Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/05/26 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1b Council Chamber, City Hall May 26, 1982 1:30 p.m. F-Y 1981 - 1982 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Michael Harris, Chairman X 17 5X 20 2 Carrie Allan X 19 3 Richard Service X 20 2 Paul Madsen X 20 2 Darel Harris X 18 4 David Christian X 21 1 Peter Koetting Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dudley Hemphill , Traffic Engineer Robert Green, Planner II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - May 24, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton Peter Koetting James Cioffi Paul Madsen Earl Neel Absent: Hugh Kaptur Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 12, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Page 13, - Case 5.0166-PD-124, D. Harris should have been listed as abstaining. • May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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. ) Planning Director presented a brief history of the application and stated that the project had been continued from the May 12 meeting after two votes failed to approve the proposal ; that Commission concerns were the parking arrangement and intensity of use both of which had been discussed with the applicant but no new plans had been submitted relative to the parking; that tandem parking has been approved at the Unity Church at Camino Real and San Lorenzo and no complaints have been received from the neighbors or the church; that the number of people using the building is within the limits of the Building Code as are restroom facilities; that major Jewish holiday activities which will result in more than 36 people will be scheduled offsite in an appropriate assembly area; and that staff findings would remain the same as the staff report of April 28. He presented the staff report including findings, recommendations and direction for Commission action and read a letter from S. Spiegelman in favor of the project, stating that the building has not been used recently for the uses applied for in • the application. In reply to a question by Chairman, Planning Director stated that not all of the parking at the Unity Church is tandem parking. Discussion followed on the Fire Department requirements for the project and parking lot redesign. Planning Director stated that if redesigned, the parking would go almost to the building and it was felt by staff that part of the site could be more attractively developed for the neighborhood and the facility; and that a condition prohibiting overnight lodging should be established. Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Stauber, 1080 Laverne Way, representing the applicant, stated that all conditions of staff and the Commission would be followed; that the number of persons using the building would be reduced to 30; and that there would be no overnight lodging. He presented a photograph of existing tandem parking at the facility and stated that the restroom facilities are sufficient according to the Building Division; that the facility will connect to the sewer; that the UBC allows one person per seven square feet and therefore the building could house 70 but the number will be reduced to 30; that there will be a deed restriction for subsequent uses relative to intensity of the use; that the Rabbi will outline overflow sites for special events; and that contact has been made with persons living on Avenida Ortega who objected to the proposal and a number have now indicated support with others signing an alternative petition (on file in the Department of Community Development). May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) M. Buccino, 274-A N. Palm Canyon Drive, landscape architect for the project, stated that he had explored a typical parking plan more acceptable in terms of code but did not pursue it because it did not result in an acceptable alternative; that parking is not a major consideration since the members do not drive on their Sabbath; that with the reduction in the number of persons to 30, two parking spaces could be eliminated but he would like to leave them in the plan since it allows more flexibility; and that it was not in the best interest of the church or the neighborhood to redesign the parking. Y. Denebeim, Rabbi & director of the Synagogue, stated that the use would be a daily prayer chapel ; that alternate facilities will be used for larger activities; and then distributed copies of advertisements and journals of the various activities and locations that have been scheduled for major holidays. He stated that Purim activities will be held at Vista Del Monte School and described the facilities that had been rented for major holidays including a day camp at the Camp Fire Girls' facility; that ten adult males are required for communal prayers which start at 8:00 a.m. daily and are from 35 to 45 minutes in length and Saturday from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. ; that nightly services start a few moments before sunset and continue for a few moments after sunset; that • the only other use of the building is for an office for himself; and v that the daily attendance was ten to 25 people. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Discussion followed on the length of the nightly services since it depends on the time of sundown. Rabbi Denebeim stated that the service would begin later in the summer months but that the major attendance would be in the winter since there are very few 6rthodox Jews in Palm Springs on a regular basis; that sunset is based on the nautical sunset, not the visual sunset; that the visual sunset is one and one-half hours earlier; and that he would not object to a regulation of the hours of the evening services. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the conditions of approval . Commissioner Allan stated that she would not support the proposal because of the tandem parking arrangement which, if approved, would establish an undesirable precedent. Motion was made by D. Harris and seconded by Christian to approve the CUP subject to staff conditions and limiting the maximum number of persons to 30; connection to the sewer and limitation of hours from 7:00 a.m. to one hour after sunset; and also with no overnight lodging. • Discussion followed on the difference between visual and nautical sunset. Commissioner D. Harris withdrew his motion (seconder agreed) and stated that he did not realize that the times of the sunset which affected the length of the service were important to the Commission. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 . PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0221-CUP (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (Allan dissented) approving CUP 5.0221 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committe be met with the exception that the maximum number of persons allowed is 30. 2. That the hours of use be limited to 8:00 a.m. to one hour after the nautical sunset. 3. That the facility connect to the City sewer. 4. That no group activities take place outside the structure. 5. That all requirements of the building permit previously issued to convert various parts of the building be met. 6. That the Commission reserve the right to review the facility and monitor complaints received concerning the activities on the premises. 7. That there be no overnight lodging. • 8. That the facility improvements be made prior to use of the facility for prayer chapel purposes. CASE 5.0223-CUP. Application by COBLE/BRAMBLETT Construction Investment for a CUP 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. ) Planning Director stated that the application had been reviewed at a previous Commission meeting and a concern expressed that although there is a 50% open space requirement, the project provides only 24.5%; that staff had met with the applicant and discussed directions of the Commission including elimination of the driveway and turnaround area which might be landscaped, and elimination of parking on the east and north sides of the building which also could be landscaped; that the applicant felt that the building had been in existence in its present condition for a long time and should not be changed; and that no information had been provided by the applicant for staff to review the overall site leaving two options available: 1. Continuation for restudy to conform with the ordinance when the • applicant provides the information. 2. Denial as being inconsistent with the current ordinance requirements for open space. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd. ) He then presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action and stated that the project was not being reviewed in conjunction with the non-conforming restaurant use on the property which the Commission denied but which had been overridden by the City Council ; that although the Council overrode the Commission, the staff conditions were adopted, including the requirement that the illegal office use be applied for with a conditional use permit; that the office use began as an adjunct to the sale of the condominiums and the real estate and other office functions remained with recent non- conforming office uses being added; and that staff would recommend continuance to allow new plans to upgrade and improve the property. In reply to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that the Ranch Club Estados condominium complex is a separate parcel although the entire property is under one ownership; and that no parking on the subject parcel is credited to the condominium; that more parking is provided than required; and that 30 to 35 spaces could be eliminated for open space but the applicant does not want to do this and seems reluctant to negotiate although one of the applicants indicates that some minor improvements have been done already. Discussion followed on the amount of office space and the corrections • required by the Building Division. Chairman stated that the Building Division requirements are not in the Commission's purview. Planning Director stated that the total square footage is less than 10,000 sq. ft. but that other concerns may require fire sprinklers to be added. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Coble, 1445 N. Sunrise Way, the applicant, stated that the plot plan had been approved years ago with the concurrence of the Planning staff at that time; that there is a wall with plantings in the front of the project; that it would be unfeasible to remove the asphalt and plant the area with grass since the only ones viewing the area would be persons in the offices; that the elimination of the turnaround would restrict traffic and people use the turnaround; that the Building Division and Fire Department inspectors had reviewed the project and it conformed to code; that eucalyptus trees had been planted along the rear of the building; that it had been a hotel operation previously and the only changes made were for his own personal office which is upstairs; that there was very little traffic; that the entire project was done as a whole; that it is not an illegal use nor a non-conforming one; and that he had bought the building as it is and has maintained it and it should be left alone. • May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd.) In reply to a question by Chairman, Mr. Coble stated that he was reiterating his opinions from the April 28 meeting; that the entire project should be taken into consideration for open space requirement calculations and that the turnaround area should remain since there is an easement for use by residents of the condominiums; and that he had agreed to every requirement within reason but that removing curbs and blacktop was not a reasonable requirement. He noted that he met all requirements of years ago and stated that the landscaping was planted in 1970 or 71. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the configuration of the area. Planning Director stated that the condominiums in the Ranch Club were separate parcels with one ownership with joint access agreements but that the need for access is only up to the carports and that there was a deficiency of approximately 50% in open space requirements; that in 1971 there was no open space requirement in the R-2 Zone and that requirements were initiated in 1972; that even if the whole site were considered, the open space requirements could not be met without modifications. • Commissioner Service stated that he was sympathetic with both sides and that in this instance, the applicant states that the parking area is not used intensely and that the church parking arrangement was made in response to the fact that the members do not drive; but that the office use could become intense and that he felt that the use is transferrable. Commissioner D. Harris requested that the application be continued for resolution of the open space problem. Chairman stated that this had been requested in the April 28 meeting. Commissioner Allan stated that she thought that the Commission had requested additional landscaping, not necessarily to fully address the open space requirement nor total redesign of the project. Commissioner Madsen stated that the Commission was overlooking the fact that the use had been in existence for ten years; that removing the driveway and replacing it with landscaping would not improve the quality of the project; and questioned whether or not the Commission had a carryover responsibility from prior Planning Commission approvals. Chairman reminded the Commission that Commissioner Allan and he would no longer be on the Commission after July, but that the Commission would have to live with the precedent regarding open space requirements since the Commission can always find a reason for not having open space and he was not sure that the Commission could live with this. • Commissioner Madsen stated that regarding the subject proposal , it is a CUP and would not establish a precedent that it is under on open space requirements but overparked and questioned the difference between the area's being green or black. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd. ) In reply to a question by Chairman, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows the CUP with minor modifications to the development standards but to do so, the Commission must make the decision as to whether or not the modification is a minor one and if so, the Commission can approve it. Planning Director stated that a minor modification is one in which the staff can make a decision; that the findings are the same as those of a variance; that in this case it is a 50% reduction and therefore not a minor modification; and that the original use was for a clubhouse and restaurant and commercial purposes were never addressed by staff or the Commission. Assistant City Attorney stated that if the applicant wishes to deviate in more than a minor fashion, he should apply for a variance concurrently with the CUP. Discussion followed on recent use of the building. Commissioner Service stated that the entire second floor had been a discotheque and the use had received many complaints; that there was a difference from a quiet office use; that it was a transferable right and the Commission is being asked to legitimize it; that if the building were an historical site, it . would be different; but that the Commission is reviewing open space requirements; that all other applicants must meet current code; and questioned whether or not the facility met code. Discussion continued on the current use of the building. Commissioner Madsen stated that after having the situation explained by the Assistant City Attorney, he could no longer support the request since it is a major modification, and perhaps the applicant can apply for a variance. Planning Director stated that the issue arose when the request for a nonconforming restaurant use was approved by the Council; that if the CUP were denied, all office uses in the building should cease until a CUP is approved; and that some legal action should be taken to enjoin the applicant from using the space illegally. Assistant City Attorney stated that the situation becomes a code enforcement problem. Motion was made by D. Harris and seconded by Allan to continue the application for the applicant to resolve the concerns of the Commission including open space. Assistant City Attorney stated that it should be continued to a specific date. • After discussion, Commissioner D. Harris withdrew his motion with consent of the seconder. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd.) Motion was made by D. Harris and seconded by Allan to table the application pending receipt of plans for a variance. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Allan, D. Harris, Service Noes: Christian, Koetting, Madsen, M. Harris Absent: None The motion was defeated. NOTE: Commissioner Allan stated that the only difference between tabling this time and the previous time was that the applicant would be directed to file a variance application. She stated that she was confused since a new project has just been approved with an exception to parking because of the type of activity and the Commission is now stating that an existing use which may become busier is not proper in applying for a CUP; and that by denying the application, the applicant will have to submit another application and begin again. Discussion followed on the intent of the Commission. Assistant City Attorney stated that it appeared that the Commission wished to refer the • application back to the department for a variance and that if a CUP is denied, the applicant must begin again with new fees; that he did not believe that that was the intent of the Commission which wants to give the applicant an opportunity to develop acceptable plans. Chairman stated that in regard to a variance, it would be difficult for him to vote favorably for a 50% open space deficiency. Commissioner D. Harris stated that the applicant should be able to see the deficiencies, and that he felt that the problem could be resolved without the applicant beginning the process again. Motion was made by Madsen and seconded by Koetting to deny the CUP application on the grounds that the Planning Commission cannot find that the deficiency in open space is a minor modification. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Christian, Madsen, M. Harris Noes: Allan, D. Harris, Koetting, Service Absent: None The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Service, seconded by D. Harris, and unanimously carried tabling the application pending receipt of plans conforming to the ordinance and later amended to limit the time to submit a variance • to 90 days (August 26, 1982) . NOTE: Assistant City Attorney had advised that the variance must be submitted within a reasonable time, therefore Commission set the 90 day limitation. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0223-CUP (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on the type of revision to be made to the project. Planning Director stated that resourcefulness could be used in terms of the site plan and averaging of open space over the entire site and other methods can be used to bring the project closer to ordinance requirements. The application was tabled pending submission of a variance within the 90 day limitation (August 26, 1982). CASE 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132. Application by C.G. DUNHAM & S. PLATT for review & comment on the draft of Environmental Impact Report for two contiguous development proposals as follows: PD-111 to allow 11 hillside single family lots and PD-132 to allow 10 hillside condominiums and one single family lot, both to be located on the west side of S. Palm Canyon Dr. between Cahuilla Hills Dr./Murray Canyon, R-2 and 0-20 Zones (I.L. ) , Section 34. Planning Director presented the staff report and stated that the Tribal Council is concerned about visual and archaeological resources although staff had no problem with the archaeological report; that perhaps the current Tribal Council consultants were not working for the Tribal Council at the time the EIR was drafted; and explained the basic • proposal on the display board. He stated that the rationale for more than one unit per 20 acres is that there is R-2 Zone extending into the hill area; that the EIR is focused on the City's areas of concern; that the Commission should decide if the report speaks adequately to the issues and whether or not more information is needed; and that the draft and the responses are the forerunner of the final EIR. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Schlecht, 801 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing both applicants, stated that the applicants would respond extensively in writing because of the lateness of the hour; that this proposal to reply in writing had been approved by the Planning Director; and that the applicants and the engineer were present to answer questions. P. Short, 149 Twin Palms Drive, representing POST, voiced opposition to the project on behalf of POST and presented written objections (on file in the Department of Community Development) . He stated that the consensus of the POST Committee was that approval without refinement of hillside development standards, including an open space ordinance, would set an undesirable precedent which would deteriorate the scenic hillside. Mr. Schlecht declined rebuttal . • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0136 & 5.0185 (Cont'd. ) Commissioner D. Harris stated that he would like attention focused on the sewage disposal system since the site is on bedrock and granite; that the project should be allowed to connect to the City sewer system or should not be allowed to develop until sewer capacity is met; and that there should not be a septic tank system for the project since there will be a problem with excavation in the bedrock and granite. In reply to a question by Commissioner Allan, Planning Director stated that the City has not encouraged new assessment districts because of the inadequacy of the sewer until the fall of 1983; that the project would probably not move ahead more rapidly than the expansion of the sewer plant; and that the area is almost all sewered. Commissioner Allan stated that the applicant should realize that the residents will give up visibility relative to police protection in order to have privacy. Planning Director stated that the application will be renoticed when the final EIR with the incorporation of Commission, staff and Tribal Council concerns is completed. • Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and unanimously carried to table the application until completion of the fina EIR and for renoticing at that time. Tribal Council comments: "The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April , 1982 and covering the subject projects, has been reviewed by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant. It was noted that the scope of this report has been limited to only those issues determined by the City's Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, dated September 24, 1980, to be potentially significant. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council found that the potentially significant issues identified in the City's Environmental Assessment/Initial Study have been addressed by the Draft EIR, and that the proposed mitigation measures appear adequate and appropriate. The Tribal Council recommended that particular attention be given during the preparation and revie of final development plans, to mitigation measures with respect to impacts on Visual Resources. The Tribal Council found that both the City's Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and the Draft EIR are deficient in that the possible impacts on archaeological and cultural resources have not been addressed. The subject projects are located in proximity to areas of • recognized archaeological and cultural significance. Pending receipt and review of information with respect to possible impacts on archaeological and cultural resources, the Tribal Council withheld final comments and action on the draft EIR." May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0216-CZ. Application by 1st WISCONSIN BANK OF MILWAUKEE for a CZ from R-3 to C-1 or such other zone(s) as the Commission may find appropriate on property situated on E. Palm Canyon Dr. between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Rd., R-3 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 26. (This item is being returned to the Commission by City Council & a General Plan amendment would be necessary to facilitate the application. ) Planning Director stated that the City Council reviewed the application on appeal and had held an extensive hearing reviewing the project relative to concerns of traffic generation and conflicts with the existing condominium project; that the restaurant site was left after the condominium hotel was built; that there had been several inquiries into the use of the site as a financial institution but staff had recommended that it would not support such a proposal because of a long- standing policy of no strip or spot commercial , although the City Council felt that it was a reasonable use for the site; that the staff report recommends continuance to consider a General Plan amendment; that staff felt that the property could be developed following General Plan guidelines such as residential condominium uses; that the Traffic Engineer feels that from a traffic standpoint, a savings and loan institution has the least amount of cars, but that it is another issue from the land use standpoint and would be addressed in the review of the recommended PD; and that the AAC felt that the concept was compatible with the surroundings. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Hellman, the applicant, stated that in the minutes of the City Council meeting, questions relative to the lease were raised and that one master lease is on the entire parcel with First Nationwide, a California Corporation, taking over the entire lease and First Wisconsin no longer being involved; that he had met with the AAC, CalTrans and staff on the project; and that the Traffic Engineer has devised a solution to the driveway problem on East Palm Canyon which had been a Commission concern. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Christian stated that two Councilmembers who sent the case back to the Commission were no longer on the Council , and perhaps it would be a good idea to send the application back to the Council with the original recommendations of the Planning Commission for response by the Council . Chairman stated that the proposal was intrusion into the residential area and should not be permitted. Commissioner Service stated that there is no shortage of land for financial institutions; that the R-3 standards should not be overlooked; • that the proposal consititutes spot zoning; that he disagreed with the Commission when it allowed a PD on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way since the General Plan is very specific that only one commercial complex be allowed per intersection; that there are several other uses for the property; and that the planned development district should not be redefined for the applicant. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0216-CZ (Cont'd.) Commissioner D. Harris also stated that he was not in favor of the spot zoning; that this use was not a proper one in a residential zone; that he was not sure that the AAC should approve the concept and that its expertise is in reviewing architecture; and that he felt that the project was not compatible and would not support it. Commissioner Madsen stated that the AAC assumed that the use was acceptable and reviewed the architecture only; but that there is a land use problem and nothing has changed from the original denial . Motion was made by Service, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried reiterating the Commission's previous action to deny the application for a change of zone. Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council , at its meeting of February 9, 1982, recommended that the orignal request for a change of zone from R-3 to C-1, be denied. A site survey of area development and a review of the City's General Plan and Zoning Map indicated that the requested C-1 Zone would be an intrusion of retail business uses into a neighborhood designated • as High Density Residential . Furthermore, the compatibility of some of the permitted C-1 uses with the existing residential developments would be questionable. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, denied the request for change of zone. It was noted that City Staff is recommending that the reconsideration of this case be continued to the first City Planning meeting in July. After consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council withheld action on this case pending receipt and review of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study." CASE 5.0219-CUP & TTM 16759. Application by PALM PROPERTIES for a CUP & map approval for reduction of interior setbacks to allow construction of up to 10 tennis courts on individual lots within a proposed 34-lot subdivision on Bogert Trail between S. Palm Canyon Dr./Andreas Hills Rd., R-1-B Zone, Section 35 (Returned by City Council ) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing and final approval . No comments received.) Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. • May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0219-CUP (Cont'd. ) Planning Director gave a brief history of the application and stated that it was denied by the Commission and appealed to the City Council by the applicant; that the applicant has redesigned the project and it meets all setbacks except for the lots facing the wash; that staff recommends approval subject to conditions outlined in the staff report with a revision to condition 5. that if one of the lots sharing a zero setback property line court does not build his tennis court, the adjoining court, if built, subsequently must maintain a five foot landscape setback from the property line; and that there are two changes in the Development Committee recommendations as follows: (1) A street light shall be required only at the project entrance drive. (2) There will be six instead of seven fire hydrants. He also noted that the AAC had recommended denial of the project. Commissioner Madsen, a Commission representative to the ARC, stated that the AAC felt that there is a tennis court ordinance and a new project should conform to it. • In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that there will be a homeowners association to maintain the common areas; that the street names could be changed for clarity; that there is a five foot setback on tennis courts from non-tennis court lots although the ordinance requires ten feet but the master plan would be known in advance to prospective buyers; that there is no requirement for construction of a tennis court; that with a five foot setback, a hedge could be planted to soften the court structure although a ten foot setback allows more in terms of landscaping maintenance; and that any bikepath on Bogert Trail would be striped on the street. Discussion followed on the sewer requirements for the project. Planning Director stated that in order for a tennis court and a house to be built under an AA application, two or more lots must be purchased; but that under a CUP the use would be discretionary; that if a CUP were approved, it would set a precedent for the tract and another CUP application could be submitted. Discussion continued regarding criteria for the five minute fire response time. Planning Director explained that the criteria is developed on a computer with factors such as speed limits and proximity of fire stations taken into consideration; that the fire department does not require fire sprinklers in pre-existing subdivisions in Andreas Hills and Southridge but that in any new subdivision in excess of the five minute response time, sprinklers must be provided; and that there • is a five minute response time map in the Planning Office for review. Chairman declared the hearing open. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0219-CUP (Cont'd. ) P. Tynberg, 1599 Via Norte, the applicant, reviewed the history of the project and stated that there was no concern regarding internal setbacks; that the homeowners association would not allow a buyer to buy a non-tennis court lot and apply for a CUP for a tennis court; that if a court were built on one of two adjacent tennis court lots, one would be left with a 23,000 sq. ft. lot in an area which requires 16,000 sq. ft. which would be of benefit to the area; that the lots are larger than code requires and are ample for a 4,000 sq. ft. house in addition to the court; that the wash area lot had been approved for shortened setbacks; that no one has appeared to be unhappy with this; that there are inequities in the fire response time; and that he was not sure that the five minute time was accurate. In reply to a question by Commissioner Madsen, Dr. Tynberg stated that he did not meet ordinance requirements because of dedication of five acres to the bridge and the remaining lot does have a strange configuration; that the shortened setbacks are internal and effect only two lots and he has never been told that it was a problem. Planning Director stated that the Council and staff had no problems but the Commission would have to recall how its members felt. • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Christian, and carried (Madsen dissented; Allan, Koetting & M. Harris abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving CUP 5.0219 and TTM 16759 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the exception that there be street lighting only at the project entrance and six fire hydrants instead of seven. 2. That individual lot owners submit plans for courts, including landscaping plans with plans for the residences. 3. That the CUP will run concurrently with the tract map and any subsequent extensions of time and will be established upon recordation of the final tract map. 4. That no night lighting be allowed. 5. That if one of the lots sharing a zero setback property line court does not build its tennis court, the adjoining court, if built, subsequently must maintain a five foot landscape setback from the property line. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) • CASE 5.0225-PD-138. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for G. Roos for a PD to allow a free-standing restaurant in conjunction with an existing hotel on the southeast corner of Via Escuela/N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendations and direction for Commission action. He stated that one letter had been received in opposition to the project; that the seating would not exceed three seats for every parking space; and recommended ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaraion, tentative approval of the project and continuance to the June 9 meeting for final review and action. Discussion followed on the seat count for the restaurant. Planning Director stated that there would be 144 seats at any one time; and that the facility, including the hotel , would be upgraded and refurbished and is basic Spanish style. Commissioner Service stated that the facility would be an asset because it is aesthetically pleasing but he did not feel that the parking was adequate and it should be calculated at one space per three seats. • Planning Director stated that only the massing studies were to be reviewed with the mixed use concept and seat shifting proposal to be reviewed through the planned development district process; that if 210 seats were ever developed, more parking would be provided; that if the restaurant were successful , the hotel section would be razed to provide the necessary parking; and that the problem is enforcement of the seating policy and trying to create a vehicle where the seating maximum is not violated. Commissioner Koetting commented that Kappy's restaurant on East Palm Canyon has a portion designated for night use only. Planning Director stated that the concept could be explored in relation to the subject proposal . Commissioner Koetting noted that the front of the building needs softening by landscaping. Commissioner Allan stated that she had concerns about enforcement of usage of seats based on the weather. Commissioner Koetting suggested that there be a plan developed where seating could be added later. Planning Director stated that the concept was discussed and the hotel could be eliminated or the restaurant revised. • Planning Director presented the site plan on the display board. Chairman declared the hearing open. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 . PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0225-PO-138. (Cont'd. ) D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, architect for the project, stated that he would ordinarily not speak on one of his project but that questions needed to be answered; that the client wants to take a dilapidated existing property and redevelop it with the restaurant in the front which would be the main income producer; that the parking count would be maximized eventually be removal of the hotel; that because of the wind, the outside seating would not be used very often; that similar situations exist in other restaurants; that there would be 50 to 60 seats for outdoor dining and the same number for inside with both indoor and outdoor seating of approximately 200 seats; that there are other instances where there is a policing situation; that he has been connecting with three other restaurants using leased parking; that there would probably would not be a strong night use for dual utilization of the facility; and that in inclement weather, the outdoor seating count would be low and the client wants 144 seats at all times with the flexibility of having 200 seats around the restaurant. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Service stated that it was difficult to refuse a customer service if there are empty seats in a closed area and felt that an area • should be designed for outdoor dining which could be closed; and suggested that 144 seat flexible restaurant be built with areas to expand without the gain involved changing seating because of the weather. Planning Director stated that under a planned development district, a restaurant could be closed for violating conditions of the planned development district; that the fire department does nightly inspection to monitor seating; and that an occupancy load could be established for the restaurant. Commissioner Madsen stated that the City will have a policing problem and he could not support the project; and suggested convertible spaces in the restaurant. Chairman commented that every time CUP'S and PD's are approved, there is a policing problem and that it is part of the process. Motion was made by Service, seconded by Allan, and carried (Madsen dissented; Christian abstained) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approving the project subject to the recommendations of the AAC, Development Committee and staff as specifically written in the staff report conditions 1 through 4 and continuing the application to the June 9 meeting for final review and action. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • PUBLIC COMMENTS C. Hellman, applicant in Case 5.0216-CZ, stated that if the Planning Commission were an advisory board to the City Council and the City Council directed a certain action, was not the Commission supposed to do it? Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission is an advisory Commission with final authority subject to appeal to the Council and that in the subject situation, the Planning Commission decision is final subject to appeal to the Council ; that the Council heard the appeal and in essence granted the appeal and remanded the application back to the Commission for reconsideration with direction to do certain things and the Commission did it; and that the Commission has the power to not follow direction of the Council . Planning Director stated that the application will be returned to the Council for Council to take further action. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Christian, and carried approving time extensions subject to original conditions of approval on the following items: TIME EXTENSION-TTM 16640 (Ref. Case 3.337) . Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for D. Johnson, for a 12-month time extension for TTM 16640, a subdivision for 10 dwelling units on Ramon Road between Warm Sands Dr./Grenfall Rd. , R-2 Zone, Section 23. Added condition: That the project be subject to school impact fees if adopted by the City Council . No: D. Harris TIME EXTENSION-TTM 17293 (Ref. Case 3.386). Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for Vaco Developers for 12-month time extension for TTM 17293, a subdivision of land for construction of a 66-unit condo complex on San Rafael between Virginia Rd./Indian Ave. , R-2 Zone, Section 3. No new conditions. TIME EXTENSION-TTM 17502 (Ref. Case 5.0107-CUP) . Request by KWL ASSOCIATES for E. Morris for 2-month time extension for TTM 17502, a subdivision of land to construct an office complex & professional condo units located between Sunset Way & Cerritos Dr., R-2 Zone, Section 13. No new conditions. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) • TIME EXTENSION-TTM 17043. Request by IRVIN ENGINEERING for ERDC (M. Dunn) for a 12-month time extension for TTM 17043, (and approval of final development plans for Case 5.0078-PD-91)D. a subdivision of land to allow construction of 97 homesites south of Highway Ill and west of Palm Hills Dr. , UR Zone, Section 32. Reiteration of Commission approval of final development plans and approval of time extension with no now conditions. SECOND TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0108-CUP. Request by M. HARRIS for Airport Plaza for a second time extension of 5.0108-CUP to allow construction of a professional office building at the northeast corner of El Cielo Rd./Ramon Rd., R-2 Zone, Section 18. Two year time extension with no new conditions. New expiration date will be April 23, 1983. Abstention: M. Harris Note: In reply to a question by Commissioner D. Harris, Planning Director stated that school impact fees are assessed to time extensions for pertinent projects and the applicant has the ability to agree or disagree to the condition. . Commissioner D. Harris stated that he had no opposition to assessing projects if the fee were adopted, but that the school fee has not been adopted. Commissioner Allan commented that if the school fee is not adopted, the condition does not apply. Chairman suggested that discussion on the school impact fee be placed on the study session agenda of June 16, 1982. 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 3.379. Application by C. MILLS for S. Cavalleros for architectural approval of relocation of trash enclosures on existing retail building at 200 N. Indian Ave., C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the location was recommended against by staff but the Traffic Engineers feels that the location is satisfactory. He showed the location of the trash enclosures and the route of the trash trucks on the site plan on the display board. • Commissioner Allan stated that she disliked seeing trash enclosures visible from the street. Further discussion followed relative to the location of the enclosures and the maneuvering ability of the trash trucks, especially on Indian Avenue. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.379 (Cont'd. ) Commission consensus was that the enclosure should be moved to the northwest corner of the property. Motion was made by Christian, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the trash enclosure be located in the northwest corner of the parking area. 2 That the existing curb break on Andreas be raised to match the current sidewalk and curb. 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 Koetting, and unanimously • carried 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 3.493. J. WALLING for F. Buchsbaum for approval of a 6-unit, two-story apartment complex on Stevens Rd. between Indian Ave./Palos Verdes, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing and final approval of case. ) Conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental Assesment/Initial study be implemented. 3. That the chimney element be increased in width and mass. 4. That the bay parking be decorative paving with colors and materials to be submitted with final landscape plans. 5. That the distance between the carports and the buildings be increased to a minimum of 12 feet. (An Administrative Minor Modification application is to be submitted. ) . 6. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.480. J. AULD for S. Marlowe for architectural approval of revised working drawings for single family residence on Dunham Rd. between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge Rd. , R-1-C Zone, Section 1. Condition: That roof gravel to the cove match the color of the redwood siding board. (Colors and materials will be subject to staff approval . ) CASE 3.342. J. WALLING for K. Miller for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family hillside residence on Crescent Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Conditions: 1. That the multi-trunked olive tree be increased to 42" box size. 2. That Palos Verdes trees be added to buffer the east elevations. 3. That the planter in front of the dominant vertical element be expanded and palms, shrubs and groundcover be added. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY • The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.401. S. CAVALLERO for J. Davies for approval of landscape plans for residence at 2395 Tigertail Lane, R-1-A, Section 25. Planning Director stated that Mrs. Davies has written a letter agreeing to cease all work on the house and that the AAC recommended that the revised landscape plans be restudied in the easterly side yard with a suggestion to incorporate native landscaping materials as the primary slope restoration. CASE 3.268. H. KAPTUR for J. Salkin for architectural approval of approval of miscellaneous revisions to site plan & elevations for a 61 unit apartment/condominium complex on El Mirador between Mel Ave./N. Indian Ave. , R-3 Zone, Section 11. Restudy the following items: 1. Carport. (Roof to overlay by 2 to 3 feet and each separate consecutive carport to be recessed by approximately one foot producing a step effect in plain view. ) 2. Landscaping. (Provision of shrub on top of mounding screening • carports. ) 3. Windows in end elevation. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ITEMS FOR RESTUDY (Cont'd.) CASE 3.439. S. KASSOVIC for J. Cain for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation & grading plans for 54-unit condominium project on Vista Chino between Cerritos Rd./Sunrise Way, RGA (6) Zone ( I.L. ) , Section 12. Restudy the following items: 1. Height of palm trees. (One in four to be 12 - 15 feet in height. ) 2. Circular traffic island. (Use of materials other than lawn for landscaping. ) 3. Screening of tennis courts. (Continuation of landscaping and mounding elements around the west side of the courts. 4. Landscaping of street elevations of units one and seven. (Increase planting to units property boundary. 5. Submission of a central open space. (Reduction in number of trees in area bounded by units 8 & 9, the pool , and Sun Vista Lane. ) 6. Integration of wall configuration with mounding and dwelling unit location and further refinement and submission of details. • CASE 3.496 (Minor) . UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. for architectural approval of modular unit to be added to existing building on Commercial Rd., M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Restudy the following items: 1. The proposed design and materials to be compatible with existing buildings. 2. Future details of materials to be supplied both on the plans and on a materials board. CONTINUED ITEMS TIME EXTENSION-TTM 14899 (Ref. Case 5.0170-PD-126) . ASL ENGINEERS for Friedman Ventures for a 12-month time extension for TTM 14899, a subdivision to allow development of commercial office/warehouse/retail complex on the northeast corner of Bogie Rd./Mesquite Ave. , M-1-P Zone (I.L. ) , Section 20. No new conditions. Tribal Council comments: May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 CONTINUED ITEMS TIME EXTENSION-TTM 14899 (Cont'd. ) "It was noted that City Staff is recommending a continuance to "work out concerns on expiring PD". Those concers are related to a recent change of zone on the subject property from M-1-P to M-1. On the understanding that TTM 14899 will not expire due to the continuance being recommended by City Staff, the Tribal Council after consideration of the Indian Planning Commission's recommendation, approved the continuance for the request for time extension on TTM 14899 until the City Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting." TTM 18087. KWL ASSOCIATES for Andreas Hills, Inc. , for approval of TTM 18087, a subdivision of property for lot sales on Bogert Trail, W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35 & 36. (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Continued at staff's request. TTM 18569. S. MORSE for Watts Industries for approval of TTM 18569, a sub- division of land for single family residential lots on Bogert Trail , • south of Palm Canyon Wash, W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Continued at staff's request. CASE 2.984. M. BUCCINO for Riviera Gardens Homeowners Assoc. for archi- tectural approval of revised wall and landscape plans for condominium project on Vista Chino between Via Miraleste/N. Indian Ave. , R-3 Zone, Section 2. Continued at applicant's request. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Planning Director announced that there will be a wind study meeting with the BLM and the task force on Whitewater Regional Park on Tuesday, June 1 at 1:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room. Chairman announced that Commissioner Service wished to attend. Discussion ensued on parking lot lighting for Case 5.0127-PD-113 (shopping center on Racquet Club and North Palm Canyon Drive) . After discussion, Planning Director stated that staff would monitor • lighting levels at 16 feet using the exising fixture and report to the Commission. May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 • COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION (Cont'd. ) Wind study report. Commissioner Allan stated that she felt that the report was haphazard and the Commisiion is asked to make a decision on something that they do not want. She stated that a small type of experimental project should be developed for more facts to be established and she would not like to see the beautiful ruined by the wind machines. Commissioner Madsen stated that Riverside County seems to be totally insensitive to the desert. - Gene Autry Hotel sign. Planning Director stated that it has been approved by the Commission. Campaign Signs. Discussion ensued on the offensiveness of the signs and the fact that they do not conform to the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Madsen suggested that a letter be sent to the candidates regarding requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Planning Director stated that they aren't all using no local contacts for the candidates; that he had no advice to give to private parties who wished to pull up the signs. - Budget Information. Planning Director distributed budget information materials to the Commissioners. • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Acting Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. PLANN~NG D C MDR/mi • i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 23, 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 19 5 Carrie Allan - 21 3 Richard Service - 20 4 Paul Madsen X 22 2 Darel Harris X 22 2 David Christian X 20 4 Peter Koetting X 23 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Michael Dotson, Planner II Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Robert Green, Planner II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - June 21, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton James Cioffi Paul Madsen Earl Neel Hugh Kaptur Absent: Peter Koetting Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the June 9, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. NOTE: All minute pages dated May 26, 1982 shall be changed to June 9, 1982. Motion was made by D. Harris, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Allan & Service absent) amending the May 26, 1982 meeting as follows: Page 18, Second Time Extension-Case 5.0108-CUP - new expiration date to be changed to April 23, 1984. Page 18, regarding school impact fees: The discussion to be under ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE beginning with paragraph 6, (Ref. Case 5.0204-MISC) . May 26, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the,,,Ma 26, 19824 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections Page 8/9 (Case 5.0223-CUP) - Discussion ensued regarding the use of the word "variance". Commissioner Service stated that he did not use the term in his motion. Planning Director stated that "variance" was used in the general discussion in relation to the possibility of lessening development standards to the degree desired by the applicant. Chairman noted that with a minor revision the applicant could have requested staff approval with an AMM, and the application could have been approved by the Commission on May 26. Planning Director stated that the term "minor" was addressed by the Assistant City Attorney in relation to the Commission approving "minor" alterations. Commissioner Service commented that the minutes stated that the applicant is to apply for a variance, but that is not the Commission intent and after further discussion suggested that the term "variance" be deleted and the words "revised plans" be inserted. Planning Director stated that the motion had been to table the application for submission of plans conforming to the ordinance, that the City Attorney stated that unless any variances were minor, the Commission could not approve the item, and that perhaps the intent was that if an application for a variation were filed it should be done within a limited period of time and perhaps the motion had been misunderstood when the amendment was added. Chairman stated (in reference to the Assistant City Attorney's statement) that if the applicant wished to submit a variance, it • should be done within 90 days although there is a question as to whether a time limit can be set on the submission of a variance. Commission consensus which was agreed to by the maker and the seconder was that the submission of a variance was not the intent of the Commission and that the motion should indicate submission of "revised plans", not a "variance." Page, 14, (Case 5.0219-CUP/TTM 16759) , add Condition #6: That the street names be revised for more clarity. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0225-PD-138. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for G. Roos for a PD to allow a free-standing restaurant in conjunction with an existing hotel on the southeast corner of Via Escuela/N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing and final approval . No comments received. ) Planning Director reviewed the project and recommended filing of a Negative Declaration and final approval subject to conditions. He stated that the seating is a maximum of 144, and that there is adequate parking for that amount of seating. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed.