Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/03/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 8, 1989 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 15 2 Gary Olsen X 13 4 Barbara Whitney X 13 4 Brent Hough X 15 2 Martha Edgmon X 15 2 Chris Mills X 14 1 Michael Dotson X 14 0 Staff Present Marvin D. RoCs, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney DebrarGoodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Ken Feenstra, Economic Development Director Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - March 6, 1989 Brent Hough, Chairman Will Kleindienst William Johnson Reuel Young Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen) approving minutes of February 22, 1989 with the following corrections: Page 16, paragraph 7: Change "turns" to "signal cycles" . (Case 5.0506-GPA). Page 17, paragraph 1: Change "Ramon" to "Vista Chino". (Case 20.103) Page 18, paragraph 1: Change "5,000 cars" to "2,500 trips" . (Case 20.108) REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The March 8, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, March 3, 1989. March 8, 1989 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/Hough) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0527 MINOR (Continued) . Application by the GREENHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA- TION or architectural approval of security gates for the Greenhouse Condo- miniums on Alejo/Hermosa Drive, R-G-A-8 Zone, Section 14. Restudy. (Removed from agenda for more detailed information to be sub- mitted. ) CASE 3.0539 MINOR. Application by MARK PALMER & ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of revised plans for an ATM (Automated Teller Machine) , 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 22. Removed from agenda. (Previously approved by staff.) CASE 5.0067-PD-87. Application by WILLIAM GIETTER for architectural approval of exterior lighting and reconsideration of architectural elevation for Phase 2 of business park/mini-warehouse complex on McCarthy/Radio Roads, M-1 Zone, Section 34. The Planning Commission reiterated its original approval of split-faced block on the east elevation and approved the exterior lighting subject to conditions as follows: 1. That a pair of bollard lights be added at each driveway entrance. 2. That an additional 4 lights be added in the center of the parking lot. CASE 5.0496-CUP. Application by REUEL YOUNG for Gentry Development Company for architectural approval of working drawings for office complex at 1445 N. Sunrise Way, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Approved subject to the following conditions. 1. That the scupper detail be resubmitted. 2. That trees be added along the Sunrise frontage. 3. That the Evergreen Pear trees on the north property line be substi- tuted. 4. That Ficus trees be substituted. 5. That trees be added to provide a tall vertical backdrop. 6. That changes be approved by staff. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by SOMETHING PERSONAL HEALTH & FITNESS SPA HOTEL for architectural approval of revised plans for main identification sign for hotel at 814 N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 11. Removed from the agenda for submittal of revised plans. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0477. Application by DAVID BLUM for architectural approval of Tony Roma's Restaurant, S. Palm Canyon Drive between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner (Abbas) explained the elevations on the board and stated that the AAC recommended a restudy for the architecture to take a more creative approach `to make ;it_ more compatible with the downtown. She stated that the AAC had no problem with the site plan. David Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that there is some validity to the AAC recommendation for restudy; that the siting on the Palm Canyon site was designed to - keep the driveway because of complications with Caltrans if it were deleted; that Building B has to be redesigned because of dedication requirements; that the Tony Romas' building is in comformance with downtown design elements since there is another stucco and tile building nearby; that the design is for a restaurant not a bank; that the roof angle can be made less steep; that there is articulation in the elevations; that the design is a reasonable solution for the building on the site; and that the Romas building has a 20 ft. maximum height (the old building was 30 ft.) . In reply to Commissioner Mills, he stated that the design question of abutting to the Great Western building at a lower height has not yet been addressed. Chairman stated that the Palm Canyon elevation of Great Western is faced with stone which does not turn the corner. Mr. Christian agreed that the exposed face of Great Western needs to be addressed and stated that the northwest corner will abut the adjacent building and will be offset by only inches. Commissioner Mills stated that the two buildings should have a better association, perhaps in lines, materials, or architecture. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0477. (Continued) Mr. Christian replied that the fire wall could be built to the height of the Romas Building and included in the wall of that building and that he would have to think about design solutions if the Great Western face were exposed. He stated that he had not yet worked out a solution when a clients design exposes another building. Chairman commented that the Roma 's owners would have to obtain permission from the adjacent building owners to plaster their wall and stated that Palm Springs Savings and Loan will help in the solution and perhaps could plaster the block wall ; and that he had no objection to the proposed use of materials for the new project but that they could be reorganized; and that the roof elements need to be restudied. Mr. Christian stated that the roof element and elevations are being reviewed at the present time. Commissioner Mills suggested that the building be open to a courtyard to enhance the openess on Palm Canyon, which was an idea generated at the recent downtown design meetings. He asked if additional footage could be obtained from the back, particularly if the project is overparked. Mr. Christian explained that pushing the building back for a courtyard hides the restaurant behind the adjacent building and also makes the restaurant too small ; that a courtyard has to be significant in size to bring people off Palm Canyon; that the Roma's area would not be large enough for this; that he had little success in opening up areas in small projects ; that the drive has to remain; and that the Roma's owners would not approve a courtyard plan. He stated that the restaurant- is destination-oriented and that the courtyard concept was discussed earlier with the applicants. Commissioner Mills stated that the restaurant is destination-oriented and will help the retail building. Mr. Christian commented that the retail tenant has not been determined and may be an office because office occupancy in the area will occur more often in the future; and that the major focus is on the restaurant. In reply to Commissioner Dotson's question, he stated that a covered walk- way will be provided on the south to bring people toward the front, but there is no vehicular access. He commented that the south driveway could be eliminated and landscaped to soften the corridor. Commissioner Dotson stated that the east elevation needs to be restudied and that the roof elements could be integrated. Mr. Christian replied that the kitchen area and equipment are on the east side which requires a certain roof height. Planning Director stated that the project will have to be reviewed to see if it meets open space requirements for downtown. He stated that the driveway next to Roma 's could be used as outdoor dining as a landscaped patio element. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0477. (Continued) Mr. Christian stated that the driveways are not fixed within the lease; that the south driveway has to remain; that closing the driveway by Romas would cause cars to go by the restaurant not realizing that there is parking behind, and that this idea was never considered. Commissioner Whitney stated that she did not like the driveway situation. Larry Alman, 1835 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing Roma's, stated that before the fire there were 20,000 ft. of building space and 113 parking spaces and the new design shows 15,000 sq. ft. of parking and an increase in parking spaces to 134. He requested a conceptual approval to keep the leasing program active; and noted that there are interested tenants for Buildings B & C but no building will be started until tenant commitments have been made; that the architectural design can be addressed for either building; that the design was revised several times and has been approved by the Roma 's architect; that the elevations have had a good feed- back according to the leasing agents; that the applicants will work with the Development Committee conditions calling for improvements and dedication but need help from the Commission as well . M/S/C (Mills/Dotson) for a restudy of the architecture and site plan, noting concerns of the Commission regarding openers to Palm Canyon, roof elements, and integration with the adjacent building. Commissioner Whitney asked if the site were also to be restudied. Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended approval of the site plan. He asked if the Commission wanted a restudy of the site plan as well as the architecture. Commissioner Olsen stated that he had no problem with the site plan; but that he did not want to split off the site plan from the architecture on the restudy. Chairman stated that Commission consensus is that the site plan and the architecture are to be restudied. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347. Application by VACATION INTERNATIONAL LTD. for a Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map for a 66-unit time share project at the Oasis Water Resort Villa Hotel (formerly Cherokee Village) , 4190 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-G-A-8 Zone, Section 30. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Planning Director stated that he would present the case since the Planner assigned is attending the County Planning Commission meeting on the auto raceway. He stated that staff recommends continuance to March 22 with no recommendation at this time, and that the time share units are mainly on March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347. (Continued) Palm Canyon and the remainder of the project will operate as a resort although it is approved for condominium use as well . He stated that the map resubdivides the parcels into a different three parcels and that the zoning issue is that timeshares are allowed in hotel zones under a CUP and that the R-G-A(8) Zone is not a hotel zone. He stated that the City Manager wants the application continued for research on the timesharing use in relation to the Transcient Occupancy Tax (TOT) . He stated that the proposed timeshare package would allow a buyer to buy into a portion of the corporation which would then allow him to use any of the corporation's timeshare units in the world; that the parking is adequate; that the timeshare ordinance requires that a timeshare pay TOT which has been challenged in the courts; that the City Attorney can expand on the court case; that the applicant indicated no problem with paying TOT; and that he did not know whether or not legal entanglements would arise. He stated, in reply to Commissioner Mills, that there is no difference between parking requirements between a condominium and a timeshare; and that there is no specific parking requirement for a timeshare since the parking is based on the underlying facility and could be either under hotel parking or an apartment/condo requirement. He stated that the management of the timeshare would be housed in the old recreation room and that no additional floor space has been requested at the present time. There being no appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Edgmon/Mills) for continuance. Bonnie Guss, attorney, 801 E. Tahquitz Way, asked if the applicant could ,he heard. Chairman requested a vote to reopen the hearing. M/S/C (Edgmon/Dotson) approving reopening the hearing. Ms. Guss, attorney representing the applicant, requested that the map and the planned development district be approved together; that 66 units of the project will be a time share; that Vacation Internationale representative was present to give, specifics ; that there will be no adverse impact on the City regarding revenue, traffic or aesthetics; that the owner gives points to buyers to use the facilities throughout the world; that the project is not being operated at capacity presently and occupancy and revenue will be increased as a timeshare; that there will be an association to maintain the property; that it will be run as a high-end project; that she thought the project was recommended for approval (not continuance) and stated that a representative of Vacation Internationale was present to answer questions about timeshares. Landon Estep, Vice-president and general counS61 , Vacation Internationale, 1417 116th Avenue . NE, Bellview., I Washington, stated that one of the reasons for continuance was to allow staff and the Commission to review the ,, timeshare further and that he would answer questions. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347. (Continued) Commissioner Edgmon asked if there were any other Vacation Internationale properties in the vicinity. Mr. Estep stated that there were none in the desert and explained that the company has 16 other locations (in Oceanside, Hawaii , Mexico, Oregon, and Idaho) . He gave figures on occupancy around the world, stating that the overall use is 78% and that the Sun Valley, Idaho timeshare ha.s 90% occupancy during the season and the Sunriver, Oregon complex h`as 95% to 98% use in the summer. She stated that the Palm Springs ' project would have have to be in the 85% or more occupancy for the season; that points are given for high and low seasons, so if occupancy is low nobody suffers; that the Palm Springs off-season will probably have more occupancy than in most places except Hawaii ; that the use is somewhat limited in that there are both one and two bedrooms in the complex which limits the number of people who have smaller timeshare interests ; that if a buyer buys into the cor- poration, he can go anywhere in the world where there is a Vacation Inter- nationale resort, which is different from most timeshare operations; that the system has been in effect since 1974 with much success and with 400 + units in the different locations. He stated that most of the sales are on- site and people are not lured off the street for a sales pitch; that most marketing is done by a letter offering a mini-vacation and a sales presentation for the prospective buyer; and that most prospects will come from Southern California. He stated that prospects would not be brought physically from other communities. Commissioner Ed mon commented that in Hawaii , time share g prospects are lured in from the streets. In reply to Chairman's question, he stated that the corporation sells points, not stocks, that the buyer's title is debt free so that the value of the units is unencumbered for the benefit of the time share owner; and that there is a reservation use system with the average length of stay being one week. Chairman asked if a conditional approval were given by the Commission, if the applicant would be willing to monitor the timeshares and pay reasonable TOT. Mr. Estep stated that Vacation Internationale would pay according to the law; that the applicant is aware of the law suit; that there are signifi- cant differences between a fee time share and a right to use and in the particular issue, not necessarily in the way it operates; that one of the reasons for the TOT being held unconstitutional is that it might remove the tax for any timeshare; that if the City's view prevails that it is a legal tax, people will have to pay it; that the applicants did not test the other portion of the "right to use" timeshare' to be treated differently from any timeshare ;; and that Vacation Internationale will pay TOT under protest so the money could be refunded if the courts rule against the City. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman asked staff views on the amount of activity that would be generated by the timeshare such as people and traffic. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0505-PD-200/TTM 24347. (Continued) Planning Director explained that the activity would be about the same. Commissioner Olsen commented that if the stay is for a week, there would be less activity than is there now. Planning Director stated, in reply to Commissioner Mills ' question, that the City Manager is requesting continuance of the application because of the TOT and for further research and discussion with the City Attorney; and that the City Manager may request denial of the project. M/S/C (Hough/Dotson) to continue the application to March 22. TPM 24146. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for Home Federal Savings and Loan for a tentative parcel map to subdivide land to separate a restaurant and tennis club from a hotel on the east side of N. Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, R-3 Zone, Section 2. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Planner (Abbas) explained the map on the display board and stated that the change will be basically in the same conformance as the parcel map which made it a fee parcel and that the setbacks have been met. Chairman declared the hearing open. Bob Lotito, KWL Engineers, project engineer, stated that the applicant agrees with staff conditions. Richard Herman, 235 Via Escuela, Riveria Gardens Condominiums, stated that he lived on the second floor overlooking the present tennis court; that there is a strip of land with a hedge and a fence that is not being maintained by the lessee of the property; that the tennis courts are not being used and something will be developed on the land; that there is a disco being constructed in the basement of the Bono Restaurant; and that he could visualize a hotel on the property. He stated that he did not want a parking lot under his bedroom window; that he had bought near the tennis courts knowing that they were there but now a different use will probably be put in and could down grade his property; that he does not want more congestion because the Radisson Hotel will have more traffic; that the neighboring use concerns all residents of the Riveria Gardens; that he had heard that a Europeon cottage type of development may be built; and he wondered if the profit mtoive would be stronger than the good neighbor policy. Planning Director explained that the map application is for a creation of parcels for fee interest;; that there is a long-term lease on the property with restrictions against anything but a restaurant and tennis club but the �... property will probably be further developed; and that notification of the surrounding property owners would depend on the type of development. He stated that R-3 Zoning allows hotel development and would not require a March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 24146. (Continued) specific public hearing, although the Commission could ask for a public hearing if it desires. Commissioner Dotson asked about the Traffic Engineer condition on waiving a covenant for one-fourth the cost of the signalization at Indian and Via Escuela. Traffic Engineer stated that the condition should read "a covenant for signal location is required". He stated that the City would waive the actual installation. Planning Director stated that the condition could be worded better but the idea is to defer the requirement; and that nothing has changed from the original approval . M/S/C (Edgmon/Olsen; Mills abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving TPM 24146 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed two lot parcel map is in conformance with the provisions of the R-3 Zone. 2. That the proposed parcel map complies with the General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision ordiannce, and is not detrimental to existing or future uses permitted in the area. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate future uses including yards, setbacks, walls, landcaping and other features required to adjust the use to existing or permitted uses of land in the neighborhood. 4. That the site is served by Vista Chino and Indian lAvenue, which are major thoroughfares, and are designed and improved to carry the type and quanitity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. 5. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Conditions• 1. That the Development Committee conditions dated February 24, 1989, be complied with as amended. (Delete Traffic Engineering recommendation.) CASE 85.158 - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (Continued) . Appli- cation by FRANCIS MARKLEY for a lot line adjustment and Certificate of Com- pliance for property on Camino Barranca, R-1-B Zone, Section 27. ,. Planning Director explained that a Certificate of Compliance is the corrector procedure for the Commission to recognize lots that may have been altered in some fashion in the past or before parcel maps or lot line II March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 85.158 - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (Continued) . (Continued) adjustments were approved procedures; that the subject subdivision was subdivided in the late 1920's and that the property in question is a portion of Lot 30 which wouldnot be recognized as a legitimate building site because of removal of a 20 ft. strip which was added onto Lot 34. He stated that the Commission has the option of approving a Certificate of Compliance with or without conditions or requiring a parcel map and variance, although there are probably not grounds for a variance. He stated that Lot 30 cannot be made larger because both adjacent lots are developed and the west is hillside; that in reviewing the situation he felt that the parcel could remain; that the only lot in close proximity that is significantly smaller than zoning requirements is Lot 37; that the lot could be adjusted to the neighborhood without further review; that a Certificate of Compliance is a constructive tool for making the lot legal ; that the Commission should decide whether or not a ,Certificate of Compliance or a public hearing for a parcel map and variance is required. In reply to Chairman's question about impacting the neighborhood he stated that the neighbors have always thought it was a building site and that the only problem is that it might set a precedent for small building sites because there are similar parcels in other parts of the city. He stated that Commission action would establish Lot 30 only which is 80 ft. by 120 ft. , by issuing a Certificate of Compliance (not a Lot Line Adjustment) . Chairman stated that the usable portion of Lot 37 is smaller than the usable portion of Lot 30. Planning Director stated that it is an unusual condition for the area and asked if a public hearing would resolve any problems. M/S/C (Olsen/Edgmon) approving Certificate of Compliance 85.158. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Bronston, 5275 Lakeside Drive, distributed a sketch of a lot showing a protective netting 20 ft. by 40 ft. on the north side the property. He stated that it is patterned on one on an adjoining fairway; that there are six nets in the area; and that he had received a notice of code violation because of a complaint by a neighbor on the immediate north who wants him to take the net down and plant trees. He stated that the net protects his yard and house from golf balls and that he would like to leave the netting up until he gets other protection. In reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that staff had not discussed the netting with Mr. Bronston; that the net does not comply with the ordinance which states that a fence open to light and air can be approved along the fairway out of the setback; that the net would require a variance application; and that landscaping can be planted for protection without permits and approvals but takes time to grow. Chairman explained to Mr. Bronston that the request is not on the agenda; that agendas have to be made public 72 hours in advance of meetings by i March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) State Law; and that no determination can be made on the netting at the meeting. He recommended that Mr. Bronston contact staff for an explanation and guidance. Planning Director stated that if a variance were applied for the process would take two months, but that the net could be left until action is taken by the Commission. Tom Keiley, 1800 S. Sunrise, requested that land at Ruth Hardy Park be approved for leasing to allow construction of a Boy Scout clubhouse. Chairman informed him that the item was not on the agenda and was probably a decision of the Parks & Recreation Commission. William GA etter, applicant in Case 5.0067, 2688 Calle Palo Fiero, requested that the Commission reconsider approval of split-face block and ribbed block on his warehouse building (on the Radio Road elevation) . He stated that the elevation is on the property line in an M-1 Zone and when the adjacent lot is developed, the side of the building will be hidden. He stated that it is a waste of money to use the split-faced block which is more expensive; that he had the same situation across the street and split- faced block was not required; and that it is an expenditure he had not contemplated. Chairman asked if the Commission wished to reconsider the condition to require split-face block. Consensus was that no reconsideration should be made of the condition. Chairman explained to the applicant that the Commission upheld the recommendation of the AAC. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0508-MISC. Proposal by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS to construct street improvements, traffic control devices, street lights, public utilities, and sewer facilities within Sections 7, 17, 18, 19, 20 in conjunction with the formation of Assessment District No. 155. (Environmental assessment only.) Planning Director stated that the staff has been working with the property owners in the formation of Assessment District 155 which will construct street improvements, traffic control devices, street lights, public utilities, and sewer facilities on certain streets; that a portion of Section 19 is also included; that the Commission does not hold public hearings but is the clearinghouse for the Negative Declaration. He recommended that the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration. M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Mills abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative �,, Declaration for Case 5.0503-MISC. i March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0508-MISC. (Continued) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS It was noted that proposed Assessment District No. 155 includes some 140 acres of Indian trust land located in Section 20. It was also noted that the proposed District will fund new roads and utilities necessary to serve new industrial parcel maps in Section 20. After consideration of the recommendations of the indian Planning Commis- sion, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Concurred with the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Withheld comments on proposed AD 155 pending receipt and review of further information relative to specific improvements to be funded, the preliminary cost of such improvements, the assessment to be placed on each parcel , etc. 3. The constraints involved with the placement of encumbrances (assess- ments) on Indian trust land will also be considered before final com- ments are submitted. NOTE: The list of streets scheduled for improvements is on file in the Planning Division Office, City Hall . CASE 5.0346-CUP. PLANNING COMMISSION review of a Conditional Use Permit for the Palm Springs Recycling Company on Oasis Road between Indian Avenue/Del Sol Road, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Planning Director stated that on March 9, 1988, the Commission reviewed the CUP for a recycling center; that there were complaints about outdoor storage of trailers and materials for recycling; that the business was being operated by other than the original applicant who had problems with the operation, as did the Commission; that the application was continued over two months for the applicant to adhere to conditions; that the adjustments to the operation have been done; that there has been increasingly better compliance; that the operator's Cathedral City facility is now open to process the bulk of the cardboard; and that the applicant and the owner are in general compliance with the requests of the Commission. He stated that no complaints have been received for a year and that the only condition remaining is that of the street improvements, which can be required at anytime. He stated that the CUP was extended for one year and that the Commission can decide on a limited or unlimited extension. Chairman noted that if violations occur, the CUP can be reviewed again by the Commission. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) i CASE 5.0346-CUP. (Continued) Planning Director stated that a condition could be that the use be reviewed if any significant changes occur in the land use patterns of the area. In reply to Commissioner Olsen's question, he stated that the only specific requirement for notification of property ownersis the initial CUP require- ment, although the Commission can decide whether a public hearing should be held; and that the CUP can be stopped at any time but that if that action were contemplated, a public hearing would have to be held. He stated that Commission direction for a public hearing should be given to staff. Commissioner Olsen stated that the use was a problem; that he did not want to grant an extension of the CUP; that notification of the neighbors should be made to see if there are any complaints. Planning Director stated that there have been no complaints in a year. Commissioner Dotson stated that he uses the center occasionally and has seen a large dumpster in the driveway. He asked if it were a problem and stated that it is unsightly and is maximizing the site to its potential . Planning Director stated that there have been no complaints on the dumpster, but the Commission can require no outdoor storage of material exceeding the fence height. Commissioner Dotson stated that the dumpster is outside the fence. Planning Director stated that the dumpster should not be outside; that all recycling material must be enclosed within the bins; and that there is no open storage. He stated that he saw open piles of materials in the yard at one time. Commissioner Olsen stated that the product on the site is garbage although bundled and even without complaints, it does not mean there is no problem. Planner stated that materials behind the fence are supposed to be hidden. Chairman remarked that the value of the facility and the nature of the operation have to be considered; that the facility will be relocated if the operation becomes larger; than somebody will than build a good facility which the Commission will review; and that an undetermined extension would be acceptable which could be reviewed on a complaint basis. Commissioner Mills stated that there should not be a time period so the applicant keeps the facility in compliance all the time. Planning Director suggested a three year time period and stated that the facility has been successful ; that the recycling industry will become stronger; and that rates will rise and a better facility will eventually be built. Commissioner Dotson stated that he had concerns about an extension without a time period. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0346-CUP. (Continued) M/S/C -(Dotson/Egmon; Lapham dissented) approving a 5-year time extension for `the CUPsubject to the following conditions flYThat.,CUP-'5.Q346 be reviewed if there are significant land use changes in the area or if com- plaints are received; and '(2);That the CUP be su:bject to all original conditions of approval . COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. CASE 5.0504 ( M.H. Shashaili . 66 Unit Apt. Complex with Density Bonus) . Chairman stated that a letter was being sent from the Commission to the neighbors regarding state requirements on a density bonus project. - AAC Meeting. There is no quorum for the AAC Meeting of March 20. The meeting will be held on March 17 (Friday) from 1:30 to 5:00 in the City Council Chamber. Planning Commission Study Session March 15. To be held the Council Chamber instead of the Large Conference Room. Agenda will include plexi-glass signs, recycling, hillside lighting, monitoring of mitigation measures, mobile homes on single-family lots, and balloons for promotional events downtown. - Palm Springs Classic Status. Economic Development Director stated that the property is still being ag'glomeratdd. - Time Share Sales. Commissioner Edgmon stated that time share sales booths in the downtown do not present a good image and asked staff to investigate whether or not this practice is used by Vacation Internationale Company. - Radon Gas Advertising. There is no Radon in the Colorado desert but there is advertising in the media about its danger. Planning Director stated that he doubted that the City could control the advertising. - Planning Commission Conference. Conference will be held in Monterey, April 5 through 7. Commissioner Dotson will attend. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. Case 20.108. Council approved raceway concept unanimously. Case 3.0452 (Robertson/Smith Retail Industrial Complex on Gene Autry Trail ) . Council approved design as Commission recommended it by 4-1 vote. Dissenting vote thought the circulation plan could be improved. ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. March 8, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR--' MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 22, 1989 �-- 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning an ng Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 16 2 Gary Olsen X 14 4 Barbara Whitney - 13 5 Brent Hough X 16 2 Martha Edgmon X 16 2 Chris Mills - 14 2 Michael Dotson X 15 0 Staff Present Marvin D . Roos , Planning, Director Siegfried Siefkes , Assistant City Attorney Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas , Planner Doug Evans , Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Dean Lewis , Traffic Eneineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - March 17, 1989 (Friday) L.� Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Reuel Young Will Kleindienst 14illiam Johnson Tom Doczi Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Whitney/Mills tne� /Mi 11 s absent a off~ ✓ ) approving m'nutes of March 8, 1�89 with the following correction : Page 4, Paragraph 8: Delete , "but there is no vehicular access" . (Case 3.0477) . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The March 22, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, March 17, 1989.