Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/11/24 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall November 24, 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 8 1 X y 0 Hugh Curtis x 9 2 Darel Harris 8 1 Hugh Kaptur _ 8 1 Peter Koetting x 7 2 Don Lawrence X 7 2 Paul Madsen Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Stephen Graham, Planner II Robert Green, Planner II Dudley Hemphill , Traffic Engineer Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II • Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - November 22 1982 Larry Lapham, -Chairman Earl Neel James Cioffi Peter Koetting Chris Mills Absent: David Hamilton, Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the November 10, 1982 meeting were continued for approval to the Decmber 8,thee Veteran's Day holiday and(the vacation of the Wordn nPr of Processing Operatorpreparation s; • November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Club Assoc. acquet CASE 5approval of Atpplicatinimesharingbof anAalreadyr approved VillageRcondominium project for 9o0 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 Case 5.0247-CUP subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that there have been Commission concerns because of management and operation of the proposed timeshare project; that there had been public testimony from neighbors in opposition to the project; that the item had been removed from the agenda to review the C.C. & R. ' s; that Commissioner Lawrence, who had voiced concerns relative to the C.C. & R. 's, had reviewed them; that the application had been renoticed for the November 24 meeting with no additional written testimony received; that the October 27 staff report was still valid relative to the findings and recommendations; and that staff had no further input regarding the C.C. & R. ' s. He reviewed the parking on the display board and stated that there was ample long-term parking facilities on site with visitors and employee parking primarily on-site; • and that parking on a weekly basis would be no different from that of a regular condominium project of the same number of units. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the homeowner's money should be held in an insured account; that there was no problem with the C.C. & R. 's if they are followed (although they are for another project which would be similar to the subject project) ; and that the marketing program could not be addressed in the C.C. &. R. 's. Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Mathew, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that he wished to respond to concerns of the October 27 meeting which he could not attend. He stated that the initial application would be furnished to the Commission after approval of the project; that the Development Committee recommendations would be followed; that the C.C. & R. 's of another of the company's timeshare projects were approved and were pioneering ones on Indian land; that the subject project would be a second one on Indian land; that the original conditions of the tract map have been met; that the developers are sensitive to the image relative to marketing practices and would not violate State or local laws in this regard; that in another project, the developer was not aware of the fact that there were street solicitations for the project and desisted when notified; that the project will register with the City regarding transient occupancy requirements; that parking for the sales program will be onsite; that if there is a parking concern, the management company will • provide transportation for its employees who will be dropped off at the and that much of the occupancy only duroingtthe would be stages u of the pied program. the sales ram. program November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Lawrence stated that the project which was soliciting sales on the street was forced to desist by the Board of Realtors who told the developer that the real estate agent would be picketed if on-street solicitations did not cease; that timeshare sales are different from normal real estate sales; that the prime concern was the marketing and that the timeshare industry has problems because of the type of deceptive marketing which is prevalent; that the C.C. & R. ' s cannot be done prior to selling of the timeshares but that C.C. & R. 's are a written document which can be violated; but if there are assurances that marketing would be ethical, he would have no problem supporting the project. Mr. Mathews stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lawrence; that the project that was told to cease street solicitations was not the one he had been referring to; that he was not a realtor and was an architect by profession but was sensitive to the image of the project; that the Department of Real Estate (DRE) is very specific regarding marketing; and that violations should be reported to the ORE so that a cease and desist order can be issued by the Commissioner. uld in w of Chairman C tysAttotatedrneyat an maMathews statedrketing ,ons thatothere wouldebeurnoehigh pressure sales tactics. Commissioner Lawrence stated that based upon this assurance, he would support the project. E. Reskin, 845 E. Ramon Road, voiced objections to the project and stated that the Commission should respect the persons in the area who owned their own home; that he had spoken to many people in the neighborhood, most of whom were opposed to the project; that he had a petition signed by those opposed to the project (on file in the Department of Community Development) ; and requested that the Commission listen to those in opposition. He stated that there is heavy traffic on Ramon Road; that there are two pools on the corner which would be used late at night and would disturb the neighbors' sleep; and requested again that the wishes of the neighbors be recognized. J. Sonnberg, 