Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/07/14 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall July 14, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 1 0 Hugh Curtis X 1 0 Darel Harris X 1 0 Hugh Kaptur X 1 0 Peter Koetting X 1 0 Don Lawrence X 1 0 Paul Madsen - 0 1 Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner III Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Dave ForCUCCi, Zoning Enforcement Officer II Tom Lynch, Housing & Economic Development Director Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - July 12, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton James Cioffi Earl Neel Peter Koetting Absent: Hugh Kaptur & Paul Madsen Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the June 23, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice-Chairman, Richard Service, welcomed the new Planning Commission members, Don Lawrence, Hugh Kaptur and Hugh Curtis and stated that election of officers for fiscal year 1982/83 would be held. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried electing Richard Service Chairman. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried electing Peter Koetting Vice-Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0226-CUP. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for S. Solomon for a conditional use permit to allow construction of additional facilities (clubhouse, exercise rooms, locker rooms, & swimming pool ) for conversion of existing public tennis facility to a private tennis club on Baristo Road between Sunrise Way/Hermosa Way, R-G-A (8) Zone, Section 14. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) • Planning Director stated that the application was continued to the July 14 meeting for renoticing to clarify wording in the application; that the CUP was for the expansion of the existing public recreation facility as a sublease by the applicant to a lease with the Palm Springs Unified School District (District) within a specialized public park as shown on the General Plan. He presented the staff report including findings, recommendations and direction for Commission action and stated that the membership is public, that there are no entry fees but there is an annual fee collected when using the facility in order to defray costs. He noted that a letter had been received July 13 from the District requesting that the CUP be denied based on criteria presented in the letter (on file in the Department of Community Development) but that staff feels that the criteria does not constitute grounds for denial . Planning Director read a letter from the Director of Community Development to the attorney representing the District regarding the applicant's concerns on street improvements, restaurant use, drainage improvements and other requirements. He stated that the applicant is not satisfied with the revised requirements and the matter may be referred back to the Commission at a later date. He noted, however, that Finding No. 5 in the staff report was deleted as not in the Planning Commission purview and that the AAC had recommended approval subject to conditions. 10 July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0266-CUP (Cont'd. ) Planning Director reviewed the letter and stated that it seemed to be more in the City Council 's purview rather than the Planning Commission 's since it concerned the lease agreement with the District. He noted that the District did not join in the lease with the applicant but that no District approval was necessary for the applicant to enter into the lease and that the reference to the law suit regarding the lease is not an appropriate subject to be deliberated by the Commission; that the District feels that the application is deficient since the District owns the property and should have had to join in the application; that the district sees the proposal as a private use and not a public park; that the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan; and that the remaining issues in the letter dealing with the validity of the lease, are not a land use issue and do not deal with elements before the Commission at the present time. Discussion: Planning Director explained that a "specialized public park" is a designation on the General Plan which would allow (after Master Plan details are resolved) development of a tennis center on the site; that he would have to review the lease in order to determine if improvements to the land reverted to the City or the District. An opinion was expressed that if the improvements revert to the City, the City probably should have been involved in the application. Planning Director stated that the street improvements were not • constructed by the City originally because of the nature of the streets since they would go nowhere at that time and that because the City had control and the responsibility over the improvements they were deferred until necessary. He stated also that there will be memberships sold for convenience in the club, but that anyone can use the facility and that the fees will be reviewed and should be no higher than similar fees in the Valley. Discussion followed on fee costs. An opinion was expressed that since there are exclusive clubs in the valley as well as public facilities fees could be a problem and also that there had been very little demand on the facility in the past even though the applicant is proposing to add three additional tennis courts. Planning Director stated that the applicant feels that the additional courts are necessary to provide full service to the patrons. Discussion continued regarding the responsibility of the Commission to review fee schedules, the nature of the use being public and regulation of the fees. Planning Director stated that action at the meeting would not defer action later if technical problems arise on the application. He stated that if the application were denied, it could be appealed to the City Council . He then explained the renoticing procedure. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 . CASE 5.0266-CUP (Cont'd. ) Assistant City Attorney stated that it appeared that if a liquor license were already in effect, it would not prevent a school from locating near it and that the restriction is on the applicant, not on the district. He noted that there is a possibility that eventually there could be a liquor license next to a school . Chairman declared the hearing open. S. Ehrens, 2481 Cahuilla Hills Drive, stated that no mention had been made of the Rose Garden condominiums which may be affected by the late hours of the proposed facility. Chairman stated that a condition of approval would be that the tennis court lights turn off at ten p.m. and the restaurant operate only until midnight. J. Cioffi, architect representing the applicant, stated that a continuance may be requested by the applicant since the list of conditions violates the applicant's sublease with the City and that perhaps the conditions should be renegotiated with staff, especially the street improvements. He stated also that the applicant feels that the CUP process is not necessary or useful since he has