Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/02/10 - MINUTES (2) 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 10, 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 12 3 Carrie Allan - 13 2 Richard Service X 13 2 Paul Madsen X 13 2 Darel Harris X 13 2 David Christian X 12 3 Peter Koetting X 14 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director William Adams, City Attorney Michael Dotson, Planner I Douglas Evans, Planner III Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - February 8, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Peter Koetting Hugh Kaptur James Cioffi Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton Earl Neel David Christian (interim) Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the January 27, 1982 meeting, draft distributed, were unanimously approved, with the following correction: Page 3, paragraph 6, add: "by D. Harris" after . . . . . "expressed". (Cases 5.0211-CUP, 6.319- V, and TTM 17899). February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 Approval of Minutes (Cont'd.) Page 6, paragraph 8, should be revised to read as follows: "Commissioner Koetting stated that the use should be abated and the building should be preserved as an historical building". PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0211-CUP & 6.319-VARIANCE & TTM 17899. Application by E. WILLIAMS (Watt Industries) for a CUP to allow construction of a 7-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 tenatative approval of cases & map.) Planning Director stated that the item had been continued from the January 27 meeting for further staff review and for input from the City Attorney and to address concerns of the AAC which had recommended restudy of the elevations. He stated that a packet had been provided by Watt Industries and hand-delivered to the Commission regarding the nature and activities of the timeshare proposal and that there were staff and Commission concerns regarding the term "annexation" and also the non-conformity of the use as well as the combination of the proposed new complex with the existing timeshare project at the Tennis Club. He stated that the City Attorney was present to answer questions. He then reviewed briefly the staff report and gave direction for Commission action including the staff recommendation for tentative approval and preparation of a draft Negative Declaration. City Attorney stated that he had only had time to scan the memo from the Planning Director regarding the case, but that he saw no impediment to the granting of the variance since it is a proper vehicle and would set no precedent since each variance is unique. He stated that the Non-conformance Ordinance creates a ten-year amortization period from the time it became non-conforming but not until offical notice is given, and that if non-conformity is being considered, the Tennis Club owner should be notified in order to alert prospective buyers that the use may be phased out. He stated that the Ordinance should not be changed. He reiterated that the proper procedure is to apply for a variance which would remove the non- conformity of its location on a non-major or secondary thoroughfare, and that the new proposal would be annexed according to requirements of the Department of Real Estate (DRE). He reiterated the fact that if the variance were not to be granted and it was considered non-conforming, the owner of the Tennis Club should be notified. In reply to questions by Commissioner Service, City Attorney stated that he would not view the request for a variance as a use variance since it arises out of a location and particular physical aspects of the project, and that annexation would be in the sense that in order for the new complex to have rights to the amenities of the Tennis Club, it must be annexed to the Tennis Club and subject to C.C. & R.'s of • that Club. February 10, 19B2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 • CASE 5.0211-CUP & 6.319-Variance & TTM 17899 (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that staff condition No. 3 (on file in the Department of Community Development) was to ensure a common management of the exisiting project and the new proposal. Planning Director stated that the parking of the existing development is in conformance with the current ordinance although the numbers of spaces may be slightly less than ordinance requirements. He stated that the Tennis Club does not meet the requirement for a landscape median islands every five spaces and baumanite paving but that the bay parking is in conformity and the bungalows meet current fire codes regarding sprinklers although he was not certain about the hotel. He noted that a map for the entire development would be assessed drainage fees if the south property line were eliminated. Commissioner Koetting stated that the joint access driveway is being used for parking and might be difficult to use for access to the new project. Chairman declared the hearing open. O. Brazzelton, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the annexation would be done for the ORE through C.C. & R:s, and that the seven units proposed could not be split off from the Tennis Club. He stated that the annexation should not pose problems under the Timeshare Ordinance, that the Timeshare Ordinance exempts • any timeshare project prior to October 16, 1980, and that the Tennis Club was marketing timeshares before that date. He stated that that he did not understand that if the Tennis Club is exempt from the Ordinance, how it could be a non- conforming use. He stated that the State legislation defines timeshare as a form of ownership, not a land use. He noted that if a non-conforming use were amortized, at the end of the amortization period, the owner is compensated; but that at the end of an amortization of a timeshare, the owner has nothing left. In reply to a question by Commissioner Service, Mr. Brazzelton stated that the proposed seven-unit complex is not a non-conformity since granting the variance removes its non-conforming use, and that the timeshare should be viewed as a type of ownership, not