Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/04/14 - MINUTES (3) r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 14, 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 15 4 Carrie Allan X 17 2 Richard Service X 17 2 Paul Madsen X 17 2 Darel Harris X 17 2 David Christian - 15 4 Peter Koetting X 18 1 Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II • Stephen Graham, Planner II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - April 12, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Peter Koetting James Cioffi Chris Mills (alternate) Earl Neel Hugh Kaptur Absent: David Hamilton & David Christian Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) amending the March 10, 1982 minutes as follows: • April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 Approval of Minutes (Cont'd.) Page 14, add after last paragraph: Tentative Parcel Map 18385. Application by BILLINGTON, INC. for C. Thompson for subdivision of property between Racquet Club Road/Sanborn Way, one block west of Milo Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Removed from Agenda pending receipt of letter from the Flood Control District. Page 9, paragraph 6; Motion for Case 5.0177-PD-131 should indicate Madsen and M. Harris abstained. Minutes of the March 24, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following additions: Page 9, paragraph 7 - Case 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 - add after "tract homes", "and are not of the caliber of the homes the Commission has required in this area". Page 16, paragraph 2 - Case 5.0144-PD-116 - change "utility bills" to "electric bills". CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507. Application by L. LAPHAM for G. McGlamary for a • CUP and map to allow construction of a residential condominium project on Ramon Road between La Mirada Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone (I.L. ), Section 22. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) Planning Director reviewed the history of the project and stated that the applicant had made no major changes since the last meeting; that lot sizes on La Mirada average 14,164 sq. ft. and lots on Fern Canyon average 13,933 sq. ft. ; that houses range in size from 3,247 sq. ft. plus garage on Fern Canyon and 3,864 plus garage on La Mirada; that three lots have been combined by one individual into a total of 50,000 sq. ft. ; and that the Tribal Council recommends approval with the exception of drainage fees while staff recommends approval as the project is compatible with the area in regard to house, lot size and design. He defined the project as a classic PUD in the sense of common maintenance of frontage areas. He stated that the custom designed houses will be reviewed by both the AAC and the Planning Commission and noted that the motivation for the wall is for security and marketability. In reply to a question by Commissioner Service, Planning Director stated that in theory, Ramon Road could be vacated and become a private street if requested by the affected property owners. Chairman declared the hearing open. • April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 . CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd.) L. Lapham, 500 S. Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, stated that he would respond to the concerns of the area residents; noted that the security wall and the grading plan are addressed much more easily under the PUD type of plan that has been submitted and explained the grade changes and the wall height on the display board. He stated that grading is gradual due to the split-level configuration of the houses; noted that the Planning Commission could condition to not allow walls over six feet in height from natural grade; stated that the homes range in size from 2,900 to 3,300 sq. ft. and are individually designed; and that Webb Engineering, Inc. has built many custom homes, including expensive homes against the mountain in Thunderbird which have no retaining walls. Discussion followed on resident complaints that the wall and building height of the project obstructs the view. Mr. Lapham stated that pad height cannot be determined until grading stakes are placed; and that some of the residents have landscaped onto the project property and that care will be taken that removal of the landscaping does not damage any property. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project citing depreciation of property values; obstruction of view; impersonal view of residents as statistics; excessive roof height; excessive wall height; intensity of density; excessive height of building pads; lack of adherence to the strict standards imposed previously on area homeowners; • aesthetics; uniqueness of the area; undesirable precedent being set relative to roof height; substandard lot sizes; lack of adherence to grading standards; and a condominium project being detrimental to the neighborhood: A. Moravic, 565 La Mirada J. Tourtelot, 584 Fern Canyon Drive K. Herman, 1111 Cactus (Tahquitz Falls Subdivision Architectural Committee member) A. Jessup, 599 Fern Canyon L. Lapham (rebuttal ) stated that he felt that the residents had misunderstood the height limits and that no roofs would be over 15 feet; that the applicant could live with 14 feet if it were required by the Commission; and that the wall would be only six feet from the natural grade of the property which can be a condition of approval . In reply to a question by Commissioner Madsen, Mr. Lapham stated that there would be a balanced grading situation in total volume and that large boulders will be removed and replaced with natural fill within the confines of the project; and that no radical conditions will be developed. Discussion followed on roof height as viewed from the Tourtelot property. Mr. Lapham stated that if the natural grades are reviewed, an • adjustment can be very manageable; that the residents on La Mirada will look over the top of the pads; and that the pads adjacent to La Mirada will be two to three feet below natural grade. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd.) Further discussion ensued relative to the impacts of a condominium type of project versus single family residential development. Planning Director read a letter from K. Hinsvark objecting to the project. He stated that there is no need to be concerned about time sharing since the zone prohibits it and also that the tennis court is in a logical location since it abuts the Hinsvark court. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planning Director stated that the grading plan is basically the same as would be required for individual homes; that the southeast corner is the worst condition since the pad of the proposed home would be above the wall; noted that the roof of the new homes might not be as low as indicated by the applicant; and that the pad height for the proposed project was not determined by averaging the four corners as was done in the older home construction which was required by the C.C. & R. 's of the project. He then described the City standards for pad height and stated that roof height could be 18 to 19 feet above the natural grade in the most severe condition. Commissioner D. Harris stated that he was in sympathy with the homeowners; that a six foot high perimeter wall was not pleasing; that • the applicant should redesign the plan and place a wall around each single family residence; that he objected to the roof lines because of view obstruction; that the homeowners will be affected by the grading and excavation; and that he could not support the project. In reply to a question by Commissioner Service, Planning Director stated that if these were single family residences, the wall height limit would be six feet; that smaller homes would be allowed; and that the typical height on La Mirada is between 15' and 15' 6". Commissioner Service stated that each house is walled and the only portion that is condominium is sharing the cost of common areas; noted that the project is like the Fern Canyon tract, which is a single family residential neighborhood; that each home will be custom designed and the houses will all be built at or near the same time; that the grading plan disrupts the least since the residences will be built at one time with individual review by the AAC; and building individual homes would have more impact than the proposed project. Chairman agreed with Commissioner Service and stated that the word "condominium" has a bad connotation; the project is really single family residential ; and that the Commission has control of the entire area at one time. Commissioner Service suggested that a sight line study from neighboring houses be required by the Commission as each house is reviewed. • Commissioner Allan agreed and stated that she was concerned about the impact on the neighboring property owners on the east; that she could not support the project if the neighbors were going to be viewing a high wall; that in the past an applicant was required to remove two feet from April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0217-CUP & TTM 18507 (Cont'd. ) his roof height in another case; and questioned whether or not the proposed project is receiving a special privilege. Planning Director stated that there are some cases on Fern Canyon Drive where lots were lowered to meet a grade or for other circumstances; that there may be lots that are below natural grade; and that condition is present on Fern Canyon Drive on some lots. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the Commission should be certain about the wall height. In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director stated that percolation testing has been done and reviewed by the required agencies and hopefully by the time the project is built, the City sewer system will be available. Discussion of the wall height and future Commission review of the project followed. Mr. Lapham stated that he would respect the height of the present walls. Planning Director stated that each house will be reviewed by the Commission. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Christian absent; D. Harris dissented) ordering the preparation of a • draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving Case 5.0217-CUP and TTM 18507 subject to all AAC, Development Committee, and staff recommendations with the additional conditions that the wall height of existing homes be respected by the developer and that a sight line study be required for each home and continuing the case and map to April 28 for final review. Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council , at its meeting of March 23, 1982, approved the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map No. 18507 subject to the conditions recommended by Staff, with the following exception: Action on the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by the City Staff. Action on the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration was withheld pending receipt and review of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. The Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 1982 have been reviewed by the Tribal Planning Consultant. The detailed site analysis to be presented by Staff on April 14 was not available for review. • After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Plannig Commissioner, the Tribal Council reiterated its action of March 23 to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map No. 18507, and approved the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration with the added mitigation measures recommended by Staff." April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0221-CUP. Application by Y. DENEBEIM for conditional use permit to allow a daily prayer chapel on Avenida Ortega between Via Salida/Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Chairman stated that the application was requested to be continued by the applicant to the April 28 meeting and asked persons in the audience to speak if they could not be present on that date. Chairman declared the hearing. D. McGettigan, 1670 Via Salida, owner of Aladdin's Lamp Hotel , questioned the reasons for continuance. Chairman replied that it was the perogative of the applicant and another continuance could be requested if it were necessary. Mr. McGettigan spoke in opposition to the project and presented a petition from 21 residents and businessmen also in opposition. He then gave a history of the property and stated that work on the existing duplex was done without building permits; that meetings were held at odd hours; that his business had suffered; that a school was being conducted; that there had been no enforcement of any kind; that garbage is stored behind the building; that large groups were attending meetings; that the applicant has been allowed occupancy without permits and is conducting a synagogue or temple; that the septic • tank is inadequate and causes a stench; and that he would attend the April 28 meeting and provide further input. J. Gilbert, 350 E. Palm Canyon Drive, requested that the number of continuances by the applicant be restricted. Chairman stated that the continuances allowed would be reasonable. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director stated that the use is illegal at the present time and gave a brief history of the proposal ; that notices of code violation have been sent but have been disregarded and the applicant is conducting a large scale religious facility and at times, a private school ; that staff has worked with the rabbi to require an application to be submitted for Commission review, but that no complaints were received until March 10, at which time the application had already been received and scheduled for Commission action. Chairman requested staff to begin the process of a cease and desist order until the application can be reviewed by the Commission. There was a Commission consensus to the proposal by Chairman. Planning Director stated that staff would confer with the City Attorney relative to legal action to discontinue the use. Discussion followed on obtaining a cease and desist order. Chairman suggested that a resolution be prepared. • Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) ordering the preparation of a resolution ordering the applicant to cease and desist from the use of the facility as a school/synagogue until a CUP is approved. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0223-CUP. Application by COBLE-BRAMLETT CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COMPANY for a conditional use permit to allow offices at 1445 N. Sunrise Way between Vista Chino/Chia Road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Planner III presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He then read the conditions of approval of Ref. Case 5.0220-MISC. which pertained to the project and stated that no upgrading has been started at this point; that the CUP, if approved, will allow medical uses; and that the project has adequate parking. Discussion followed on how the amount of required parking spaces was determined. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the facility should be required to have fire sprinklers if it is over 10,000 sq. ft. Planner III stated that the Fire Department has not required this in the Development Committee Minutes. In reply to questions by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director stated that the Building Department did not require a grease trap in Development Committee but it might be required on the extensive • correction list; and that building inspection requirements have not been met. Commissioner D. Harris commented that no approval should be given until conditions are corrected. Planning Director stated that the CUP will not be in effect until Development Committee recommendations are met. In reply to a question by Chairman, Planning Director stated that there is an open space deficiency but that the situation is unique in that the facility is existing; that 50% open space could probably be generated by removal of the turnaround driveway but questioned whether or not it would be a significant improvement to the property. Discussion followed regarding removal of the turn-around and two parking areas which could be landscaped to create more open space. Planning Director stated that the removal of these areas would bring the building more into line with the current standards and perhaps eliminate the conflict with the other uses on the property. Discussion continued relative to a Health Department inspection of the kitchen for installation of a grease trap. Planner III stated that he would contact the Building Division for an answer; that the restaurant had been operating for a long time; and that the CUP application was made to make the operation legal . Commissioner Koetting stated that the applicant should be required to comply with the City's regulations. Planning Director stated that there were no future commercial office spaces requested in the