Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/01/27 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 27, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1981 - 1982 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Michael Harris, Chairman X 11 3 Carrie Allan X 13 1 Richard Service X 12 2 Paul Madsen X 12 2 Darel Harris X 12 2 David Christian X 11 3 Peter Koetting X 13 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Dotson, Planner I Douglas Evans, Planner III • Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - January 25, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Peter Koetting Hugh Kaptur James Cioffi Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton Earl Neel Absent: Paul Madsen Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the January 13, 1982 meeting, draft distributed, were unanimously approved, with the following correction: • Page 4, Condition 2 (Case 5.0175-GPA-B), substitute the word "amendment" for the word "change". January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 • Approval of Minutes - Continued Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried to amend the December 9, 1981 Minutes as follows: Page 22, second paragraph should read as follows: SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd.). Application by ROBINSON'S DEPT. STORE for architectural approval of two main signs for business at 333 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0215-ZTA (Cont'd.). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Zoning text ("O" Zone Ordinance) to specify special uses for certain structures, City-wide (previously reviewed for Commission determination.) (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA.) Planning Director stated that wording has been formulated that is not as specific as was presented originally to the Planning Commission two months ago and recommended adoption of the proposed wording. He stated that the list of specific uses may have to be amended or updated on occasion. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. • Commission discussion: Discussion followed on the appropriateness of the proposed wording as an ordinance and the list as a resolution. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried approving the following wording for the "O" Zone Ordinance: A.5 Governmental Public Facilites. Add "activities and functions normally associated with such facilities. A list of acceptable activities and functions shall be established for each public faciity in the City and adopted by resolution of the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried adopting by resolution the previously revised list of uses for various City facilities. CASES 5.0211 & 6.319-Variance & TTM 17899. Application by E. WILLIAMS (Watt Industries) for a CUP to allow construction of a seven unit timeshare/condominium project and a variance from rear yard setback and timeshare location requirements on the southeast corner of Arenas Road/Tahquitz Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 15. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval of cases & map.) January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 • CASES 5.0211 & 6.319 & TTM 17899 (Cont'd.) Planner III presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and discussion for Commission action. He stated that one letter had been received in opposition to the variance which objected to the loss of open space resulting from the variance request. He then reviewed the project on the display board. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. B. Williams, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that staff conditions had been reviewed and accepted and requested approval of the application. She stated that she was present to answer questions and in response to Commission questions that ownership would remain with Watt Industries (the applicant). She explained that an old swimming pool had been removed, the soil compacted, and debris removed from the site. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that due to the fact that the AAC recommended a restudy of the exterior elevations, Commission action should be to order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and withhold tentative approval until the exterior elevation revisions were made. He suggested a two week continuance. Commission discussion: Opinion was expressed that much time had been spent formulating the Time Share Ordinance and since the project is not on a major or . secondary thoroughfare it should be denied. Further discussion followed regarding the non-conforming use of the project under the current ordinance and the fact that an undesirable precedent could be set if the application were approved. Discussion continued on other existing time share projects. on non-major or secondary thoroughfares and "grandfather" conditions regarding these. Planning Director stated that most time share projects have been located on major or secondary thoroughfares, but that the application is an unusual condition since most of the block is owned by the Tennis Club. He stated that the project has unusual circumstances but that staff would not encourage variance applications from time share requirements. He stated that there was no open space loss because of the variance request, and that control of resale would be accomplished by Condition No. 3 of the staff report (on file in the Department of Communty Development). Further discussion followed on the Commission attitude toward variances. Chair- man stated that this type of project is one on which a variance could be approved since it affects no one but the property owner.Commissioner D. Harris stated that the applicant is asking for relief of bay parking and setback requirements and the requirement for location on a major and secondary thoroughfare. Planning Director stated that there are vehicles to tie the two adjacent projects together for the life of the lease. Further discussion followed on the south property line variance, and the non-conformity of the use. Planning Director stated that the City Attorney felt that the non-conforming use could not be abated and should be reviewed in light of a non-conforming use and an ordinance developed addressing pre-existing time shares. He stated that it would be viewed as a separate project . and a use not normally allowed in the zone. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 CASES 5.0211 & 6.319 & TTM 17899 (Cont'd.) • Chairman suggested that the City Attorney give a more lengthy opinion of the use. Planning Director stated that the Tennis Club time share was created prior to the current Time Share Ordinance and that the subject project has been designed to current ordinance requirements with the exception of the location on a non-major or secondary thoroughfare. He stated that the non-conforming use would not have to be extended after ten years for this project. Chairman presented several alternative actions to the Commission. Motion was made by D. Harris and seconded by Christian to deny the application. The vote was as follows: AYES: Christian, D. Harris NOES: Allan, Koetting, Service, M. Harris ABSTENTION:Madsen Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and carried (Madsen abstained, Christian dissented) to continue the application to February 10 for further presentations. NOTE: Commissioner Allan requested that staff confer with the City Attorney to clarify whether or not the project is a new project or part of an existing project and whether or not approval could be conditioned to make the project part of another project. . Commissioner Service requested that the term "annexation" be defined as noted in Condition #3 of the staff report. Further discussion followed: Chairman stated that the City Attorney will be asked to complete a report for the next meeting. A suggestion was made by Commissioner Koetting that a revision could be made to the site which would eliminate two of the requested variances. Chairman continued the application to February 10, 1982. CASE 5.0220 (Misc.). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of consideration of abatement proceedings for the Ranch Club Restaurant with a non-conforming commercial use in a residential zone. (The non-conforming use was to be made consistent as of November 16, 1981.) Planning Director stated that there had been much comment on the restaurant use and gave a brief history including photographs of the building in 1939 & 1954. He stated that Rockfeller's restaurant use had not been extended by the new Non- Conforming Ordinance and that in reviewing the Non-Conforming Ordinance it is clear that any non-conforming use shall be removed and/or converted within ten years unless extended. He presented the staff report including a recommendation for a ten year extension subject to conditions. Chairman declared the hearing open. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0220 (Cont'd.) • W. Coble, 1445 N. Sunrise Way, the applicant, gave a brief history of the Ranch Club. He stated that the establishment had been operated as a restaurant for years and that much money had been put into equipment and alterations. He requested that the restaurant continue and abatement or removal discussed at the end of another ten year period. He also requested that the amount of time allowed for repairs be extended for 90 days. R. Brizz, 1407 N. Sunrise Way, stated that he was a homeowner in the Ranch Club Estados and continue to manage the restaurant as a quiet one without live music or noise. He stated that his partner and he were the first operators of the restaurant to live in the condominium complex. F. Bogert, 2787 Plaimor, member of the Historic Site Preservation Board, stated that the restaurant would be one of the first buildings declared an historic site and requested that it be allowed to remain. In reply to Commission question she stated that he knew that the restaurant would be approved as an historic site since he knew what was considered historic in the City. He stated also that the appearance of the building has not been changed substantially. Planning Director stated that there was some resemblance to the original building although additions had been constructed through the years. A. Perrier, 225 S. Civic Drive, representing the applicant, stated that the restaurant has been operated through the years, has been a good neighbor to the condominium owners, and that the City Attorney concurred that the Commission • has wide discretion regarding the use. He requested that no abatement be required and said an extension of ten years is a reasonable time for amortization. He requested two changes in the staff recommendations as follows: 1. That a CUP be submitted for office uses now in operation. 2. That the 30-day repair time be extended to 90 days. Mr. Perrier stated that he had no copies of material in opposition to the use and that the Board of Directors stated that it is not in opposition to continuance of the restaurant. He stated that if there were opposition, he would be happy to respond. A. Gergely, attorney representing P. Schreibner and petitioners opposed to the restaurant use, gave a history of the problems encountered during the years of restaurant operation. He stated that a former City Attorney had stated that the restaurant use was a lawful use until November 16, 1981 at which time the use would be abated. He stated that the Board of Directors represented themselves individually and not the members of the Homeowners Association when they stated there is no objection to the use. He requested that the use be abated and stated that the present restaurant operator at one time signed a petition against Rockefeller's Restaurant when it requested a later closing time and dancing. N. Shapiro, 1407 N. Sunrise Way, No. 29, stated that those living close to the restaurant are the most concerned about continuing its use since they are in close 01 proximity to the noise engendered. He presented a petition in opposition to the use. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0220 (Cont'd.) W. Coble (rebuttal) stated that Mr. Gergely's statements were erroneous in that Rockefeller's had no problem in acquiring a liquor license and that only two neighbors were opposed to the Rockefeller's use. He stated that the first buyer in the condominiums was Mr. Schreibner who chose a unit close to the restaurant and that the neighbor below Mr. Schreibner has not complained. He stated that the Commission could not listen to just one person, and that the restaurant would be operated as a small restaurant. A. Perrier (rebuttal) stated that there were two petitions with people in favor and reiterated his statements regarding the ten year extension and the wide discretion of the Commission. He stated that property owners knew the restaurant was there when they bought in a condominium and that the majority of the Board Members were not opposed to the use. A petition in favor of the project was presented to the Commission. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Discussion followed on the issue of the type of restaurant operation and the historic significance of the building. Planning Director stated that the property could be used as a clubhouse for the condominiums or a tennis club with a restaurant under C.U.P. Commissioner Service stated that he wanted to clarify the issue because the • Commission is reviewing the particular use in the particular location. Planning Director stated that abatement of the use is the issue, not abatement of the structure, and that the City Manager is responsible for issuance of dance permits and hours of operation. He stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has contacted staff and has been advised that there would be a hearing on the use. Discussion followed on the operation of the restaurant. Commissioner Christian stated that it seemed that the restaurant had excess noise and other problems when it was successful and there are no problems if not successful. Commissioner Madsen stated that issue seemed to be on whether or not the use was extended when the new Ordinance was approved. Chairman stated that the City Attorney has determined that the use's noncon- forming right was terminated on November 16, 1981. Planning Director stated that the City Attorney advised that a public hearing should be held and that the use has been amortized through its ten year period effective November 16, 1981 but that there is ambiguity going into the Council hearings on the effect of the new Ordinance on the dates. He stated that staff feels the use is illegal but should be considered non-conforming, and that staff feels that the City Attorney will agree that the use has expired but that the Commission has the ability to extend it based on the cost of the equipment and improvements. He stated that if the use were extended, it could be retroactive to November 16, 1981, with the Commission to hear complaints based on the conditions of the extension. Commissioner Koetting stated that the use should be abated, and the owner should be required to preserve the historical building. Commissioner D. Harris agreed, stated that the homeowners' complaints should be considered and that abatement would actually be a service to the applicant since he cannot comply with the time period for repair. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 • CASE 5.0220 (Cont'd.) Commissioner Allan stated that the structure should not be removed and that there is an investor who is willing to operate the restaurant with the conditions that complaints would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. She asked what type of use is proper for the restaurant. Commissioner Service stated that the office use could be approved under conditional use permit procedures, and the owner would have to make any further decisions. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (Allan & Madsen dissented) that the restaurant use for the Ranch Club Restaurant be abated based on the history of complaints arising from the nonconforming use. CASE 6.320-VARIANCE. Application by F. APOLLO for a variance from rear and side yard setbacks to allow existing carport and free standing open patio cover as built at 795 N. Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEGA.) Planning Director explained that the applicant is requesting a continuance, but that since it is a noticed public hearing, the hearing must be held. Planner III presented the staff report for denial and included findings and recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that the applicant questions the definition of a gazebo and wishes continuance to obtain . counsel and because of the staff condition of lowering the height of the wall. He then presented the site plan on the display board. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, Chairman continued the hearing to February 24 at the applicant's request. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. Marguelis, resident of El Dorado Mobile Home Park, stated that Planning Commission action of November 25, 1981, directed the owner of the mobile home park to restore the green belt and flower bed areas. He stated that nothing has been done and requested that the Planning Commission implement its action. Planning Director stated that the owners of the park are working to develop an alternative plan with a landscape architect. Planner III stated that the Commission denied the application, and staff feels that a revised landscape plan should be submitted. He stated that the owner has not contacted staff recently. Chairman directed that Commission action to restore the area be implemented by the end of January or proper enforcement proceedings are to be started. Planner III stated that he had been contacted by two landscape architects, but that no contracts have been signed. W. Thompson, applicant in Case 3.473/TTM 17082 requested approval since revised plans address the concerns of the Planning Commission. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Chairman stated that all time extensions would be addressed in one motion. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (M. Harris abstained on TTM 15687) approving time extensions (subject to all original condi- tions of approval ) as follows and extending PD-115 to February 11 , 1983: SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 12465. Application by HACKER ASOC. for Duplanty Huffaker & Assoc. for a second one-year time extension for a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes on S. Palm Canyon Drive between Camino Encanto/Canyon Vista, R-2 Zone, Section 27. Added conditions: 1. The project will be subject to the recently adopted drainage fees and/or implementation. 2. The project will be subject to school impact mitigation fees if adopted by the City Council. NOTE: The project is already subject to the dual sewer system and utility undergrounding. SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 14662 (Ref. Case 5.0093-CUP). Application by C. . HAVER & ASSOC. for Texas Western Development Co. for a second one-year time extension for a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Francis Drive, 0-5 Zone (I.L.), Section 2. No new conditions. NOTE: The previous extension was conditioned on drainage fees and school impact fees. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the request for a second one-year time extension." SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 15687 (Ref. Cases 3.250 & 5.0115-CUP). Application by HACKER ASSOC. for M. Badalion for a second one-year time extension for a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes on Ramon Road between Calle El Segundo/Calla Encilia, R-4-VP Zone (I.L.), Section 14. Added conditions: 1. The project will be subject to recently adopted drainage fees and/or implementation. 2. The project is subject to school impact mitigation fees if adopted by the • City Council. (Abstention: M. Harris) January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 TTM 15687 (Cont'd.) Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendations of the I.P.C., the Tribal Council took the following action: a. Approved the request for a second one-year time extension. b. Pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff, action was withheld on the added condition recommended by Staff requiring payment of drainage fees. C. Deleted the added condition recommended by Staff requiring pay- ment of school impact fees. This action was taken pending the resolution to the Tribal Council's satisfaction of those concerns heretofore expressed in letters and memoranda to the City Council, City Planning Commission, and the Palm Springs Unified School District." TIME EXTENSION - TTM 16864 (Ref. Case 5.0141-PD-115). Application by HACKER ASSOC. for H. Heers (Harmony Homes) for a 12 month time extension for a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes on Sunrise Way between Francis Dr./San Rafael Dr., 0-5 Zone (I.L.), Section 2. No new conditions for TTM 16864: • NOTE: The following condition was added regarding PD-115: That final develop- ment plans be extended to February 11, 1983 to run concurrently with the map extension. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the request for a first one-year time extension." TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17110. Application by HACKER ASSOC. for S. Havens for a 12- month time extension for a subdivision of land for condominium purposes on Chaparral between Vista Chino/Cottonwood, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Added conditions: 1. The project will be subject to school impact mitigation fees if approved by the City Council. 2. The project will be subject to drainage fees and/or implementation. • January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 S ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 3.473 & TTM 17082 . Application by THOMPSON ARCHITECTURAL for Desert Associates for approval of revised plans for 184 unit residential condominium project bounded by Calle El Segundo, Andreas Road, Calle Alvarado & Amado Road, R-4 Zone (I.L.), Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing and final action. No comments received.) Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that staff recommendations would be to file the Negative Declaration and approve the architecture and map. He stated that staff and the Fire Department would review the necessity for sprinkling or a four-hour fire wall. Commission discussion: Discussion followed on access to the utility parapets. The applicant stated that it would be reviewed and integrated with the architecture as much as possible. He stated also that the solar panels' service access will be integrated. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried • ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 3.473 and TTM 17082 subject to the following conditions: 1. That revised carport elevations and details be submitted for AAC review. 