Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/06/11 - MINUTES 01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 11 , 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman - 20 1 Hugh Curtis X 21 0 Hugh Kaptur X 19 2 Larry Lapham X 21 0 Curt Ealy X 16 0 Earl Neel X 12 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Fred Hawkins, Director of Community Services Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - June 9, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Kaptur absent) approving minutes of May 28, 1986 with the following corrections: Page 2, line 11, change "part" to "park" (CIP) . Page 14, sixth paragraph, line 3, change "fence" to "since" (Case 3.997/TPM 21492) Page 18, fifth paragraph, line 2, change "Aamerops" to "Chamerops" (Case 3.959). June 11, 1.986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Madsen/Kaptur absent) taking the following actions: CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R.P. WARMINGTON COMPANY for architectural approval of revisions to floor plans/balconies for 187 unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Approved as submitted (alternate balcony scheme) . CASE 3.0030. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for Geoff Gilbert for archi- tectural approval of revised parking layout and building remodel for 32 unit hotel (El Moro Villa) , 350 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 23. After discussion with City Attorney regarding three Commission abstentions, the Commission continued the application to June 25 for a full complement of Commissioners. (No vote was taken. ) Assistant City Attorney stated that the criteria for continuation of an item is that the action taken be the one that least affects the numbers , and that continuation to June 25 to allow Chairman Madsen to attend would be the action that would have the least effect (Rule of Necessity) . Planning Director stated that if the abstaining Commissioners were not �.- present there would be a change in the way the vote was determined. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0043 (MINOR) (Continued) . Application by GEORGE MARANTZ for archi- tectural approval of addition of windows on north elevation of building, 1000 block South Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that the AAC reviewed the windows in the field and recommended approval subject to conditions. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Ealy abstained; Kaptur/Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions. 1. That the opening be modified to create two vertical openings recessed with eased corners and separated by a stucco fin a minimum 8 inches in width. 2. Details to be reviewed by staff. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.0042 (MINOR) (Continued). Application by SIGN TECH for architectural approval of revised plans for 2 main identification signs and an attraction board for a 6-plex motion picture theater at the Courtyard, 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle E1 Segundo, C-1-AA Zone, (I .L.) , Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309) . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Madsen/Kaptur absent) continuing the application to June 25. Commissioner Kaptur arrived. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.995 (MINOR) . Application by ALLEN FENCE COMPANY for architectural approval of 1200 ft. of chain link fence to secure mostly vacant property at 815 Panorama Drive (hillside lot) , R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the application had been continued for property owners to meet with the applicant since one of them did not approve of the six foot high chain link fence. M/S/C (Neel/Ealy; Lapham dissented; Madsen absent) approving the appli- cation subject to the following: 1. That a chain link fence six (6) feet in height on the property line is acceptable. 2. That no landscape be added to the perimeter. 3. That the fence be treated with Eonite coating. 4. Details to be reviewed by staff. 5. That there be no upper bar in the fence. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0398-PD-180 (Continued) . Application by LAWRENCE PIERCE for a planned development district to construct a 91 unit 3-story hotel on South Indian Avenue, between Calle Encilia/South Indian Avenue, south of Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1AA Zones, (I .L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. No comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission continued the application to June 25. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0398-PD-180 (Continued). Planning Director explained that the applicant has not finished the revised plans required by the restudy action of the Commission at the May 28 meeting. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Madsen absent) continuing the application to June 25. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of May 13 and May 27, 1986. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and review of the City Planning Commission Meetings minutes of May 28, 1986, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its prior actions of May 13 and May 27, 1986, which were as follows: a. Concurred with the findings and conclusions contained in Planning Commission Staff Report date May 14, 1986. b. Approved the Preliminary Planned Development District subject to the conditions recommended by City staff. C. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 1, 1986. 2. In accordance with its policy on architectural approval items, the Tribal Council did not comment on the architectural and landscape features of the proposed project. CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of revisions of the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. No comments received.) Planning Director explained that the revised draft is not complete. He stated that some sections will be reviewed at the June 18 study session. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Ealy/Kaptur; Madsen absent) continuing the case to June 25. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS City Planning Staff has indicated that this case will be continued pending completion of a final draft of the Zoning Ordinance incor- porating proposed revisions being recommended by City Staff/Planning Commission. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Since the proposed revisions are City-wide in nature and affect both developed and undeveloped Indian trust lands, the Tribal Council will consider the final draft of the revised Zoning Ordinance and submit comments and recommendations thereon prior to the City Planning Commission' s next scheduled hearing on this matter. TPM 21492 (Continued) (Ref. Case 3.997). Application by BERNARD J. CRAWFORD for a tentative parcel map to consolidate 3 lots into 1 for condominium purposes on E1 Segundo Road/Saturnino Road, R-4 Zone, (I .L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continued the application to June 25. Planning Director stated that the map has been continued for the appli- cant to address the issues of a substandard remainder parcel between the Baristo Channel and Saturnino and which Development Committee Minutes require to be included in the map. He stated that the City Attorney and the Tribal Council both recommend continuance and staff reiterates that the Development Committee requirement should be implemented. He explained that the applicant is in a difficult position since he may not be able to lease the remainder parcel from the Indians. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. B.J. Crawford, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, the applicant, requested that there not be a continuance, that his attorney had delivered a memo to the City Attorney's Office before the meeting giving a history of the project and giving reasons showing that City, County and State laws are superseded by Federal laws for Indian lands held in trust by the Federal Govern- ment. He stated that a property appraiser has determined that the small remainder parcel (on the north side of the wash) was continuous with the land to the east and could be used for density purposes if combined with the Village Racquet Club property and that the lease with the Indians was negotiated on that basis and approved in Sacramento five months June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS ' TPM 21492 (Continued) (Ref. Case 3.997) . later. He stated that the City requirement to lease the sliver parcel and to construct street improvements is unreasonable since he has a valid lease with the Federal Government. He stated that he seems to be caught between two bureaucracies , that the density is the maximum allowed except by Indian Zoning and adding the remainder parcel would not increase the density. He requested that the Commission recognize that there is a legal matter to be resolved which is not of his making. In reply to Vice-Chairman's question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the legal opinion (memo) was received before the meeting, but he did not have a chance to review it thoroughly. He stated that his initial impression was that he is in disagreement with portions of it, that there are elements not taken into account for consideration, and that the situation is complex and will require more study between the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council . There being no further appearances , Vice-Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Curtis questioned whether or not the Commission could force the applicant to construct street improvements on property in which he has no leasehold interest. Planning Director ex0lained that if the property had been legally sub- divided, the City would not require that the developer make off-site improvements; but in the subject case the property would be considered in its entirety and in the process of developing the lease, the BIA illegally subdivided the property and thatthe circumstances are the same as though a person sold a portion of the property and then requested a building permit which would not be issued because it is not a legal parceling of the property. He stated that the BIA made a subdivision , that the developer does not want the sliver of property because it is unbuildable and that if the sliver could be combined with the property to the east to make one parcel there would not be a problem. He stated that the map could be conditioned that the problem be resolved before the map is finaled which is what the Development Committee Conditions state. He stated that the assessor' s map shows the property as one parcel and the Weir Map indicates it as multiple parcels running through the Baristo Channel to Saturnino with the northerly three parcels straddling the channel . Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the map be approved based on the following findings and subject to Development Committee Condition and to the added condition that the problem of the remainder parcel be resolved. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Ealy abstained; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to Development Committee Conditions including the resolution of the problem of the sliver parcel prior to final map approval , and based on the following findings: June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS TPM 21492 (Continued) (Ref. Case 3.997) . Findings: 1. That a parcel map subject to conditions is the appropriate application for the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision as revised by the project conditions is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, local subdivision ordinance, and the General Plan. 3. That the proposed map as revised by the project conditions will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the City. 4. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future . uses of land in the neighborhood. 5. That the site for the proposed use relates to Ramon Road and Calle E1 Segundo (major and secondary thoroughfares) which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of May 27, 1986. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission and review of the City Planning Commission Meeting minutes of May 28, 1986, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its prior action of May 28 to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as contained in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated May 28, 1986. 