application. • April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd.) In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director stated that the Traffic Engineer feels that existing lighting levels on major thoroughfares is inadequate since lack of lighting contributes to some accidents and that the restaurant is a nighttime use and requires some type of lighting; that the Traffic Engineer is trying to obtain street lighting on major thoroughfares; and that existing parking on the project is 103 spaces. Chairman declared the hearing open. B. Bramblett, 3185 San Luis Rey, representing the applicant, stated that although the parking required may have been calculated on 10,000 sq. ft. , of building space, there are only 7,500 sq. ft. ; that the entire site plan was approved in 1970, including the condominium on the south portion of the property; that the parking slots met City standards of that time; that there is an existing grease trap that may be substandard, but it has been inspected by the Health Department and the restaurant is authorized to open; that the applicant has begun to comply with the Council conditions; that the improvements have not been completed; that the applicant accepts the conditions of the CUP; that the circular driveway has been used for valet parking; that the restaurant is one-half of the its size of ten years ago; and that he was present to answer questions. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planner III described the existing wall between the restaurant and the condominiums as being four to six feet in height. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planner III stated that the application for a CUP was to make the office operation legal . Commissioner Allan commented that she could not remember the Commission granting such a large deficiency in open space in other cases, and that she would like to see a site plan with more landscaping as a buffer between the restaurant and the condominiums. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director stated that because the use is illegal at the present time, the City could close down the office use until a CUP is received and that if denied by the Commission, the City could preclude further use of the building for offices; but that the applicant has shown good faith in applying for a CUP; and that legal action is not a necessity in staff's opinion. Mr. Bramblett stated that there have been office and restaurant uses in the building for 12 to 13 years and although illegal , they have been functioning; that the applicant realizes that the uses were illegal and has taken steps for correction; that the current type of use is less of • a problem than in the past and suggested that a timetable be established for upgrading of the building; and requested that some conditions be open as far as conditions of approval before a timetable is set. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 . CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd. ) Commissioner D. Harris stated that he would not vote for a project that is in violation of ordinances. Motion was made by Madsen and seconded by Service to approve the application subject to the conditions of the AAC and Development Committee. The vote was as follows: AYES: Madsen, Service NOES: Allan, D. Harris, Koetting, M. Harris ABSENT: Christian The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Christian absent, Madsen dissented) to continue the application to allow site redesign to meet open space requirements and establish a time frame to begin and complete alterations to bring the building up to R-2 standards. The application was continued to the April 28, 1982, meeting. CASE 6.323-VARIANCE. Application W. BURNETT for a variance from rear and sideyard setbacks to allow construction of a storage building at 3735 • Camino San Simeon, R-1-D Zone, Section 19. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendations and direction for Commission action and described the project on the display board. He explained that the slab was put in by a previous owner and improved by the applicant. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Burnett, 3735 Camino San Simeon, the applicant, stated that electrical service was disrupted in rainstorms because the electrical service for the house is installed in the pool area and he wanted to put a cover over the service; that none of his neighbors is opposed to the application; that there would be no water runoff on neighboring property; and that there was glass enclosing the original construction. In reply to a question by Chairman, Mr. Burnett stated that he could build a low cover over the electrical service, but that it would be only seven feet and he wanted to comply with City specifications; and that the construction is already in existence. Mrs. J. Knott, 3790 Camino San Rafael , spoke in opposition to the application stated that the original structure had no glass on it; that • the pool equipment had been housed in a pit; that the applicant has started construction on a room which abuts the house; that the structure is too close to the fence and shows above it; that it will depreciate property values in the neighborhood; that the cabana was pre-existing and that the applicant had begun construction of a room without permit. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 6.323-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) She noted that she owned another house in the neighborhood which had construction complying with City regulation; that the applicant' s home is a fire hazard and if approved would establish a precedent; and that water will run off onto her property. M. Logan, 3781 San Miguel , stated that the cabana is one-third of the size of the house and could not be a storage room; that the smaller the lot is, the more a structure of this size will deviate from code; that approving the variance would establish a precedent; that the structure appears to be living quarters; that approval should not be given after the structure is completed; and that if approved it would affect the neighborhood. R. Seaman, a neighbor of the Knott's, stated that in his experience as a pool contractor, the electrical problem is not due to the pool pit, but could be caused by wiring the pool electrical service into the house service; and also stated that he did not approve the project. N. Williams, 3712 Camino San Miguel , stated that if the variance were approved, the building would block his view; and that he was familiar with the problem since there is a large patio cover behind his home. He noted that by allowing such a structure, the lot would become even more substandard and stated that the Veterans' Tract required the City's • examination and should be upgraded. W. Burnett (rebuttal ) stated that he could not see why people would object since nothing had been said about the original structure, and the problem could not be appreciated unless it were seen by the Commission. Commissioner Service stated that the question was not about pool pit equipment, but about an application to build a room against the property line. Mr. Burnett stated that the Commission should review the pictures of the property and that he could repair the same structure with good material and complete it as it was. He reiterated that he was requesting to return the structure to its original condition. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Mr. Burnett stated that he was going to use the room for storage but that it will not be connected to the house and he wanted to repair the original cabana. Planning Director explained that the pictures of the cabana appeared to be as it was originally and that there was some older construction which was an open trellis type of patio cover which the applicant was reconstructing adjacent to the pool; and to rebuild the trellis would require a variance. Commissioner D. Harris stated that he could see no reason for having a • problem when it rained, and that an electrical contractor should be retained by the applicant. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) denying the application for a variance. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 CASE 6.323-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) Chairman requested that staff enforce the denial . PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. J. Knott, 3790 Camino San Rafael , questioned whether or not Mr. Burnett could appeal the denial of the variance. Chairman stated that he could and the homeowners would be notified if the application were appealed. R. Mainiero, engineer for Tentative Tract Map 18329 & Case 3.475, asked the cost of a bus stop for the Equitec project (TTM 18329). Planner III stated that it would be required to be designed with the project. Mr. Mainiero then requested that there be a reduction in current requirements (subject to flood control and engineering requirements) for Case 3.475 if the flood control issue, which is being appealed, is resolved. He also requested permission for the project to be phased. Chairman stated that Case 3.475 would be addressed since the applicant was . discussing conditions of approval during the Public Comments section. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS 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. CASE 3.475 (Ref. 5.0224-CUP & 6.322-VARIANCE). Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION for architectural approval of a fixed base operation at Palm Springs Municipal Airport on Bogie Road between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, "A" Zone, Section 18. (Environmental assessment) R. Mainiero, the applicant, requested that some of the fire hydrants on public property, requiring backflow devices costing $10,000 each, be placed on private property to save money. He stated that each individual hydrant has a separate tap. Discussion followed on resolution of the problem regarding fire hydrants. Planner III stated that staff would have time to work with the Fire Department since the environmental assessment only is being reviewed and that there were two weeks before the next meeting; and that the Commission would review the site plan at the April 28 meeting. Mr. Mainiero stated that the Desert Water Agency (DWA) requires a • backflow tap. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the backflow procedure is required to protect the water supply if the hydrants are hidden from view and are vulnerable to cross connection; and that possibly the requirement could be mitigated. Commissioner Koetting stated that he could see only one hydrant near the property line and the rest were behind buildings. Chairman read the case number into the record. Discussion continued on the location of the fire hydrants. Commissioner Koetting stated that sometimes the DWA and Fire Department requirements conflict. Planner III reiterated that only the environmental assessment was being reviewed with the variance and CUP to be reviewed at the April 28 meeting. He then presented the environmental assessment/initial study report. Commissioner Service stated that the EIR done on the Specific Plan of the Airport was on the airport operation, not on the physical airport facilities. Planner III stated that staff was addressing construction activities; that the "Public Fiscal Balance" portion should be eliminated and will be revised by staff; and that staff feels that the proposed convenience market does not meet the "A" Zone standards; and that the sign program needs review. After presenting the project on the display board, Planner III stated that the Federal Flood Insurance Maps do not reflect the Whitewater River Dike. • Planning Director stated that architectural approval was not to be reviewed at this time but would be reviewed at the April 28 meeting when the CUP and variance are heard. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 CASE 3.475 (Cont'd. ) H. Williams, 690 Sierra Way, the applicant, described the project and stated that it would add income to the City; that the improvements would accrue to the City if the project were abandoned which is unlikely since JIMSAIR is a sound company; that the project will remove some of the general aircraft noise to the east side of the airport; that some of the concerns can be addressed at the April 28 meeting but that there are no objections to most of the environmental assessment conditions. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director stated that the Specific Plan discusses the noise issue; that there is an Airport Master Plan Study underway by a private consultant which probably will be completed by the end of the year; and that the Master Plan has been discussed with the Airport Manager and the project area is earmarked for a fixed base operation. Mr. Williams stated that the project has been deemed consistent by the consultants with the Airport Plan. He then described the metal hanger buildings and stated that they would be screened by landscaping. Discussion followed on the location and capacity of the hangars. Mr. Williams stated that the hangars were grouped to meet FAA setback requirements for the runway; that the hangars can accommodate 727 's , which have become executive aircraft as well as commuter airline planes for maintenance; that occasionally there will be jet "runups" but with no more frequency than in the past; that the developer would object to soundproofing the hangars; that Combs-Gates has an expansion problem in that the west side of the airport has no more room for FBO operations; that general aviation is on the east side for noise abatement and accessibility; that Combs-Gates probably would not move to the east side of the field; that the JIMSAIR project proposal is the total project and would not repeat to the north; but that JIMSAIR has an option on property south of the operation for accommodation of T-hangars if it becomes feasible. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Koetting and unanimously carried (Christian absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing further review of the project to the April 28 meeting for review in conjunction with Cases 5.0224-CUP and Variance 6.322. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18329. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOC. for Equitec-80 for subdivision of land for industrial purposes on Bogie Road/San Joaquin Dr., north of Mission Dr. , M-1-P Zone, Section 18. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) Planner III stated that the EA report was basically the same as that for Case 3.475 and explained the Development Committee recommendations, • including Planning requirements. Planning Director stated that a former staff member has requested that the masonry wall along San Joaquin be eliminated because of graffiti ; and that perhaps a chain link fence or landscaping should be considered. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18329 (Cont'd.) Discussion followed regarding this request. Commissioner Service stated that in his experience, Bouganvillia can be planted against the wall to eliminate grafitti. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving TTM 18329 subject to the conditions outlined in the Development Committee recommendations; continuing the application to the April 28 Consent Agenda for further review and action. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 3.446. Application by SCHNECK AVIATION for deletion of condition of approval for fixed base operation at Palm Springs Airport, "A" Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that the Airport Manager has stated that there is no necessity for the oleanders along the north and east boundaries of the Schneck Aviation project; and that staff would recommend deletion of the requirement. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) deleting the condition that oleanders be planted along the north and east boundaries of the project. TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17642. Request by C. G. ENGINEERING for FREDRICKS/AFCOM for a one-year time extension of a subdivision of land for an affordable housing project on the northwest corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 35. Planning Director stated that the applicant is requesting a time extension to record the various phases of the project. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) approving a two-year time extension (to May 6, 1984) with no additional conditions for TTM 17642. DISCUSSION. Commission discussion of Council request for Commission determination on zoning location and criteria for rummage sales, City- wide. Planning Director stated that there have been rummage sales on Palm Canyon Drive for a long time and Council has concerns about them, especially during the season; and that staff would make the determination that rummage sales are not allowable in C-1 and C-2 Zones. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 • DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed regarding the operation of the Farmer's Market. Planning Director stated that it is operating under a Government program on City-owned land and is approved by the Director of Community Development and the City Manager; and that the concern was for ongoing rummage sales within buildings. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan regarding PTA rummage sales, Planning Director stated that schools are not subject to zoning ordinances. Planning Director stated that the C-B-D Zone should be included in the determination. In reply to a question by Commissioner Koetting, Planning Director stated that staff could develop an ordinance to allow staff approval and a requirement for business licenses for rummage sales. Motion was made by Service, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) determining (Case 11.321 ) that rummage sales be allowed in industrial zones only, later amended to include the following: "unless approved elsewhere by the Director of Community Development and not to exceed three days". . In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planning Director stated that charity rummage sales are allowed in City facilities "0" Zone. 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 3.458. Application by SICARD-ALTIVERO for R. Poplawski for architectural approval of office/warehouse in business park on Research Drive between Farrell Drive/Computer Way, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. Where the grade transition occurs, the fascia element of the architecture remain as one horizontal plane. 3. That final finish and color samples be submitted to the AAC for • approval . 4. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 . CASE 3.486 & TTM 18280. Application by J. CIOFFI for architectural approval of addition and remodel of bar, lounge, and additional parking for Billy Reed's restaurant north Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval of case & map. No comments received. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Service, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the exterior be brick. 3. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting be submitted. 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 Koetting, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) 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 2.977. Application by D. JUNG for architectural approval of landscape plans for Phase II of 66-unit residential condominium project on South Palm Canyon Drive/Avenida Granada, R-2 Zone, Section 35. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.053. Application by W. WALSH for Sands Hotel for architectural approval of carports for condominium project at 1983 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.403. Application by KAPTUR ASSOC. for Heathman-Hill Assoc. for architectural approval of revised bank elevations for professional office complex on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved as submitted. • Abstention: M. Harris April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 • CASE 3.403 (Cont'd. ) Tribal Council comments: "The project is adjacent to the easterly boundry of the Tribal Cemetery. In view of the possible visual impact on the Cemetery, the building elevations and the site and landscaping plans were reviewed by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Council at the time of architectural approval . The Tribal Council , at its meeting of March 9, 1982, approved the revised elevations for the bank. This approval was conditioned on the earlier agreement and understanding with the applicant that he will install and maintain a landscape buffer at his expense, on the Tribal Cemetery grounds adjacent to the project if deemed necessary and so requested by the Tribal Council at the time of a followup site inspection. The Tribal Planning Consultant has been advised by the architect's office (Kaptur Assoc. ) that the latest revisions to the elevations for the bank involve an architectural detail , and would have no visual impact on the Tribal Cemetery. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commissioners, the Tribal Council reiterated its action of March 9 to . approve the revised elevations for the bank, subject to the agreement and understanding with the applicant as noted above." ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.432. Application by G. BOUTON for J. Hicks for architectural approval of repaint of exterior of building on North Palm Canyon Drive/Tamarisk Road, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director described the proposed colors of the building as off- white against brown stone next to a greenish color. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried (Christian absent; Madsen & M. Harris abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: that the green color be returned under the soffit. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by COMMERCIAL SIGN COMPANY for architectural approval of logo for Crocker Bank at 1711 East Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 25. Planning Director stated that logos originally were not allowed on buildings in the City but are now reviewed on an individual basis. Motion was made by Service, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) approving the sign application (logo) subject to the following condition: April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd. ) That the logo be placed next to the permitted sign. (The size as submitted is approved.) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by G. MATTHEWS for architectural approval of gas rate sign for Arco Station at 3689 North Indian Avenue, C-M Zone, Section 34. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Christian absent) approving the sign application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sign have an all blue background with white lettering and numerals. 2. That the numerals conform to the six inch maximum size. 3. That the self-service letters conform to the six inch maximum size. 4. That the grade of gasoline letters conform to the two inch maximum size. CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 2.960. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of palm tree lights for The Vineyard retail complex on S. Palm Canyon Drive/Baristo Road, C-B-DD. Zone, Section 15. Continued for Planning Commission review and/or guidelines per AAC request. CASE 3.487 (Cont'd. ) . Application by J. CIOFFI for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of single family residence on private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. (Environmental assessment and tentative architectural approval . ) Continued at the applicant's request. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18126 AND CASE 3.439. Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for J. Cain for architectural approval of final grading and landscape plans for residential condominium project on Vista Chino between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-G-A (6) Zone, Section 12. Continued for submission of detailed landscape plans. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Date of Planning Commission review of Case 5.0216-CZ (denial which was overruled by City Council) . Planning Director stated that no public hearing had been scheduled pending staff review of the case. P. Tynberg (Tentative Tract Map 16759). Explanation of City Council motion. Planning Director stated that the motion was to approve the setback reduction only on the tennis court on the wash side of the project, not on the exterior or interior boundaries, although there was some confusion regarding the motion. He stated that the applicant will redesign the boundaries. Bank of Palm Springs - removal of temporary building. Planning Director stated that it would be removed, but no date has been established. (Case 3.309) Noise Ordinance. Planning Director stated that it probably would be scheduled for the May 27 meeting. In reply to a question by Commissioner Service, he stated that the problem reflected in Case 5.0221-CUP is really a zoning question and does not pertain to the Noise Ordinance; that the City has had very little problem with religious groups; and the CUP process is more effective in this case. Electronic Game Arcades. Planning Director stated that no date has been scheduled for public hearing because the arcade ordinance is still being • developed. April 21 study session. Planning Director stated that there was no urgent item to be discussed for that date and requested that the study session not be held because of a conflict with a management meeting called by the City Manager. Video Tape. Planning Director stated that a good video tape regarding open space will be shown at a future meeting. - Letter from E. Dobbs. Commissioner Allan stated that she had read the letter from Mr. Dobbs relative to Case 5.0221-CUP. Status of Review of Timeshare Ordinance. Commissioner D. Harris requested the status of the review of the Timeshare Ordinance regarding projects under 12 units. Planning Director stated that he had written a memo to the City Attorney but had not yet received a reply; that a new Assistant City Attorney (Siegfried Siefkes) has been retained who has been assigned primarily to Community Development and will be attending Plannng Commission meetings on a full-time basis; that Mr. Siefkes has been in the City of San Bernardino and is knowledgeable about Commission function and zoning so there should be more timely input from the City Attorney's office in the future. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planning Director stated that decisions of the Assistant City Attorney assigned to the Planning • Division and Planning Commission would still be subject to the City Attorney's final decision. April 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Allan stated that after her term expired, she had been going to speak in the public comments section of a Planning Commission meeting to request that an attorney be assigned to the Planning Commission for its protection. Planning Director stated that the new Assistant City Attorney will also meet with the Planning Director and Planning Commission Chairman on a regular basis before meetings to review problems. Case 5.0216-CZ (Continued) . Planning Director stated that the item would possibly not be scheduled until July for a General Plan Amendment or under a PD for finding that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. New City Council . Planning Director stated that the recently elected Mayor and two City Councilmembers will be seated on the Council at the April 21 meeting. Case 5.0216-CZ (Continued) . Planning Director stated that the applicant in this case has spoken to the new Council members and indicates to staff that he sees no problem with his re-application; that he has told the applicant that the Commission may still deny the project and send it on to the Council for action. Commissioner Allan commented that the Council wishes the traffic problem to be alleviated although the project will add to the problem. - Bogie Road Bridge. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Bogie Road Bridge is to be widened to four lanes. Introduction of two new planners. Planning Director introduced Robert Green, Planner II from England, and Stephen Graham, Planner II from New England. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. MDR/mi PLANNING I t R •