Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/06/08 - MINUTES (2) ti PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 8, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 21 1 Hugh Curtis X 21 1 Darel Harris X 20 2 Hugh Kaptur - 19 3 Peter Koetting X 20 2 Don Lawrence X 20 2 Paul Madsen X 18 4 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Stephen Graham, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Tony Cucuzzella, Building Inspector Supervisor Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee Present - June 6, 1983 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Chris Mills David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Earl Neel Peter Koetting Hugh Curtis Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Harris/Koetting; Kaptur absent) approving minutes of May 25 with the following addition to the beginning of Paragraph 8, page 14: Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that access to the accessory unit should be through the primary unit. (Case 5.0273-ZTA) . ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: The Tribal Council had no comments on agenda items for isthis meeting. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARING ITE14S CASE 5.0262-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of revisions to amendments to the conditional use permit section (9402.00) of the Zoning Ordinance. (Referred back by City Council . ) (Given environmental assessment previously in conjunction with original review of the case. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve revisions to amendments for the Conditional Use Permit Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Case 5.0262-ZTA - Revised) . Planning Director explained three concerns of the City Council (relative to service stations) , in its review of the original amendment to the CUP section as follows: 1. Minimum distance requirement to residential zones of 250 feet which the Council felt should remain. 2. Number of pumps which Council felt was unclear in definition. 3. Integration of accessory commercial uses, i .e. , mini-markets which the Council felt were not appropriate for Palm Springs. • Chairman suggested discussion of each concern individually: 1. Minimum distance requirement of 250 feet. Planning Director stated that the recommendation to retain the distance was for reasons of fire safety, traffic and odor. Commissioner Lawrence stated that noise was also a factor in the Council ' s recommendation. Planning Director stated that if a residence were proposed to be located within 250 feet of a service station, the request would be reviewed individually with the possibility that a non-conforming gas station could be created, and that the 250 foot requirement would preclude many gas station sites. Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that the City is losing service stations, but that gasoline companies may want to build them in the future and the restriction could prevent a well-designed service station from locating in Palm Springs. Planning Director stated that the requirement could be deleted in the future if necessary. Discussion: Commission discussed the possibility of allowing a smaller building size; the approval in the past of a dentist's office in conjunction with a service station on Sunrise Way; and the possibility of shortening the distance to residential zones. Planning Director stated that an airport jet fuel service area would not fall into the same category as automobile service stations. 2. Clarification of number of pumps. Planning Director stated that • the number of pumps would be the same as the number of sales transactions which could be concluded simultaneously at all of the pump stations. 3. Accessory uses in conjunction with service stations such as mini- markets. Planning Director stated that with accessory uses, June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 parking is an issue; that most zones allowing service stations also allow food and beverage stores except for the "A" (Airport) Zone, which is the reason staff recommended against the use in conjunction with the Jimsair application; that if parking requirements and property size were met, a service station could construct a free-standing mini-market under current regulations as long as all other requirements were met; and that there is no control over the change of a mini-market to another similar operation once built. Discussion: The larger types of mini-markets such as the Circle K were discussed. Chairman stated that the City Council is opposed to the mini-market in conjunction with service stations. Planning Director stated also that a market such as Circle K cannot have gasoline pumps. Commissioner Koetting stated that he felt that the accessory uses provision could be deleted since it generates uses not applicable to service stations. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. In response to question by Chairman, Planning Director stated that he did not know whether or not the Council would approve a distance of less than 250 feet if the lesser distance were adequately buffered but that a condition of the lesser requirement could be that it would be reviewed by Council . He suggested that it might be appropriate to review a • lesser distance requirement in light of what type of application is being reviewed. Discussion: Commission discussed the 250 foot requirement. Commissioner Harris stated that if the requirement is 250 feet from residential zones, it should be 250 feet from commercial and industrial zones as well . Planning Director stated that the requirement cannot be mitigated without a variance; and that 250 feet is the community standard which has survived the test of time and has been of benefit to the City. Planner III stated that in researching the requirement, there was nothing to indicate how the requirement for the 250 foot distance was reached, but it was probably put in to protect residential zones. Discussion: Further discussion followed on the 250 foot requirement and requirements that would eventually restrict service stations from locating in Palm Springs. Chairman stated that there are only a few stations in the City and as the City grows, that number will be insufficient. Planning Director stated that service stations are allowed in C-S-C and C-D-N Zones. Planner III noted that the 250 foot distance is measured from the property line to the nearest residential zone and often overlaps into the residential zone. Further discussion followed on measurement criteria to residential zones. Planning Director stated that the number of stations in the City is approximately • 18. Chairman reiterated that Council felt that mini-markets in conjunction with service stations are not appropriate in Palm Springs. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 Discussion followed on the 1500 sq. ft. minimum requirement for station • size. Commissioner Curtis stated that with that type of requirement, additional uses are a definite possibility. Discussion: Parking requirements for mini-market use in relation to the number of pumps and the allowance of automobile accessory uses only in conjunction with service stations were discussed. Planning Director noted that staff could refine the revisions and place them on the agenda for the June 22 meeting. M/S (Lawrence/Koetting; Kaptur absent) that the 250 foot minimum distance requirement be measured from the service area nearest the residential zone; that the number of pumps be the same as the number of sales transactions which can be conducted simultaneously at all of the pump stanchions; and that mini-markets not be allowed in service stations. (Motion superseded. See below.) Discussion: Discussion ensued on uses possible in a building because of its size. Commissioner Madsen suggested that the size be discussed at the June 15 study session. Commissioner Koetting suggested a size of 500 sq. ft. for a new station not providing full service or auto related accessory sales. The requirement for restroom facilities was discussed. Planning Director stated that staff would review the requirement. • M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Madsen dissented; Kaptur absent) as follows: "That staff review the concerns of the Council and develop wording which requires that the 250 foot distance be measured from the area of service nearest the residential zone; that there be a minimum service station size which would preclude mini-markets." (The clarification of the definition of the number of pumps was acceptable to the Commission and revised wording was not necessary. ) Commissioner Madsen stated that he dissented because he felt an explanation of the rationale for the 250 foot distance was necessary. M/S/C (Harris/Curtis; Kaptur absent) continuing the item to the June 15 study session and the June 22 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TIME EXTENSION - TTM 17151 & CASE 5.0155-PD-129. Request by ASL ENGINEERING • for Cadillac Fairview Homes West for a six-month time extension for construction of a 76-unit condominium project at the westerly teminus of Tahquitz-McCallum Way, southside, R-2 & R-3 Zones, Section 15. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested a six-month • time extension and staff would recommend approval with the new expiration date of January 28, 1984; that the Commission could approve a 12-month extension if it desired; that the developers have been required to pay drainage and school fees and have requested implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage in conjunction with downtown development which would facilitate their development because of the expense of on-site retention ; and that the reasons for the time extension include marketing, financial , and engineering. M/S/C (Lawrence/Harris; Kaptur absent) approving a 12-month time extension for TTM 17151 and PD-129 subject to all original conditions of approval . The new expiration date will be July 28, 1984. DETERMINATION 10.334. Commission determination that bicycle sales and repair shops are allowable uses in neighborhood and community shopping centers. Planning Director stated that staff would recommend approval since the use is similar to other allowed uses in the C-S-C and C-D-N Zones; and that actual storage and display will not be allowed in the zones. M/S/C (Curtis/Harris; Kaptur absent) determining that bicycle sales and repair shops are allowable uses in the C-S-C and C-D-N Zones, City-wide. • 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 2.803. Application by ALEXANDER GROVUE for architectural approval of elevated sundeck within an existing private patio at 1111 E. Alejo Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 14. Planning Director stated that the applicant had originally indicated to staff that the structure was for storage but that it has become an elevated sundeck needing a guardrail ; that the structure had been red- tagged and the applicant was asked to discuss the structure with City staff; that the Greenhouse Homeowners Association is opposed to the structure although the applicant presented a letter dated in 1981 stating homeowners approval ; and that the AAC recommended that the elevated sundeck be lowered so that the guardrail is not visible over the top of the patio wall . A. Perrier, 3001 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing the Homeowners Association and Architectural Advisory Board, stated that the Association and Board opposed the structure since the Greenhouse facility has private areas for each unit which the structure violates; • that the applicant indicated to staff that the structure was for storage and after it was red-tagged, completed it; that a law suit against the applicant has been initiated; and that the Homeowners Association is opposed to occupancy of the area above the patio wall . June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 Commissioner Lawrence questioned the reason for the attorney' s • appearance since C.C. & R. ' s preclude structures such as the subject one and the Association can remove them if they are built. Planning Director stated that the issue is the element of the architecture, not its use and that the City does not control use of space. Mr. Perrier stated that it is a concern of the City since the original architecture of the condominiums received City approval . Discussion: Discussion followed on the applicant' s intent for the use of the structure and what portion would be within Planning Commission purview. Planning Director stated that any structure above a wall requires review by the Commission. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the Homeowners Association has the power to remove the structure by placing a lien against the property and selling the property if necessary to pay the cost of the structure' s removal . M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Kaptur absent) denying the application for an elevated sundeck. Discussion: Commissioner Lawrence stated that his intent was to deny anything visible above the wall . Chairman stated that the elevated sundeck is denied. Further discussion ensued. Planning Director stated that the structure had received staff approval with the condition that • nothing be seen above the wall ; that the applicant was red-tagged for the illegal sundeck; and the City can remove the stairs and railing. Assistant City Attorney commented that the City has initiated proceedings which were interrupted by the applicant' s Planning Commission application but will continue with its enforcement procedures, and, that the applicant will be required to remove the sundeck as a sundeck. Building & Safety Director explained that the structure was approved as a sundeck by the Building Division because of the information provided by the applicant that the Planning Division approved it as a storage shed; that the Building Division red-tagged the structure to resolve the issue; that the required height of the railing placed structure above the wall ; that the abatement process has been started which requires removal of the structure above the wall ; and that the applicant could request a storage area within the law. CASE 3.583-MINOR. Application by H. LAPHAM for Sizzler' s Steak House for architectural approval of exterior revisions to restaurant on South Palm Canyon Drive between Mesquite Avenue/Sunny Dunes Road, C-2 Zone, Section 22. • Planning Director stated that there will be a parking problem if the applicant increases floor area as proposed; and that the removal of the existing planter when the street is widened in the future will cause a hardscape look to the site. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 H. Lapham, the applicant, stated that the seats have been in existence • for 18 years; that the Sizzler chain has become very large; that the proposed "greenhouse" concept is the new theme throughout the country; that the chain wishes the Palm Springs remodel to be a proto-type for review by its international convention in October; and that any problems regarding dedication can be resolved with staff. In response to question by Commission, he stated that the windows are double glazed, see-through solar bronze with electrically activiated beige shade curtains which result in an energy savings. Planning Director stated that one of the architect members of the AAC dissented probably because of the design which he felt had a questionable relationship between the new and the old portions of the complex. Commissioner Harris stated that he felt that the architect's point was well taken. Planning Director stated that the parking lot will remain in its current configuration, and that staff would work with the applicant to upgrade the landscaping. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Kaptur absent; Harris dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That a detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plan be submitted including details of the south elevation. 2. That a separate sign application be submitted. • 3. That detailed of the setback be resolved at staff level . ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman stated that action on the following cases would be taken as one motion. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Kaptur absent) approving the following actions: CASE 3.573. Application by BENEFICIAL STANDARD PROPERTIES for architectural approval of revised remodeling plans and new supermarket for Palm Springs Mall on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Farrell Drive/Baristo Road, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Restudy with the following concerns: 1. That the mall arch match the design of the proposed Von' s arches including brick surround. 2. That the tower be redefined (increased detailing and addition of roof to the three visible sides with an alternative solution of a design which omits the tower) . 3. That columns be revised to provide a unifying theme throughout the project. • 4. That a brown or tan roof tile be used throughout the project. 5. That the mansard roof elements on the northeast portion of the mall be restudied. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 6. That an element which is firred out at least 12-inches be added to • upper level of the west and south elevation of the Von' s building with the element to be painted a darker color. 7. That the color scheme for the Von's building and the mall be correlated. 8. That a brick band be added to the west and south elevations of the Von's building including the top of the loading dock. 9. That landscape plans be prepared which address fully the previous comments of the AAC, and that complete preliminary plans be submitted to include large scale details of typical areas. 