Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/10/27 - MINUTES R PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 27, 1982 1:30 p.m. F-Y 1982 - 1983 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 6 1 X 7 0 Hugh Curtis 5 2 Darel Harris X 7 0 Hugh Kaptur X 7 0 Peter Koetting X 5 2 Don Lawrence 5 2 Paul Madsen - Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer II John Terell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist . Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - October 25, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Curtis James Cioffi Peter Koetting Chris Mills Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Harris & Madsen absent) approving the minutes of the October 13, 1982 meeting as submitted. • October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 • ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman explained the public hearing procedure to the audience. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for Bogie Rd. Development for a planned development district to allow construction of an industrial complex on Bogie Rd. between Vista Chino/Tachevah Dr. , M- 1-P Zone, Section 7. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, aciton for filing & final approval. ) Recommendation: That the application be continued to November 10 for responses from State agencies relative to environmental concerns and for staff response to environmental concerns and questions and concerns of the applicant. Planning Director stated that there were traffic problems cited by CalTrans to which the Traffic Engineer will respond by memo; that there are also concerns of the California Water Resources Board regarding conservation of water and use of water effluent from the Waste Water Treatment Plant; that it was presently economically unfeasible to . construct a water line from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; and that each agency which expressed concerns must receive individual responses per recent State Law. Discussion: Discussion followed on the applicant's request as stated in a letter dated October 20, 1982 (on file in the Department of Community Development) . Planning Director stated that the applicant was trying to avoid conditional use permit hearings for prospective retail tenants requiring under 30,000 sq. ft. of space; that staff was not ready to accept that concept and has asked the applicant to review the ordinance and list the uses envisioned; that the other items on the list deal with Development Committee concerns; and that staff is waiting for responses from other City departments and divisions. Planner III explained that the State had the authority to review and recommend conditions on industrially zoned land when the project is of regional significance and that the City is required to respond to State concerns; that the State could refuse to issue, for example, an encroachment permit for a project fronting on a State Highway if concerns were not addressed; that relative to the applicant's request for six access points, the City does not want direct access to a major thoroughfare without traffic control . Planning Director stated that staff is recommending masonry walls between some parcels to develop an east/west windbreak system which • might not be a wall in all cases. Planner III described the six access points on the display board which include future lots and stated that there is a requirement for bike paths on both sides of Bogie Road. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Dr. , architect & applicant, stated that an overall master use plan had been submitted to the Planning staff; that there are 8 parcels fronting Bogie Road but the applicant was requesting only six access points which are needed because of the length of the project; that the trips per day calculated by the traffic analyst are too high and were calculated upon more square footage than would probably be developed; that the project would not be 100% commercial ; that perhaps a certain amount or percentage could be allowed with review by the Planning Commission after that point is reached; and that flexibility was needed for leasing in the current market. He explained the type of tenants in the project and noted that wholesale and warehousing operations border it; that the 30,000 sq. ft. figure was negotiated with staff and that no prospective tenant has yet requested that amount of space; that the businesses for the project would be destination oriented, not geared to the type of businesses found downtown; and that Lots 4 & 5 would be deleted from Phase I per staff recommendation since there are no design proposals for these two lots. Chairman suggested that all access be from side streets for future phases. Mr. Christian explained that access to Bogie Road is important for those persons trying to find a business in the park because of the length of the project and that orientation on any major thoroughfare is • of primary importance; that the the six foot walls between developments are being asked to be deleted because the requirement hampers the character of the project; and the owner wants the wall to be developed as a unified design. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he would support the unified design if the back areas were walled and if there were a unified landscape concept throughout the project. Mr. Christian explained that in the receiving areas there was some form of interior access and a centralized service area. He stated that he did not know whether or not the parcels would be offered for sale but that if someone would buy a substantial portion of Phase V, the applicant might not desire the wall ; that approval of the first phase is all that is being requested at the present time; and that any future application would be approved by the Commission. He noted that revisions to recommended standards for the entire project are being requested; and that a building owners association was being considered for maintenance. B. Russeau, Newport National, San Juan Capistrano, the applicant, explained the future of the project and its tenants, and noted that planning must be done for a tenant a year in advance. He stated that the conditional use permit procedure would curtail clients from leasing the facility; and requested that one-third of the facility be allowed • for commercial usage. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0232-PD-140 & TTM 13761 (Cont'd. ) Chairman reminded the Commission that staff was requesting continuance to November 10 to resolve problems and to respond to the State and that no action could be taken until the environmental concerns are resolved. Planning Director explained the intent of the M-1-P Zone and stated that retail uses are not included; that the uses Mr. Russeau discussed would be allowed by right of zone; that the Industrial Task Force is reviewing the M-1-P Standards at the present time and possibly will recommend that some related retail uses be allowed in the zone; that revisions to the M-1-P Ordinance will be reviewed in a study session within two months; that the problem lies not so much with the size of the individual user but in trying to maintain the character of the M-1-P Zone while still allowing flexibility for the developer; and that staff would not recommend a 33% commercial buildout, but would recommend 20% to 25% as a point past which a CUP would be required. Chairman directed the Commission to give staff direction on the uses, percentage of commercial to be considered before a conditional use permit is required, and the possibility of allowing retail use in conjunction with a light manufacturing business. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Madsen & Harris absent) continuing the application to November 10, 1982 for response to environmental and staff concerns. CASE 5.0248-PD-34-A. Application by D. LEVY for the Seventh Day Adventist Church for an amendment to PD-34 to allow a gymnasium and kitchen for an existing church school at 620 S. Sunrise Way between Camino Parocela/Baristo Wash, W-R-1-C Zone, Section 24. (Previously given an environmental assessment in conjunction with PD- 34. ) Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested that review of the application be deferred to later in the meeting when he can attend. Chairman stated that the project would be re-introduced when the applicant was present. CASE 5.0247-CUP. Application by T. MATHEW for Village Racquet Club Assoc. for approval of time-sharing of an already approved condominium project at 900 E. Ramon Road between Avenida Caballeros/El Segundo, R-2 Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. • (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the application subject to conditions. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd.) Planning Director stated that the proposal is being presented from a previously approved project (Case 3.046/TTM 10855) , the first phase of which is nearing completion with other phases under construction and which is now being proposed to be converted to a time-share use. He read two letters in opposition (on file in the Department of Community Development) . Planner III stated that the project was in an R-4 Zone, not R-2 as indicated in the staff report, and that there are Development Committee recommendations which have not been prepared as yet; that drainage fees would be required and would probably be appealed to the City Council ; and that discussions were being held to eliminate drainage fees on projects that were changing use. Planning Director stated that transient occupancy tax would be collected on stays of less than 30 days. He noted that there had been problems with the time-share industry which had been mitigated by the Department of Real Estate which administers time-shares; that time-shares are a better source of revenue than condominium projects; that in the proposed project, in the initial sales program, there is a need for extra parking because of the volume of people, although the applicant indicates that the project will be marketed as a financial investment through a brochure; and that staff does not know the type of sales program and has not seen the C.C. & R. 's. Discussion: Commission discussed the fact that much time had been spent on the Time Share Ordinance and that the time-share use is basically a hotel use. Problems of time-shares were discussed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he could not support time-share until he reviewed the C. C. & R. 's since he has several concerns including the possibility of marketing the project on the street, and that the project diagonally across from this one also proposes to become a time-share. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Rosenberg, P.O. Box 6759, the applicant, stated that the zoning is R-4; that the property manager for the project is present and that he is very experienced and could respond to Commissioner Lawrence's concerns regarding management; that revenue from the property from transient occupancy taxes would be approximately $249,000 per year; that the project is not in financial difficulty as indicated by Commissioner Lawrence; and that the project meets all requirements of the Time Share Ordinance. He explained the benefits of the project to the City and stated that the second home market is no longer viable; that time- sharing allows persons to have a second home without a large initial investment; that there would be no "riff-raff" creating maintenance problems since the buyers are the owners; and noted that there is less crime in time-share projects because of their constant use and on-site management. • In reply to a question by Commissioner Lawrence, Mr. Rosenberg stated that the project was originally planned as a second home condominium complex but with the poor second home market the use was being changed to time-share; and that there is a cease and desist order from the ORE October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd. ) relative to another time-share project because of its sales program. He stated that the subject time-share would be marketed off-site to eliminate traffic. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the project he was referring to had a cease and desist order because of construction deficiencies. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he was referring to another project not in Palm Springs; that no units had been sold in the subject project; and that it would be marketed solely as a time-share, not a mixed use. T. Hensley, President of Helm Co. , Project Mgr. , San Diego, described his experience and background as a certified project manager and explained the time-share exchange program between resorts. He stated that time-shares are not a problem and that fine people buy them; that the project would have on-site management and additional service staff; and with people owning the units, there is little theft. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the Casitas del Monte Project which Mr. Hensley also managed was marketed on the street. Mr. Hensley stated that he was involved only in the management, not in the marketing of Casitas del Monte. Discussion followed on management of Casitas del Monte. Mr. Hensley mentioned that Mr. Lawrence was the project manager for the condominium complex adjoining Casitas del Monte. Discussion continued relative to staffing of the project. Mr. Hensley stated that no one would be living on-site but that there would be 24- hour management coverage; that employee parking would be designated with the possibility of purchasing additional land for parking; that staff would be increased as phases were developed; and that he would discuss staff parking with the developer. He then explained the process of marketing of the time-shares (reservation by the week and divided into seasonal use with bonus time available at a nominal cost) . He stated that there would be a board with regular meetings including an annual meeting, and that approximately 7,000 weeks would be sold with an owner normally purchasing two weeks of time. R. Rosenberg, the applicant, stated that the project is providing 264 spaces and is required to have 220. Planner III stated that the project was built under old zoning requirements and today would be required to have 284 parking spaces and has 283, and that on-site management parking could be reviewed by staff although it was not discussed previously. Mr. Barton, 523 Vista Oro, objected to the project stating that time- shares are unpopular in many areas and many cities have restricted them; that he felt there would be too many people in the project for the size . of the area; that the project would create additional traffic, noise, and congestion in the quiet neighborhood; that the property would be devalued; and that the developers would leave the area and the residents would be forced to live with the problems created. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd.) T. Wright, 504 Indian Trail, stated that he had bought an old Spanish house across from the project a year ago and spent much money restoring it; that the project was originally a high end condominium project which was acceptable but which is not acceptable as a time-share because of the increase of traffic and the type of persons buying the time-shares. Mr. Barton stated that he wanted to emphasize the fact that parking will be a major problem. R. Rosenberg, (rebuttal) stated that the use would be limited to 140 units at a time with 100% occupancy which is no more than a standard condominium project and that the people buying will not be "riff-raff" but upper income persons who are investing in several resort time-shares for investment and vacation use. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director read a letter from Dorothy Murray, 504 Vista Oro, objecting to the time-share proposal because of problems with the neighbors and lowering of property values. He stated that there is a building code requirement for density, but that the area is controlled by the C.C. & R. 's which generally state two persons per bedroom and that people seem to fly in and stay, sometimes with guests, in the units • (similar to a hotel use) . Discussion followed on C.C. & R. ' s and the conversion of the originally proposed condominium project into time shares. Consensus was that the C.C. & R. 's should be reviewed before approval of the project. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Harris & Madsen absent) to remove the application from the agenda until C.C. & R. 's are submitted for staff and Planning Commission review. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that this proposed time-share project involves an approved condominium project now under construction, that a time-share project is a permitted use in the existing R-4 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, and that the findings and conditions set forth in City Planning Staff Report are consistent with Sections 9315.00 of the City Zoning Ordinance. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the granting of a conditional use permit for this case, subject to the conditions recommended in City Planning Staff Report dated October 27, 1982. " Commission directed staff to review the C.C. & R. 's in the context of regulation of sales, the weekly assessment, the budget for maintenance, • and the reserve and replacement fund. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0248-PD-34-A (Continued) . Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the application subject to conditions. Planning II presented the project on the display board and indicated that staff would recommend that the gymnasium wall be extended for noise abatement. He stated that a misunderstanding had arisen at the AAC meeting regarding the sewer line along the rear boundary of the project but the problem has been resolved. Discussion followed on the history of the parcel and the surrounding development. Planning Director stated that the wall proposed would be on the east side of the project only and that the north side would be landscaped; that no commercial uses of the gymnasium will be allowed; and the use of gymnasiums has not been a problem in the City. Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Levy, 2550 Araby Drive, the architect, stated that he was present to answer questions. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that landscaping plans to soften the gymnasium wall would be reviewed when final development plans are submitted. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Harris & Madsen absent) approving PD-34-A subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the perimeter masonry wall be extended along the entire east property line. 3. That the location of the storage room (adjoining the gym) and the washrooms be revised and submitted with the final development plans. 4. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 5. That final development plans be submitted within one year of City Council approval. • October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman explained that the public may speak during the "PUBLIC COM- MENTS" section of the agenda, and that applicants may speak in either the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" portion or at the time their item is heard on the agenda. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for its review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Fur- ther review may be eliminated, and all items approved by motion. CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Revised) (Ref. Case 3.046) . Application by B. Leung for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of moderate cost residential condominiums on Amado Road between Avenida Caballe- ros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone ( IL) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that the proposal was a first one in Section 14 since the rezoning of Indian land, and that there is a major prob- lem regarding sewers. Planner III presented the case on the display board. Discussion followed on the security entrance design. Chairman stated that it is not designed like a public street environment. Discussion followed on the architecture. P. Selzer, attorney representing the applicant, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCal- lum Way, addressed staff' s proposed mitigative measures regarding sewers. He stated that the applicant requested revisions of the mea- sures as follows: 19. Utilities. (d. Maybe. Sewers. ) A. The developer shall upgrade participate in the upgrading of the Master Plan of Sewers pursuant to the City Engineer's determination on size and design and/or shall contribute an undeterffl4ned undefined amount of money to a yet defined sewer assessment fund as determined by the City Engineer and future City Council resol uti on 7 on a pro rata basis with other properties benefitted by such additional sewer improve- ments. B. That Phases 1 -4 may proceed prior to the determination of • the requirements stated under Item "A" above. Phases 5-8 October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont 'd. ) . shall not have any building or grading permits issued until such time that Item -B- A has been defined and complied with. Underlined words/letters have been revised or added. Dashed words/letters have been deleted. R. Friedman, applicant, PO Box 2731 , Palm Springs, stated in response to Commissioner Lawrence's question that the units will range in price from $55,000 to $75,000, and described the square footage. He stated that the number of units will be approximate until the sewer problems have been resolved, and that fountains will be constructed in the courtyard areas similar to the Greenhouse condominiums. Planning Director stated that he had no problems with wording changes proposed by the applicant. He noted that the action to be taken would be to prepare a Negative Declaration and tentatively approve the project or the Commission could take no action on the approval . Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously car- ried (Harris & Madsen absent) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, and continuing the case to the November 10, 1982, meeting. Tribal Council comments: "The Tribal Council considered this case at its meeting of October 12, 1982, and took the following actions: 1 . In keeping with its general policy, the Tribal Council made no recommendations on the architectural features of the project except to note that the proposed density is approximately 62% of the allowable under the R-4 Zone and that the landscape/recreation land use ratio exceeds the minimum permitted by the zone by approximately 31%. 2. Withheld action on the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study pending receipt and review of the sewer impact analysis referenced in Item 19 Utilities of the E.A./Initial Study. 3. Approved the tentative map of Tract No. 14009 subject to the condi- tions recommended in Development Committee minutes dated August 19, 1982, with the exception that action in the condition requir- ing payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City staff. From discussions with City staff, it appears that further processing of this case could be delayed pending 1 ) the completion of a study of the City' s General Plan Master Plan of Sewers relative to current flows, projected flows, capacity, etc. , or 2) the applicant and the City working out a mutually acceptable condition of approval with respect to off-site sewer service. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 . CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont 'd. ) . After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council reiterated its actions of October 12th to make no recommendations on the architectural features of the project, to approve the tentative map of Tract No. 14009 subject to the conditions and exception noted in the original approval , to withhold action on the E.A./Initial Study pending receipt of the sewer impact analysis, and recommended that efforts be made to work out a condition of approval with respect to off- site sewer service that would be mutually acceptable to the applicant and the City. " MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSIDERATION. Planning Commission consideration of request to use Canyon Hotel convention facilities for a one-time special event (prize fight) . Planning Director stated that a request had been made to hold a prize fight at the Canyon Hotel on December 18, 1982. He stated that park- ing would primarily be on the hotel grounds as indicated by the plot plan from the valet parking service, and that this is the first re- quest for a commercial event since all other requests have been for charity events. He stated that no complaints have been received re- garding these previously held special events. He stated that the request was brought to the Commission because the initial approval of the convention facilities was given in spite of the fact that no additional parking was provided, and that the proposed event may need more than the Canyon Hotel parking lot facilities. E. Russell , boxing promoter, stated that the manager of the Canyon Hotel requested that he (Mr. Russell ) be involved because of his ac- cess to publicity and because he is a fan. He stated that the event would be good publicity for Palm Springs. He then described the ar- rangements for conveying fans to the site and stated parking was no problem at the hotel . He also noted that the fight would benefit the Palm Springs High School Athletic Association. He stated that the live event would be televised by the ESPN Network, and that he would discuss the promotion of the event with Sylvester Stallone (who is now a promoter) in Las Vegas. He noted that the Canyon Hotel was chosen because the convention center seats 1 ,400 persons. Discussion followed on other recent events at the hotel . Mr. Russell stated that if a good fight card could not be assembled, the event would not be held. He noted that the Frank Sinatra evening was not for charity. In reply to a Commission question he stated that he con- tacted the owner of the Riviera Hotel who was not interested because of problems when asimilar event was held. He stated also that the Americana Hotels, owners of the Canyon Hotel , have recently promoted a similar event. • Discussion folowed on whether an event such as this, whether chari- table or non-charitable, was appropriate at the hotel . Commissioners Kaptur and Koetting felt that the use may be inappropriate since the October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 . CONSIDERATION (Cont'd. ) . event may be too large for the hotel parking facilities and because the convention center was originally approved as an indoor tennis center which allowed approval without provision for additional park- ing. Commissioner Kaptur stated he would have to admit that the event would be beneficial to the City. Assistant City Attorney stated that no insurance certificate would be required to protect the City since it is not a party to the event except for giving approval . Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Harris & Madsen absent; Service dissented) approving the request to use the Canyon Hotel convention facilities for a one-time special event (prize fight) . NOTE: After the motion was made, discussion ensued on whether or not to require that a portion of the revenue be given to the high school athletic association. Assistant City Attorney stated that he had reservations about the total procedure, but that requiring a donation to the athletic association is not an appropriate condition. Chairman stated that he could not vote for a commercial use at the proposed location since there are other places with adequate parking which are more appropriate. Planning Director, after the vote, stated that future requests to use the Canyon Hotel convention facilities should be under a conditional use permit, and that the Assistant City Attorney agrees. He stated that staff may review the event, the nature of the convention center, the CUP for the hotel , and report to the Commission. Discussion followed on the adequacy of parking at the Canyon Hotel . Planning Director stated that there is no excess parking if one consi- ders the fact that the hotel has doubled the size of the convention center by adding a second floor without providing additional parking. Tribal Council comments: "In discussion with City staff, it was noted that the Canyon Hotel convention facilities have been used on an infrequent basis for speci- al events requiring relatively large-scale parking needs. Letters addressed to the City Planning Commission indicated that the parking needs for this proposed boxing event can be adequately addressed; and that the economic and other positive benefits to the community from this event could be significant. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council recommended that the use of the Canyon • Hotel convention facilities for a boxing event on the evening of Decem- ber 18, 1982, be approved with the understanding that appropriate actions will be taken by the applicant to handle the project parking need for 400-500 cars." • October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17392. Request by HACKER ENGINEERING for W. Coble for a 12 month time extension of a subdivision of land for condominium purposes at the southwest corner of Cantina Way/S. Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 27. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur and unanimously car- ried (Harris & Madsen absent) approving a 12-month time extension for TTM 17392 subject to all original conditions of approval . NOTE: The new expiration date will be October 28, 1983. DETERMINATION 10.327. Request by FEDERAL EXPRESS for a Planning Commission determination that packaged delivery service use be allowed in C-1 Zones, citywide. Planning Director stated that the application was on the October 13 agenda but was continued at the applicant's request, and that the applicant has subsequently gone into business at the 760 N. Palm Can- yon address. He stated that no action for removal had been taken by staff pending action on the determination. He noted that staff feels that the use is closer to an industrial use than a commercial one and would not recommend its locating in any zones higher than C-2. He stated that staff has photos indicating the type of use to which the property has been put, and that the initial indication from Federal • Express was that there would be an employee to receive packages with a truck pickup of packages once a day, but that there are two to four vans parked on site in addition to customer parking. (Photographs were circulated showing the parking area with the vans parked on- site. ) He stated that the parking is in excess of parking require- ments, and that staff would view the use as more intense than that allowed in the C-1 Zone. He stated that staff's recommendation would be that the package delivery service is most similar to a C-2 use in which one of the uses is defined as a transportation terminal and not in the retail business use of C-1 zoning. He noted that deliveries involved in service operations such as florists and catering are incidental to the operation, whereas the nature of the business for package delivery is more intensive and does not seem to be a retail-character type of use. Commissioner Koetting stated it was more of a service-oriented use. J. Wassel of Carson, California, representing Federal Express ex- plained that the company wants to integrate Palm Springs into its network by establishing an office in the City, thus reducing costs and stimulating business, and that a retail location was chosen at 760 N. Palm Canyon Drive. He stated that the company is a service company, and that the location will facilitate persons bringing or picking up packages since it is a recognizable location, but that packages will not be wholesaled or warehoused at the site. He des- cribed several prestigious locations such as Beverly Hills in the is October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • DETERMINATION 10.327 (Cont'd. ) . municipal parking structure in which the company is located. He sta- ted that the trucks will not be located at the N. Palm Canyon address except to pick up packages and will be delivering these packages all day. He noted that Federal Express feels that it is offering a valu- able service to Palm Springs residents, and reiterated that the loca- tion was chosen on Palm Canyon Drive rather than on another street because of its recognizability and convenience. Planning Director stated that the parking at the site is for a number of stores in a complex of stores, that the trucks are there during the day, and that the complex was probably built before parking re- quirements were developed. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that eight spaces were allowed for the entire complex. Mr. Wassel stated that Federal Express has four trucks at the loca- tion, and that the number would maximize at six. He stated that he did not know the location would be a problem and was not involved in its selection, and that the company had advertised that they were opening in Palm Springs. Planning Director stated that the company representatives had been told from the beginning that the location was inappropriate. Zoning • Enforcement Officer stated that he did not believe that there were business licenses issued, and that the company had been told from the beginning that they could not locate in a C-1 Zone, but that they had moved in knowing that staff had recommended against the location. Chairman explained to the representatives that the Sun Center has C-2 zoning, is highly recognizable, and that the City takes its zoning very seriously. Ms. P. Pratt, manager of the Ontario and Palm Springs offices, stated that she had not been involved initially, that another company representative had been dealing with a broker originally, and that the company had initially chosen a location on S. Palm Canyon but abandoned it because no parking was allowed in front of the store; therefore, the N. Palm Canyon site was chosen. She stated that she had spoken with the Zoning Enforcement Officer on October 4, but that the company had moved into the N. Palm Canyon Drive location on Octo- ber 1 . She stated that the business was operating, but that the com- pany would do whatever the City required. Planning Director stated that staff had no problem with an office use on N. Palm Canyon Drive, and that a C-M or A location could be chosen for the trucks although the company would probably prefer all opera- tions at one location. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Harris & Madsen absent) determining that staff' s recommendation October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • DETERMINATION 10.327 (Cont'd. ) . be upheld that package delivery service use not be allowed in C-1 Zones, but be allowed in other adequate C-2 zoning in the downtown area. Planning Director stated that the Commission action could be appealed by Federal Express to the City Council . He noted that staff would be willing to work with the company to find a suitable location. Chairman left the meeting briefly; Vice-Chairman presided. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0158-PD-122 (corrected from 5.0113-PD-103. Request by L. HESS for a 12-month time extension for final development plans for a professional office building at the southwest corner of Cahuilla Road/Tahquitz-McCallum Way, R-3 Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested an extension of time for submittal of final development plans because of the lack of money available for construction of office buildings since there is an over-supply in Palm Springs. • Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Service, Harris, & Madsen absent) approving a time extension to December 2, 1983, for final development plans. 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. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by UNION OIL COMPANY for architectural appro- val of a revised sign at a gasoline station at 301 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Commission reviewed a monument sign submitted by the applicants in response to AAC recommendations. (Planning Director stated that the AAC had not seen the revised submittal . ) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign as revised would be lowered by 1-1/2 feet. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously car- ried (Service, Harris, & Madsen absent) approving the sign subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the sign base be narrowed by one slumpstone block. • 2. That the sign be lowered by 3 slumpstone blocks. 3. That the sign can be a dark blue color matching the lettering. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • CASE 3.534. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for R. Smith for architectural approval of a single family residence on Goldenrod Lane, north of Bogert Trail , W-R-1-B Zone ( IL) , Section 35. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously car- ried (Service, Harris, & Madsen absent; Kaptur abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recom- mendations of the Development Committee be met. NOTE: The AAC recommended approval as submitted. CASE 3.536 (Minor) . Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for N. Ellermann for architectural approval of a two-car garage at a medical office building at 2905 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, P Zone, Section 13. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously car- ried (Service, Harris & Madsen absent) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the parking lot layout be left as is other than the changes necessary to accommodate the garage. 3. That smooth metal be used for garage doors and painted to match the existing building. 4. That a lot line adjustment be submitted before building permits are issued. Chairman returned to the meeting. CASE 3.537 (Minor) . Application by J. M. CONNELL CO. for architectural approval of renovation of exterior of a building at 693 E. Sunny Dunes Road, C-M Zone, Section 23. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Harris & Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That a sign program be submitted. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon �� unanimous consent. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried -(Harris & Madsen absent) approving the following items: CASE 3.473. Application by THOMPSON ASSOCIATES for Desert Associates for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for residential condominium project on Calle El Segundo, Andreas, Calle Encilia, and Amado Roads, R-4 Zone ( IL) , Section 14. Conditions: 1 . That reflective pools and space between Buildings 13 and 14, and 4 and 5 be retained. 2. That screen landscaping be introduced around pool equipment and the service buildings. 3. That elevations and fences be submitted with final landscape plans. CASE 3.483 (Minor) . Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectu- ral approval of detailed landscape plans for Gold Club Drive median strip, Section 29. • Approved as submitted. CASE 3.486. Application by R. SALAZAR for Billy Reed's Restaurant for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for parking lot on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 & R-3 Zones, Section 3. Conditions: 1 . That the quantity of Potentilla be reduced. 2. That an alternative species to Schinus be used. 3. That the groundcover be reoriented. 4. That Bougainvillea be planted against the wall adjoining Indian Avenue. CASE 3.487. Application by D. HAMILTON for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of landscape plans for a single family residence on a private road, 0-20 Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0063-CUP. Application by S. KASSOVIC for Riviera Tennis Club for • architectural approval of working drawings for tennis club on the east side of N. Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Conditions: 1 . That revisions be made as shown on the working drawings. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) . CASE 5.0063-CUP (Cont'd. ) . 2. That vent stack details be submitted. CASE 5.0090-CUP. Application by SAFEWAY, INC. for architectural approval of revised roof lighting for a market in an existing shopping center on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Bogie Road/Palm Hills Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. Condition: That fixtures be placed on the roof and painted to match the existing roof tile. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by ADART for Crocker Bank for architectural approval of automatic teller machine for Crocker Bank in Smoke Tree Village, E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. Commissioner Lawrence left the meeting briefly. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) . • CASE 3.538 (Minor) . Application by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectu- ral approval of revised layout plan for parking lot in Sunrise Plaza, serving the Main Library, 0 Zone, Section 13. Planning Director explained that the requested revision was to improve lighting and to add nineteen parking spaces. He stated that removal of some of the shade trees will be required. Chairman recommended that voting on the application be deferred until Commissioner Lawrence returned to make a quorum. Commissioner Lawrence returned to the meeting. CASE 3.539 (Minor) . Application by L. FORMES for Dollar Rent-A-Car for architectural approval of a 6 foot fence and gate for business at 351 N. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner II explained that the gate and fence were proposed to prevent vandalism. Discussion followed on whether a fence or wall would be more appro- priate. Planning Director stated that although landscaping had been October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 3.539 (Minor) (Cont'd. ) . planted it had not been maintained and suggested that a maintenance agreement be developed to be submitted with final landscape plans. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the parking lot be landscaped since it is a non-conforming use and should be refurbished and upgrad- ed. Discussion followed on the possibility of using decorative iron for the gating. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried for a restudy of the fence and gates to address better land- scaping in the parK7ng lot and a more decorative wall treatment. CASE 3.538 (Cont'd. ) . Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Harris & Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That more trees be retained in large tree wells to preserve a shade canopy. • 2. That the lighting be restudied to avoid conflict by the light fixtures and the trees. 3. That detailed landscape plans be submitted. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND DISCUSSION - Chairman questioned the status of the revisions to the Architectural Approval Ordinance, especially regarding maintenance, since there are several projects on which maintenance has deteriorated. Planning Di- rector agreed that some projects are deteriorating. - Chairman requested that staff investigate the Holiday Inn site where trailers have been removed leaving debris and holes. Planning Director stated that he would contact the owner to clean up everything but the landscaping- - Commissioner Lawrence requested that timeshares be discussed in general at a future study session. He stated that he felt that CC & R's should be reviewed before the applicant is scheduled for a Commission meeting. Chairman stated that project approval generally precedes the development of CC & R's. Planning Director stated that it is an expensive process to write CC & R's before the developer knows whether his project will be approvedand what conditions will be imposed. - Chairman appointed William Johnson, AIA, to serve as an alternate on the AAC. October 27, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Pace 20 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. PLANNING I ECTOR MDR/mi