a use. City Attorney stated that timeshare is basically a temporal subdivision but that in many respects the timeshare concept does not fit. He stated that he had not realized that there was a provision in the Ordinance that stated that existing projects which are existing and have been sold before the inception of Ordinance were exempted from provisions of the ordinance. B. Williams, applicant (Watt Industries), stated that Watt Industries wants to have timeshare projects well-maintained and has a management company which manages all its timeshares. She stated that millions of dollars have been invested for refurbishing to decrease the total unit count making additional parking available and that fire protection in the main Tennis Club building has been approved by the Fire Department. She also stated that the Commissioners could tour the project if they . desired and requested that the City approve the application. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0211-CUP & 6.319-Variance & TTM 17899 (Cont'd.) Commission discussion: Planning Director stated that the proposed project on its own could not, without a variance, be a timeshare because of the location problem and that the AAC would recommend a restudy of the architecture and staff would recommend preliminary approval of the concept and map with conditions, prepa- ration of the draft Negative Declaration, and continuance of the application for final review and architectural approval at the next meeting. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the Commissioners had spent much time and effort in developing the Timeshare Ordinance and that the project should not be approved unless the Ordinance were changed since the project does not fully meet the Timeshare Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Service stated that since only seven units, which are a reasonable amount, are proposed, he would support the project but that he could not necessarily support other requests unless justified. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the number of units is irrelevant. Commissioner Christian stated that he had a simplistic view of Ordinances and cases should be dealt with logically and individually. City Attorney stated he did not want to give an opinion on whether or not the Tennis Club was non-conforming until he investigated, but that it is probably exempt. • Chairman stated that if that is the exact situation, it is not non-conforming. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Christian, and carried (Allan absent, D. Harris dissenting) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tenta- tively approving Case 5.0211-CUP and Variance 6.319 and continuing the application to February 24 for further review and a restudy of the elevations. Note: In response to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Commissioner Service stated that a variance can be applied for due to the project's location as stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman stated that the staff conditions are sometimes cancelled out by the action of the Commission. CASE 5.0216-CZ. Application by FIRST WISCONSIN NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE for a change of zone from R-3 to C-1 or such other zone(s) as the Commission may find appropriate on property on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Road, R-3 Zone (I.L.), Section 26. (Staff has determined that a GPA will be necessary.) • February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0216-CZ (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that a General Plan amendment is necessary if the Commission wishes to pursue the request for change of zone. He presented the staff report including findings, recommendation, and direction for Commission action and also stated that the Tribal Council concurred with staff regarding the recom- mendation. He noted that staff would recommend a planned development district in-lieu of a change of zone if Commission wishes to pursue the request, but that staff would recommend denial since the proposal would be spot zoning and the Com- mission in the past has determined that banks and savings and loans are not allowed in the "P" Zone. He stated the environmental assessment was not done because of the recommendation for denial. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Hellman of Woodland Hills, the applicant, stated that his proposal was for a savings and loan;that the commercial uses allowed with a conditional use permit such as the restaurant originally approved for the site are no longer viable. He stated that a professional building would be too intense a use of the site, and that a savings and loan is not as intense since it does not generate the numbers of car trips. He stated that the savings and loan use would have the least impact. He then described the building profile and stated that a restaurant use would not be as beneficial because of the hours of operation, trash generated and other problems. He stated that the applicant would work with the City on limiting access to East . Palm Canyon. He then requested approval of the zone change or a planned development approach. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Madsen stated that he was not in favor of the proposal since it constitutes spot zoning and the Commission is opposed to that type of zoning. Further discussion followed regarding spot zoning and the difference in impact between a bank and a savings and loan facility. Discussion also followed regarding parking being calculated for office uses. Commissioner D. Harris stated he could not support the proposal because of its close proximity to a residential area. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) denying change of zone application 5.0216. Tribal Council comments: "A site survey of area development and a review of the City's General Plan and Zoning Map indicate that the requested C-1 Zone would be an intrusion of retail business uses into a neighborhood designated as High Density Residential and zoned R-3. The exception to the above finding is the Smoke Tree Village Shopping Center located easterly of the subject property. The compatibility of some of the • permitted C-1 uses with the existing residential developments would be question- able. • February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0216-CZ (Cont'd.) Based on the above findings and after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council concurred with the Planning Director's recommendation that this request for change of zone be denied." CASE 5.0219-CUP & TTM 16759 (Revised). Application by PALM PROPERTIES for a CUP & map for a reduction in setbacks to allow construction of up to 10 tennis courts on individual lots within a proposed 34 lot subdivision on Bogert Trail between South Palm Canyon Drive/Andreas Hills Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 35. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval. No comments received.) Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director gave a brief history of the project and presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that a General Plan Street Plan amendment had been required in order for the project to proceed without alterations, but that the project has been redesigned since it appeared on the October, 1981 agenda. He then gave the criteria for a five minute fire response time as calculated by the computer and the possibility of a fire • station in the area. Further discussion followed regarding computer generated fire response times. Planning Director stated that the applicant is requesting relief from setback requirements for the courts, and that the AAC was concerned that the lots may not be large enough to accommodate houses in addition to the courts. Further discussion followed on the size of the lots. Planning Director described the configuration of the lots on the display board and discussed required street improvements. Commissioner Service stated that the lots should be large enough at the inception of the application to accommodate all the intended uses including the setbacks required by zoning. Chairman declared the hearing open. P. Tynberg, M.D., Palm Springs, the applicant, explained that the project was delayed between of a street deletion from the General Plan during which time the project was redesigned several times. He stated that there is an inconsistency in the requirements and requested relief from the requirement for a 16,000 watt lighting and also the sprinklering of the houses. He stated that the project would provide the same amenities as the Canyon Cove tract. He requested exemption from the bikepath requirement for security reasons since the bikepath crosses behind the lots. He stated that the project had been designed after meeting with Planning Staff. He then gave a history of a similar application and was requested by • Chairman to confine his statements to the subdivision only. Dr. Tynberg then explained the configuration of the lots, and stated that there would be adequate open space after any structures are built. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0219-CUP & TTM 16759 (Revised)(Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that the Department of Community Services has proposed bikepaths on top of the dike and that there was a requirement for a wall on the property line. He then described the project on the display board. Commission discussion: Discussion ensued on various conditions of the project which had been requested to be deleted by the applicant, including lighting, sprinklering and the bikepath. Planning Director stated that the Traffic Engineer was supporting a 16,000 watt lighting per I.E.S. standards although this was not supported by the Director of Community Development. Discussion continued on actions available to the Commission. Planning Director stated that tennis courts could be applied for under individual conditional use permits and that if the applicant reduced the courts to 115 ft. by 55 ft., the setbacks could be met and it would not be necessary for the applicant to request relief from sideyard setbacks since the courts could be built by right of zone under architectural approval procedures. He stated however, that the applicant desires full size tennis courts. Discussion followed on the correct application procedures, possible configuration of the courts, and the location and access of the bikepath. Planning Director stated that the bikepath should be out of the wash but that the specific location has not been decided. He stated that the backs of some lots faced Palm Canyon Wash which is not desirable. • Commissioner Service stated that he would support the bikepath requirement. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Christian, and unanimously carried (Allan absent; Koetting & M. Harris abstained) denying CUP 5.0219; ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration for TTM 16759 and directing the applicant to redesign for tennis courts within setback requirements and with the problem of street lighting to be resolved with staff with the bikepathto remain and continuance of TTM 16759 pending receipt of revised plans. PUBLIC COMMENTS NOTE: The following comments are all related to Case 3.464: I. Marguelis, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, requested that Palm Springs Gold gravel not be approved for landscaped areas in the park since the occupants bought in the park because of the green belt and also because gravel is dangerous to walk on. He stated that the occupants desire the green belt restored and that the park owners should be required to restore the landscaped areas to there original condition within a specific time frame. F. Byrd, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, Chairman of the Negotiating Committee, stated that the although he had not been able to substantiate it, he had learned that the original design of the landscaped green belt was established as a trade- off for increased density in the park at the time the park was designed. He stated that the Palm Springs Gold gravel is a soft dusty rock which is undesirable and requested that the green belt be restored. February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page B • PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd.) Dr. R. Nelson, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, stated that he lived on the former green belt and that leaves from the eucalyptus trees are blown away by a leaf blower and if small rocks are approved for the area, they will also be blown away. He requested restoration of the original green belt plan. M. Buccino, landscape architect, stated that his firm had designed the original plan, that the trees had now matured and for reduction in water and maintenance costs, the new design has been proposed. He stated that the new design has more gaiety and life than the original and also that the 3/4" gravel is of a size that should not blow around. He noted that the asphalt area functioned to stop water erosion, and that from a flood control point of view, should be retained. He stated that turf block would not provide the same erosion control, and that he was uncertain whether or not the grassy area would create erosion problems. He stated that the landscape design was his own design concept and that he had been asked by the park owners to use gravel to lessen lawn maintenance and that the installation of gravel is more expensive initially but less costly in maintenance. R. Gordon, Park Manager, stated that the rock was dusty originally but is now clean and that the four asphalted areas have been installed for flood control since small rocks would be distributed throughout the park in a flood. He noted that the asphalt serves two purposes in that it is an erosion control as well as a parking area. Mrs. R. Crow, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, stated that she lived next to one of the asphalt sections which become very hot in the summer and collected dirt from the adjacent vacant lot. She stated this may be alleviated if an establishment is built on . the adjacent lot and noted that there had been no flooding in her area. H. Bergman, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, requested that the green belt be restored. He stated that there is no life in rocks but that there is in grass and that no damage was done to the grassy areas by flooding. He noted that grassy areas do not show silt and debris as the asphalt does. Ms. M. Shrock, daughter of park resident, stated that the owners of the park want to reduce maintenance costs without conferring with the residents and that the reason is obvious. A. Harris, resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club, stated that in cutting expenses, owners figure angles without notifying the occupants and that is the reason the green belt was removed. He requested the restoration to the original condition. Chairman announced that because of road closures due to flooding, Case 3.464 would be addressed so park residents in the audience could leave as soon as possible. • February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 ARChQTECTURAL 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 3.464 (Minor). Application by M. BUCCINO for El Dorado Mobile Country Club for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for mobile home park at 6000 East Palm Canyon Drive, RTP Zone, Section 29. Planner III stated that it was his understanding that the original design for the open space corridor was never totally installed and that many of the features now proposed were on the original plan except for the Palm Springs Gold gravel. He stated that there were two district maintenance levels: one for the front of the park; and one for the remaining portion which is not maintained as well. He then described the plans on the display board and stated that specific quantities and types of plants would be indicated when final plans are submitted. Commissioner Koetting commented that rock is difficult to walk on. Planner III stated that the maintenance is by a contractor under control of the management company. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) approving revised landscape plans subject to the following conditions: 1. That detailed planting, irrigation, and development plans be submitted which . include the Bolero Drive streetscape. 2. That the drainage areas located on the westerly edge of the site be returned to their original condition (grass as opposed to asphalt). 3. That the Palm Springs Gold gravel plan be eliminated and a plan incorporating grass be submitted. Discussion followed on implementation of the conditions. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) that the owners of the park comply with the conditions by beginning implementation within 30 days with the entire project to be completed within six months. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEM Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18373. Application by L. ZEHFUSS for L. Schwartz for approval of a division of one parcel into three parcels on the northeast corner of Via • Donna/Paseo El Mirador, R-1-AH Zone, Section 11. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval.) February 10, 19B2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 • TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18377 (Cont'd.) Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving TTM 18373 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee, and continuing the item to the Consent Agenda of February 24, 1982. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of electronic game arcades regarding location, number, and overall City policy. Planning Director explained that staff has been deluged with requests to establish electronic arcades and that a CUP process is being considered by staff for anything in excess of four machines. He stated that the use should be a part of another main use such as a hotel or food services operation, and that the staff desires to schedule review of the item at the study session on February 17 at which time an issue paper will be presented. Commissioner D. Harris stated that four machines or less can be installed in markets at the present time, and that it is difficult to shop and maneuver around children using the machines. He stated that more control should be established and the machines should be put in a proper location. Commissioner Service stated that the Commission should be prepared to be specific about the problem and that he was somewhat ambivalent although he feels that it should be an ancillary use. Chairman agreed that there were were several concerns and continued the item to the February 17 study session. Planning Director stated that arcades as a use are totally prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance at the present time. DETERMINATION (10.320). Request by staff for Planning Commission determination on acceptability of classic automobile sales being permitted as a main use in the C-2 Zone. Planning Director stated that there had been a request for this type of deter- mination in the past but that it was in an M-1 Zone and included a franchise for a new classic car, and that the C-2 Zone does allow new car agencies to have used car sales in conjunction with new car sales. He stated that a definition of the term "classic" must be made, and that the item should be continued for staff to submit a definition so that used car sales alone are prohibited. He stated that the facility proposed (the vacant Lincoln Mercury building) would be appropriate. He stated also that staff would research definitions including condition of cars as well as age. Commissioner Christian stated that there were definitions of "classic", and that cars needing restoration should not be included. Commissioner Service stated that he would be interested in the comments of the owner of the building and also that there might be a problem with open service bays. February 10, 19B2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 • DETERMINATION 10.320 (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that if the use were allowed in the C-2 Zone, restoration might be allowed and that there is an obvious problem if the cars are in public view, and that this problem must be addressed. D. Williams, owner of the building, stated that he was approached by businessmen having a classic car business who are conscientious. He stated that the use probably would be for only two years at the most as the site may be a part of the proposed "old town" area if the "old town" concept is approved. Planning Director stated that regarding repair in conjunction with new car sales, that major service would be allowed only under conditional use permit procedures. Further discussion followed on the proposal and what it entailed. Planning Director stated that staff was requesting a determination setting forth concerns and would return with a definition at the February 24 meeting. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (ConVd.) CASE 3.480. Application by J. AULD for S. Marlowe for architectural approval of single family residence at 1610 Dunham Road between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. . Discussion ensued on the aesthetics of the plan. Commissioner Christian stated that the consensus was that the design was difficult to visualize, and that the AAC was concerned about details. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed working drawings be reviewed by the AAC for consistency with the preliminary elevations. 3. That final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) DISCUSSION. Planninq Commission discussion of request by CHILDREN'S VILLAGE for approval of use of Canyon Hotel Convention Center for one night event on December 4, 1982. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) approving a request from Children's Village for the use of the Canyon Hotel Convention Center for a one night event on December 4, 1982. February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (ConVd.) DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of request by the PALM SPRINGS SENIOR CENTER for approval of use of Canyon Hotel Convention Center for a one night event on March 26, 1982. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) approving a request by the Palm Springs Senior Center for use of the Canyon Hotel Convention Center for a one night event on March 26, 1982. SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 12676 (Revised). Request by ERVIN ENGINEERING for R. Zappone for second twelve month time extension for a subdivision of 14 single family lots on the northwest corner of Racquet Club Road/Cardillo Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 3. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) approving a second twelve month time extension for TTM 12676 (Revised) subject to all original conditions of approval and with the following additional condition: That the development is subject to the recently adopted drainage fees and/or implementation of the master plan of storm drains. • NOTE: The tract map was previously subject to undergrounding of adjacent utilities. SECOND TIME EXTENSION - TTM 11559 (Ref. Cases 5.0218-CUP & 5.0033-CUP). Request by ERVIN ENGINEERING for C. G. Dunham for a second twelve month time extension for a subdivision of land for condominium purposes on the north side of Mesquite Avenue, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones (I.L.), Section 24. Planning Director explained that staff was recommending continuance pending hearings to revive the expired CUP (Case 5.0033). Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Allan absent) continuing the request for a twelve month time extension for TTM 11559 pending a public hearing on the conditional use permit. 