10. That a complete application including colored elevations, site plan, and landscape plans be submitted per the City's application guidelines and that additional information such as perspective vignettes and section to fully describe the project with correlation of elevations, plans, and roof plans also be submitted. CASE 2.709. Application by THRIFTY DRUG STORES for architectural approval of revised sign program for Thrifty Drug, Big 5, and Sandy's Restaurant complex on South Palm Canyon Drive between Amado Road/Ramon Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. • Continued at the applicant's request to June 22. CASE 3.586-MINOR. Application by T. SKORMAN for architectural approval of awning on front elevation of business at 310 North Palm Canyon drive, C- B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following concerns: 1 . That the frame and awning be squared and mounted approximately one-foot below the roof beam. 2. That a section and mounding details be supplied. 3. That scalloping be omitted. CASE 5.0033-CUP. Application by C.G. DUNHAM for architectural approval of revised site plan and revised elevations for condominium complex on Mesquite Avenue between Cerritos Road/Sunrise Way, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones (I.L. ) , Section 24 (Ref. TTM 11559) . Restudy noting the following concerns: 1. That there be a seven to ten foot setback from units to the boundary wall . 2. That elevations be restudied to provide shade to windows • (overhangs of three to four feet shall be used) . 3. That preliminary landscape plans, a colored board, and colored elevations be supplied. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 3.438. Application by P. KOLODEJ for architectural approval of revised • working drawings for a single family hillside residence on Leonard Road south of Via Olivera, R-1-A Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the condition that a detailed landscape, exterior lighting and irrigation plan be submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) DISCUSSION. COMMISSION discussion regarding CalTrans experiment using used automobile tires for blowsand control in the Windy Point area in the Palm Springs sphere of influence. Planning Director stated that tires are being placed near Windy Point to allow tamarisk seedlings to grow as windbreaks and for blowsand control ; that the tires are proposed to be removed in approximately three years; that they are placed in a herring bone fashion twelve tires high in the Palm Springs Beach area and in the flat area the tires have been aligned six to eight high in mini-dikes; that staff had discussed the unpleasing appearance of the tires with Don Weaver, an expert on blowsand control who is willing to discuss the problem with the Commission; that the tires are proposed to be camouflaged by spray painting the color of the sand; that the tires make the area resemble a junk yard and the appearance will lead to more dumping; that the project was coordinated • with the California Conservation Corps and not finished when the Corps was sent to help in the Coalinga earthquake disaster; that no notice had been sent to the City regarding the implementation of the blowsand program; and that staff had not researched alternatives although staff will work with CalTrans to reach a better solution. Commissioner Koetting stated that rocks had been used in some areas for blowsand control ; that CalTrans should have requested Palm Springs input; and that the area is becoming bizarre. Further discussion followed on the aesthetics of the tire installation. Commissioner Curtis stated that small trees that are watered regularly would be an alternative to seedlings. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he did not like the tires, but alternatives should be reviewed because of the severe blowsand in the area. Commissioner Harris voiced concern that the tires might catch on fire. Chairman stated that Don Weaver was an outstanding blowsand expert and would give the Commission good insight. Staff was directed by the Commission to invite Mr. Weaver to discuss the problem at the July 20 study session. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) • DISCUSSION - CASE 3.573 Planning Director requested Commission review of the proposed revisions to the Palm Springs Mall and presented the project on the display board (noting AAC concerns) . June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 Chairman commented that the proposal seems to be getting worse and that • the applicant seems to be losing the direction given at a Planning Commission study session with the applicant. Discussion: Discussion ensued on the tree plantings proposed. Chairman stated that the applicant will be planting large specimen trees on the frontage. Commissioner Koetting stated that the trees will be in the parking islands and that there will be only shrubs along the buildings. Chairman stated that the most recent proposal indicates revisions to buildings only along the front to the trash area of the old Market Basket building instead of revisions to the entire project down to the J. C. Penney's store as originally indicated. Planning Director stated that the entire complex will be revised eventually, but because of economics not all revisions will be completed at one time. Discussion continued relative to lack of integration of the elements as promised many years ago. Commissioner Koetting stated that the J. C. Penney's store will be upgraded as a fashion-oriented type of store. Commissioner Harris requested that the applicant submit a sign program. Planning Director stated that in conversations with the Director of Community Development the applicant indicated that there are shifts of focus on the project by the AAC each time it is reviewed, and that two week deadlines are difficult to meet for the applicant because plans are not fully developed; that economics are a concern to the applicant; that staff wants to keep the Commission apprised of the progress of the • revisions to the mall ; and that possibly there should be a stronger design involved in the revisions. Discussion: Commission discussed meeting with the applicant in a study session to give direction and a theme for the revisions. Commissioner Harris stated that the Planning Commission should not have to design the project; that direction was given to the applicant in a study session; and that the project should have a better design. Chairman stated that perhaps the Commission had not made its feelings clear; that the project should be supported; that direction should be given; and that perhaps an incline roof design should be discarded and replaced by clean, flat-roofed architecture. Planning Director suggested that the old Market Basket building be treated in a manner similar to the Von's building to form two anchors with a simple unifying theme such as a southwest desert approach. Discussion: Commission discussed dates for meeting with the applicant. Chairman suggested that Monday, June 13 at 5 p.m. or Thursday, June 16, at 5 p.m. would be acceptable and directed staff to contact the applicant for confirmation of one of the dates with the Commission to be apprised. ADDED STARTERS CASE 5.0227-CUP. Application by W. LEPPER for G. Weiner for approval of a revision in grading depth for a tennis court on Valmonte Sur between Via Chica/Via Corte, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 Planning Director stated that the court was approved under a CUP and . that one of the conditions of approval was that it be sunk four feet; that the applicant has sunk it two and one-half feet because of the expense of additional grading and for a closer relationship with the pool area; and that staff would have no problem with the request since the fence height will remain the same as on the original application. Discussion: Commission discussed the controversy surrounding the original application. W. Lepper of Pacific Tennis Courts, representing the applicant, stated that the fence height will be the same as if the tennis court were constructed at a four foot depth; that the court will be landscaped and not seen from any adjoining property; and that "at grade" means grading from the height of surrounding property. Planning Director stated that the five foot fence height was approved with the CUP. Mr. Lepper stated that he was on vacation; that his assistant knew that the company had constructed a three foot deep court in the past and the applicant wanted the depth. Further discussion ensued on the neighbors' original complaints regarding the court. Commissioner Koetting stated that a compromise solution had been reached in reaction to neighbors' complaints and that • sinking to four feet was one of the conditions; that changing the depth would require another public hearing. Mr. Lepper again described the circumstances and stated that there was very little difference between the fence height; that less noise would result with the two and one-half foot depth; and that dense shrubbery surrounds the perimeter of the property. Chairman stated that the tennis courts had been an issue in the community and that the neighbors were not pleased with the original application. Commissioner Harris requested that a solution be reached so that there is no hardship on the applicant. Motion was made by Harris to approve the tennis court as constructed, the motion died for lack of a second. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Harris dissented; Kaptur absent) that the court be built according to original specifications or that the matter be returned to the Commission for a new public hearing. CASE 5.0209-PD-136. Application by EISNER SMITH PLANNERS for Westar Inc. for architectural approval of final development plans for a shopping center on the northeast corner of N. Palm Canyon Dr./Racquet Club Rd. , C-1 & R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Koetting abstained; Kaptur absent) approving • final development plans (revised plans and elevations) for Case 5.0209- PD 136 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the top of the retaining wall on the eastern boundary be at a slightly higher level than the footings of the wall adjoining the service road. 2. That the soil in the planter be level with the top of the retaining wall on the eastern boundary. 3. That landscaping be added to screen the eastern side of the six foot wall adjoining the service road. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel maps based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. • TPM 19313. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for R. Pond for approval of a combination of parcels into one lot at 1660 Dunham Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines. ) M/S/C (Harris/Curtis; Kaptur absent) approving TPM 19313 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 5.0233-PD-141. NAUGLES'S RESTAURANT for architectural approval of umbrellas and tables for restaurant in shopping center on the southeast corner of Racquet Club Road/North Palm Canyon Drive, PD-113, Section 3. Continued at the applicant's request and after a restudy recommendation by the AAC. Concern noted was consideration of an overhead trellis which would be more appropriate for the area and in keeping with the shopping center and restaurant design. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION • _ Additional Zoning Enforcement Officer. Planning Director stated that the Council is reviewing the need for an additional Zoning Enforcement Officer, especially in light of additional enforcement required for the property maintenance Zoning text amendment. June 8, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 Case 3.568. Planning Director stated that since the Council has approved the application on an appeal by the applicant, no further action can be taken by the Commission. Case 5.0264-CZ. Planning Director stated that it was referred back to the Commission from Council because the Council felt there were special circumstances regarding the property and directed staff to review the change of zone to C-1 as proposed by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. ' "" L'� AANI�16 '6IR C�CfOR MDR/mi WP/PC MIN