2. That second story balconies be recessed one to two feet and be a continuous element without the breaks as indicated on the preliminary elevations. 3. That complete revised elevations be submitted for staff review. 4. That the final grading plan be submitted to the AAC. 5. That final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted to the AAC at the same time as the final grading plan. 6. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 7. That all mitigative measures identified in the environmental assessment/initial study be implemented. Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council had previously approved the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and approved the tentative tract map. After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the filing of a Negative Declaration." January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by N. ANENBERG for Palm Sprinqs Oil Co. for architectural approval of gasoline price sign for business at the southeast corner of South Indian Avenue and Saturnino Road, C-Z Zone, Section 14. Planning Director stated that the sign was recommended for approval by the AAC subject to conditions and meets the Sign Ordinance and resolution of approval of gas rate sign standards. Discussion followed on the aesthetics of the sign. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by D. Harris, to approve the application subject to staff and AAC recommendations. The vote was as follows: AYES: Allan, D. Harris, Madsen NOES: Christian, Koetting, Service ABSENT: None ABSTENTION: M. Harris The motion failed. Commissioner Koetting stated that the color of the entire background should be . ivory rather than yellow. Motion was made by Koetting and seconded by Service to change the face of the sign to ivory. The vote was as follows: AYES: Koetting, Service NOES: Allan, Christian, D. Harris, Madsen ABSENT: None ABSTENTION: M. Harris The motion failed. Discussion followed on the type of action to take. Suggestions were made by Commissioners Koetting and Madsen to return the sign to the AAC for restudy. Commissioner Allan stated that if the sign meets the intent of the Ordinance, it should be approved. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Allan & D. Harris dissented; M. Harris abstained) for a restudy of the sign. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried approving the following applictions subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.482 (Minor). Application by M. BUCCINO for A. Dishner for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for single family residence on Palermo Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 4. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.483 (Minor). Application by C. DAHAN for Cafe Croissant for architectural approval for storefront remodel at 370 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Conditions: • 1. That a revised awning detail be submitted with the color scheme being brown with beige letters. 2. That full french windows be provided on both sides of the entry and if for fire protection purposes a full french window cannot be provided, southerly of the entrance the wall remain in tact. Abstention: Service MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DETERMINATION (10.319). Planning Commission determination considering mobile survey as a similar use acceptable to the C-B-D Zone. Planning Director stated that a professional survey group with a motor home for electronic equipment has requested to survey people on the street in the downtown area. He stated that the determination could be removed from the agenda until the matter arises again and that it is in the same category as handbill distribution and business solicitation on the street. Discussion followed on problems arising from similar types of advertising. Planning Director stated that staff would review the problem. . Chairman removed the item from the agenda. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Chairman advised the Commission of two conferences (C-VAG and SCAG) to be held on conflicting dates. Commissioners were advised to contact the Planning staff or Chairman regarding their preference. Chairman appointed Commissioner Christian to fill on an interim basis, the vacancy by Commissioner Madsen on the AAC through February. Commissioner Service requested that Commissioners who are unable to attend study sessions contact Planning staff one week in advance. Chairman concurred. Planning Director described the County Comprehensive General Plan which was reviewed at the study session and stated that until a revised text is completed, only general discussion of concepts can be discussed. Discussion followed on development standards including the sphere areas. CONTINUED ITEMS • CASE 5.0144-PD-116. Application by FREDRICKS/AFCOM for architectural approval of site plan, elevations, and landscape plans for PHASE I of modular housing project, PD-116, Section 35. Continued for submission of revised plans. CASE 3.480. Application by J. AULD for S. Marlowe for architectural approval of sinqle family residence at 1610 Dunham Road between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Continued at the applicant's request to February 10, 1982. CASE 3.484 (Minor). Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for median islands on Golf Club Drive, Section 29. Continued for submission of a detailed planting plan. January 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA SIGN VARIANCE 8.217 . Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Gene Autry Hotel for sign variance for directional convenience sign on the southwest portion of property at 4200 E. Palm Canyon Drive, PD-58, Section 30. (Ref. Case 5.927-PD-58) Removed from agenda pending submission of revised plans. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi