Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/01/13 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 13, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman - 9 2 Hugh Curtis X 11 0 Martha Edgmon X 9 2 Brent Hough X 10 1 Earl Neel X 10 1 Gary Olsen X 10 1 Barbara Whitney X 9 2 Staff Present Marvin D. oos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer Ken Feenstra, Redevelopment Director Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary °+- Architectural Advisory Committee - January 11, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney, Alternate Martha Edgmon Gary Olsen, Alternate Brent Hough William Johnson Will Kleindienst Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ) approving minutes of December 9, 1987 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman was absent; Vice-Chairman presided. 1 January 13, 1988 PC 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 (Olsen/Edgmon; Lapham absent) taking the following actions: CASE 7.675-AMM (Continued) . Application by TOM DOCZI for architectural approval of revised finallandscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for a single family residence at 650 Stevens Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 11. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0022. Application by RONALD GENGLER for architectural approval of e ai ed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for a 5-unit apartment building on Saturmino/Calle Lelita, R-2 Zone, Section 13. Restudy noting the following: 1. Indicate height of Washingtonia Robusta. 2. Indicate ground material in rear and side of buildings. 3. Add 4-24" box Cocos Plumasa around central lawn area and move the Shinus Terebinthefolius further north on lawn area. t 4. That 5-Rapholepis Indica be replaced at northeast corner of unit with 5 Nerium Oleander Petite. 5. That vines be provided at block wall on south side of property. 6. That location of Ficus Benjamina and Hibiscus Rose-Sinsis between Units 1 and 5 be reversed. 7. That planters and landscaping along building wall of Units 3, 4, and 5 be provided. CASE 3.0080. Application by JOHN STANFORD for J .P. Construction for architectural approval of revised architectural plans for an industrial building on Tachevah Drive/Montalvo Way, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the colors be toned down. 2. That shade control be provided on all the windows. 3. That a roof plan be provided. 4. That the parking be located out of the setback. 5. That the number of refuse enclosures be reduced and provided with pedestrian entrances. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0080. (Continued) 6. That a larger scale for presentation of elevation drawings is suggested. 7. That the parking lot meet the Zoning Ordinance minimum standards for islands and number of contiguous spaces. CASE 3.0263 (MINOR) . Application by SIERRA ENERGY SYSTEMS for architectural approval of mechanical structure at the Plaza Resort, 2601 Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.0277. Application by RON GREGORY for Scott Dorius for architectural approval of detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for a mini storage facility on Gene Autry Trail between Mesquite Avenue/Palm Canyon Drive, M-1 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 20. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Saguaros have a minimum of 2 arms. 2. That there be a minimum number of 3 Saguaros. 3. That the minimum height be 12' , 14' and 16' . TIME EXTENSION - TTM 20435. Application by SANBORN/WEBS, INC. for Vincent Pirozzi for a second twelve month time extension for a tentative tract map to divide one lot into six for single-family residences on the west side of Via Miraleste, south of Francis, 0 Zone, Section 2. Approved subject to the original conditions of approval . New expiration date will be January 13, 1989. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0326 (Continued) . Application by DESERT CHAPEL for architectural approval of school c assroom additions for a church at 650 S. Sunrise Way, PD-59, Section 24. Planner (Vankeeken) stated that the AAC found the application inappropriate including the concept, and felt that denial , not restudy, was the appro- priate action. She described the application on the display board. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0326. (Continued) Commissioner Olsen commented that a restudy would be a better action and that the buildings overpower the sanctuary. Planning Director stated that a restudy action would allow for submission of revised plans without additional fees. Commissioner Hough stated that the AAC felt the building needed more than a few embellishments. Vice-Chairman asked if there were another location on the site and the reasons for the massiveness of the building. Planning Director explained that the remainder of the site is in parking, and unless parking is relocated the building location cannot be changed, that siting the buildings on Sunny Dunes might not allow their use because of the operations of the church, and that the buildings would be highly visible from Sunrise Way. He stated that the church needs a professional designer and stated that he did not know how many children the buildings would house. Vice-Chairman noted that a total restudy is necessary. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney/Lapham absent) for a total restudy of the building. CASE 3.0272. Application by VOSS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES INC. for architectural approval of revised architecture and revised site plan for retail/restaurant complex on the northeast corner of Avenida Caballeros/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Planner (Williams) stated that the applicant is concerned about Council 's feeling of negativity about the design and also has financial constraints; and that the new elevations are the same except that they have been lessened in height from 50 ft. to 35 ft. with the roof, line lowered and made broader. She stated that the AAC recommended approval with the condi- tion that the awnings be lowered to add space above them. Planning Director stated that a small portion of the roof of the buildings that create the mass above 35 ft. was removed. Planner stated that the mechanical equipment will be screened instead of being contained within the buildings, and that the ceilings are still vaulted. Planning Director stated that the mechanical equipment will be screened from above as well . He described the changes on the board. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon abstained; Lapham absent) approving the applica- tion subject to the following conditions: 0�' January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0272. (Continued) 1. That a materials and color board be submitted prior to permit issuance. 2. That all mechanical equipment be screened from above in accordance with Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the canopies located on the south elevation be lower on the building face. Details to be reviewed by AAC. 4. That final detailed landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted prior to permit issuance. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 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 3.0328. Application by CENTER BELARDO COMPANY for architectural approval of a two-story commercial building on North Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo Road/Amado Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. �... Planning Director stated that the applicant requested that the application be removed from the agenda for a revised submittal . M/S/C (Whitney/Neel ; Lapham absent) removing the application from the agenda. CASE 3.0340 (MINOR) . Application by BUD WEIN for architectural approval of awnings on t e frontage of the Gold Rush at 112 N. Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the awnings would have had signing on them and a cabinet sign removed above; and that the AAC recommended denial by a unanimous vote. M/S/C (Neel/Edgmon; Lapham absent) denying the application. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . PLANNING COMMISSION review of M-1 provisions on scenic corridors for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. (An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been previously considered, and a negative declaration filed on the original zoning text amendment. ) January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) Planning Director explained that the previous discussion on the ordinance has been on scenic corridors and public hearings have been continued at the request of the Tribal Council , which is opposed to changes to the M-1 Ordinance. He stated that after the December 21 dinner meeting of the Council and Commission, staff felt that the Council and Commission were not satisfied with the increased use of the CUP on scenic corridors. He recom- mended a 30-day continuance to review objections of the Council and Commission, to discuss changes with the Tribal Council , and to place the item on the January 20 Planning Commission Study Session agenda. Vice-Chairman stated that Council indicated that a CUP was a not a correct way to obtain the goals along the scenic corridors and asked if there were any other Council direction. Planning Director stated that the Council feels that the same goals can be obtained by landscape and architectural standards for scenic corridors, with specific plans for the corridors. He stated that landscape continuity guidelines would be prepared in advance, although this is difficult because future projects are unknown. He stated that staff wants to keep the Tribal Council involved as well . Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ; Lapham absent) continuing the Zoning Text Amendments to February 10. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS As noted in the City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 12, 1987, the Tribal Council supported the revisions to the Interim Zoning Ordinance (all sections) subject to the inclusion of certain Ordinances and Agreements as appendices, and expressed its continued cooperation and assistance in the implementation of the Revised Zoning Ordinance. In a previous memoranda to the City Planning Commission, the Tribal Council had submitted the following comments on the proposed revisions to the Manufacturing/Industrial Zones: a. Concurred with the proposals to add and delete uses permitted by right of zone, conditional use permits or land use permits, delete redundancy an, simplify performance standards. b. Disagreed with proposed Property Development Standards which increase lot sites, lot widths and depths, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc. As noted previously, these standards appear to be arbitrary and very restrictive when compared with those in other communities that are currently experiencing significant growth in quality industrial/business parks, and may not be attuned to the current market for industrial properties. `w C. Seriously questioned if the proposed statement that "These standards (Property Development Standards) may be altered where a specific development plan is approved under a Planned Development of a Condi- tional Use Permit or otherwise approved Master Plan of development January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) where the development meets the intent of this Ordinance" will mitigate the possible detriment created by these standards with respect to the City's ability to attract the types of industries that contribute significantly to job opportunities and economic stabiliza- tion within a community. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following action with respect to the review of M-1 provisions on scenic corridors which was considered by the City Planning Commission on December 9, 1987: Strongly objected to the proposed revisions to the M-1 Zone which would: a. Delete some of the uses permitted in the "C-1", "C-Z", "C-M" and "M- 1-P" Zones. b. Require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for certain uses on lots within 200' of a scenic corridor. Those uses are for the most part, currently permitted by right of zone. The broad range of uses permitted by the Commercial/M-1-P Zones allow the establishment of total "business park" areas of mixed uses composed of office, commercial industrial and hotels. This concept is most appropriate for the M-1 Zone. The current Property Development standards of the M-1 Zone, which were significantly upgraded as part of the recent Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, are deemed adequate to address any development impacts on scenic corridors. The Tribal Council strongly recommends that no further revisions to the M-1 Zone be considered at this time. CASE 5.0458-CUP. Application by MARY BONO for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an unlighted tennis court within side yard setbacks at 294 Crestview Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planner (Williams) stated that the reason a CUP is required is because the tennis court encroaches into the setback. She described the application on the display board and stated that the most significant impact is to the property to the east and that three letters have been received from prop- erty owners and that the owner to the east requested that a 6 ft. high concrete block wall be constructed at the property line; that the land- scaping be maintained; that the wall surface match his house, and indicated he would not support night lighting (which is not part of the proposal ) . January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0458-CUP. (Continued) Commissioner Edgmon stated that part of the landscaping is on the east property owners property, and that he does not want the landscaping to be placed on his property. She stated that the AAC recommended a restudy feeling that they were not familiar with the site and did not like the landscaping materials and blocking of the view of the property to the east. Commissioner Hough stated that density of the landscape materials also was discussed. Commissioner Edgmon asked if the court could be narrowed. Planner stated that the court has been narrowed to 58 ft. and could be narrowed more although she could not remember an application in which the apron was narrowed. Commissioner Edgmon stated that there had been an error in the building of the wall which caused problems for the tennis court. Commissioner Hough stated that the east property owner will see a six foot masonry wall with four feet of chain link fencing above that. Discussion continued on the angle and setbacks of the court. Planner stated that the location and angle are because of the retaining wall and that the chain link fence cannot be lowered because there is an ordinance requirement for the height. Planning Director stated that a lower fence height would allow tennis balls to travel into other yards, and that the height along E1 Camino can be mitigated by landscaping. He stated that the Commission should be con- cerned about the location of the court's infringement into the setback. He stated that the east property owner is not opposed to the court, but is opposed to landscaping on his property; and had not been advised of that proposal . He stated that the property owner has desert landscaping and may not want cypress and oleanders. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Sonny Bono, 294 Crestview, the owner, thanked the Commission and staff for reviewing his application and stated that an error had been made by the contractor building the wall , and that the wall had been engineered and an architectural study done. He stated that the costly wall was then built, but it was not his intent to disregard City codes, although he took full responsibility for it. He stated that he agreed to the conditions; that the landscaping will be resolved with the neighbors, and that he would match the stucco of the wall to the neighbor's house. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Hough stated that it was obvious that the long retaining wall was built in error and that it is an unfortunate circumstance. He stated that the east property owner is the key and seems to have no concerns about the setback but he has about the landscaping; and that the 10 ft. high wall is a problem although if lowered, balls from the court will go into the neighbors yards. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0458-CUP. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney expressed concern about the future and asked if future complaints on the use or location would affect the CUP. Planning Director explained that the CUP is valid as long as the conditions are met; that conditions can be placed on the conditional use permit; that the permit runs with the land and is not revocable if a use is once granted. He stated that 5 or 6 lots have been combined by the owner. Mr. Bono stated that he has bought nine lots and described their configura- tion. He stated that his thought is to change the entrance to the back of the property eventually and enter from Crestview instead of having an entry on both Crestview and El Camino. He stated that the house below his is not completely behind the tennis court and the owner has no objection to the court. He stated that the east property owner has a view over the 10 ft. wall and that the view is not disturbed from the second story. He noted that he owned all the lots below except one and will combine them into one lot. Commissioner Edgmon expressed concern about the two foot setback at the north end of the court and stated that if the landscaping is not on the east property owners property it would be difficult to landscape a two foot wide area. She asked if the court could be narrowed. Mr. Bono explained that it had been narrowed to 58 ft. in width and could not be narrower because it would be considered substandard and affect play. He stated that in the two foot area he would plant on his side of the property with any materials recommended by the Commission and that Cypress would fit into the space easily. He stated that landscaping on the east property owners property is not necessary. Commissioner Hough commented that the east property owner may not want landscaping on the west side of his property, may like the wall , and that the landscaping between the two properties should not be the Commission's concern. Commissioner Neel stated that vines (not Italian Cypress) should be planted to hide the wall ; that trees do not stop tennis balls; that trees should not be over the court; and that landscaping should be resolved with the east property owner. Commissioner Whitney stated that the tennis court should not be narrowed because it would impact on the play, but that she would like to look at the site before any decision is made to see how the setback relates to the surrounding properties. Commissioner Olsen stated that one of the staff conditions is that final landscaping be submitted. /increasing landscaping Planning Director stated that another technique for is to remove the corner at a 45 degree angle and that it could be done on the two east sides which �-' would allow 10 ft. next to the east property for increased landscaping, and that the court would be symmetrical on the inside. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0458-CUP. (Continued) Vice-Chairman stated that the setbacks are averaged well ; that the corner could be angled but that nothing could be gained by a field trip and that the court could have been designed without setback encroachments but should not be restricted so much so that play is affected. He stated that the 58 ft. width is acceptable. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Lapham absent; Whitney dissented) approving CUP 5.0458 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That a tennis court with substandard setbacks is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the tennis court is acceptable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the General Plan and is not detrimental to uses specifically permitted in the R-1-A Zone. 3. That the site is not adequate in size or shape to fully accommodate the tennis court without adjustment to the setbacks. 4. That the propose tennis court will not adversely affect any roadways or improvements. Conditions 1. That no night lighting is approved. 2. That the retaining the wall located along west side of the tennis court shall be stuccoed and integrated with remainder of buildings and walls. 3. That the chain link fence along north property lines shall be removed. 4. That demonstration of access easements along E1 Camino shall be pro- vided. 5. That the landscape concept be restudied as to materials and location of plantings. 6. Final detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans shall be submitted. 7. A grading plan shall be submitted. 8. Demonstration of lot consolidation shall be provided prior to permit issuance. If the lots have not been legally combined under laws in effect at the time of consolidation a lot line adjustment or parcel map shall be required. 9. Conditions from the Engineering Division regarding street improvements and dedication shall be met. 10. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0346-CUP. PLANNING COMMISSION review of compliance with CUP conditions or Palm Springs Recycling Company on Oasis Road between Indian Avenue/Del Sol Road, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Planning Director gave a brief history of the recycling operation and stated that the original owner indicated that it would be a high quality operation and was concerned originally about its economic viability. He stated that a condition of approval was that the operation be reviewed in three years for extension of the CUP. He described the conditions of approval ; stated that all types of users take materials to the center and that the operation has been sold; and that the new operator has been contacted several times about violations. He stated that in the previous week the operation has had good compliance and has removed bins and trucks from the streets, but that conditions on the site are unacceptable to staff, and code violations have been sent citing outdoor storage laws. He stated that it is difficult to monitor the operation and that based on the testimony at the meeting the operation could be extended but compliance must be maintained. He commented that the operations have outgrown the facility and materials are not being removed quickly enough and that staff has been in contact with those complaining about the operations and with the original owner. He stated that the review should be opened at a public hearing for input. He stated also that the operation is a necessary service. Vice-Chairman commented that the operation is outgrowing the facility. Commissioner Olsen noted that he had been by the place, twice in the past several months and both times the street was blocked by semi-trucks and that the property cannot operate heavy uses. He stated that there should be on-site truck parking since the street is necessary for other businesses. He noted that the storage above the fence is not as much of an issue as the parking of trucks; that another property is needed; and that a public street used for private purposes is not acceptable. Commissioner Hough stated that when he reviewed the operation a forklift was in the street; that storage materials were over the wall and materials were outside the wall . He stated that although the operation is needed the operators , should scale them down or acquire additional space. Vice-Chairman commented that there have not been any CUP reviews that were as harsh as the recycling use. Planning Director agreed, stating that there have been aspects of some CUP's that were out of character, but that the subject operation is a second generation operator who does not seem to understand the concerns of the City, and that the operation should be monitored daily. He stated that there is an added problem with the adoption of the State bottle law which brings more materials into the center. Commissioner Olsen suggested that staff check throught the police depart- ment on complaints of trucks blocking the street. Planning Director stated that no complaints have been directly received by the police, but there January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0346-CUP. (Continued) 'y have been complaints from several property owners in the area; and that the area as been upscaled and improved in the past and i's now blighted because of the recycling operation. Commissioner Edgmon stated that the operation is a safety hazard and asked if someone were living in a portion of the adjacent church. Planning Director stated that the residential use is non-conforming and that the ordinance does not allow residential use anymore. He stated that as a long term solution a location should be found for the church, and that the location for the center is correct, but restricts the operation. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. Richard Nadel , owner of the property and original operator of the recycling business, stated that he adhered to all CUP conditions when he operated the center; that he retained ownership of the property when the business was sold; that he had complained to the current owner about non-compliance and possible loss of the CUP; that the yard is limited in size but could be operated in an organized manner; that during his operations semis were loaded on-site except for occasionally very early in the morning or late at night on the street; that the problem has occurred because cardboard business has been brought from the owner's former business; that pictures have been taken of the damage to the building, landscaping, fencing and the storage of materials outside. He stated he was in the process of giving notification of compliance or eviction and that he would bring the property up to code if it reverts back to him. He requested extension of the CUP until his business with his operator is completed. He stated that 30 to 60 days would be ample time for him to be operational . Rick Bracamonte, 7160 Biskra, Rancho Mirage, the owner of the recycling center, agreed that there have been several complaints about the center and trucks on the street, but that he had improved the business which had been i n f i nanci al troubl a and that the si to i s smal 1 , but that he i s i n escrow on another piece of property in another city to move most of the business to that location and that all materials except steel and iron are recycled at the center. He stated that business has increased from 15-20 users a day to 45-65 and that his operation services other commercial companies for recycling. He stated that materials are moved as fast as it are processed; that the property is in the process of being cleaned-up; that he will move the excess material to another location; and that he apologized to the businesses in the area. He stated that in 6 months he will be moved out and there will be a small operation on the property, probably for cans. He stated that he had purchased the business not the property. Planning Director explained that the CUP runs with the land. Mr. Bracamonte stated that he would be reviewed in another city for a CUP in three weeks. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 6.0346-CUP. (Continued) Vice-Chairman stated that the Planning Commission cannot interfere in a dispute between the owners and operators of a business, but that the pro- perty needs to be maintained and if the operations do not comply with the conditions, the CUP will be revoked. Mr. Bracamonte stated that there are problems in loading the materials; that the street has to be used for that purpose; and that the loads have to be lifted with a fork lift even though other businesses use the street. He stated that three semi loads leave from the center each week. Commissioner Hough commented that the forklift was in the middle of the street when he reviewed the operation and suggested that the owner down- scale his business to keep within the confines of the CUP and that there are some alternatives. He suggested loading at night or early in the morning since the other businesses do not feel the center is a good neighbor. Commissioner Olsen stated that he would only support a 60 day, not a four month, extension; that strong language is necessary in the CUP; and that it is a serious condition to have trucks in the street and it should not be allowed any longer. Arthur Christy, 1170 N. Palm Canyon, Manager of Brothers Towing, stated that he has for a long time requested that vehicles be removed from the street; that the materials for the recycling center blow onto his fence and catch there because there is too much trash on the site, and that there are problems with traveling on the street. He stated that construction trucks will not be able to get through to finish his property improvements. Vice-Chairman stated that some of the problems may be resolved at the meeting. Cindy Arcaro, 277 Milo, of Arcaro's Body Shop, circulated recent pictures of vehicles in the middle of the street. She stated that the vehicles had been in the street from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the day she took the pictures; that the forklift causes a problem; and that her customers cannot get through the street. She stated that in the past two days the area has been better, but wondered what would happen after the 90 day restriction were lifted since the operator has no regard for the other businesses on the street. She stated that the situation is not fair. Vice-Chairman explained that the Commission has the authority to exercise the CUP conditions. Mrs. Arcaro suggested that the trucks be loaded and unloaded on Del Sol Road which would not cause a problem for any of the businesses. Mr. Nadel stated that the major problem is the cardboard because the center cannot store it since it requires more land than the site has and that he had not processed cardboard because of the lack of space. He stated that the gate to the center is completely blocked by the cardboard storage and suggested that the land behind the center be used. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0346-CUP. (Continued) Vice-Chairman asked if the Commission had taken into account that when the CUP was approved, cardboard would be processed and stored. Planning Director stated that there were no recycling experts on the Commission or staff and no special considerations were made although staff was concerned about the small size of the site originally and a condition was to keep all materials on-site. Mr. Bracamonte stated that he could accommodate their request to use Del Sol for loading and unloading of trucks. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion ensued on use of Del Sol for the semi-truck loading and unloading. Commissioner Hough stated that there would be complaints from people on Del Sol if the street were used in that manner; and that the CUP conditions should be monitored for 60 days until action is taken by another city on the applicant's CUP application. Vice-Chairman stated that suggestions should be made conditions of the CUP and monitored, and the CUP revoked if the applicant were in violation. Planning Director stated that the operation has become much more cluttered and impacted since Mr. Bracamonte took over the operation, but that card- board was not the sole reason for the clutter because there are problems with the street and in the rest of the operations. He stated that whatever material is being recycled should be stored properly; and that the alley could be used with a gate at the north end, but that use of City streets for a business operation is not encouraged. He stated that he did not know how accessible the alley is to Indian Avenue. Commissioner Neel commented that it is not fair to the neighbors to block the street and the operation is a terrible eyesore. He stated that the center should have 30 days to clean up or move out since the business has outgrown the site. Planning Director recommended that the application be continued to March 9 for staff to monitor conditions of approval of the CUP. Vice-Chairman stated that compliance is left with the owner of the property rather than the owner of the business. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Lapham absent) continuing the application to March 9 with the following conditions: 1. That staff monitor the original conditions of approval frequently. 2. That loading and unloading be on Del Sol or in the alley for 60 days only and the loading and unloading problem be resolved on site at the end of 60 days. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) LAND USE PERMIT (LUP)/20-20 RECYCLING CO. PLANNING COMMISSION consideration of an appeal of conditions placed by staff on the LUP for a recycling center in the Safeway/Rimrock Shopping Center on the southeast corner of E. Palm Canyon/Gene Autry Trail , CDN Zone, Section 30. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the recycling center at Safeway has three igloo shaped containers which were placed on the property without approval with application made recently; that staff has suggested that the igloos be moved to the northeast corner of the site because there is screening in place at the location; and that staff recommends approval with the land- scaping increased and maintained to hide the containers from the street but allow them to be visible from the grocery store. He stated that no more than three containers should be allowed; that signs would be approved by staff and a concrete pad poured for the containers which would physically delineate the site, improve its look, and increase its durability because of damage of lifting and lowering of the containers on the asphalt. He stated that the applicants do not want to construct a concrete pad and are requesting that the site be striped -instead of constructing a pad. Commissioner Neel stated that there should not be containers on the main street of the City and they should be placed behind the building. Planner stated that the AAC recommended that the staff conditions be upheld. Vice-Chairman suggested that containers be placed behind the store with signing directions. Planner noted that the containers are in the front for convenience since patrons will not go to the rear of the store. Planning Director stated that the location could be changed, and that a time limit could be put on the use of the containers. Planner stated that State law requires that an attendant maintain the site. Commissioners Neel and Whitney noted that the containers are proposed in an inappropriate location. Commissioner Edgmon stated that the concrete is essential wherever the container is located. Bondewith Hanrath of Irvine, the applicant, stated that placing the containers behind the store is dangerous because of large trucks using the area that visual impact is an issue, and that landscaping is acceptable but the concrete pad is a problem; that a time frame lends a sense of permanency to the containers which are a political issue and that legisla- tion could be rescinded in the near future. He stated that some states are waiting to see what happens in California before they initiate legislation for the program; that the cost should be minimized and that there is a building pad next to the containers, and they may have to be moved later. He stated that the unloading takes fifteen minutes, with each container weighing 318 lbs. Vice-Chairman reiterated that the containers should not be visible from the street and that in the summer asphalt gets very soft and a pad is necessary under them. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) LAND USE PERMIT. (Continued) Mr. Hanrath stated that in other warm areas there have been no problems with the containers not being placed on pads. Planning Director stated that the pad would be the size of two parking spaces. Commissioner Hough commented that there will be more container applications in major markets in the future and conditions applied to the subject CUP will set a precedent. Planning Director stated that a concrete pad is not a major expense and would cost around $500.00 (later amended to $1,000.00) . He stated that the State has designated convenience zones around markets and the City convinced the State to combine the designated area around Von's, Alpha Beta and Jenson' s into one recycling area. Planner stated that the owner of the shopping center is subject to a fine if it is not in operation after January 1, 1988. Mr. Hanrath stated that all businesses selling beverage containers in a half mile radius without a center is subject to the fine and it is not possible to combine the merchants to fund the pad and that there are no teeth for compliance unless it is a supermarket itself. Vice-Chairman stated that if the shopping center owner does not require a concrete pad the Commission need not make it a condition, and that a location should be selected in each center. �--' Planner stated that the centers will have different types of containers and it is difficult to select a location in each one. Mr. Hanrath explained that the patrons are paid in scrip for use in the stores and not by cash and the "igloos" will be converted to reverse vending machines by his company. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Lapham absent) approving the request subject to the following conditions: 1. That the concrete pad condition is deleted. 2. That the containers be relocated to the rear of the store. Mr. Hanrath stated that he would work with staff on the location. TPM 22933 (SPHERE-OF-INFLUENCE) . PLANNING COMMISSION review of map to divide property into four lots on Acanto Drive/east of South Palm Canyon Drive. Planning Director stated that the subject acreage was previously approved for 12 large lots but the new map shows four very large lots, and that staff recommends that the map be sent to Council and the County to resolve the issues of fire sprinklers, road alignment, circulation, encroachment into the wash and sewer and cultural resources. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) TPM 22933. (Continued) M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon abstained; Lapham absent) sending the map to the City Council to resolve the following issues: 1. All residences and structures should be provided with automatic fire sprinklers in accordance with City specifications. This recommenda- tion is consistent with the City Master Plan of Fire Protection and is consistent with the Board of Supervisors' approval of Specific Plan 211 (Andreas Cove) . The revised environmental assessment should consider the proximity to County-provided fire protection facilities and closure of the Cathedral City County fire station. 2. The extension of Acanto Way across the northerly frontage should be considered in the context of its ultimate alignment. Specific Plan 211, located south of the subject property, has provided for the development of a secondary thoroughfare along its east property line. The ultimate alignment of this roadway, from Acanto Way to Specific Plan 211, must be considered and its impact upon the Palm Canyon Wash needs to be disclosed. 