a signed lease with the City Council and feels he should not be subject to the requirements. He stated that he was present to answer architectural questions relative to the proposal . • There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that staff and the AAC recommended approval of the project. In reply to a question by Commission, Mr. Cioffi stated that if the conditions on the street improvements can be renegotiated, the applicant would not request continuance, otherwise it would be necessary since he feels that street improvements are an inappropriate condition, especially on Hermosa and Arenas. He remarked that if the improvements were so important, they should have been completed when the tennis facility was originally constructed and that the applicant does not want to be bonded since the lease expires in 1987 and he feels that he might be forced to put in the improvements even if the lease were not renewed. Planning Director stated that if street improvements had been constructed in 1974, the portion the applicant is questioning would not have been done because of the location of the development but that the applicant wants to add three courts which turn the corner which then require street improvements and that the City's lease states that the City will be responsible for improvements to adjacent streets of the project based on the General Plan, and that now this portion is being developed by another party who is responsible for the improvements. Mr. Cioffi stated that the question was: whether or not the City or the applicant was responsible and if the improvements could be waived, there would be no need for continuance. Planning Director stated that a CUP was required by ordinance for the proposal . July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 . CASE 5.0266-CUP (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on the sublease. The Commission was reminded that it should address Commission matters only. An opinion was expressed that a continuance might not be valid since the item has been on the agenda previously; the applicant has given no reason for not being in attendance; and the application has been properly noticed. He stated that other than the late arrival of the letter, there was no reason for continuance and that action should be taken. In reply to a question by Commission, Assistant City Attorney stated tht if the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval , he can appeal to the City Council . Commission was reminded that staff would recommend deletion of Finding No. 5 of the staff report. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent; Kaptur abstained) approving Case 5.0226-CUP subject to the following conditions: 1. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. • 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee, as amended, be met. 3. That the hours of operation be as set forth in the lease (6 a.m. - 11:59 p.m. ) with the exception that the tennis court lights not continue past ten p.m. CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132. Application by C.G. DUNHAM & S. PLATT for certification of the EIR and approval of planned development districts 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 Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 Zones (I.L. ) , Section 34. Planning Director apologized for the lateness of the staff report and stated that with the scope of the project it had been difficult to assemble all of the responses to the EIR on a timely basis; that staff is recommending certification of the EIR and that the Tribal Council recommends certification of the EIR subject to receipt of staff report, Development Committee Minutes and other materials and has also recommended a site survey. . Planner III stated that staff had responded to comments from City Departments, the POST Committee, the County, the State and the Tribal Council; that concerns were noted in the areas of the dual sewer system, archaeology, and open space conservation. He noted that the applicant in Case 5.0136-PD-111 had responded by letter noting his concerns July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) regarding offsite sewer requirements, buildable areas, and the recommendation for smaller lot sizes and clustered units near roadways. He then presented mitigative measures as proposed by the consultant and stated that the proposed measures would allow greater open space and make the project more compatible with adjacent developments; that staff recommends certification of the EIR; that the applicant has requested continuance to review the staff report; that the other applicant (Case 5.0186-PD-132) has not indicated to staff whether or not he wants a continuance and noted that the mitigative measures for the subject proposal do not alter the project; that the AAC has requested review of final development plans after the Planning Commission determination on land use and had recommended submission of detailed topography studies; and that the subject site had been previously disturbed. Chairman stated that Mr. Kaptur, after reading the staff report, would abstain from reviewing or voting on the cases. Planner III stated that staff recommended that Lots 8 and 9 be eliminated due to their being serviced through a substandard subdivision. He explained the term "microdrainage" as a small , natural tributary to a major drainage area and stated that during construction some of these will be disturbed. In reply to a Commission question, Planning Director stated that • individual homes are subject to Planning Commission approval and that the height would range from 15 feet above pad height to 30 feet on a stepped design. Discussion followed on roof height near S. Palm Canyon Drive and the number of lots. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. G. Dunham, 339 Via Norte, requested certification of the EIR for both cases and continuance in order to review staff reports and resolve problems. S. Ehrens, 2481 Cahuilla Hills Drive, objected to development of Lots 8 and 9 and gave a history of Cahuilla Hills Drive. He stated that the homeowners pay taxes but receive no benefit; that the road is substandard in width and dangerous; that it is a private road; that the City has stated it did not want a substandard road; that another developer was not allowed to subdivide west of Cahuilla Hills unless he provided a road; that the City owns land above the homes at the present time; that it is a precedent setting move by the developers to use the road which will increase traffic; that an EIR should have addressed the impact; and that the present condition of the road is due to the latest construction project. • Chairman stated that the City is recommending no access off Cahuilla Hills Drive. Mr. Ehrens stated that the developers might come back and request access later. He reiterated that the neighbors objected to development of Lots 8 and 9 and that a field trip should be taken by the Commission; that he felt the problem would not be resolved until action July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) takes place eliminating those lots, that there are only five developable lots; that to develop Lots 8 and 9, a hole would have to be blasted into a granite rock behind an existing dwelling. The applicant declined rebuttal . There being no further appearances, Chairman continued the hearing to the July 28 meeting. Planning Director requested the Commission to take action on certification of the EIR and stated that the writer of the EIR was present if there were any questions. He noted that Tribal Council archaeological and other concerns are addressed in the conditions and mitigative measures. Planner III reviewed the trail access with the Commission. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Kaptur abstained, Madsen absent) certifying the EIR and subsequent addenda for Case 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 and continued the applications to the July 28 meeting for further review at both applicants' request. • Tribal Council comments: "a. CERTIFICATION OF EIR The subject projects are located in proximity to areas of recongized archaeological and cultural significance. At its meeting of May 25, 1982, the Tribal Council found that the City's Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated September 24, 1980 and the Draft EIR dated April 1982 were deficient in that the possible impacts on archaeological and cultural resources were not addressed. Similar concerns were expressed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. With respect to the potentially significant issues that were identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, the Tribal Council found that the Draft EIR addressed these issues and that the proposed mitigation measures appeared adequte and appropriate. With the understanding that a site survey shall be conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit (A.R.U. ) of the University of California, Riverside prior to submittal of final development plans, and that ushc plans shall incorporate any mitigation measures recommended by the ARU; and after consideration of the recommendtions of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council certified the EIR as being complete in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. • b. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS The City Staff Report, Development Committee Meeting minutes, site plans, etc. , were not available to the Tribal Council Consultant on July 12, 1982. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) . In order not to delay the further processing of this case, the Tribal Council tentatively approved the Planned Development Districts subject to receipt and review of the documents referred to above, including the site survey to be conducted by the ARU." CASE 5.0218-CUP. Reapplication by C. G. DUNHAM for a CUP to allow con- struction of a single story condominium complex on Mesquite Avenue between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, , R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones (I .L. ) , Section 24 (Given EA previously in conjunction with Case 5.0033-CUP) ; & TIME EXTENSION (SECOND) - TTM 11559. Request by ERVIN ENGINEERING for C. G. Dunham for a 12 month time extension for TTM 11559, a subdivi- sion of land to allow construction of a single story condominium complex on Mesquite Avenue between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-1-C and W-R-1 -C Zones ( I .L. ) , Section 24. Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendation, and direction for Commission action, and stated that the question on the boundaries of the property has been clari- fied. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission would take action on the time extension for TTM 11559 in conjunction with the action on the case. • Discussion: In reply to Commission questions, Planner III explained that erosion protection for the tennis courts will be afforded by a rock-lined levee and an additional five foot setback which are shown on the landscape plans. Planning Director stated that the project would probably not need any time extension since it will be constructed as soon as possible with no certificates of occupancy issued until there is sufficient capacity at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. G. Dunham, the applicant, requested approval and stated that he had no objection to the conditions. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) approving Case 5.0218-CUP and a 12 month time extension for TTM 11559 subject to the following conditions: TTM 11559 1 . That all original conditions of approval be met. 2. That all conditions of approval of Cases 5.0218-CUP and 5.0033-CUP be met. NOTE: New expiration date: 12/19/82 CASE 5.0218-CUP • 1 . That all conditions of approval of Case 5.0033-CUP be met. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0218-CUP (Cont'd. ) 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that this is a resubmitted application for a conditional use permit which has minor site revisions with the architecture remaining as previously approved. The original CUP expired in 1980. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the conditional use permit subject to the conditions outlined in City Staff Report dated July 14, 1982 with the exception that action on the condition requiring drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff." CASE 5.0228-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate noise sources throughout the community. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) • Planning Director stated that the Noise Ordinance was reviewed in study session and the motor vehicle section rewritten to address State regulation. He presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action and stated (in light of the memo to the Commission from the Airport Operations Manager) that no new policies are proposed, (all policies are in existence at the present time) and that staff would willingly monitor the ordinance for a year and report its effectiveness to the Commission. He noted that noise is responded to by staff at the present time through complaints rather than monitoring. He then distributed a graphically illustrated graph on noise levels and stated that anything above 60 dBa is destructive of the quality of the resort environment. Discussion: Discussion followed on early work permits. Planning Director stated that the subject is addressed in the Noise Ordinance and that there would be a provision in the ordinance not to begin construction until 7 a.m. ; that noise can be intermittent with a range above 60 dBa for a short period of time; that the noise is measured by a sound meter; that the problem lies not in a single blast, but in extended periods of noise; and that the City can be most effective in control of the latter. Planning Director explained the graph to the Commission as a display of noise generaters that are common and that noise would be regulated in general terms in the City. He stated that if the Building Division approved early work permits, it would have the Noise Ordinance standards • for backup and that construction activity probably would not start much earlier than 7 a.m. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 5.0228-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Chairman reminded the Commission that the City Council would be arriving for a meeting at 7 p.m. and that the Commission would have to leave the Chamber around 6 p.m. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Discussion followed on the possibility of having the hour of start of construction definite in the Noise Ordinance; the Building Division not allowing construction hours very early; and the small fee levied for violating the ordinance which is a misdemeanor under the Municipal Code. Assistant City Attorney stated that a misdemeanor is not a minor offense since it carries a $500 penalty and a six month jail sentence. Discussion followed on the early work permit time. Planning Director stated that the earliest it could be issued is 7 a.m. that it should be 6 a.m. in the summer. Planning Director stated that staff would prepare a directive on early work hours for the July 28 meeting. He noted that if complaints are received, the early work permits can be revoked. In reply to a Commission question, Planning Director stated that commercial flights are currently regulated by the City Council to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration tentatively approving Zoning Text Amendment 5.0228 and continuing the case to the July 28 meeting for further review including a review of the directive on early work permit hours to be prepared by staff. Tribal Council comments: "The Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant are currently reviewing the proposed Noise Ordinance. The Tribal Council requested additional time in which to respond to the Planning Department Memorandum dated June 17, 1982 requesting comments on this proposed ordinance." July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0235-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for consideration of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan to allow resort commercial uses to be integrated with PD-69 (Ref: Case 5.0216-CZ) . (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that the planned development district for the site will be on the July 28 agenda; that in the EA/Initial study, there was an error in the checking of the boxes and the "Negative Declaration with Mitigative Measures" box should have been checked; that all three of the recommendations should be followed; that processing of the General Plan amendment would be concurrent with the approval of the planned development district; that the City Council believes that the proposed savings and loan use on the corner is the best use for it in terms of traffic impact and compatibility; that Council has directed the Commission to establish conditions necessary to amend the existing planned development district to accommodate the use of a savings and loan institution; that the traffic flow from the south is a problem although there would be a problem with any development unless it were a residential one integrated into the existing residential condominium complex but that the applicant is not interested in a development of this type; that the Tribal Council , which had originally recommended denial of the project, was now recommending concurrence with the staff report for approval with the • recommendation that the General Plan amendment be expanded to include the 20 acre parcel extending westerly from Sunrise Way; but that staff does not recommend this. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Hellman, Woodland Hills, the applicant in allied Cases 5.0216-CZ and 5.0237-PD-142, and architect for the project, stated that he was in accord with the staff report and requested approval of the General Plan amendment and was available to answer questions. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Commission discussed the adequacy of "C" Zoning in the City and whether or not this type of use should not be put into R-3 Zoning. comment was made that the Commission has stated this twice to the Council but that the Council has stated that it is not relevant and has directed the Commission to approve a General Plan amendment. In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that if the Commission does not agree with staff recommendation and does not approve the GPA, the amendment would go to Council with a report from the Commission stating that a General Plan amendment is not necessary and proper because it would constitute strip commercial or spot zoning and the GPA is not appropriate; that staff would recommend review of the • EA and one more hearing on the application unless the Commission finds significant environmental impacts; that if the Commission were to take negative action, the GPA would be sent to the City Council after Commission input. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0235-GPA (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that site plans and elevations are on file for the proposed project. Discussion followed on the appropriateness of the GPA. An opinion was expressed that it is spot zoning and not an appropriate GPA. Motion was made by Harris for denial of the General Plan amendment. Planning Director stated that the motion should be in two parts, i.e. , action on the draft Negative Declaration, followed by action on the GPA. Commissioner Harris withdrew his motion. Motion was made by Hari-is, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration. Commission discussion followed on Council awareness of the feelings of the Commission on this application. An opinion was expressed that Council is looking for input on how the use can best be accomplished, and that the staff report indicates what direction the GPA should take. Discussion followed on the Commission' s wishes regarding the GPA. Commission felt that its desires should be expressed and then the Council can take any action it desires. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Madsen absent; Chairman dissented) tentatively denying GPA 5.0235 and continuing the application to the July 28 meeting for written response to the draft Negative Declaration. Commission noted that the application was denied for the previously expressed reasons that it is spot zoning, has environmental impacts, and is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Director explained that the action taken was tentative and the application would come back for final action and written response to the draft Negative Declaration at the July 28 meeting. Chairman directed staff to prepare a document with the Commission' s reasons for denial for the July 28 meeting. Tribal Council comments: "The original request for a change of zone from R-3 to C-1 (Case 5.0216- CZ) was considered by the Tribal Councl at its meetings of February 9 and May 25, 1982. At its February 9th meeting, the Tribal Council recommended that the request for change of zone be denied. A 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 . The compatibility of some fo the permitted C-1 uses with the existing residential developments would be questionable. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0235-GPA (Cont'd. ) At its meeting of May 25, the Tribal Council withheld further action on this case, which had been returned to the City Planning Commission by the City Council , pending receipt and review of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. The current case is a City Initiated General Plan Land Use Plan Amendment that would permit the proposed financial institution use (Branch Office of a Savings & Loan) on the subject property. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council concurred with the findings and recommendations outlined in City Staff Report dated July 14, 1982 with the exception that the General Plan Amendment include the total 20 acre parcel extending westerly from Sunrise Way." CASE 5.0236-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to prerequisites for issuance of building permits. (Environmental assessment and tenative approval . ) • Planning Director stated that the proposed zoning text amendment (ZTA) resulted from the City Council action on school impact fees and expanded wording on requirements for building permits; and that new policies and procedures are established by ordinance or resolution of the City Council . An opinion was expressed that the Council did not take into consideration the possibility of levying the fee at the time the notice of completion is issued which was a legitimate request since to require the fee on the issuance of building permits is a hardship for the developer and it was difficult to see what effect the timing of the fee would have on the District. Further discussion followed on the fact that fees do not relate to the issue since they are determined by the Council and that the Commission would be taking action only on language revision to the Zoning Text. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearance, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Madsen absent; Harris dissented) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving ZTA 5.0326 and continuing the application to the July 28 meeting for review of written comments on the draft Negative Declaration and final action. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 6.324-Variance. Application by D. MENOLASCINO for a variance from standards for condominium parking requirements at 2090 Camino Real , R-2 Zone, Section 26. (The action is preliminary to converting the apartments to condominiums. ) (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He stated that the variance provides the basis for the approach to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance for conversion of apartments to condominiums. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Allen, 1095 Twin Palms Drive, stated that he lived in the immediate area and had no objection to approval of the variance. Mrs. B. Moore, 92 LaVerne Way, opposed the variance stating that prior decisions have allowed projects to be built too near R-1 property, that traffic hazards have been created, and that she objected to the City being run by variances irregardless of location. She also objected to cars parking on her property and on the curb which she feels is hazardous. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Commission discussion followed on the location of parking on the irregularly shaped property and its impact on the area and on Mrs. Moore's property. Bay parking was suggested as an alternative but Planning Director stated that it could not be done, and that safety factors outweigh the parking problems. Motion was made by Harris and seconded by Curtis to deny the variance. The vote was as follows: AYES: Harris NOES: Curtis, Kaptur, Koetting, Lawrence, Service ABSENT: Madsen The motion was defeated. Discussion: Commission discussion followed on appropriateness of the variance and the parking problems. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Madsen absent; Harris dissented) approving Variance 6.324 as requested. Note: Planning Director stated that staff had no strong precedent for an application of this type since there is a physical problem on the property but since the variance had been approved, the applicant is now able to pursue an application to convert the apartments to condominiums. He further noted the action on the variance did not constitute approval of the conversion. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. G. McMillan, 1535 N. Indian Avenue, read a letter (on file in the Department of Community Development) requesting that pawn shops be allowed in any location in the City subject to a conditional use permit. She noted that rent for her pawn shop is being raised and requested a decision be made by the Planning Commission as soon as possible (Discussion Item) . C. Hellman, Woodland Hills, stated that he was frustrated since he had submitted all required applications to develop a project which will impact the site less than any other type of development except for a residential complex, that the City Council did not hear what the Planning Commission was saying but evidently would hear it again, that the project has merit, that the condominium owners in the area are in favor of the project, and that a residential complex can be viable in connection with the existing condominium complex but it is not financially feasible (Case 5.0235-GPA) . J. K. Moran, attorney representing Fun & Foods, requested approval of a sandwich shop with 25 video arcade machines in the downtown area. He stated that the use would be an accessory use under current law in that location and this opinion has been expressed to the Planning Director who stated that the department would remain firm in its policy of limiting electronic machines to four (although eight machines have been long established in a certain location in the City - Shakey's Pizza. ). He stated that he had been told by the Planning Director that after technical problems in the draft Ordinance were overcome, staff would formulate a measure to correct those problems and • present it to the Commission at the July 14 meeting which he felt was not a valid action to take against the applicant; and that there was only an oral report outlining the determination to be given to the Commission. He requested that the determination be modified to allow 25 game machines occupying less than 1/4 of the building at 160 Andreas and that a non- conforming right had been established since the client had paid a business license fee, has entered into a lease for the premises, and expended money on the interior and equipment. He then explained the Municipal Code (as he understood it) as it referred to Business Licensing and stated that this language in mandatory terms has taken away discretion from staff to deny a business license for the operation. Chairman reminded Mr. Moran that he had spoken beyond the 3-minute time limit and that his comments were in writing (Letter on file in the Department of Community Development) . Mr. Moran summarized by saying that the current law permits the accessory use to the sandwich shop in that location and that any interim measure was inappropriate because of the Planning Director' s statement that this interim measure was to stop the applicant (Determination 10.324) . J. Sanborn, Webb Engineering, TTM 18713, requested modification of several requirements for the map including modification of the knuckle, and deletion of the sidewalk with landscaping to be substituted because of the location of the map. He requested that the sidewalk on Racquet Club match the one across the street and that the sewer extension be required for the subject property only. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd. ) L. Paul , Hallmark Engineering (TTM 15620) , requested that the sewer line on Monte Vista be deferred until the property is developed and deletion of the cul-de-sac on the easterly boundary with staff review of both problems. 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 3.304 & TTM 15945 (Revised) . Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for J. Cotton for architectural approval and tentative tract map approval for four, 4- unit condominiums on Avenida Caballeros and Vista Chino, R-2 Zone, Section 11. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received. ) Planning Director stated that the application had been continued for Commission review of the odd color combination of the building. Discussion: Commission discussed review of colors in the field. • Planner III stated that the AAC recommended submission of working drawings and no enclosure of the open balconies. After further discussion, Commission consensus was that the colors should be reviewed in the field before final approval . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Madsen absent; Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a (draft) Negative Declaration and final approval of TTM 15945 and Case 3.304 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the colors are tentatively approved pending review in the field painted in a swatch on the structure. 3. That working drawings be submitted. 4. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 5. That no additions be made to the units. (This condition to be placed in the C. C. & R. 's. ) 6. That a final materials board be submitted. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS • Planning Director reviewed and explained the map and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following parcel map based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TTM 15620. Application by HALLMARK ENGINEERING for E. Marteka for approval of a phasing plan only for subdivision of single family lots on Stevens Road/Vista Chino/Via Monte, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (Previously given EA with approval of map. ) Planning Director stated that the phasing plan only was to be addressed since the map has been approved by Council . He stated that staff would recommend that as much of the cul-de-sac as possible be completed with Phase I. Discussion: Discussion followed on the sewer line deletion request on Monte Vista. Planning Director stated that it would be discussed with and resolved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development; • and that staff had no problem with approval of phasing of the project. Improvements on Vista Chino and Monte Vista were discussed. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) approving the phasing plan for TTM 15620 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and resolution of sewer and right-of-way problems with staff. TTM 17943. Application by R. BADDOUR for approval of subdivision of land for commercial/office condominum purposes on the northwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Del Norte, C-1 & R-2 Zones, Section. (Previously given EA in conjunction with Case 3.218. ) Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) approving TTM 17943 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. • July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 TTM 18713. Application by WEBB ENGINEERING for Racquet Club North for sub- division of land to allow a commercial complex on the northeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Racquet Club Road, C-1 & R-G-A (6) Zones, Section 3. (Previously given EA in conjunction with Case 5.0209-PD-136. ) Planning Director stated that staff would concur with the applicant's request for elimination of the knuckle, and for the sidewalk, the request for the sidewalk to match the one across the street and the requirement for the sewer to extend only to serve the subject property, but would not concur with the request to eliminate the sidewalk on Cortez. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent; Koetting abstained) approving TTM 18713 subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met as amended. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting at this point. • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.322. PLANNING COMMISSION determination that improvements being installed under AD-139 are in compliance with the City's General Plan. (The improvements will consist of sewer mains with laterals to the property line and blacktop paving for existing street. ) Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen & Koetting absent) determining that the improvements being installed under AD-139 are not in conflict with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Koetting returned to the meeting at this point. • July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 DETERMINATION 10.323. PLANNING COMMISSION determination that caretaker units • be allowed in commercial zones. Discussion: Commission discussion ensued on not allowing single family residences in commercial zones. Staff recommended that they be allowed and defined a caretaker's unit as a single unit that is provided or rented to persons in commercial buildings. Further discussion ensued on the definition. Planning Director stated that staff would formulate a specific resolution for the July 28 meeting. After further discussion, staff was requested to place the item on the July 21 study session agenda. The determination was continued to the July 21 study session (3 - 5 p.m. in the Large Conference Room at City Hall ) . DETERMINATION 10.324. RequA by STAFF for Commission determination to set the number of electronic games which may be allowed as an accessory use (proposed interim measure pending adoption of final arcade ordinance) . Discussion: Discussion ensued on the history of electronic game arcades in the City. Planning Director stated that Commission direction had changed from not allowing the games to a willingness to consider them but that no firm policy had been established although staff • determination has been for seven years that four machines or under was considered an accessory use. He noted that since the Zoning Ordinance amendment cannot be considered until September, Staff requests that to clarify the situation, the Planning Commission should review the policy since the concept of a limit of four machines may be contested; that the wording in the Ordinance does not specify the number of machines; that staff's normal function for business licenses is to review the application for consistency with the Zoning Ordinance; that there had not been specific objection to the four machine guidelines; that staff would have preferred waiting for the entire Ordinance to be reviewed but because of the eagerness of some applicants, in disregard of staff' s policy it was felt thataninterim measureshould be established by the Commission; that staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that anything in excess of four machines is considered as a main use as an interim standard pending adoption of a full ordinance. He noted that the terms "primary" and "main" would be more clearly defined, that the fire department currently monitors business establishments regarding exiting and other possible fire hazards with very little Planning or Zoning Enforcement involvement. He stated that the interim measure is for general regulation and is not intended for a specific applicant and that there is one person who desires approval within this time frame; that most businesses have complied with the four machine regulation although there is a pre-existing condition of eight machines at Shakey's Pizza. Assistant City Attorney stated that he had quickly reviewed Mr. Moran's letter and he has some questions but was not prepared to give an in depth opinion but that it appeared that Mr. Moran is attempting to establish his client's business as a legal , non-conforming use so that the client would be exempt from the regulations of any ordinance enacted afterwards. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 DETERMINATION 10.324 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that the number of machines (25) in Mr. Moran's letter is irrelevant, that any use not specifically permitted is prohibited, and electronic games as a primary use is prohibited. He stated that the application would have been brought back to the Commission on appeal from staff determination that 25 machines is the primary use, and that the attorney was bringing the issue to the Commission in order to best represent his client. Planning Director gave directions for Commission action. Mr. Moran interrupted the Commission at this point stating that the subject had been under study for seven years, that the law states a reasonable time, that he had little time for preparation, that his client was the only one applying for the use, (not the many persons staff indicated was the reason for the interim measure) also requested that the record indicate that the Chairman refused to let him continue, and stated he had more remarks. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission had requested broader use of the machines which has been under study for approximately six months and that the action at the meeting should be to confirm staff's administration to date since the full ordinance will not be heard by the Council until October. He stated that Mr. Moran' s approach would not have been considered several months ago but the Commission had indicated it wanted to review a broader concept. He stated that the applicant has indicated that he had spoken to the surrounding businesses regarding the proposal . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) determining that an accessory use for electronic game machines is four machines or less and that the definition of a primary use is five machines or greater. Planning Director stated that a definition of a primary use would be helpful in the C-1 and C-B-D Zones since there is currently a prohibition against video games as a primary use in these zones. DISCUSSION. Request by G. MCMILLAN to allow pawn shops in any location in the City subject to a conditional use permit. Discussion: Planning Director stated that staff was not prepared to make a recommendation on the subject proposal since it requires approval by the City Council for C-2 Zones. Commission discussion centered on possible zones to allow the use, the burden placed on individual proprietors regarding the sale of firearms, and the fact that action cannot be taken at the meeting because it is a revision to the Zoning Ordinance which requires public hearings. Commission consensus was to . place the request on the Planning commission study session agenda of July 21 and Chairman continued the item to that date. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 DISCUSSION. Review of proposed palm tree trimming policy recommended by the PALM TREE TRIMMING TASK FORCE. Discussion: Planning Director stated that the Task Force readopted the Commission's policy regarding the trimming of trees with an appeal process from staff to the AAC and Planning Commission for persons who disagree with the policy. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) readopting its original policy and concurring with the palm tree trimming policy established by the Task Force. TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17151 (Ref. 5.0155-PD-129). Request by ASL ENGINEERING for Cadillac Fairview for a 12-month time extension for TTM 17151, a subdivision of land to allow construction of a condominium project at the westerly terminus of Tahquitz-McCallum Way (south side), R-2, R-3 and 0-20 Zones, Section 15; and CASE 5.0155-PD-129. Application by CADILLAC FAIRVIEW HOMES WEST for archi- tectural approval of revised final development plans for condominium project at the westerly terminus of Tahquitz-McCallum Way (south side) , R-2, R-3 and 0-20 Zones, Section 15 (Ref. TTM 17151) . Discussion: Discussion followed on the problems of the project which staff indicated could be resolved at staff level including the decision on the historic flume. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) approving a time extension for TTM 17151 subject to all original conditions of approval (new expiration date: 6/17/83) . and, final development plans for Case 5.0155-PD-129 subject to the following conditions: A. Site Plan Approval as submitted. B. Landscape Plan Staff review of minor revisions indicated on the plans. C. Elevations. a. The roof slope to be restudied so that full hips are designed for the smaller masses which result in a one to two foot height increase. b. The roof of the arch element on elevations 6/5 and 4/3 be • surfaced with stucco or metal (originally tile) . D. Colors/Materials Board July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 _ TTM 17151 & CASE 5.0155-PD-129 (Cont'd. ) Approved subject to exterior finish being a smooth Spanish texture. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the request for a second 12- month time extension for TTM 11559. Action on the condition recomended for related Case 5.0218-CUP that requires payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff." 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 3.475 (Ref. Case 5.0224-CUP) . Application by JIMSAIR AVIATION SERVICES for architectural approval of identification sign for Bogie Road frontage and revised working drawings for airport service complex as adjunct to the overall facilities of the airport on Bogie Road between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, "A" Zone, Section 18. Discussion: Planning Director indicated that revisions have been made to the proposal with the addition of T-hangars and elimination of one of the large hangars and minor revisions to the Terminal Building; that no final working drawings have been received on the service station and the CUP is not an issue at this time; and that the convenience market in the service station has been deleted by the Commission. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent; Kaptur abstained) approving the sign and the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the mass of the chimney element be increased and that stucco be applied to the exterior. 2. That an extra bay be introduced to the east elevation of the terminal and that this element be wrapped around the south elevation. 3. That the screen wall be extended over an additional bay on the east elevation of the Terminal Building. 4. That the sign application is approved as submitted. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 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 Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously crried (Madsen absent) approving the following application subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: TTM 18087. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for Andreas Hills, Inc. for approval of TTM 18087, a subdivision of land for lot sales on Bogert Trail , W-R-1-B Zone, Sections 35 & 36. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received. ) Condition: That all recommendations of the Development be met. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.505. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for Palm Canyon • Assoc. for architectural approval of condominium development on the northwest corner of the intersection of East Palm Canyon Drive/Cherokee Way, R-G-A (8) Zone ( I.L. ) , Section 30. (Given EA previously in conjunction with Case 3.230. ) Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That barrel tile be used. 3. That working drawings be submitted. 4. That an elevation of the wall adjoining East Palm Canyon Drive be submitted including a landscape elevation overlay. 5. That landscape plans be submitted in two stages as follows: a. Preliminary plan focusing on trees. b. Detailed landscape plan which also shows irrigation and exterior lighting. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 CASE 3.463. Application by R. HARRISON for G. Maloof for architectural approval of revised elevations to store front at 198 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Discussion: The copper roof was discussed relative to glare and weathering. Planning Director stated that there is no problem with copper roofs. He stated that the signs are new and a common color with different graphics. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and carried (Madsen absent; Service abstained; Koetting dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That screen planting be introduced to the Arenas Road elevation. 2. That a screen wall and plantings be introduced to screen the parking lot. 3. That the roof profile be straight and of uniform height except on the southern elevation. NOTE: Commissioner Koetting dissented because he felt that the revision lacks the old world charm of the area and is inappropriate. • CASE 3.509 (Minor) . Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for Las Casuelas Terraza restaurant for architectural approval of installation of loading dock and trash facility at 222 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Discussion: Expansion of the trash area and the angle parking of the north side of the building were discussed. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent; Service abstained) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.473. Application by W. THOMPSON ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans and minor revisions to building elevations for residential condominium project on Calle E1 Segundo, Andreas, Calle Encilia, and Amado Road, R-4 Zone ( I .L. ) , Section 14. Discussion: Planning Director stated that the solar collectors originally proposed are under study; and that the access to the mechanical equipment is internal . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried . (Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That carports have a metal fascia three to six inches in width. July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 27 CASE 3.473 (Cont'd. ) 2. That carport screen walls be 4 1/2 to 5 feet in height. 3. That the working drawings specify that all lines are to be true and horizontal . 4. That landscape be integrated with carport screen walls. 5. That the terminal planters in the carport north of Buildings 14 & 16 be increased in size. 6. That screen planting be introduced and the peripheral planter be enlarged to conform to the ordinance on northerly boundary of the parking lot of El Segundo. 7. That additional peripheral landscaping will be required if future phases are not under construction prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase I . 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. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen absent) for a restudy of the following cases. CASE 3.504. J. WOODS for architectural approval of a sinqle family residence at 151 S. Tahquitz Drive between Andreas Road/Tahquitz Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 15. Restudy of the roof form, the length of the drive, and the easterly elevation. CASE 3.506. EQUITEC 80 for architectural approval of a business/industrial park on Bogie Road north of Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 18. (Previously given EA in conjunction with TTM 18329. ) Restudy for submission of elevations showing the effect that variations in site grading will have on the proposed building; submission of plans showing columns and beams; submission of a revised landscape plan reflecting the above changes; and submission of a separate sign application. • July 14, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 28 ITEMS FOR RESTUDY (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.157. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of landscape plans for Bogie Road Bridge approach. Restudy to provide alternate plant species which tolerate low temperatures and for submission of landscaping showing greater variety and contrast. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CASE 3.421. L. ADAMS for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family residence on the corner of Chino Road and Patencio Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Previously approved; removed from the agenda. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Staff was directed to prepare a resolution commending the service of former Commissioners Michael Harris, David Christian and Carrie Allan. A - Request by Commission for Building Division to police dumpster locations for blockage of access points. - Request from Commission for staff to report on policing of illegal transient rentals. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi •