Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/07/28 - MINUTES (2) t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall July 28, 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 - 1 1 Hugh Curtis X 2 0 Darel Harris X 2 0 Hugh Kaptur X 2 0 Peter Koetting X 2 0 Don Lawrence X 2 0 Paul Madsen X 1 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Allen Smoot, Building & Safety Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Michael Dotson, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - July 26, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman Chris Mills (alternate) David Hamilton James Cioffi Earl Neel Peter Koetting Hugh Curtis Absent: Hugh Kaptur Vice Chairman called to the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Madsen and unanimously carried (Ser- vice absent) approving the minutes of the July 14, meeting with the follow- ing revisions: Page 5, third line, add: "by Harris" after "expressed" (Case 5.0226-CUP) . Page 5, Case 5.0226-CUP should show that Koetting dissented (delete "unani- mously") . Page 15, second paragraph, fourth line, delete "not" (Case 5.0235-GPA) . July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 NOTE: The Tribal Council did not meet during the week of July 28, there- fore; there are no Tribal Council recommendations. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES Commission discussed adjourning the meeting of August 11 due to lack of a quorum. Consensus was to adjourn the meeting. The next meeting of the Commission will be August 25, 1982. Planning Director requested that Commission consider addressing Case 5.0233- PD-141 out of order since the attorney representing the applicant had another commitment in Riverside. Commission consensus was to review Cases 5.0136-PD-111 and 5.0185-PD-132 first because of its lengthy processing time. CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132. Application by C. DUNHAM and S. PLATT for approval of planned development districts for 2 contiguous develop- ment proposals as follows: PD-111 for 11 hillside, single family lots and PD-132 for 10 hillside condominium and 1 single family lot, both located on the west side of S. Palm Canyon Drive between Cahuilla Hills Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 & 0-20 Zones ( IL) , Section 34. (Final approval . ) Planning Director stated that staff and the Tribal Council recommended approval of both projects and described the alternative solution to the road access and proximity to the roadway. He recommended separate action on each project. Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that it was compatible with the surrounding area and described the reconfigura- tion of lots as recommended by staff. He stated that lots accessing from Cahuilla Hills Drive have been eliminated; that the major objection of the neighbors was additional traffic, but that no objections have been submitted in writing; that there will be no public access to open space (only to the trails) ; and that there will be no access of Palm Canyon to the single family lot. Planning Director discussed wording revisions to Planning Division Con- dition No. 9 and two additional conditions. He stated that the appli - cant was satisfied with the setback condition on the large single family lot. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open. C. G. Dunham, 333 Vereda Norte, the applicant, stated that he and Stan- ley Platt concurred with staff recommendations, and that after off-site sewer problems are resolved, the project would proceed without delay. • R. Katherman, 15335 Morrison St. , #350, Sherman Oaks representing Vista Canyon Homeowners' Association, requested any revised staff report for the project because the homeowners were concerned about density, topo- graphy, access, drainage, hydrology, and obstructionof the view. He stated that an undesirable precedent would be established regarding July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) . hillside development if the projects were approved, and that more informa- tion was needed to be given to the homeowners; that it seemed that pri- vate ownership rights had unbalanced the City' s Open Space Element; that sewering is a problem and should be resolved before building permits are issued. Vice Chairman stated that all of the concerns were addressed in the EIR. Planning Director stated that the project would be required to connect to the sewer directly with occupancy permits withheld until capacity is available; and that there should be no problems resulting from the sewering of the project. Mr. Katherman stated that it was difficult for the Commission to make a decision without all the information since the situation is complex with questions that require answering so that the project can be judged by the affected homeowners. C. G. Dunham (rebuttal ) stated that the total number of housing units is less that could be built; that houses and grading will be reviewed individually by the AAC and the Commission; that ample information had been provided on the projects; and requested that action be taken. . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Discussion ensued on sewering problems. Planning Director stated that the problem is not the sewer connections, but an undersized sewer line whcih will not be large enough to handle additional develop- ment, and that the Council had developed a policy so that the first de- velopment south of the area would be required to upgrade the line, but that the problem of cost would be resolved by formation of an assessment district with other projects. Further discussion followed on the con- cerns addressed by Mr. Katherman. Commission consensus was that the problems had been addressed and action should be taken. Planning Director stated that action should be taken separately on each project. He stated also that the projects will be noticed within 400 feet and reviewed by the City Council ; and that the homeowners represent- ed by Mr. Katherman can provide input at the City Council hearing. He stated also that there was no additional staff report for the meeting, and that the persons noticed are those on the latest equalized tax rolls so some persons may not have been noticed. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Service absent; Kaptur abstained) approving Case 5.0136-PD-111 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommended conditions of approval from the Development Committee be incorporated as conditions of approval . • 2. That larger scale topography be submitted. 3. That a comprehensive design program and/or CC&R's be submitted addres- sing identified impacts and recommended mitigation be submitted with specific emphasis on addressing grading, building design, retention of open space, landscaping, and restoration techniques. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 . CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-1.32 (Cont'd. ) 4. That a revised roadway grading plan indicating location of recom- mended turnaround and all grading associated with such a facility be submitted with final development plans. This turnaround shall be designed for the maneuvering of large emergency and waste disposal vehicles. 5. That a slope restoration landscape plan be submitted for all access roadway disruptions. 6. That Lots 8 and 9 as designed be eliminated due to substandard ac- cess, service, and untilities with these lots reconfigured in another portion .of the property. 7. That the access roadway be designed in such manner that adequate privacy is provided to adjacent developments. 8. That a revised tentative tract map be submitted reflecting all con- ditions contained herein with specific emphasis on proximity to the access roadway and designation of building pads. 9. That houses on Lots 1-7, 10, and 11 be designed per the attached mitigation whereby all building pads are generally within 100 feet • of the roadway. Designated building pads shall be indicated for compar.iscn purposes with the flexibility that variations may be de- sirable upon review of specific lot development plans. 10. That final planned development plans designate visually significant natural features per Mitigation Measures 47 and 48, Page 17. Project CC&R's shall designate these features as permanent open space fea- tures to be incorporated into all future residential plans. 11 . That under no circumstances shall fill materials be disposed of on- site unless in conjunction with a balanced grading condition. 12. That a trash collection program be submitted or all residences shall be required to provide collection facilities within 50 feet of the access roadway curb. 13. That upon review of final development plans and CC&R's additional site specific conditions may be forthcoming for the protection of adjacent properties' privacy. 14. That the applicant be granted his requested exemption from the dual sewer system subject to the condition that no occupancy permits shall be issued until such time that the City determines that adequate capacity is available at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 15. That final development plans be submitted within one year of City Council approval . • 16. That the remaining open space area be dedicated to or that open space easements be provided to the City so that these areas remain in open space. Public access shall be restudied to the equestrian/hiking trail to be located on the subject property. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont 'd. ) 17. That a 32 foot access roadway be provided. 18. That final development plans for all common area improvements as outlined herein be submitted within one year of the date of City Council approval per Zoning Ordinance requirements. 19. That each dwelling be subject to architectural approval from the Planning Commission including approval of access, grading, soil exposure, architecture, and landscape features. Approval shall be final with the Planning Commission unless appealed. 20. That there be a 50 foot setback from Tract 10730-1 and 2 to any dwellings or structures. 21 . That development plans for the road be submitted. 22. That there be buildable area for each site. 23. That prior to submission of final development plans, the applicants shall contract for a complete archaeological study prepared on-site by the UCR Archaelogical Unit. • 24. That all other mitigative measures identified in the EIR be imple- mented. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Ser- vice absent) approving Case 5.0185-PD-132 subject to the following condi- tions: 1 . That all recommended conditions of approval from the Development Committee be incorporated as conditions of approval . 2. That larger scale topography be submitted. 3. That all mitigative measures set forth in the EIR be applicable to this project 's conditions of approval . 4. That a slope restoration landscape plan be submitted for all access roadway disruptions. 5. That the access roadway be designed in such a manner that adequate privacy is provided to adjacent developments. The development of a 4-1/2 foot high screen is recommended in lieu of the proposed 6 foot high wall . 6. Thatfinal planned development plans designate visually significant natural features per Mitigation Measures 47 and 48, Page 17. Pro- ject CC&R' s shall designate these features as permanent open space features to be incorporated into all future residential plans. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASES 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132 (Cont'd. ) 7. That under no circumstances shall fill materials be disposed of on- site unless in conjunction with a balanced grading condition. 8. That a trash collection program be submitted. One enclosure shall be the minimum requirement. 9. That upon review of final development plans and CC&R's additional site specific conditions may be forthcoming for the protection of adjacent properties' privacy. 10. That the applicant be granted his requested exemption from the dual sewer system subject to the condition that no occupancy permits shall be issued until such time that the City determines that adequate capacity is available at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 11 . That a 32 foot access roadway be provided. 12. That night lighting of the tennis court be prohibited. 13. That a minimum setback of 10 feet be provided to the proposed gar- den wall along S. Palm Canyon Drive. 14. That final development plans including grading, site, elevations, landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted with- inin one year of City Council approval per Zoning Ordinance require- ments. (Note: No time extensions are permitted. ) 15. That development plans for the road be submitted. 16. That there be buildable areas for each site. 17. That prior to submission of final develoment plans, the applicants contract for a complete archaeological study prepared on-site by the URC Archaeological Unit. CASE 5.0233-PD-113-A. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for Naugles Restaurant to amend PD-113 (Ref: Case 5.0127) for construction of a drive-through restaurant at 2400 N. Palm Canyon Drive between Racquet Club Road/Via Olivera, C-1 Zone, Section 3. (Previously given an Environmental Assessment with PD-113 and final approval . ) Vice Chairman abstained; Commissioner Madsen presided. Planning Director explained that the number PD-141 would be deleted . and PD-113-A substitured for clarity in recor ation, presented the staff- er-report t including findings, recommendation, and direction for Commission action, and gave a brief history of the City' s prohibition of drive-through restaurants (although the restaurant type has changed throughout the years) , but that staff would not recommend approval July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASES 5.0233-PD-113-A. (Cont'd. ) through a planned development district unless the Zoning Ordinance is revised. He stated that a planned development district application was recommended by staff as a vehicle for Commission review of the drive-through concept, and that staff would recommend tabling until Ordinance has been revised, or denial of the application. He commented that staff concerns would be that the area may become a congregation point, and that there is no egress (except at the end of the lane) for cars driving through. He stated that the drive-through will be open 24 hours a day. He stated that the Commission could approve the restaurant under architectural approval without the drive-through por- tion. He reiterated that there is no vehicle in the Ordinance for adressing the concept of drive-throughs. He stated that the drive- through may impact traffic internally only. Planning Director state that staff would not support the premises in the attorney's letter regarding drive-throughs since they are refer- enced only as a prohibited use although a drive-through application would be brought to the Commission for its review. He described the problems that could arise in the drive-through lane including possible solutions to the existing problem in emergency situations. A Commis- sion opinion was expressed that aesthetic problems may arise if the applicants request removal of the landscaping later for emergency pur- poses. Commissioner Madsen declared the public hearing open. P. Selzer, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, attorney representing the applicant, stated that there was a question of legality of the drive- through and whether or not, if found to be legal , the concept is viable for Palm Springs. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance speaks to uses in the planned development district, not in the underlying zoning. He discussed the staff report and commented that there had been a drive-through many years ago in Section 14 which created problems, but that the newer concept will not create congregation or trash problems. He stated that the drive- through does not change the concept of the restaurant, that drive-throughs are allowed on banks, and that staff's concern regarding circulation and stacking are not viable. He noted that the applicant was not circumvent- ing the governmental process, that amending the Ordinance does not affect the proposal , that the proposal will be reviewed by the Commission and the City Council , and requested favorable action. Commissioner Madsen apologized for inferring that the application might circumvent the process, but that he could not accept the logic of the proposal since it is difficult to address a restaurant as normally applied for, in the context of a drive-through under a planned development district which can be located anywhere which seems to be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and City policy. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0233-PD-113-A (Cont'd. ) . Mr. Selzer stated that uses allowed under a PD are those which are allowed by Council in that PD, that this is similar to the section of the Ordinance allowing a PD in lieu of a change of zone, that a PD restricts through approvals by the City. He stressed that the tools to approve the project are available without amending the Zoning Ordi- nance. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, architect for the project, remarked that the materials and design of the building are consistent with the architecture of the shopping center, that it is screened and the roof of the restaurant extends over the drive-through portion, that the circulation will be internal only, that the applicant did not want two lines of cars because of servicing problems, that the noise will be mitigated by the berming, and that the integrated design is workable. He stated that a PD is a useful vehicle for items not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and distributed photographs of exist- ing sensitive drive-through restaurants and insensitive ones. He noted that the signing for the restaurant will be submitted later, and also that it would be difficult to widen the lanes except by removing the landscaping. He noted that the restaurant was custom designed, not a standard Naugles design. Assistant City Attorney stated that one of the criteria for a PD is . a multiplicity of uses that are compatible with each other, and that it is appropriate that the other uses be reviewed and a determination made as to how the use compliments or works with the other uses in the PD which justified the PD originally. Mr. Christian stated that the proposed drive-through is in a neighbor- hood center serving neighborhood needs, and one of the goals would be to provide as much service as possible for the neighborhood. He stated that the use is compatible with the other uses. Planning Director stated that the shopping center is similar to a neigh- borhood shopping center, and that the designation prohibits drive- through and drive-in restaurants, that staff feels that it should be addressed in the Ordinance, and that the concept should be reviewed as a whole, and not set a precedent. He stated also that if it were an application for a restaurant only, it could be reviewed as an archi- tectural case with final plans taken to City Council as final PD plans for PD-113. He requested strong direction from the Commission since other C-1 properties could be affected by the decision which if ap- proved would have been made without public hearings. Mr. Selzer (rebuttal ) stated that the public is protected by the cur- rent hearing, that if the staff wishes to amend the Ordinance it would be a good idea, that the project met all practical objections, that the applicant desires the staff, Commission, and Council work with him to provide a service to the residents of the neighborhood with the PD vehicle and requested that the Commission find that the project is in conformity with community standards. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0233-PD-113-A (Cont'd. ) . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Discussion ensued regarding concerns on the internal cir- culation, traffic congestion and hazards, inadequate lighting of the shopping center, and compatibility of the proposal with the rest of the area. Commission also discussed the possibility that the applicant could request that landscaping be removed if a stacking problem arises, the precedent-setting nature of the proposal , whether or not a CUP should be required for this type of use, and the possibility of amending the Ordinance. Assistant City Attorney stated that the use could be permitted (even though prohibited in the underlying zone) under a planned development district. He noted that the advantages resulting from the PD are to be insured by adoption of a precise development plan, and that the proposal should be reviewed in the light of the compatability with the total PD. He stated that a provision in the Ordinance allows de- partures from the strict zoning classification. He stated also that the term "desirable" should be defined, and the proposal evaluated within the whole PD. Further discussion ensued regarding the compati- bility of the proposal with the PD. Commission opinions differed and discussion followed on whether or not the concept was viable throughout the City. Commission also discussed the use being prohibited in the underlying zoning. Planning Director stated that the action would be categorically exempt from environmental assessment because the drive-through would not in- tensify the use, and that the Commission action should be to approve the PD, table it, or deny it. He stated that if the action is for approval , it should be with conditions (not yet formulated) , and a finding that the use is an allowable or compatible use. Commission continued to discuss the concept. An opinion was expressed that the Zoning Ordinance should be protected. Planning Director stated that the proposal would be reviewed by Council . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Service absent; Koetting abstained; Harris and Madsen dissented) approving PD-113-A subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape plans be submitted (including patio) . 3. That final development plans be submitted within one year of City Council approval . . Discussion: An opinion was expressed by Commission that the Council should be made aware of the fact that the vote was not unanimous. Commission suggested to staff that the drive-through concept should be reviewed individually and allowed only outside of the C-B-D Zone. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 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 com- mercial uses to be integrated with PD-69 ( IL) , (Ref: Case 5.0216-CZ) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final action. ) ; and CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. Application by C. HELLMAN for 1st Nationwide Sav- ings/lst Wisconsin National Bank for a planned development district to amend PD-69 (Ref: Case 5.987) for construction of a savings and loan branch office on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Way, R-3 Zone, Section 26 ( IL), (Ref: Case 5.0216 & 5.0235-GPA) . (Environmental assessment already completed in conjunction with Case 5.0235-GPA; final approval . ) Planning Director reviewed the history of the project and presented the staff report including findings, recommendation, and direction for Commission action. He stated that the number PD-142 would be changed to PD-69-A for clarity in recordation, and t at two letters had been received�in opposition to the project. Planner III presented the project on the display board and stated that if security gating is desired, a separate application would be submit- ted, and the second driveway is necessary for service and emergency vehicles. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Hellman of Woodland Hills, applicant and architect, stated that the dual driveway problem on E. Palm Canyon Drive had been solved and requested that the project be approved and the Negative Declaration filed. He stated that the application had been approved twice by the City Council and was approved by the Homeowners Association on the property. He then described the configuration of the property includ- ing open space and noted that he had retained Elliott Field as his counsel . He described the lease on the property as one lease held by lst Nationwide Savings with the same terms as the original lease. Ms. S. Timmaron, Regional Vice President for lst Nationwide Savings supported the application, stating that the corporation is the sixth largest in the United States and looked forward to serving the communi- ty. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Commission discussed its obligation to take action on the case since the City Council has requested it. Commission consensus was that the concept could be supported even . though the City Council is aware of the feelings of the Commission, and has continued to request favorable action. Concerns were expressed on traffic impacts. A suggestion was made that a median island be constructed. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASES 5.0235-GPA & 5.0237-PD-69-A (Cont'd. ) . Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and carried (Service absent; Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving GPA-5.0235 subject to the following implementation: 1 . That the underlying .zoning and existing PD-69 be left as is with no zone change to C-1 or other commercial zoning. 2. That development of the final vacant portion of this site take place under _planned development district procedures subject to the mitigation measures outlined. 3. That action to amend the General Plan take place concurrently at Council level with approval of a preliminary planned development district for the property. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and carried (Service absent; Harris dissented) approving PD-69-A subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all mitigative measures identified in conjunction with Case 5.0235-GPA be implemented. 3. That the southern elevation be refined to reflect the detail shown on the other elevations (horizontal elements, recesses, overhanging roofs. ) 4. That teller columns be located on the landscaped island to the south. 5. That a materials board be submitted. 6. That final plans be submitted within one year of the date of City Council approval . CASE 5.0227-CUP (Revised) . Application by M. BUCCINO for G. Weiner for a conditional use permit to construct a tennis court with substand—ar setbacks on Valmonte Sur between Via Chica/Via Corta, R-1-B Zone, Sec- tion 11 . (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recom- mendation, and direction for Commission action. He stated that if the court were reduced, the impacts on the street would be reduced, although oleanders screen the court and the fencing. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 SCASE 5.0227-CUP (Cont'd. ) . M. Buccino of 274 N. Palm Canyon Drive, applicant and landscape archi- tect, stated that the court was 10 feet from the side property line at one pont only and screened by oleanders, and if sunken, the visual impact would be even less, but that reducing the size will not be ac- ceptable to the owner since his son wishes to pursue a career as a professional tennis player and requires a full -size court. He stated that reducing the size of the court creates danger zones and described the configuration, stating that he could not see a problem with the revised application. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion: Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended denial because the Committee felt that setback requirements should be fol- lowed. Mr. Buccino stated that the court was not shown as sunken to the Committee. Planning Director stated that the letters in opposition were on the original application. A Commission opinion was expressed that the court should meet setbacks and should not be approved as sub- mitted, especially in light of the objections from the neighbors. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and carried (Curtis and Kaptur dissented; Service absent) approving CUP 5.0227 subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Develop- ment Committee be met. 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. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration action for filing, and final approval . ) Comments received from the Airport Operations Manager and City Attorney. Planning Director presented the revised staff report, and stated that federal law precludes local government control of airports, but that staff would recommend leaving the policy in the Noise Ordinance regard- ing hours of operation for the Council to address. Discussion: A suggestion was made by Commission that the Noise Ordi- nance be made available for contractors to review at the time building permits were issued. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried • (Service absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0228-ZTA. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0236-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to prerequisites for issuance of build- ing permits. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final action. ) No comments received. Planning Director stated that the Zoning Text Amendment was to expand the Zoning Ordinance to include subsequently adopted City Council policies and procedures as requirements for the issuance of building permits. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Service absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0236-ZTA. CASES 5.0229-CUP & 6.326-VARIANCE. Application by SHELL OIL CO. for a • conditional use permit to rebuild an existing conventional service station as a self-service station and approval of a variance from mini- mum lot area, minimum building area, and parking requirements at the northwest corner of Ramon Road/Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director stated that the Assistant City Attorney feels that inere are no grounds for a variance and the tinaings cannot be supported. Planner III presented the staff report including findings, recommenda- tion, and direction for Commission action. He stated that the AAC recom- mended a restudy of the architectural design and materials. Planning Director stated that there may not be grounds for the variance because of the station' s proximity to a school , residential zone, and a park. Planner III stated that the design is a standard corporate design and is unacceptable to the AAC. Discussion: The variance was discussed. Vice Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Hunter of Anaheim, the applicant, stated that he had several concerns: • circulation and lighting problems would be caused by staff' s Alternative No. 3 recommendation. He stated that the three driveways should be allowed for access for cars and service vehicles. He described the July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASES 5.0229 CUP & 6.326-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) . electronic dispenser and stated that only eight vehicles could be serviced at one time, that the Ordinance needs upgrading and clarifica- tion. He objected to the Engineering Division six foot dedication requirement stating that the improvements had been made once and should not be required again. He noted other concerns as flood control fees and Planning Division conditions Nos. 3 and 4 (on file in the Department of Community Development) and stated that a letter had been sent to the City Council regarding the company's objections. He stated that if a compromise were reached, Shell Oil would work with staff to resolve concerns. Discussion followed on the number of lanes required and the operation of the electronic gasoline dispenser as shown in photographs distributed by Mr. Hunter. Vice Chairman commented that the conditions are placed on every development that requires upgrading, not just on the subject application. Commission stated that improvements are required today that were not required 22 years ago when the station was first constructed. Discussion continued on the number of pumps the dispenser represents. Planner III stated that staff was not aware that only one pump at a time could be operated, and that the number of pumps (8) that was reached was calculated prior to staff's being made aware of that fact. Gary Ehrlich, area manager of Shell Oil Co. stated that he was aware of staff' s concern regarding the 22 car line and requested that the faci- lities built in other areas be visited by the Commissioners, that the company was trying to upgrade the facility, that there was a point of reduction in square footage where the operation would no longer be fun- ctional , that the company would be willing to compromise on most of the staff concerns, and stated that he had requested guidance from the AAC regarding design of the station. He stated that if there were no major issues to be resolved, the project could proceed. He noted that the present owner of the station will remain. Discussion followed on the possibility of tabling the application until staff and Shell Oil can resolve the concerns, the sensitivity of the area in which the station is located, the necessity for a full-service operation at that location, and the traffic increas and circulation prob- lems noted by staff. Discussion continued regarding the overcrowding of the site, variance requests exceeding what is allowed under the Ordinance, the need to re- view the architecture, and intensification of the use at the presently very busy intersection. Assistant City Attorney advised that a motion for tabling was incorrect. _ July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASES 5.0229-CUP & 6.326-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) . Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Service ab- sent; Curtis dissented) for a restudy of Case 5.0229-CUP and Case 6.326- Variance. Discussion followed after the vote on the motion for restudy. Commission consensus was that concerns noted for restudy were architecture, circula- tion (both internal and external ) , and dedication. The applicant was directed to dramatically revise the application. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Planning Commission review of proposed DWA capital improve- ment program, 1982-83. • Planning Director stated that the CIP including new wells, upgrading of water mains, and landscaping the new reservoir in the Little Tuscany area. He noted that the CIP was brought to the Commission for informa- tion only. A request was made by Commission to ask the Desert Water Agency to submit landscape plans for water facilities for input from the AAC and Planning Commission. DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of conservation standards pro- posed by Desert Water Agency for landscaped area, citywide. Planning Director stated that the AAC had not reviewed the conservation standard at its July 26 meeting and requested that the item be continued to the August 18 study session. He stated that the staff has been work- ing with the DWA in several areas including water runoff. DETERMINATION 10.325. Planning Commission determination that retail sales of mopeds, motor scooters, motor bikes, and motorcycles without service or resales are allowed in the M-1 Zone. Planning Director stated that currently motor bike, motor scooter, and • motorcycle sales without service or resale are allowed in the C-2 Zone, under CUP. Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution allowing retail sales of the aforementioned motorized two-wheeled vehicles in the M-1 Zone. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 iDETERMINATION 10.325 (Cont'd. ) . Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Service absent) that retail sales (without service or resales) of mopeds, motor bikes, motor scooters, and motorcycles are allowed in the M-1 Zone. Commissioner Madsen left the meeting at this point. TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the map and the Planning Commis- sion discusssed and took action on the following tentative tract 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. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18329. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH, AND ASSOCIATES for Equitec 80 for approval of phasing plan only of subdivision of land for construction of a business/industrial park on Bogie Road north Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 18 (Ref: Case 3.506) . • Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Service and Madsen absent) approving the proposed phasing plan for Tenta- tive Tract Map 18329 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all original conditions of approval be met. 2. That all improvements including landscaping along Bogie Road be included in Phase I. Commissioner Madsen returned to the meeting. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and tookaction on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. CASE 3.518 (Minor) . Application by J. WALLING for Canyon Plaza Hotel for architectural approval of tennis courts, balconies on south elevation, and minor alterations to the entry for hotel on Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. J. Walling of Indian Wells, applicant and architect, stated that the project had been stopped because demolition had taken place without a permit, but that plans have now been submitted for plan check and all work has stopped. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.518 (Minor) (Cont'd. ) Mr. Walling was requested by Commission to advise his clients that early work hours and working without permits were not condoned by the Commis- sion. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Madsen abstained; Service absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee and staff be met. CONSENT AGENDA The Commission removed both items from the consent agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.157. Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural appro- val of revised landscape plans for the Bogie Road Bridge approach, Sec- tion 30. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried • (Service absent) approving the application subject to the following con- dition: That the bikepath location be restudied by staff. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) DETERMINATION 10.323. PLANNING COMMISSION determination that caretaker units be allowed in commercial zones. Planning Director stated that the Commission had reviewed the item in a recent study session (July 21 ) . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Service ab- sent; Curtis dissented) determining that caretaker units up to 800 square feet are to be allowed in commmercial zones as a right of zone. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont 'd. ) CASE 5.0193-CUP. Application by G. BOUTON for C. Rose for architectural approval of working drawings and final grading plan and site plan for a single family residence and tennis court at 708 W. Ramon Road between La Mirada Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-I-A Zone, Section 15. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Service absent) approving the application as submitted. July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CASE 5.0239 (MISC. ) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for Commission review of modifications to the existing covenant control mechanism affect- ing density-controlled residential projects. Economic Development and Housing Director (EDHD) gave a brief report on the background of the covenant control mechanism and stated that three control mechanisms were in the covenant as follows: (1 ) The initial sales price was set in an amount which would be accessible to those per- sons whose income did not exceed 120% of the area median income; (2) A resale mechanism was designed to limit the amount at which the homes could beresold; (3) There is a requirement that the home must be owner- occupied. He stated that minor modifications have now been suggested by the developers and recommended by City staff to eliminate owner-occu- pancy on 2/3 of the controlled units. This request is made due to the current economic climate and may be removed if the housing market im- proves (a staff determination conditioned for a certain period of time with Council removal at a later date) . He stated that the initial sales price and ongoing resale controlled price restrictions would not change and would prevent speculation on the units. Discussion: Commission discussed the fact that the restrictions were placed in order to develop an affordable housing market and if removed, would remove that market and open it to speculators. EDHD stated that the assessment was correct, but with the restriction on resales, the • primary market would be owner-occupants, and that the second home market would not be strong because of the remaining restrictions. He noted that the City is in an awkward position because the need for affordable housing is being acknowledged, but the housing market is very different from that of two to three years ago, and the alternative would be that the builder would not be able to build any homes affordable to moderate income persons. Discussion followed on the number of units currently constructed and their prices. EDHD stated that if restrictions are removed; the market could be expanded outside the Coachella valley, an area not yet explored. He stated that some tradeoffs in density had been given the developers in exchange for the covenant control mechanism. Discussion followed on the affects of removing owner occupancy re- strictions on affordable housing and density exchanges between de- velopers. EDHD stated that without the covenant control mechanism the developer could only build to about 58% of the approved density bonus. Discussion followed on overbuilding of affordable housing, sale of the existing inventory or homes, and the market demand for the homes. EDHD stated that the demand was present when the projects were first approved, and demand exists today; however, families are more hesitant to purchase given rising unemployment and therefore the City should be flexible. Discussion followed on the amount of housing that could be removed from restrictions and the number of homes now constructed. EDHD explained the price of the homes in relation to the CPI. Further discussion fol- lowed on the formula for removal of owner occupancy restrictions, and homes constructed in current phasing for each project. + Y July 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 5.0239 (MISC. ) (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Service absent) allowing removal of owner occupancy restrictions on 20% of the first phase of each affordable housing project with further phases to be reviewed if necessary. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Applications will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.517 (Minor) . Application by LOUISE'S PANTRY RESTAURANT for archi- tectural approval of two metal awnings at 124 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy of the color and materials of the awnings. CASE 3.516 (Minor) . Application by BASKIN-ROBBINS for architectural appro- val of minor revisions to a storefront at 110 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy for an alternative material to wood on the fascia. CASE 5.0188-CUP. Application by H. HUPE for architectural approval of land- scape plans for restaurant on E. Palm Canyon Drive/Calle Palo Fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. Restudy of plant materials for species suitable to the desert, and to increase the height of the trees to compliment the building. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for the Hilton Riviera Hotel for architectural approval of a free-standing attraction board for the hotel on the northeast corner of Vista Chino/N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Restudy of location of sign, the use of a monument sign, and removal of the chainlink fence on Indian Avenue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. NOTE: THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE AUGUST 25, 1982. (The August 11 , 1982, meeting will be adjourned due to lack of a quorum. ) PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi