Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/10/25 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 25, 1989 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1990 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 8 0 Gary Olsen X 8 0 Barbara Whitney X 8 0 Brent Hough X 4 4 Martha Edgmon X 8 0 Chris Mills X 8 0 Michael Dotson X 8 0 Staff Present - Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director ! Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Atsistant Planning Director Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Dave Forcucci , Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary i Architectural. Advisory Committee - October 23, 1989 i Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino William Johnson Will Kleindienst Reuel Young Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon/Mills absent) approving minutes of October 11, 1989 with the following corrections: Page 4, Paragraph 6, CASE 3.0477. Add after "designed", "on Indian Avenue". Page 4, last paragraph, CASE 3.0477: Change "plans" to "plants" . Page 6, first paragraph, CASE 5.0522-PD-205: Add after . . ."issue at the Council " , "meeting" . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: �-- The October 25, 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, October 20, 1989. S October 25, 1989 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 (Whitney/Dotson; Edgmon/Mills absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0452. Application by ROBERTSON-SMITH for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation, exterior lighting plans, identification sign, and walls for retail/commercial/industrial complex on Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 19. Restudy of sign noting the following: i 1. That base or pedestal is needed. i 2. That black element is weak, needs more emphasis. 3. That letter style is weak, too blocky. 4. That reveals need to be increased. 5. That sign width needs to be increased. Continued landscaping to November 8 at the applicant's request. CASE 3.0484. Application by DAN MICLEA . for architectural approval of final working -drawings for a single family hillside residence at 2330 Tuscany Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0558. Application by MIKE GALLEGO for architectural approval of revised fina working drawings for auto repair on Oleander Road between Ramon Road/Camino Parocela, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That planter along north bay parking space be increased. 2. That trash enclosure be moved toward the gate, increase the planter area, and add a shade tree. CASE 3.0605. Application by ALI NIKSEFAT for architectural approval of revised final detailed landscape plans for a single-family hillside residence on the southeast corner of Fern Canyon Drive/Ramon Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Continued pending receipt of revised plans . i I I October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3 i CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0683. Application by GREAT AMERICAN MINI STORAGE for architectural approval of addition to existing mini-storage building at 960 Research Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. (Given Environmental Assessment previously in conjunction with TTM 8779.) Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That building H is deleted from plan. 2. That planter boxes should be restudied, suggest berming or revised boxes, and are subject to staff approval . 3. That landscaping should be included on north property line, suggest 10 ft. wide planter. 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0516 - CUP. Application by RANDY ROESCH for architectural approval of revised elevations for a light maintenance/vehicle cleaning/administrative office building for Roesch Bus Lines on Research Drive between Computer Way/Farrell Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Continued to November 8 pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.0626. Application by R. MARTIN for architectural approval of final land- scape plans for 4-unit apartment complex at 1965 S. Camino Real , R-2 Zone, Section 26. Approved subject to the following condition: That the plans in case file show the modifications. CASE 3.0662 (MINOR) . Application by ROCCO GAMBINO/TLC REALTY for architectural approval of removal of windows and repaint of Rimrock Shopping Center, CON Zone, Section 30. Approved subject to the following conditions: That paint sample be painted on building. Final determination on color selection to be made at that time. October 25, 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 3.0608 (MINOR). Application by SUNRISE VILLAGE for architectural approval of entrance wall at 1500 E. San Rafael Drive, PD-116, Section 35. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Goodwin) stated that the fence is 6 ft. high, made of redwood, and follows the property line of the coaches; that it can be seen from San Rafael ; that oleanders will be planted in front of the fence; that a very mature oleander hedge is on the west side to screen coaches on that portion of the fence. In reply to Vice-Chairman's question, Assistant City Attorney stated that one of the abstaining members of the Commission is counted to make up the quorum. Commissioner Dotson stated that a fence such as the proposed one would not be approved at the entry of any other property in the City, although he under- stood that there were extenuating circumstances because of lack of money on this particular project. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Lapham abstained; Mills/Edgmon absent) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.0679. Application by TED BAUM for architectural approval of single-family hi lside residence on Andreas Hills Drive between Bogert Trail/Redfovd Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Planner (Goodwin) stated that the AAC had concerns about the setbacks and felt that the house should be moved back 20 to 25 ft. ; that the adjacent house is 21.5 ft. back; and that the AAC also recommended chimney caps. Commissioner Hough stated that there was no consensus by the AAC on the distance the house should be moved back and that there is a concrete flood channel at the back which hinders relocation of the house. Planning Director stated that the color was recommended for restudy because the proposal is for stark white, which is glaring; that he been on the site to see the reason for location of the house; that there is a master bedroom with a view which will be restricted if the house is moved too far back; that 25 ft. back will place the house against the drainage ditch and that the closest point of the house is approximately 10 to 12 ft. from the property line. Mark Durkton, 1480 Palm Tree Drive, Palm Springs stated that the house is oriented so that the side faces the street; that if moved back there would be dead space at the channel ; that the adjacent house has a drainage ' channel which is farther back which allows more room to place that house; and that there is no problem with location of the wall at the property line. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0679. (Continued) Commissioner Dotson asked if the pad is on a knoll . Planning Director explained that the pad is benched; that the house is 16 ft. high from the property line at the closest point from street grade; that the condos across the street are setback 29 ft. to the face of the garage; and that the topo drops on the site. He stated that there is 21 ft. from the face of the curb and that some movement and re-orientation could probably be done without changing the characteristics of the site. Mr. Durkton stated that the drainage channel on the colored plan is from another lot. Chairman suggested that the house be moved 25 ft. back from the face of the curb to give the visual effect of an adequate setback. Commissioner Whitney left. M/S/C ((Hough/Olsen; Mills/Whitney/Edgmon absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: : �..- 1. That the front yard setback should be increased to 25 feet from face of curb. 2. That the chimney needs chimney caps. There should not be an exposed spark arrestor. 3. That final landscape and fence plans be approved by the AAC and Planning Commission. 4. That the color be restudied. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met except the requirement for collection of drainage fees which is not applic- able to sites in this area of the City. Commissioner Whitney returned. CASE 3.0688. Application by BRUZZI INC. for architectural approval of revised exterior revisions to the Desert Fashion Plaza for a restaurant/bar on N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Abbas) stated that the application was restudied; that the AAC reviewed two proposals at its October 23 meeting and recommended #2 which October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0688. (Continued) has doors opening out toward the space and fixed windows which resemble doors; and that the AAC has felt there was a circulation problem and thought the Commission should determine how the outdoor dining should be designed. I j Commissioner Edgmon entered. i Planner stated that the second column of the overhang is 16 ft. from the face of the building; that the Hamburger Hamlet Restaurant has clay pots defining its outdoor dining area; that if the dining areas stops at the first column the existing circulation will remain; that the dining is expended to the second column the circulation would change and that the additional area created would have to be filled in; that no pattern estab- lished by the sidewalk and there is no concern about destroying a sidewalk pattern in the arrangement of the outdoor dining; that probably no more than four restaurants will be allowed at the Desert Fashion Plaza, and that this is the fourth; and that the AAC felt that landscaping should not be removed. Commissioner Olsen stated that landscaping deletion would not be a problem because of the wide area; that the dining should be extended to the second column and that Brentano's business should not suffer because of the arrangement. Planner stated that people waiting for tables could shop at the bookstore. Commissioner Hough stated that he did not/have about extending the dining to the second column and eliminating some landscaping; that the Hamburger Hamlet outdoor dining has always looked temporary and that the permanence of the outdoor dining will result from the type of furniture, the grouping, and the installation. Commissioner Dotson stated that it is difficult to understand the whole picture of the pedestrian flow because information is received out of con- text; and that outdoor dining should look permanent. Bruce Saiber, 543 Tercero Circle, the applicant, stated that merchants have not expressed a perception that the outdoor dining will disrupt business; that the Fashion Mall opinion is that the outdoor dining should extend to the second columns and will increase business; that he had met with the owner; that the City is in favor of outdoor dining and extension of the sidewalk, but does not want a temporary appearance; and that he can provide the maintenance and assurance of permanence. Chairman stated that the restaurant's outdoor dining should be extended to the second column and a restudy made of the appearance to determine that it �.. has a permanent and elegant look. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0688. (Continued) M/S/C (Hough/Dotson; Mills absent) approving the concept of outdoor dining subject to the following; conditions: 1. That an overall plan for the frontage of the Fashion Plaza be pro- vided. 2. That more permanent planters be used. 3. That installation of the outdoor dining be restudied noting Commission concerns about a permanent appearance and elegance. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0519-PD-203. Application by CONGRECARE INC. for a Planned Development District for an elderly care facility on Sunrise Way between Amado Road/Desert Palms Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 13. (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 the application subject to conditions. Planner (Goodwin) stated that people density was used for calculations for the number of beds (maximum number of units by right of zone multiplied by the average number of persons per unit from census figures for Palm Springs) and that this calculation resulted in 46 units and with a density bonus of 20% the number of allowable units or persons would increase to 55 people on a 1 person occupancy per room basis. She stated that staff recommends redesign of the ends of the circular drive to increase land- scaping; that the curb cuts are too wide; and that the facility is marketed toward the elderly frail in their 70's and 80's who generally do not drive. Chairman declared the hearing open. Jack Hollander, 616 N. Walden Drive, Beverly Hills, project architect, stated that the design is residential rather than institutional ; that all units face into a large courtyard; that there are glass openings in the corridors for light; and that privacy is maintained by facing units inward rather than outward; that there is a reflective pool and a porte-cochere which make the facility resemble a country club; that the building has been lowered to one story in the back to reduce impacts on the condominium project behind the facility; that the residents will be up to 85 years in age and may need some help in care but do not require institionalization; that driveway entrances will be narrowed and additional landscaping pro- vided on two corners; that the kitchen area will be hidden from view by landscaping, and that there is communal dining. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0519-PD-203. (Continued) Steve Moran, Congrecare representative, 24594 Sunnymead Blvd. , Moreno Valley, stated that the residents do not have acute medical problems but are frail and they will be assisted with medication and have communal dining. Commissioner Dotson asked about a single elevator in a two story facility in case of emergencies. Mr. Hollender stated that there is one large elevator which is what has been required on other facilities. Mr. Moran stated that no one housed on the second story will be on a walker and can exit by stairs; and that the building is fire sprinklered. i Olga Tieg, representing the owner of the property stated that the project would add architectural interest and would improve and enhance the City. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Dotson asked if the architecture in the renderings were to be approved. Planning Director explained that the front elevation on the board recalls the artist renderings; that the Commission is acting upon both the concept and building mass; and that the signage and architecture will be reviewed at a later date. Commissioner Hough stated that he liked the architecture and concept but was concerned about servicing the kitchen area because of truck deliveries, cleaning of the grates and grills and meeting requirements of a commercial kitchen; and that there is no definite area designed for it on the plans. He stated that the servicing area should be hidden from the street. Commissioner Dotson stated that a 20% density increase has been given; and that the units are expensive; and asked:. if housing and low income needs are being met. He stated that this requirement should be demonstrated by the applicant. Planning Director stated that by allowing a 20% density increase, a rent structure has to be provided by the applicants for filling low income requirements; and that the requirement can be reviewed in final development plans. Mr. Moran stated that he is committed to servicing low-income housing and will allow a certain number of residents in this category, and that the units will rent from $1600 to $1700 per month including meals, transporta- tion, and provision of medication. Commissioner Edgmon noted that she was concerned about only one elevator for the people on the second floor and asked about design criteria. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0519-PD-203. (Continued) Mr. Moran replied that the facility is licensed by the State and that fire clearance has to be received from the State and local fire departments and that people with the most difficulty will be housed on the ground floor. Commissioner Hough stated that a building of four stories cannot legally use an elevator in a fire. Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Mills absent) approving Case 5.0519-PD-203 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. i j 2. That an elderly care facility is a suitable and desirable use for the community. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 4. That the size (61,160 square feet) and shape of the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. 5. That Sunrise Way is adequately designed to accommodate any traffic generated b this project. o ect. Y P J 6. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Conditions• 1. That all Development Committee conditions dated October 25, 1989, be met. 2. That the project be limited to a maximum of 55 occupants . 3. That the driveway widths be reduced. 4. That planter width be increased on north/south perimeter. 5. That sideyard setback must have variation. 6. That service aspects of kitchen functions receive increased attention and be screened from view. CASE 6.0371 VARIANCE (REF. CASE 3.0581) . Application by JAMES JEFFORDS, SR. for a variance from building setbacks from 12 ft. to 2 feet on east and south i I October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) .O'374 �0581.. CASE �. /3: Continued property lines for a carport and from 5 to 0 ft. on the west property line for a swimming pool setback and architectural approval for a single-family hillside residence on Southridge Drive, Lot 21, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commission approve variance Case 6.0371 and Case 3.0581. Planner (Goodwin) stated that the variance is required because of the nature of the terrain; that the variance will avoid further scarring of the surface; and that no more dirt will be moved. Assistant Planning Director stated that there is little left to grade on top; that the steep portions of the hillside will be undisturbed; that the pad is already graded; and that the retaining wall area is cut. Chairman Lapham stated the design of the house is very good architecture. Commissioner Whitney stated that there are several pools on the edge of hillsides in the area. Chairman declared the hearing open. James Jeffords, the applicant, stated that he is proud of the design; that the carport will not change anything on the site; that the wall would be required whether or not a carport were constructed; that the neighbors are pleased with the design; that the pool is hidden behind a wall ; and that there is little land with which to work. Commissioner Dotson asked if the pool could be installed without disturbing the natural grade. Mr. Jeffords stated that it could. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Assistant Planning Director stated that the footing is very large for the pool retaining wall and the hillside will be disturbed, but that the rock materials will be put back and landscaping worked around the rocks. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen; Mills absent) approving Variance 6.0371 and Case 3.0581 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That due to the substandard area and steep slopes applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) j CASE 6,._0371_13�058,1, (Continued) 2. That conditions of approval have been required which will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 3. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Condition: 1 That all conditions of the Development T a D to met Committee dated October 25 P 1989, be met. TTM 25112. Application by BARCON DEVELOPMENT for a tentative tract map for con- dominium purposes located on Avenida Caballeros/Saturnino Road, R-4 Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.0702-A) Planner (Abbas) stated that the south half of the Villa Caballeros project was approved, expired, and was reapproved; that the new portion will be condominiums instead of apartments; and that there were several residents of the original part of the Caballeros project present. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mr. Gold, Barcon Development, 4165 Eclectic, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that no apartments were involved and that condominiums were planned. Steve Carlton, representing Hacker Engineering, project engineer, stated that the firm will abide by and exceed the City requirements and will follow through on the development. Richard Duffy, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, manager of the original project, stated that the developer did not contact the residents of the original part of the development; that the residents were not notified of the hearing; that the developer should first meet with the residents about using their facilities and trying to absorb 72 new units . Bill Brown, 255 Avenida Caballeros, stated that the residents had no notice; that the project had been approved; that he was told that the sub- ject map was a "done deal "; that the residents had concerns about the impacts of the new project on the old and also about increasing the density from 25 units to 72; that the residents had no time to review the proposal ; that the old project was vacant and finally sold at auction; that the residents do not want the new units to be part of the original homeowners association; and that residents need to meet with the developer. Chairman asked about notification. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 25112. (Continued) Planning Director replied that there were two possibilities: 1) that the project may have been identified as an entire project and none of the existing units were notified, or 2) that the entire project was related to the previous ownership on the tax rolls and that staff would have to review the circumstances. Don Gorney, 255 Avenida Caballeros, stated that he bought his condominium as an escape; that he had been told when he bought his unit that there would be another phase developed near the original ; that the son of the developer is now proposing the new project; that there is a vast difference between one and two bedroom units because one bedroom units are tryst units and man times bought y ou t b corporations; that the developer should be Y 9 P � P required to develop two bedroom units; that he would fight the development of the new project; and that the developer should perform the original design or not build the project. Guy Azio, Villa Caballeros, stated that he bought in the complex because they were nice and close to town and; was told a "butterfly" development would be built identical to the first complex; that the current driveway causes problems with the present residents and will be further impacted when 72 additional units are built; that the driveway currently is a speed- way; that the residents want the "butterfly" to be built; that if the units are built the current residents want a division on the driveway because it is dangerous; and that the project should be continued for review by the residents. He stated that the residents should have been contacted by the developer as a courtesy. Beatrice Ott, Villa Caballeros, stated that her condo is beautiful ; that the residents were promised 59 units comparable to the existing units; that one bedroom units downgrade properties; that they are often used as party units; that there will be no guard gate, driveway, or wall for separation; and that the application should be continued. Josephine McCabe, 1080 La Verne and 102 Villa Caballeros, stated that she was not opposed to rentals because she leases her unit but she was told at the time of purchase that 59 units would be added and that 72 will lower property values and increase traffic. She stated that there is only one tennis court and one exercise room currently; that two pools are proposed in the new complex; that there is a possibility of maintenance fees being increased; that an explanation should be given the residents for the reasons for construction of one bedroom units instead of two; and that the residents want to keep the complex nice. Mary Minton, #113, 255 Caballeros , stated that she bought her unit five months ago and is very disappointed at the new proposal ; that homeowner associations are difficult to form because there are so many renters and with the new units it would be almost impossible; that the new complex could not be governed; and would destroy what has been started; that there is a safety factor with the additional units; and that the original butter- fly design should be built. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 25112. (Continued) Tom Rissuto, Villa Caballeros, stated that he was disappointed that the residents had not been notified by the developer of the new project and requested a continuance and direction by the City to the developer to meet with the residents. He stated that he had difficulty understanding why the residents were not on the tax rolls. Mr. Gold (rebuttal ) stated that he did not know the residents were not noticed and thought they were on the tax rolls; that there may have been a communication problem because the former property manager was told about the new proposal ; that the developer was not told the residents wanted a meeting; that the map represents subsequent phasing; that the common area was to be shared by everybody; that a new unforeseen project is not being proposed; that he did not know what was promised the residents; that they received a public report from the Department of Real Estate stating that there was no guarantee that the final development would be what was pro- posed originally; that he would be happy to continue the application for 30 days but that he did not want to be bound by a total agreement of the residents; and that if an impasse is reached with the residents he would like to be able to return to the City for processing. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman asked the reasons the developer did not contact the existing home- owners association. Planning Director stated that the City has on occasion been contacted by existing homeowners when there is a delay in phasing and revisions; that there had been a similar situation at the Canyon Heights development on S. Palm Canyon; that there is no requirement for a meeting or agreement with the existing homeowners; that - the tax rolls could be twelve months old, but are the latest available; that he had some questions about the notifi- cation list; that he would like to see that all the property owners involved are noticed and that staff would support a 30-day continuance for notification of the complete property owners list. Commissioner Whitney stated that she did not have a report that indicated a change in the size of the units. Planner stated that the units were addressed when the project was approved and that the map is a subdivision map for condominium purposes. Commissioner Dotson stated that he understood the reasons about the notifi- cation because it is sometimes difficult on Indian land; and that he appre- ciated the fact that the applicants are willing to delay the project, but that he did not understand why the north half of the final map was recorded. Planning Director stated that it is legal to record a final map on a phased project and that phasing is indicated in the recording by -1, -2, etc. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 25112. (Continued) a..r" Commissioner Dotson stated that the subject proposal is a separate map and a different project and that map approval does not change the architectural approval which was for a specific type of unit. Planning Director replied that the project was revised to meet market con- ditions and was approved; and that the subject map is a condominium map for the south half of the project which is somewhat different from the north phase. Commissioner Dotson stated that the architectural approval items are com- pleted; and there is now no addressing of the number of units. Commissioner Whitney asked about the approval of the architecture. Planner stated that the architectural approval was given in August by the Commis- sion for the south half of the project; and that the map is a public hearing on the expansion of that phase. Chairman stated that the overall design was approved a long time ago. Planning Director stated that public hearings are not required on archi- tectural approval cases, but that a map is; and that that is the point at which the public hearing comes into play. Commissioner Olsen stated that perhaps the system is faulty and if there is an original map, which is phased, residents probably should be notified at the point action will be taken. He asked for direction from the Assistant City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney stated that a tentative map was approved for the entire project which included built units and those intended to be built; that Phase 1 was developed on the north site of the center line and Phase 2 is proposed on the southern half; that Phase 1 has been finaled pursuant to the phasing scenario and rather than finaling Phase 2, the developers decided to amend the map, but in so doing they are really re-subdividing Phase 2 so that a new map has been submitted for that portion of it. Commissioner Olsen asked the reasons for architectural approval taking place before the amended map was approved. Assistant City Attorney stated that the amended map is coming before the Commission presently. Commissioner Olsen commented that the process should be reversed. Assistant City Attorney stated that there was no way of knowing that a new map was being submitted. Commissioner Hough stated that perhaps the process should be reviewed at a study session. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) k� TTM 25112. (Continued) M/S/C (Hough/Whitney; Mills absent) continuing the application to December 13. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commis- sion, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Concurred with the findings and conditions outlined in City Planning Staff report dated October 25, 1989. 2. Approved TTM 25112 for condominium purposes subject to the conditions referred to above. 3. Requested that further processing of this case be continued pending the applicant's payment of the Tribal Land Use Fee per Tribal Resolution No. 24-86. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. 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 ' 3.0584 (MINOR). Application by CURTIS SHUPE for Sommerset Springs for architectural approval of new entry gates at an existing condominium com- plex, 2601 Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. Assistant Planning Director stated that the AAC reviewed the new plan and approved it based on design of the entry only, but that there are land use issues involved - reduction in required parking overall and also reduction in the number of covered parking. He stated that 10�­underparking can sometimes be approved through an AMM procedure, but staff has never allowed a reduction in covered parking; that the applicants feel that they have a unique situation; that carports are constructed in certain areas and parking inboard all the way around; that the proposal is for a main entry with a turnaround which involves the loss of three covered parking spaces and one uncovered space to allow for a sliding gate, fountain and decora- tive paving; that the other gates proposed would be residential with no guest access; that the proposal is also for the removal of two parking spaces for two trash enclosures; that the number of required spaces is at the minimum allowed; and that there are no grounds for an AMM or for a variance. Commissioner Olsen asked if some of the residents park on the street. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 16 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0584 (MINOR). (Continued) Assistant Planning Director stated that he has never seen cars parked on the street. Curtis Shupe, project architect, 35325 Date Palm Drive, Cathedral City, stated that the AAC liked the solution; that four covered and four uncovered spaces will be removed which is only 5% of the total ; and covered parking is reduced from 90 to 86; that there is parking on the perimeter and enough uncovered parking; and that some of the uncovered parking space are not being used. Commissioner Dotson asked if the parking were assigned. Mr. Shupe replied that the parking is not assigned in the complex and that parking spaces on the perimeter cannot be covered because they would be in the setbacks which would be prohibited. Planning Director stated that an AMM cannot be approved because there are no grounds since the lot is not substandard. Richard Duffy, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, project manager, stated that the management has tried to assign parking for years but has met resistance from the homeowners; that the thirteen spaces on Gene Autry Trail are never used; that the residents feel that the parking design is unfair; that assigned parking is not part of the CC&R's and is the reason that the loss of four spaces which will not make a difference; that the money is avail- able; that the entry gates are for protection, enhancement and upgrade of the property; and that the residents want to complete the project and need the variance. Chairman asked Planning Director to explain the AMM requirements. Planning Director replied that the AMM does not allow reduction of covered parking but has an allowance of reduction of parking spaces overall ; that a variance is allowable with Commission action; that the on-site turnaround could be eliminated and the gates placed at the present entry point; that the removal of the turnaround would force cars to back onto Waverly Drive which is a collector street; and that if the gates were developed within the entry structure no spaces would be lost. He stated that staff might be able to solve the problem. and: that there would not be an overall problem of lack of parking but there is no ability for staff to reduce the covered parking and that sooner or later questions will be asked about the authority of removing the spaces. Commissioner Dotson asked the reasons for removal of the parking on the west side, but not anywhere else. Planning Director replied that the setbacks determine whether or not parking can be eliminated. Commissioner Dotson asked about hinged gates that lift up instead of sliders in order to save space. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 17 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0584 (MINOR). (Continued) Mr. Duffy replied that he investigated the hinged gate, but felt that it was dangerous. Chairman suggested continuance for a design solution and stated that a pre- cedent would be set if approval of the present design were given. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon; Mills absent) continuing application to November 8. 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 3.960. Application by the PALM SPRINGS MALL for architectural approval of exterior color revisions for a community shopping center on Farrell Drive between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Baristo Road, CSC Zone, Section 13. Planner Goodwin stated that the trim colors will be returned to the Commis- sion; that the proposal presently is showing only the two colors used on the Buffums building; and that screening in a peach color will hide the air conditioning equipment. Planning Director stated that the AAC (not the applicant) suggested bolder trim colors and that Buffums is painted the new colors. M/S/C (Hough/Whitney; Mills absent) approving the new color scheme (peach and terracotta) as submitted with additional study of accent colors. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 3.0473. Application by KATHE POLOS for architectural approval of a restaurant on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Mesquite Avenue/Sunny Dunes Road, W-C-1 Zone, Section 22. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action on environmental assessment/initial study only.) Planning Director explained that the order to file a negative declaration is a housekeeping item to complete the architectural approval application and that no comments have been received on the Notice of Preparation which was published in the newspaper. M/S/C (Olsen/Dotson; Mills absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0557 (MINOR) . Request by WINNERS for reconsideration of Commission denial of wrought iron grillwork and gated entry at 238 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B- D Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the request is not technically a reconsidera- tion but a re-request for approval of the Winners grillwork which was installed during Easter Week for control of the restaurant; that the owner had discussed the installation with an AAC member regarding staff approval but installed the grillwork without any permit or approval ; that the City denied the application for architectural approval ; and that staff recom- mends a denial without prejudice so the applicant can submit a revised application without a fee. Commissioner Olsen stated that the grillwork is inappropriate for the down- town. Gary Vess, 1457 Riverside Drive, stated that the grillwork is to secure the property to eliminate rowdiness and to gain control ; that staff has been asked about what can be done; that glass cannot be installed; that the grillwork color can be changed to make it more attractive; that the Police Department likes the wrought iron; and that the design is fashioned after existing wrought iron in the downtown. He requested information on the denial regarding whether or not it is the wrought iron or the color and stated that there is wrought iron other places downtown. He asked for suggestions. Commissioner Olsen stated that the AAC addressed the problem as being the style of wrought iron and the color; and that a redesign of the wrought iron can be submitted in a different color without fees. Mr. Vess stated that litigation is being pursued on the grillwork and removing it exposes seating and audio visual equipment to the street and Leo Miller Associates has been retained to design something for the area. He stated that removal has to be deferred until litigation is resolved. Chairman stated that it is the applicant's choice on whether or not the area should be secured; and that the AAC is opposed to the color and design of the wrought iron. He suggested that the applicant present a different way of securing the area. Planning Director stated that he would discuss the problem with the appli- cant and with an architect; and that perhaps the Redevelopment Agency could to fund a new design and that there is no approval of the seating or out- side activities which will also be discussed with the applicant. Assistant City Attorney stated that a code enforcement action is being pro- secuted by the City Attorney's Office on the existing wrought iron. Commissioner Whitney asked if the applicant could have a time period before taking down the wrought iron. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0557 (MINOR) . (Continued) Assistant City Attorney stated that he was not directly involved with the case; that the prosecution was delayed for presentation by the applicant before the Commission; and that if the application is denied, the wrought iron will be removed immediately because the court order exists and failure to comply will result in contempt of court and penalities. Commissioner Dotson asked if glass could be used; stated that the building looks worse all the time; and that the architecture is being lost. He asked if the seating has been calculated in order that in-lieu fees are paid. Planning Director stated that no seating had been calculated and that the outdoor use would be required to have a land-use permit and that he did not know the number of seats in the establishment. He stated that seating is calculated on the number of seats in the interior and that the former "Ruby Dunes" restaurant on the location was built to the property line and an outdoor dining area was made in a remodel . He stated that the CBD Zone requires a 10 ft. setback area across the front which cannot be enclosed because it is open space/indoor outdoor area although grillwork might not be construed as an enclosure. Commissioner Dotson stated that if a person cannot progress through an area, it is an enclosure. Planning Director stated that it is a technical matter because a person also cannot walk across a planter. M/S/C (Olsen/Dotson; Mills absent) denying the application without prejudice. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. E1 Cielo/Ramon Project. Approved as submitted after discussion on the number of driveways. San Rafael Street Name Change. Not approved. San Rafael name will remain. General Plan Meetings. Underway. Small attendance but interesting discus- sions. Word will be gotten out by contacting neighborhood groups for future meetings. October 25, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 20 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. Ocotillo Lodge-Orange Awning. Repaint approved at staff level but no orange awning or accent colors approved. Trim colors approved in dark burgundy and light mauve. Staff will investigate. Construction Wall at the Ho - Desert Fashion Plaza. Staff will review ecause Hop application has not proceeded but the construction wall remains. Canopy at the Old DMV Building on El Cielo. Illegal installation of canopy given to code enforcement. Farrell Drive Curve. Poor design but cannot be restriped because the striping would not follow the curve. Guardrails have been installed and signalization at Tachevah to slow cars down and closing off Tamarisk west of Farrell should help. i ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall November 8, 1989 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1990 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 9 0 Gary Olsen - 8 1 Barbara Whitney X 9 0 Brent Hough X 5 4 Martha Edgmon X 9 0 Chris Mills X 9 0 Michael Dotson X 9 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans , Planner Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas , Planner Architectural Advisory Committee - November 6,'1989 Brent Hough, Chairman William Johnson Will Kleindienst Reuel Young Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Hough/Dotson; Olsen absent) approving minutes of October 25, 1989 as submitted. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The November 8, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, November 3, 1989.