2. Noted that TPM 21492 was continued to the City Planning Commission' s meeting of June 11 for further review by the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney' s Office has indicated that a further continuance will probably be requested. It was also noted that the Planning Commission's action of May 28, 1986 referenced recommendations of the Development Committee dated May 13, 1986. The Tribal Council action of May 27, 1986 to con- ditionally approve TPM 21492 was based on Development Committee Conditions dated March 11, 1986. The Tribal Council requested that further action on TPM 21492 be continued until such time as the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant have received and reviewed a copy of Development Committee conditions dated May 13, 1986 and received further information relative to the City Attorney's review of TPM 21492. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0405-CUP. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a conditional use permit to allow construction and operation of a public park (McCallum Desert Reserve) on E1 Cielo Road, north of Sonora Road, W-R-1-C Zone, Section 19. (Commission response to written comments on the draft Negative Declaration. No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the application be continued to June 25 for renoticing. Planner (Evans) stated that one property owner had not been noticed, and staff is recommending continuance to renotice the particular property owner. He presented the staff report and stated that staff has received several calls regarding the type of park, and that the callers do not want an extension of the equestrian center or a traditional type of park with ballfields. He stated that the Director of Community Services was present to answer questions. He described the park on the board and stated that it will be a passive recreational area focusing on an arboretum containing native plants from four southwest desert regions. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. B. Sparer, 3307 Sonora (corner of E1 Cielo/Sonora) , stated that he had no objection to the project, but wished to have the type of development explained. He requested that the grading for the parking and pavilion occur at the farthest point north so that residents in the area are not �..� disturbed. He requested an explanation of the type of perimeter fencing. Planner stated that the Sparer property faces seven acres which are not part of the subject application, and that fencing will be similar to that at Mesquite Country Club which has heavy chains connected to con- crete pilasters, that the intent is to allow people into the park but to keep off-road vehicles out of the area, and that final details of the fencing will be reviewed by the Commission. He stated that the grading will be limited and close to E1 Cielo, and not at the intersection of of El Cielo and Sonora, , and will be limited and that the roadway system is in the center portion. He stated that he could answer questions in his office after the meeting. He explained that the seven acre property at the corner of E1 Cielo and Sonora is privately owned and has been approved for a condominium project on which the CUP has expired. He stated that the zoning allows either condominiums or single family residences. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Madsen absent) continuing the application to June 25. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS H. Untermeyer, 1630 LaReina Way, Lexicologist representing himself and the Chamber of Commerce requested that the "C" flag flown by Robinson' s Department Store and given to the Chamber of Commerce as an award for the Festival of Lights be allowed to remain. (The City has cited Robinson' s and has ordered the flag removed. ) He stated that the situation is an honor and one given for community involvement. He showed the flag to the Commission noting that the ordinance states that national flags and flags of political subdivisions should not be con- strued as signs, and that the citation program is an instrumentality of the U.S. Government and is a political subdivision. He requested that the Planning Commission reverse the code violation action. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0016 (MINOR). Application by KINNEY SHOE CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised plans for new store front (Footlocker) in Desert Fashion Plaza, 100 block of N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tahquitz Way/ Amado Road, PD-147, Section 15. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Madsen absent) continuing the application to June 25 for submission of revised materials. CASE 3.0023. Application by ABRAHAM YERMIAN for architectural approval of a commercial building at Camino Monte Vista/N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planner (Williams) explained AAC recommendations for a restudy and stated that the Committee felt that the east elevation resembles the rear of a building. She stated that the northwest corner element and the roof mass were also concerns . M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Madsen absent) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That a planter island be added every 10 spaces in the parking area. (Eastern side of parking lot. ) 2. That the roof elements of the Northwest corner be expanded and carried through to the east elevation. 3. That the overall roof mass be restudied. CASE 3.0032. Application by RICHARD SHACKLETON for architectural approval of a single family hillside residence on Santa Elena Road between Via Monte Vista/Via Norte, R-1B Zone, Section 3. Planner (Williams) described the residence on the display board and stated that the AAC recommended approval as submitted. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0032. (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur abstained; Madsen absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommend- ations of the Development Committee be met. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.360. Planning Commission review of request to convert hotel lobby to retail space for a non-conforming structure in the 300 block of N. Palm Canyon Drive (Patio Manor Hotel ) , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that staff has discussed with the applicant his request to convert a hotel lobby area into retail space in an old hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive, that it would be a separate use from the hotel use, and that CBD Zoning allows a resort hotel to have a commercial use for hotel guests only, but that the subject property does not satisfy this requirement. He stated that the older, smaller hotels with commercial uses in the front are non-conforming and allowing a lobby to convert increases intensity of parking. He explained that the con- figuration of the subject hotel will create a signing problem since the current sign bridges the entire frontage of the shop, and if reduced to 4 to 5 feet, signing would be limited. He stated that the original area was a breezeway which was enclosed, but whether or not it had been a commercial use (which was removed after a code violation) is not known. He stated that the conversion could be done physically, but questioned whether or not the Commission would want a use such as this downtown reviewed on a case by case basis , and transferred from one non- conforming use to the next if the hotel were sold. He stated that ramifications of the proposal should be reviewed and possibly the use not allowed, and that signing and parking issues need review. In replying to Vice-Chairman's question, he stated that the City could not require a change to the exterior unless the application was for a planned development district, but that the property is too small to pro- ceed on a PD application basis . In reply to Commission question, he stated that there are many of these kinds of non-conforming uses downtown. He suggested that the issue be discussed at the June 18 study session. M/S/C (Neel/Ealy; M dsen absent) continuing the item to June 25 (and study session of June 18�. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) . Planning Commission review of CIP to determine conformity with the General Plan. Planning Director explained that the Commission reviews the CIP for its conformity with the General Plan, that the program is a 5-year allocation of funds, and that the only year that becomes firm is the upcoming fiscal year (1986/87) . He stated that some items will be moved to the 86-87 fiscal year (such as signing for the Civic Center) , and that staff recommends that the Commission determine that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan. Community Development Coordinator stated that she had distributed additional information such as the drainage fund and a list of CIP options, that the CIP was reviewed at a budget session with the Council June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). (Continued) and that items were added. She stated that the Council Chamber remodeling project will be reduced in scope from $100,000 to $26,000, that an additional bikepath was approved along Sunrise Way connecting Riverside Drive to Sunny Dunes and a two-phased pedestrian signal added. She stated that the redevelopment planner was present to answer questions on the auto park, and that the Council 's concert is to main- tain the same service levels and repair levels in regard to major pro- grams such as road work which was indicated as necessary in a five year study. M/S/C (Ealy/Neel ; Madsen absent) finding that the CIP is in conformity with the General Plan. DETERMINATION 10.361. Planning Commission determination on number of political flags allowable on a single parcel . Planning Director stated that the item was placed on the agenda before Mr. Untermeyers request but both items could be addressed. He stated that the issue of the number and types of flags was discussed at a study session and that the issue is allowance of multiple flags and, if so, under what circumstances, and that staff has determined that three flags should be the maximum unless more are approved by the Commission. He stated that another issue would be the one of private initiative flags, that Robinson's flag is considered a sign under the sign ordinance, and that violation notices have been sent occasionally to businesses flying logo flags or non political ones . He stated that staff could possibly obtain information for the Commission on the President' s citation program because staff does not know anything about it. Vice-Chairman stated that people should not use flags and flag poles as advertisements or signage or to increase business. Planning Director stated that he had just recently learned of Mr. Untermeyer's concern regarding the "C" flag. H. Untermeyer, La Reina Way, stated that advertising flags in front of business should not be allowed but political flags should be i .e. , the Statue of Liberty Flag at the Sheraton Plaza, and that the number of state and local flags in the front of an establishment should be deter- mined by the amount of frontage. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the City receives a flag in honor of an outstanding program, the Commission and Council should determine as a separate issue whether or not a flag should be flown, and that it should be flown at the appropriate location (such as City Hall or- the Airport). CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update on City Council actions. CASE 5.0398-PD-180. Council continued the item for further review for the same concerns indicated by the Planning Commission (access roadway, hillside development, etc. ) . �-- - CASE 5.0369-PD-177 & TPM 21324. Council approved the application. June 11, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 T CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. (Continued) CASE 5.0303-PD-153. Council continued the final development plans and requested a clear definition of the equestrian trail and a plan to pre- serve the Palo Verde growth area. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. PLANNANG DIRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 25, 1986 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen , Chairman X 21 1 Hugh Curtis X 21 0 Hugh Kaptur - 19 3 Larry Lapham X 22 0 Curt Ealy X 17 0 Earl Neel - 12 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans , Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - June 23, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Kaptur/Neel absent) approving minutes of June 11, 1986, as submitted.