; and that parking is based on the occupancy capa- city of 216 persons. Commissioner Olsen stated that removing an age restriction is a concern although if alcoholic beverages are involved later, the applicant would have to meet State requirements (with City monitoring) . In reply to Commissioner Edgmon's question, Planning Director stated that utie nightclub will serve snacks only and is leaving the liquor license question open for later, which use would be regulated by the State. He stated that the application for a CUP is for a nightclub whether or not it serves alcohol ; and that the CUP could be reviewed by the Commission if there are problems. Assistant City Attorney stated that the state regulates alcohol and pre- empts City regulations. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0507-CUP. (Continued) Planning Director reiterated that the application is for a nightclub, not a teenage nightclub. Commissioner Dotson asked about parking adequacy if the other uses are open at the same time. Planning Director stated that the overall balance of the parking would have to remain adaquate and that the conditions are on the night parking for the owner; that the reality could be that other persons are open occasionally at night; and that if no conflict develops there will not be a problem. He stated that M-1-P uses generally close at 5:00 p.m. and parking should balance. Commissioner Olsen asked about the controversy of the club previously because of cars using Tamarisk Road. Planning Director stated that there were complaints about low frequency noise of the music and about teenagers loitering in the area in front of homes. Chairman asked if the original nightclub were adjacent to a residential area. Planning Director stated that although the distance to residences is L.�. similar the nightclub is more isolated and if disturbances occur the CUP could be reviewed again. M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Mills/Whitney absent) approviing CUP 5.0507 based on the following finding and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the consideration of a dance studio and night club facility under a conditional use permit in this location. 2. That the use complements the resort function of this City and is in harmony with the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. 4. That the site relates to streets and highways properly designed to carry the traffic to be generated by the proposed use. 5. That the conditions imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Conditions• 1. That the night club be operated only after the hour of 5:00 p.m. The .,. remaining units shall be closed during the period the night club is open. 2. That the dance studio be operated only during daytime hours. i March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CASE 5.0507-CUP. (Continued) 3. That based on available parking, the maximum occupancy of the night club shall be limited to 216 persons. 4. That the conditional use permit remain valid only on the condition that the night club be the only night time function in the building and that all parking is available to the night club. 5. That the CUP be reviewed in six (6) months time to determine if parking is adequate and if additional parking will be necessary when expansion of the facility is proposed. 6. That the parking lot lighting level be verified by an engineer for night- time usage. TPM 23755 (REVISED) . Application by THE HOLT GROUP for a revised tentative parcel map for a three-lot subdivision for property located at the west end of Camino Alturas/Camino Monte, R-1-B Zone, Section 27. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve TPM 23755 (Revised) . Planner (Abbas) stated that all the parcels are larger than required and there is no longer a need for a variance. She showed access to the lots on the board and stated that no grading will be allowed until the house plans for the three lots are submitted. Chairman declared the hearing open. John Rupe, Newport Land Development, on E. Tahquitz Way, Palm Springs, stated that the revised map contains three parcels instead of four and meets requirements, and that he was requesting that conditions be removed that pertain to original map. Gary Pike, Project Engineer, 275 N. El Cielo, requested that the requirement for submittal of a grading plan by Registered Engineer be deleted since the lots can be sold without grading and also requested that the drainage, storm water flows, and hydrological conditions be deferred until the lots are developed. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Commissioner Dotson's question, Project Engineer stated that a pumping system may have to be developed to accommodate a sewer. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Mills/Whitney absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TPM 23755 (Revised) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: �,., Findings March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 23755 (REVISED) . (Continued) 1. That the proposed 3 lot subdivision is in conformance with the pro- visions of the R-1-B Zone. 2. That the proposed parcel map complies with the General Plan, Subdivi- sion Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to existing or future uses permitted in the area. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate future uses including yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping and other features reqired to adjust the use to existing or permitted uses of land in the neighborhood. 4. That the site is served by Camino Alturas, a local street, which is capable of carrying 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 all of the Development Committee conditions dated January 23, 1989, as amended shall be met. 2. That all of the mitigation measures of the environmental assessment for TPM 23755 shall be met. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Bronston, 5275 Lakeside Drive, asked for a variance from the ordinance requirement for limiting fence heights to 6 ft. since he has a protective netting over 6 ft. high to stop golf balls. Planning Director stated that Mr. Bronston has no grounds for a variance. Mr. Bronston showed pictures of the protective netting on the golf course and the damage to the net in a wind storm. He stated that he received a code violation; that there are 6 other nets on the golf course; that if they are taken down, serious injury will result and that the netting is not an eyesore. Chairman explained that the meeting is still in conflict with the existing fencing ordinance; that there is no application to review and suggested that Mr. Bronston ask about changing the ordinance before the City Council . He stated that if the fence is allowed, nets will be erected all over the City; and that there is no document for the Commission to legally act upon. Planning Director stated that under the circumstances a clear ordinance exists about golf course fencing; and that there are no grounds for a variance such as topography or lot size.He stated that the protective March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) netting has to be out of the setback and suggested that the Commission review the netting at a study session. Chairman suggested that staff photograph all netting on the 18-hole golf course. Planning Director stated that an ordinance is not changed because there are people violating it; that part of the idea of fairway lots is to create continuity of the open space; and that these types of fences are unattractive. Chairman stated that in some cases the fairways are narrow. Planning Director commented that the fairways have not changed since the owners bought their homes. Mr. Bronston explained that the placement of tees and greens have changed and fairways #10 and #11 need the protective netting. Assistant City Attorney sated that the Commission could direct staff to review the situation and determine the relationship of the homes adjacent to the golf course to the course and decide whether or not the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance creates a dangerous situation. He stated that this recommendation could be given to the City Council . Manuael Acosta, 2040 Pebble Beach Drive, stated that a golf ball hit him in the head and that he was treated for 30 minutes by two doctors, one of whom had hit the ball ; that children play in the backyard and without the netting it is a dangerous place and showed damage by golf balls to his house. He asked that the netting be allowed. Chairman stated that violations should be photographed, and that the issue should be placed on a study session agenda. Planning Director stated that other courses might have to be reviewed and that part of the reason these violations have not been discovered is because most of the Planners do not golf and have not found the violations . Chairman suggested that a protective ordinance be developed. Planning Director stated that the particular alignment and play of a golf course might be the grounds for a variance or perhaps an AMM could be used for more control . He stated that staff would explore the issue and put it on the April 19 study session agenda. March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15 -ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM CASE 3 0536. Application by RHODA MCCULLOUGH for architctural approval of a single-family hillside residence at 2262 Leonard Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Planning Director explained that the case was posted 72 hours before the meeting (but not 72 hours before the AAC meeting) and is not an added starter. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission has to take formal action on the recommendation of the AAC. Planner (Goodwin) stated that the pad height should be determined because the pad was placed without a permit; but that the AAC felt the pad was sensitive to the hillside. Planning Director stated that the setback modifications by the applicant when he formed the pad probably are not justifiable (10 ft. off Via Olivera instead of the required 20 ft. and 20 ft. off Leonard instead of the required 25 ft.) . He stated that the house could be moved to the south which would involve more grading; that the house would be close to the property line; and that it is on a hillside. Chairman asked if it were a hardship for the applicant to meet the setback requirements. Ray Dishner, Cathedral City contractor, stated that the house is on a three degree slope; that the applicant does not want the house in the flood plain; and that a setback of 10 or 12 feet is necessary to keep the house away from the gully. He stated that the gully next door has been filled with debris and requested again that he be allowed 10 feet or less. Planning Director stated that staff recommends a 10 ft. setback in this particular case. Mr. Dishner stated that the house is sunken into the rock in the corner of the property but could be moved toward the gully 2 or 3 feet. Planning Director stated that the grading is new since 1983. Mr. Dishner stated that compaction tests have been made and the house location recommended by the engineering firm who did the compaction testing; and that a compaction report will be given. Planning Director stated that the grading situation shown is what is existing and is probably what was there naturally. Chairman stated that the house at the 10 ft. lot line would not be offensive. Commissioner Dotson stated that it could become more significant if it were within the setbacks. i March 22, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEM (Continued) CASE 3.0536. (Continued) After discussion regarding the setbacks, Chairman stated that there was ample setback for the house in its proposed location. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Mills/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setback on Via Olivera is approved at 10 ft. 2. That the final landscaping plan is to be approved by staff. 3. That the roof tile should have color variation. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be implemented. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. Use of Balloons to Promote Events. Council agreed that there should be an organized effort rather than a sporadic use if it is allowed at all . COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. - Planning Commission Field Trip. Planning Commission will take a field trip on April 12 to review night lighting on hillsides, landscaping and signs. The group will meet at City Hall Planning Division parking lot to begin the trip. Time will be announced. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNNENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 12, 1989 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 17 2 Gary Olsen X 15 4 Barbara Whitney X 14 5 X 17 2 Brent Hough 17 2 Martha Edgmon X Chris Mills X 15 2 Michael Dotson X 16 0 Staff Present John Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Ron Salz, Planning Technician (Temporary) John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Dean Lewis, Traffl,c Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - April 10, 1989 Brentjib.ugh, Chairman Absent: Reuel Young W#1 KTeindienst William Johnson Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Hough/Dotson) approving minutes f March 22, 198 with the following correction: Page 13, next to last paragraph under "Public Comments": change "meeting" to "netting" . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The April 12, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, April 7, 1989.