541 Camino Real, stated that he lived 150 feet from the main entrance to the project and was concerned about the marketing program, the increase in the number of people in the project because of timeshare sales, and parking on the side streets which may obstruct mail delivery. S. Ehrens, owner of property at 1182 Tiffany Circle, requested that a condition of approval be that left-turn signals be replaced at the corner of Ramon Road/Avenida Caballeros. K. Burton th, 523 Vista Oro, questioned the adequacy of the parking and stated at the side streets will catch the overflow parking; and • questioned the sewer capacity with the large numbers of occupants involved. He stated that the traffic on Ramon Road is already heavy and the project will add to it; that he was also concerned with who was responsible for violations since there are several owners of each November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd. ) condominium; that timeshare is a different type of operation since transients are not interested in the community; that the management company indicates that there will be six people per unit which would create a more severe parking problem; and that most people in the area are opposed to the project. Mr. Mathew declined rebuttal . There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that the City is still in the incubation period relative to timeshares because they are so new and that the Tennis Club, which was an early timeshare, has had the strongest marketing program and has had some parking problems, but that the Tennis Club was approved before a CUP was required for timeshares and is substandard on parking although the developers have eliminated some units and the parking deficiency mainly impacts on the project itself. He stated that the Desert Isle was a rebuilt project and that the City has received no complaints from the neighborhood; that the Sundown project had no marketing on site and there was not much action on site; that the Vista Chino timeshare has not begun its marketing program; that the problems staff had had with the early timeshare projects was with small projects with little or no on-site parking, but the DRE is now regulating • timeshare projects and many problems have been eliminated; that Casitas del Monte has generated no complaints or traffic impact; that the Village Racquet Club can accommodate traffic and parking because of its internal street system; that sales have no effect on surrounding areas until they reach a certain level ; and that he did not know what would happen if there were just a few timeshare sales since there have to be substantial sales before the project is considered a timeshare and felt there would be no problem in that case. Commissioner Lawerence stated that timeshare sales would not limit sales as condominiums and also questioned the sewer capacity. Planning Director stated that the sewer capacity would not be impacted by the project. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the number of people at one time is the same as if there are 140 units sold as condominiums. He noted that the pool noise would be the same whether or not they were timeshares or condominiums. Planning Director explained that there is no difference in parking requirements between timeshares and condominiums; that the subject project exceeds parking standards with more parking able to be generated on a temporary basis; and that an on-site manager is a requirement. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent; Harris abstained) approving Case 5.0247-CUP • with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd. ) FINDINGS: t for a timeshare 1 usetinhan application 4iZoneio s properlynditional authorizedsby the ,Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the timeshare use is acceptable and the development of the community is in harmony with the goals and policies of the General Plan and is not detrimental to existing or future uses in the area. 3. That the project is served by two major thoroughfares which are improved to carry the quantity and type of traffic which would be generated by the project. 4. That the site is located in an area that is well suited for a timeshare use. 5. That the project has been previously given an environmental assessment for significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration has been previously filed. CONDITIONS: • 1. That the Department of Real Estate application be submitted for staff review. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That project C.C. & R. 's be submitted for review of the following items: a. Long-term maintenance of landscaping, buildings, circulation areas and recreational facilities. b. On-site fire prevention facilities shall be maintained in common prrovidedandThedFgirete provisions Department shalloreviewper maintenance and approve the proposed program. 4. That all previous conditions pursuant to Case 3.046/TTM 10855 be met. 5. That all timeshare sales marketing practices conform to local and State laws and conducted in an approved facility. 6. That Section 9315.00 of the Zoning Ordinance be met. The applicant shall register for City Transient Occupancy Tax prior to submission of application to the Department of Real Estate. • NOTE: Commissioner Madsen stated that the Timeshare Ordinance had had much time spent on it; provisions had been made to address concerns of neighboring residents; and that the project meets all Ordinance requirements and there is no choice but to approve it. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0247-CUP (Cont'd. ) Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of October 26, 1982. At that time, it was noted that 1) the proposed time- share project is a permitted use in the existing R-4 Zone, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and 2) the findings and conditions set forth in City Planning Staff Report dated October 27, 1982 are consistent with, and address the matters outlined in Sections 9315.00 and 9402.00 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and with the understanding that the applicant has submitted CC&R's as required by the City Planning Commission, the Tribal Council reiterated its action of October 26th to approve the granting of a Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions recommended in Staff Report dated October 27, 1982. " CASE 5.0249-CUP. Application by H. LAMBIDES for a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant in an existing shopping center (Rimrock Plaza) on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Bogie Road/Palm Hills Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. • (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with Case 5.0090-CUP). Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.0249-CUP subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the requirement is the second one for food services in the shopping center and that the requirement for a CUP is in the Zoning Ordinance; that the attorneys for Victoria Investment Co. have requested that small restaurant parking requirements eventually be waived either by variance or by AMM which would eliminate the 24 space ienc that defic the appli ant d feels wthat 00the uspace are eis needed for et of the umarketing re nof the building pad. Chairman declared the hearing open. L. Smith, representing Victoria Investment Co. of Sacramento & developer of the shopping center, stated that he was adding a trash enclosure for the restaurant and had no problem with the recommendation. He requested that the in-line uses of the shopping center be exempt from additional parking requirements; and that the restaurant use would be in the evening and perhaps for lunch. (The applicant, Mr. Lambides, stated that it would be both a lunch and dinner use. ) • Chairman stated that the Commission is concerned regarding parking exemptions because of the parking capacity eventually being reached, especially since restaurants are the highest parking users. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • CASE 5.0249-CUP (Cont-d. ) Mr. Smith stated that one of the pads has been sold to Republic Federal Savings and the other is now an open area with marketing interest in the pad being for retail, not restaurant use. C. Ealy, 600 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the applicant will be applying in the future for a variance or AMM for procedure forathis9type of use deficiencies; and that supported byhthe elimination of the CUP ant. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that the developer will abide by staff's recommendations. Mr. Smith stated that he supported staff recommendations but may request a variance if necessary if a particular use requiring 4800 sq. ft. for the remaining pad is submitted. Chairman stated that the application necessary would be a variance, and that a variance is not approved by the Commission very frequently. Mr. Smith stated that Republic Federal Savings has been guaranteed the size of its building and that an applicant will be sought who does not create a parking problem if possible but there is a possibility that additional parking would be required for a use on the pad. Planning Director stated that there is no problem with sewer capacity and that there is an open area behind the building for a grease trap which is required by the City. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving Case 5.0249-CUP with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That a food service use is properly a use for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the shopping center is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed restaurant, including the parking necessary to meet code in this zoning classification. 3. That the use is necessary and normal and the development of the community and is not materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. That the proposal will have an insignificant effect on the General 0 Plan Street Plan. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0249-CUP (Cont-d. ) CONDITIONS: 1. That either 16 additional parking spaces be added to the site or that future buildings be down-sized to balance the parking provided on the site. 2. That complete mechanical equipment plans be submitted, including plans to adequately screen any equipment not enclosed or concealed by the existing roof structure. 3. That plans for a separate trash enclosure be submitted for staff approval . 4. That detailed plans be submitted to the Fire Department and Building Division to determine occupant load, exiting requirements, etc. 5. That commercial quality equipment will require a fixed fire protection system to be installed in conformance with NFPA 96. 6. That portable fire extinguishers be required in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. 7. That a grease trap be required. 8. That the Riverside County Health Department approve the layout and facility. 9. That the use be operated within 12 months of the approval by the Planning Commission or the conditional use permit will become null and void. 10. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 6.331-VARIANCE & TPM 18787. Application by GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES INC. for approval of an industrial subdivision including a reduction in lot dimensions for a proposed subdivision of 37 acres of property on the northeast corner of Bogie Road/Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Recommendation: That Variance 6.331 be denied and that Tract 18787 be restudied to conform to M-1-P standards and recommendations of the Development Committee. Planning Director briefly described the project and stated that the • variance requested by the applicant concerns Lot 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10, which are substandard; that traffic and lot configurations are problems since the lots do not meet M-1-P standards; that the developer has indictated that redevelopment of the dump site is very expensive; that the Traffic Engineer recommends one direct access to Ramon Road and November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 6.331-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) one to Bogie Road; and that what is being reviewed is the lot sales type of industrial park which the applicant is seeking to develop under less than M-1-P standards. Chairman declared the hearing open. B. McDonald, Anaheim, the applicant, asked that a landscape map be substituted for the one on the display board and requested that a copy of the memo from the Redevelopment Director concerning the project be sent to him. He stated that the map had been revised three times in reply to staff' s concerns; that the real issue is traffic and access; that 50,000 vehicles a day is an unrealistically high number of vehicles on Ramon Road and would not be viable until the year 2000; that with the limited access policy regarding Ramon Road, the parcels will not be developed and suggested that as development occurs, the problems be resolved; that collector streets have been provided so that no lots have direct access to Ramon Road; that he does not want to be required to access to San Luis Rey; that there is one-fourth mile of frontage which requires curb breaks; that without access points, development would be difficult; that there is no need for access on San Luis Rey; that mid- point entries have been developed; that there are two lots with one access on Bogie Road and one on San Luis Rey with no problems on turns; that he did not understand why staff was recommending a restudy of the • map; that there are many other traffic hazards in Palm Springs, including Palm Canyon Drive; that the project was more commercially- oriented than industrially oriented; that a three-fourth acre site is the desirable size for industrial lots; that smaller lots would be more amenable to M-1-P Zoning; that he did not want to redesign the map and requested that action be taken on the access; that no special privilege is being requested on the variance because of the minor variance in lot size and the Commission should not be afraid to set a precedent with this request; that the M-I-P Zoning is a zone to protect residential areas next to the property but there is only one residential area nearby (in the north of the project in the County) and there will be no detrimental effect on the residents because of the minute change in lot size; that property across the street is M-1-P, which is adverse to the subject property; that the Redevelopment Director had told him that if the property were considered for redevelopment, it would not delay processing of the map; and requested a decision on the variance and the map. He stated that Lots 1 and 12 are the areas of the old dump site and have 20 feet of fill which has to be excavated before it is suitable for building and there are no plans for development at the present time; that the map's intent is to provide access to the lots for development at a later date and develop frontage property; that Lot 12 extends all the way to the street. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mrs. J. Knupp, 67215 Santa Barbara - Country Club Estates, Cathedral • City, voiced objection to the project because of traffic increases with additional impact on the intersection of Bogie Road and Ramon Road. She stated that the neighbors had been concerned about betterment of the entire area and development would aid the area; that she was on the Community Services Commission of Cathedral City as well as the Committee November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 6.331-VARIANCE (Cont'd.) for the General Plan and both of these plans coincide with those of Palm Springs; that the applicant has alternatives to the small lot sizes although it is expensive to develop the dump site, and could be done with deeper lots extending to San Luis Rey; requested an explanation on the length of time a developer has to develop a piece of property and requested that something else be done with lots accessing on Bogie Road. Chairman stated that there is no required time table for development of property except that maps have a time limit. Mr. McDonald declined rebuttal . There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that he was sympathetic with Mrs. Knupp's comments; that a service road between Bogie Road and San Luis Rey would provide access along the rear of the property line with a signalized intersection for the traffic; and that he could support the variance for lot dimensions but not for lot size based on the fact that it is an old dump site. Commissioner Harris agreed with Chairman and stated that the intersection of Bogie Road and Ramon Road is very dangerous and he could not support the two proposed accesses to Ramon Road; that the applicant • was trying to put in too many lots; and that the number could be reduced to make a better plot plan. Commissioner Madsen also agreed and stated that there were problems with access, traffic, and lot size. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) denying Variance 6.331 and TPM 18787 based on the findings established in the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS R. VanGerpen, Home Savings & Loan, requested to speak at the time the sign application for Home Savings & Loan is addressed on the agenda and asked that it be removed from the Consent Agenda. M. Buccino, N. Palm Canyon Drive, applicant in Case 3.548, requested time to speak when the case is heard. • November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSIDERATION. Request by City of Hope to use Canyon Hotel Convention Center on January 23, 1983 (Annual Dinner Dance) ; February 26, 1983 (Annual Honorary Ball) ; and April 9, 1983 (Monte Carlo Night) . Planning Director stated that three committees of the City of Hope had requested use of the Canyon Hotel Convention facilities and that the dates have been approved by the Hotel Manager; that the City Attorney has requested that the conditions of the CUP for the Canyon Hotel be modified because of the requests for special events but that no complaints have been received on previous uses; that staff would recommend approval with the caveat that the CUP be reviewed by the Commission to formally remove the limitation of events for hotel guests only; and that the hotel is allowing primarily non-profit charity types of groups to use the facility except for the special boxing event which was recently approved. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving the request to use the convention facilities by the City of Hope for one-night events as follows: January 23, 1983 (Annual Dinner Dance) February 26, 1983 (Annual Honorary Ball) April 9, 1983 (Monte Carlo Night) • Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that the Canyon Hotel Convention facilities have been used on an infrequent basis for special events requiring relatively large- scale parking needs, i .e. , the one-time special event (prize fight) to be held on December 18, 1982 as approved by the City Planning Commission on October 27, 1982. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council recommended that the use of the Canyon Hotel Convention facilities for the special events requested by the applicant be approved with the understanding that appropriate actions will be taken by the applicant to handle the projected parking needs. " TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17110. Request by S. HAVENS for a 12-month time extension for TTM 1 ses on Chaparral Road between0ista Chi condominium no/Cottonwood Road, R-2Zone,po Section 11. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried me 17110. The Kaptur expiration approving willbe February 4,i 1984xtension for TTM • November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd.) TIME EXTENSION - TTM 11559 & CASE 5.0218-CUP. Request by MARCO FINANCIAL SERVICES for a 12-month time extension for a CUP and a subdivision of land to construct condominiums on Mesquite Avenue between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-1-C Zone (I.L.) , Section 24. Planning Director stated that the requested extension would be the last one allowed on the map. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (KoenTTM 11559 to t) approving a time runand to expiresion for November 23,e 5.0218- CUP and 1983. Tribal Council comments: "After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and with the understanding that City Staff is not recommendin extension for TTM 11559 and Case 5P0218e d the request CUP." for th 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 3.543. Application by WESTAR ASSOC. for architectural approval of southeast cor erVeofp N. Palm sCanyon Drive/Racquet for a retail �nC 3 lub Roadg in 1 PD 113 on e Section 3. Planning Director stated that the AAC had recommended approval after much discussion of the project and that the building was enlarged but still meets parking requirements for nighttime use; and that 20 parking spaces are designated for the use of that building. Commissioner Harris commented that he had two concerns: the left-turn exi didt tnot conformnton Drive; on Palm thedesign of the other buildi building ngsinth he felt e center. PlaninDirector inchat orporhe column ement of the other ated design of buildings the subject building. Planner III stated that the AAC also wanted to see an interruption in the 75 foot store front; and that the footprint of the building posed specific problems to the column element which, if included, would reduce the size of the buildings and which forced the architect to design it as proposed. • Discussion followed on the aesthetics of the building. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CASE 3.543 (Cont'd. ) Consensus was that the building was very innocuous. Planner III stated that the mounding on the site obscurred the building, but that 75 feet of frontage without an interruption is not desirable although the ends of the building have been made more interesting. Commissioner Harris commented that the applicant was trying to put too many square feet into the building. Planner III stated that it is an increase of what was originally proposed, but that the footprint dictates the architecture since it reduces the setback. Chairman stated that he was uncomfortable with the setback change and with the parking which could lead to problems in the future. Planning Director stated that if the restaurant were to operate during the day, the applicant could not build on the pad at all because of lack of parking space. Commissioner Madsen stated that he did not like the design of the building which does not conform to the rest of the center and felt that there should be no setback change. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) for a restudy of the project with special emphasis on no setback change and a revision to the architecture. CASE 5.0233-PD-141. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for Naugles Restaurant, Inc. for architectural approval of final development plans, including a sign program, for drive-through restaurant at 2400 N. Palm Canyon Drive between Racquet Club Road/Via Olivera, C-1 Zone, Section 3 (Ref. Case 5.0127-PD-113) . (Removed from the Consent Agenda) Discussion nsued on and cedar the building shave the same quality and Planning durability.Director stated Zoning Enforcement Officer described the sign program on the board and stated that the applicant has requested sign placement on the overhead fascia on both street frontages. Planning Director stated that the two signs are legal under the PD for the site. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving final development plans for PD-141 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the wood parapet element on the roof be made of cedar. • 2. That Rhus Lancia multi-trunk trees be substituted in-lieu of the Crepe Myrtle. 3. That Brazilian Peppers be substituted for the Chinese Pistache. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 5.0233-PD-141 (Cont'd.) 4. That 30-inch box size be utilized for both of the above species. ss sign material be 5. That the plexiglass usedio a on the signs throughout the center. to the ivory CSE 3.548 (Minor) . Application by M. BUCCINO for architectural approval of expansion to Jane Augustine Patencio Cemetery on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4 VP Zones ( I .L. ) , Section 14. M. Buccino of N. Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, requested clarification of the Engineering recommendations including sewer connection and drainage improvements. He requested that the Commission require that the two properties on each side of the cemetery plant landscaping similar to that approved for the cemetery which has a strong desert scene. He stated that he knew that the projects on both sides had already been approved but would appreciate any Commission dictates that the landscaping be integrated into that of the cemetery's; that he was opposed to the AAC recommendation for a glue-lam beam across the entry since it is out of character; and that he has found a 12-inch round log which has an appearance in character with the cemetery. • Planning Director stated that the sewer connection was deleted per a letter from the City Manager (on file in the Department of Community Development) ; that the drainge fees could be deleted because it is an open space use which does not require drainage fees; that the costrction of ad e required ton theuother lines wof the eCity and s on nthat as osewer ouimprld ovement plans would connect wouldbe required; that relative to the request for the round log, the AAC had discussed telephone poles but did not recommend them because of their tapering effect; that the landscape architect has located a round log whih ch andcwillpers ca se nom one prroblemch to be auseeoflnches twistingiwhichswasly a slight an AAC concern. Motion was made by Harris and seconded by Madsen to approve the application subject to staff conditions including the round log's s. After Madsenn nwithdrew his second gbecause the wanted the discussion,AACto revi review g1. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving Case 3.548 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met with the exception that the sewer connection and drainage fee requirements be deleted. . 2. That the AAC and Planning Commission review the round log proposed for the entry by the applicant. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.548 (Cont'd. ) 3. That final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of November 9, 1982. The Tribal Council withheld comments and final action pending receipt and review of City Planning Staff Report and/or Development Committee meeting minutes. Staff Report and/or Development Committee meeting minutes were not available at the Planning Department on November 22. Copy of Assistant City Engineer's memorandum dated November 10, 1982 was received by the Tribal Planning Consultant. After consideration of the recommendtions of the Indian Planning Commission, and to avoid any further delay in the processing of this case, the Tribal Council took the following action: 1. Approved the plans submitted by M. Buccino for expansion of the Tribal Cemetery. 2. Deleted the condition requiring payment of drainage fees as • recommended by the Assistant City Engineer. Since there is no change in the land use, and since the additional hard-surface area (expansion of the parking area) comprises some 9,600 square feet which represents approximately 42% of the total site of some 5 acres, the imposition of drainage fees in excess of $31,000 is unreasonable and inappropriate. 3. Withheld final action with respect to staff recommendations, including conditions, pending receipt and review of Staff Report and/or Development Committee meeting minutes. " ly archi- CASE 3tecturaln approval pofcremodel of business at 490 ation by L. LAHAM for Builders' Sunny Dunes r DunesRoad, C-M Zone, Section 23. Planning Director stated that the remodel is intended to upgrade the facility; that there are a series of non-conforming buildings and parking; that the proposed parking lot behind the warehouse west of the existing retail building almost meets current standards; and described the non-conforming uses on site (on file in the Department of Community Development) . He stated that the area was preliminarily included in one of the new redevelopment areas. Planner III stated that a graphic artist has been retained to review the • sign. Planning Director stated that the non-conformity of the R-2 lot being used for lumber storage will be discussed with the applicant. Planner III stated that fire sprinkler protection is built into the building. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 . CASE 3.540 (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving Case 3.540 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing parking facility be upgraded to provide a visual screen between the public parking area and the street. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 4. That the sign graphic detail for "Builders Supply" is not approved and a separate sign application is to be submitted. CASE 3.544 (Minor) . Application by J. ALGAZI for architectural approval of revisions to front of building to accommodate outside patio seating for delicatessen at 495 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner III presented the application on the display board. He explained parking proposed by the applicant and stated that a covenant is difficult to enforce for the proposed parking program; that the • property is vacant at the present time; that a delicatessen is proposed for the building; and that there are 18 existing parking spaces, not ten as indicated on the spec sheet. Planning Director gave a history of the building and stated that no restaurant had been in the building since two closed in a remodel in 1975 or 1976. Planner II explained that the business would be limited to five parking spaces during the day for the delicatessen operation with the use expanded after 5:00 p.m. with all parking spaces being used per a covenant agreement. Discussion followed on enforcement of the use of five spaces only during the day. Planning Director stated that with multiple-use buildings, the parking is on an availability basis; that the five space use is related to the 15 outside seats allowed during the day; that the 39 seats inside will not be used during the day but only after 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Lawrence asked the applicant to respond to the monitoring of 15 seats during the day. J. Algazi, the applicant, explained that the 39 seats do not have to be inside seating but could be brought outside during the evening. He stated that from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. when outside seating only is • allowed, the inside seating could be sectioned off; that the operation will not have waiters and waitresses but will be a fast-food type of operation; that the 39 seats can be kept in a storage room hidden from view until the evening hours; and that there would not be seating or dining until after 5:00 p.m. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • CASE 3.544 (Cont'd. ) T. D'Aquinta, part owner of the establishment, stated that the priest at the Catholic Church has agreed to allow the business to use the church parking lot on an informal basis; that during the day, only outside seating will be used and if there is inclement weather or during the summer months, the same number of seats will be moved inside; and that he did not know what type of business would be upstairs in the vacant building. Mr. Algazi stated that he had a tenant for an upstairs retail use pending approval of the outside patio seating and food operation; that the parking lot with the real estate operation and the retail business downstairs is virtually empty on a daily basis; that other businesses use his parking lot now; and that he wants the use of his own parking lot. Discussion followed on the precedent of the nighttime only use of parking. Planning Director stated that the use is allowed by ordinance and presents an enforcement problem; that enforcement is easier on a small type of operation such as this than on a 300 seat restaurant; that he would be more comfortable if the seats were in storage when not in use; that he had no problem with the concept; that it could be a delightful addition to the downtown; that styrofoam tableware can be a disposal problem in the downtown area; that the vehicle for the use is • in the ordinance with a covenant agreement with the applicant for enforcement; but that if there were problems, it would be difficult to enforce closure; that if the problems were during the City working hours it is easier to enforce; that violations can be taken to court and the business kept from operating; that staff does not want in-lieu fees but would rather have the dual use for parking; and that Commission discretion is on the architectural elements since the applicant can still apply for 15 seats inside, but in that case the City would lose something interesting on the street. Discussion followed on the enforcement problems and cleanup of styrofoam or paper utensils. Planning Director stated that cleanup is the concern of the DDAC as well and that the DDAC wants outdoor dining to come through a special permit process for cleanup. Planner III stated that there had been no comments from the Development Committee relative to the project. Chairman suggested that the matter be referred to the Police Chief since he has requested that he be made aware of any outdoor dining establishments since he wants outdoor dining eliminated if a liquor license is granted. Planning Director stated that staff would review problems for a liquor license and that the ABC has not issued a license on any establishment the City has protested. Chairman again suggested that the application be referred to the Police • Chief. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) to refer the application to the Police Chief for comment. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 • CASE 3.544 (Cont'd. ) NOTE: Commission summarized its concerns as follows: the actual monitoring of the operation with 15 seats during the day; and the type of storage for extra seats. Commission felt that an ethical operation rests with the operator and that input was needed from the Police Chief. DISH ANTENNA. Application by BOWMAN'S TV for J. Zarowitz for architectural approval of a dish antenna for a single family residence on Lot 3, Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the AAC has requested a field trip which staff will schedule and that the item will be continued to the December 8 meeting. 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 Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.546. Application by C. MILLS for C. Oster for architectural approval of a bedroom addition to one unit of an existing 4-unit apartment at 2286 Junipero, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That an AMM for additional parking space(s) be submitted. CASE 3.549 (Minor) . Application by WAVERLY PARK HOA for architectural approval of fencing & security gates to enclose condominium project (New Horizons West) at 2400 Bogie Road, R-G-A (8) I.L. ) , Section 30. Conditions: 1. That staff resolve details on the Birdie Way security gates. 2. That the existing modified wrought iron gate be abated due to its non-conformity with the overall design of the probject. • 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 • CONSENT AGENDA - CASE 3.549 (Cont'd. ) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by C. MILLS for S. Cavalleros for architectural approval of a sign program for retail complex on the northwest corner of Andreas Road/N. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15 (Ref. Case 3.379) . Approved as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Heathman-Hill for architectural approval of sign for building at 1111 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-1-AA Zone (I.L. ), Section 14 (Ref. Case 3.403) . Abstention: Madsen Conditions: 1. That the radius of all corner elements be increased. 2. That the width be tapered from 16 inches on top to 24 inches on the bottom. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by PBS SERVICES, INC. for Tramway Shell gaso- line station for architectural approval of gasoline rate sign at 2796 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Conditions: • 1. That the can be painted to match the slump stone. 2. That the two top courses of block be removed. 3. That all plexiglass facing be a matte finish. 4. That a revised landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plan be submitted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by QRS CORPORATION for Home Savings & Loan for architectural approval of sign program for business at 1415 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 22. Zoning Enforcement Officer described the sign and stated that the applicant has requested a logo shield-type of identification to be incorporated with the sign on the south elevation to make one sign; that the applicant has also requested a logo shield type of sign on the parking lot side, but staff recommends that the sign be moved toward the main entry door as a convenience sign. Discussion followed on the sign materials and the possibility of integrating the sign into the sign program for the center. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the logo would integrate with the sign program at the center and that the letters will be a dark bronze. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 40 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS - SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd) Planning Director suggested that the sign be reviewed informally with Mr. Wessman, developer of the center. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) approving the sign application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the logo facing South Palm Canyon Drive be integrated into the main identification sign on the South Palm Canyon elevation. 2. That the logo facing north be moved next to the door. 3. That details of the automatic teller and accessory signs be submitted. 4. That the convenience signs are approved as submitted. 5. That the signs be reviewed with the developer for integration into the sign program for the center. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BEST SIGNS for architectural approval of main sign for business at 4153 Mathew Drive, C-M Zone, Section 30. • Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign was approved by the Chief Building Inspector many years ago and was non-conforming, oversized, and exceeds the roof line; and that when a change of face application was submitted, staff felt that the AAC and Planning Commission should review it. He stated that the AAC had recommended denial. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Koetting & Kaptur absent) for a restudy of the sign noting the following concerns: 1. That the sign is too large. 2. That the sign projects above the roof line. 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. TTM 16759. Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for P. Tynberg for archi- tectural approval of landscape plans for subdivision of single family lots on Bogert Trail between S. Palm Canyon Drive/Andreas Hills Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 35. Restudy of the landscape materials and wall design based on the length of the wall and the limited setback area. November 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ITEMS FOR RESTUDY (Cont'd. ) CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. Application by C. HELLMAN for First Nationwide Savinqs/ First Wisconsin National Bank for architectural approval of final development plans for savings & loan branch office on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Way, R-3 Zone ( I.L. ), Section 25 (Ref. Case 5.0216-CZ & Case 5.0235-GPA) . Restudy for the type of palm suitable for the area; indication of palm height on landscape plan; alternative materials in conjunction with the lawn and/or other landscape materials; and for the location of the monument sign ( incorporated with a planter) to be delineated on the landscape plan. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by M. FONTANA for Desert Hospital for archi- tectural approval of a new sign program for hospital on the northeast corner of Tachevah Drive/N. Indian Avenue, R-4 Zone, Section 11. Convenience signs approved with a restudy (primarily of the materials) of the two main entry signs on Indian Avenue. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Planning staff requested to review Warner Cable dish antenna installation on Palm Canyon Drive for screening and for a building permit. - Planning staff to review street sign for E1 Gaucho Circle. (Sign now reads E1 Gaucho Drive. ) Desert Water Agency demonstration garden and low water use plant test garden tour changed from Wednesday, December 1 to Wednesday, December 15 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. PL� IRECT MDR/mi