3. The preceding comments above concerning circulation and roadway improvements is a high priority concern of the City. The City Council has consistently supported the development of a circulation plan for this area. The approval of Specific Plan 211 outlined the basic needs of the Palm Canyon area, but as of this date specific alignments and implementation programs have not been developed. The City must request that this project be required to participate financially in an overall transportation development program for this unincorporated area. 4. The City supports maintaining the Palm Canyon Wash in its current state and will object to encroachments into this open space resource. Lots one and four may have to be redesigned to keep the 100-year floodplain free of encroachments and in its current condition. Flood control facilities, if proposed or necessary, should follow the design criteria of Specific Plan 211. 5. The tract should be required to connect to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant which is available to service this area. Provision of on-site dry sewers only will not adequately cove the ultimate cost of extending sewer service to the subject property. Such cost may ultimately be passed on to the general public and further complicate the City's ability to provide sewer service in this area. The Desert Water Agency has indicated that the area should be serviced by the City's Wastewater Plant and the Water Quality Control Board and Health Department have indicated that septic systems should only be used until sewer service is available. 6. Based upon the cultural resource recommendations contained in Specific Plan 211 particularly the proposed extended National Register Boundary, the significance of the subject property should be considered. The opinion of the State Office of Historic Preserva- tion, Native American Heritage Commission, and National Park Service should be incorporated into the initial study. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 18 COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. McKinney Property on West Side of South Palm Canyon, North of Sunny Dunes. Redevelopment Director questioned the Commission on its feelings on an old project (Case 2.860) which has expired. 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 3.870 (Continued) . Application by ALEXANDER COLER for architectural approval of detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for single family residence on the south side of an easement between the Tachevah Dam Spillway/Crescent Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the Commission has two issue to review: 1. The landscape plan. 2. Whether or not the presently installed a golf course is a normal accessory use to a single-family residence or golf course. He stated that if determined to be a golf course, the use would require a CUP, and that the area is not multi-purpose open space. He stated that there have been complaints about the golf course from neighbors; and that the previous AAC recommendation was for approval subject to preparing a sight line study of the Eucalyptus row to determine if there is a problem for the neighboring residences but the/ not submitted the site line study. applicant has Vice-Chairman asked what leverage could be applied to the applicant and Planning Director explained that the applicant does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Neel suggested that the Eucalyptus trees be taken out and grouped around the northeast tee to stop golf balls without obstructing views and that the trees should be maintained at a 30 ft. height. Planning Director stated that the Council may review the application. Vice-Chairman stated that the Commission should address the issue of use. Commissioner Hough stated that the property is large and the area should not be considered a golf course. Vice-Chairman stated that the consensus is that the area is a private yard and the applicant can do what he wants with it. Commissioner Neel suggested that the landscaping be planted as designed for the original landscape plan. Planning Director in response to Commission question, stated that the applicant installed and constructed improvements without permits because he feels he does not have time to have plans drawn; and that the City will ` .. like everything he does although it would be better if he sought help from good design professionals. January 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 19 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. - Case 5.0344-PD-164 (Convention Center) . Now in operation with operational problems being resolved. eviews are positive from people using the facility. Case 5.0344-PD-164 (Wyndham Hotel ) . Hotel landscaping will be upgraded across the frontage with a solid wall to accent landscaping instead of con- structing carports. - Recycling Centers. City has applications for six centers. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration. ) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. G MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 27, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 10 2 Hugh Curtis X 12 0 Martha Edgmon X 10 2 Brent Hough X 11 1 Earl Neel X 11 1 Gary Olsen X 11 1 Barbara Whitney X 10 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee - January 25, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Will Kleindienst Martha Edgmon Gary Olsen, Alternate Brent Hough William Johnson Barbara Whitney, Alternate Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen) approving minutes of January 13, 1988 as submitted.