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 for TTM 11559:1 • February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) DISCUSSION. Planninq Commission discussion of the possibility of not allowinq in-lieu parking fees in other areas of the City other than the downtown area. Planning Director stated that a discussion of in-lieu parking fees outside of the downtown areas had arisen regarding Kappy's Restaurant on East Palm Canyon Drive which had had this condition. He stated that in-lieu payment outside of the downtown was in the revised parking standards as a vehicle for unusual cases and is a ministerial type of action. Chairman commented that he thought in-lieu was limited to downtown use. Commissioner Christian stated that a case could be made for in-lieu to be eliminated in the downtown and implemented only in the outlying areas but that he did not see any logic in changing the requirement. Discussion followed on the logic of the in-lieu parking fees. Commissioner Christian commented that in-lieu is a penalty for deletion of parking spaces and the City can then use the money for parking in any location it desires. Commissioner Madsen stated that in-lieu encourages more intense parking problems. Discussion followed on revisions to the parking standards ordinance. Planning Director stated that the construction of the parking lot for the Vineyard and Las Casuelas Terraza was accomplished through the in-lieu fund but that he did • not know how much money is in the fund and that the money received goes into the in-lieu parking fund. Discussion.followed on use of the in-lieu funds. Commissioner Service stated that it has been his experience that lenders do not lend money to underparked projects and that the only time that in-lieu has been proposed outside the C-B-D Zone was in the Kappy's Restaurant case. Planning Director stated that Kappy's Restaurant parking has been redesigned to eliminate the need for in-lieu payments. Discussion followed on the area where in-lieu should be applied. Commissioner Koetting stated that it is less expensive to redesign a project than to pay in-lieu fees. Chairman commented that he would not be in favor of its use outside the downtown area. Planning Director stated that the only part of the ordinance limited to downtown is use in excess of six spaces. Commissioner Christian suggested that in-lieu be administered on a case-by-case basis. Chairman directed staff to reword the ordinance along the lines of Commission discretion all on in-lieu use and removal of any absolute right to its use by an applicant. • February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 • DISCUSSION - IN-LIEU PARKING (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that the in-lieu fund is being implemented but that its status would have to be reviewed by staff. Discussion on in-lieu parking was continued for staff review of the ordinance regarding in-lieu use in the C-B-D Zone. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd.) 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. Discussion ensued regarding a desert type of landscaping for the median island. Planner III stated that there is a possibility that the Living Desert Preserve would be interested in landscaping it for the City. Chairman continued the item pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.372. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for McDonald's Restaurant for architectural approval of revised elevations for restaurant on South Palm Canyon • Drive between Ramon Road/Sunny Dunes Road, PD-82, Section 23. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that the equipment originally ordered was not available which was the reason for the architect's revision to the elevations. Discussion followed on whether or not enough voting Planning Commission members were present. Vice-Chairman stated that the intent of the Commission needs clarification as to rules and procedures and that it has been agreed that if only four or five Commissioners were in attendance, three votes on one side of an issue were sufficient for action but that in a split vote, there would be no action. Planner III described the revised elevations as viewed from South Palm Canyon and North Palm Canyon Drive. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the front of the building differs from the original approval. Vice-Chairman stated that this could be addressed in the motion. Comparison of recent photos with the approved plan indicated the building was being constructed per the approved plan. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Allan absent; Christian, Koetting & M. Harris abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.372 (Cont'd.) That the alternate elevation with the shorter wood parapet is the elevation that is approved. 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 Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan absent, Christian abstained) approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.306. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of revised landscape plans and paving plans for office building at 1276 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 10. Condition: That Allysum be incorporated as a groundcover in the rosebeds. CONTINUED ITEMS DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of impacts of recent State legislation on local ordinances. Continued to for discussion at the February 17 study session. 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 to March 10 pending submission of revised elevations and at the applicant's request. CASE 3.046. Application by D. JUNG for M. Tupaz Associates for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for 140 unit condominium project on the northwest corner of Avenida Caballeros between Ramon Road/Baristo Channel, R-2 Zone (I.L.), Section 14. (Ref. TTM 10855.) Continued for receipt of a colored landscape plan and complete plant list. February 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following item was removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.438. Application by P. KOLODEJ for architectural approval of revised plans for a single family hillside residence at 2111 Leonard Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 3. Restudy of elevations and to address concerns over access and the natural wash treatment. Chairman stated that no interest had been shown by the Commissioners in attending the SCAG/Planning Commissioners Conference in San Diego and that anyone interested in attending the C-VAG Conference on February 26 should contact staff. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. l P ANNI G DIRECT MDR/mi •