HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/09/27 - MINUTES t
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Council Chamber, City Hall
September 27, 1989
1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1990
Present Present Excused Absences
Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date
Larry Lapham, Chairman X 0 6
Gary Olsen X 6 0
Barbara Whitney X 6 0
Brent Hough X 2 4
Martha Edgmon X 6 0
Chris Mills X 6 0
Michael Dotson X 6 0
Staff Present
Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director
Siegfried Siefkes , Assistant City Attorney
Douglas Evans, Planner
Debra Goodwin, Planner
Sherri Abbas , Planner
Dave Forcucci , Planner
Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer
Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary
Architectural Advisory Committee - September 25, 1989
Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino
William Johnson
i,
Will Kleindienst
Reuel Young
Tom Doczi
Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
M/S/C (Edgmon/Dotson; Whitney absent) approving minutes of September 13, 1989
with the following corrections:
August 23, 1989 Meeting: Page 17. First paragraph. Change "curb" to "curve" .
Should refer to Case 5.0516-CUP.
September 13, 1989 Meeting: Page 5, Case 5.0308-PD-155. Add "Dotson abstained" .
Page 9, Case 5.0515-CUP; second paragraph change "outside maintenance" to "off-
site maintenance" .
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA:
The September 27, 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,
September 22, 1989.
r
t
September 27, 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 (Mills/Hough) taking the following actions:
CASE 3.0452. Application by ROBERTSON-SMITH for architectural approval of final
landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans and architectural details
for retail/commercial/industrial complex on Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone,
Section 19.
A. Restudy of landscaping noting the following:
1. That Palm Trees be increased and varied in height.
2. That articulation of wall on east property line be improved
P p Y p
providing improved transitions to 6 ft. wall .
3. That canopy trees be mixed with vertical trees in the center.
4. That plantings at the base of the buildings be increased in
variety and scale.
B. Approved the grading plan.
CASE 3.0578. Application by RATTNER CONSTRUCTION for architectural approval of a
63 unit apartment complex on Las Vegas Road between East Gate Road/Ramada
Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 34.
Approved subject to the following conditions: That all recommendations of
the Development Committee be implemented.
CASE 3.0630. Application by A.R. KEEBLE for architectural approval of a general
office/warehouse building off Valdivia Way, M-1-P Zone, Section 7.
Removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised plans.
CASE 3.0660 (MINOR). Application by PHILLIP GOLLOB for architectural approval of
revised elevations and bedroom additions for a non-conforming apartment
building at 2383 Racquet Club Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1.
Approved subject to original conditions of approval .
CASE 3.0669. Application by WENDELL VEITH for Joyce Chapman for architectural
approval of 3-unit apartment complex on Camino Real between Cameo Way/La
�.. Verne, R-2 Zone, Section 26.
Restudy noting the following:
i
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3
CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 3.0669. (Continued)
1. That the pool area be separated from the units so more private space
may be added to Unit #3.
2. That a motor court be added to center circulation area or parking
area and enhanced paving areas be restudied.
3. That more interest be added to roof line to enhance individuality of
each unit.
CASE 5.0463-PD-195. Application by THE DESERT SUN for architectural approval of
a bus shelter design for a newspaper publishing facility on Gene Autry
Trail between Tachevah Road/Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7.
Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That lighting be added.
2. That the metal flashing be deleted and a crimp detail be added to
roof parapet line.
3. That the bench be returned to back side of shelter.
CASE 3.0610 (MINOR) . Application by BOB HOWARD for architectural approval of an
addition to an existing single-family residence at 588 La Mirada, R-1-A
Zone, Section 22.
Approved subject to the following condition. : That the existing house be
made more like the architecture of the proposed addition for better transi-
tion.
CASE 5.0423-MISC. Application by SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY for architectural
approval of revised bus shelter design, citywide.
Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request (original approved
design will be used) .
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4
CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 5.0459-PD-193.. Application by MICHAEL HARRIS for architectural approval of
✓' final development plans (including grading, exterior lighting, and
irrigation plans) for as retail , office, and restaurant use on E1 Cielo
Road between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, P Zone, Section 18.
A. Approved lighting and grading as submitted.
B. Approved landscaping subject to the following conditions:
1. That hedge material be added on east property line.
2. That the bike path on Ramon Road be lowered to the grade of the
sidewalk.
3. That walkway be added to the internal portion of the center
when bus shelter is installed.
C. Approved lighting as submitted.
Abstention: Mills/Lapham.
Planner Evans stated that the lighting concept will be very interesting in
that there will be no ground lights and lights will be placed on the trees
and on columns in the parking lot.
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 5.0474-PD-198. Application by CHRIS MILLS for architectural approval of
final grading plan for Horizon Center (formerly Quality Center) , a retail
center on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Tram Way/San Marco, R-3 Zone,
Section 13.
Planner (Evans) stated that the grading plan is in the process of being
reviewed by the Engineering Division; that there is a steep grade drop on
the property (to be accommodated by stairs between the buildings) and a
handicap ramp near the portion that has gradual sloping; that on-site water
retention is encouraged and also gives credit on drainage fees; and that
the AAC did not want a rush of water to the highway, but that the flow is
directed rather than a sheet flow.
Commissioner Dotson stated that the transition in buildings is difficult in
walking to the different store areas.
Commissioner Hough stated that the water flow is on the edge of the prop-
erty, and that the dissenting member of the AAC felt that there should be
I
1
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 5.0474-PD-198. (Continued)
water retention on the property, but the other members had no problem with
the water flow.
M/S/C (Hough/Whitney; Mills abstained) approving the application as sub-
mitted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jeff Eastman, 1046 Oro Street, Laguna Beach, stated that when designing his house
on hillside in Palm Springs he wal forced to sink his foundation and build a
retaining wall so that a neighbors view would not be obscured but that the
neighbor has now bought the lot in front of him and is building a house with a
roof peak of 14 ft. which obscures his view, is not compatible with the
neighborhood, and shows no sensitivity to hillside development.
Planning Director stated that the neighbor's house was reviewed by the owner who
had no objections and that the house was lowered considerably in height over the
first application during the Development Committee process.
Mr. Eastman stated that he had attended the Monday AAC Meeting and identified the
problem, although it was not an open hearing; that he was told to build to the
slope of the ground; that there is no density relief on the neighbor's house; that
there should not be a raised floor on that house; that he had considerable cost
to build to grade; that the Commission should visit the site; that the house
should be lowered by 5 ft. or part of the roof removed; that there are many
alternatives to solving the problem; and that the house had been submitted for
plan check.
Chairman directed staff to review the situation and report to the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . Application by DESIGN ASSOCIATES for a conditional
use permit to allow auto retail agencies in a commercial building on E1
Cielo Road between E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, PD-193, Section
18.
(This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA
guidelines.)
Chairman stated that he abstained at the previous meeting because he had an
association with the architectural firm which designed the adjacent project
and that the design work is completed.
r.r
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
Assistant City Attorney stated that the decision on the subject case will
not affect the architectural firm designing the project next door because
the design has been completed and the source of income will not be
affected. He stated that Chairman did not have to abstain.
Planner (Forcucci ) stated that a petition has been received in opposition
to the project from the neighbors in the LaPalme Condominiums; that the
Director of Community Development and Director of Aviation have expressed
concerns about the enforceability of the conditions regarding the parking.
Commissioner Hough stated that the exceptions could allow more than 6 cars
in the parking area, if cars are returned and cars are also in the lot
ready for early flights.
Planner stated that six cars per agency is the maximum number allowed
except for the exemption of readied cars and returned cars for the early
flights; and that there are 22 parking spaces in the rear of the building.
Chairman declared the hearing open.
Bernie Crawford, applicant, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, stated that he had been
working with staff since April to formulate conditions to make the agency
compatible with the neighborhood; that conditions will become a part of the
lease; that the landlord will be enforcing the conditions; that the tenants
will lose the money spent on improvements if the conditions are violated;
that objections of LaPalme owners are valid but they have not had access to
the staff report showing the mitigating conditions that protect the neigh-
bors; that the Director of Community Development and the Director of
Aviation have been opposed to the use because of the competition with
rental car agencies at the airport terminal which he thought was restraint
of trade; that the conditions are unenforceable according to the Director
of Community Development (but they will be enforced) ; and that the CUP can
be revoked at the end of a year if the conditions are not met. He stated
that parking spaces are being provided; that El Cielo curbs could be
painted red; that the cars parked in the parking lot of the terminal pay
for parking and if they are doing it they would be doing it today; that the
Aviation Director represents a neighbor in direct competition; and that the
subject use will increase the City's revenue.
Sal Puccini , 54524 Inverness, La Quinta, Thrifty Car representative, stated
that all of the conditions were developed to address the issues of the
neighbors; that the Aviation Director is concerned because a rental agency
was allowed in Airport Park Plaza , which has no off-site ready lot, but
that Thrifty has a 50 car lot; that Thrifty will not be parking cars on
Aviation Way and Civic Drive which occurs now with the other rental
agencies and is not policed.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
Sid Wilson, general manager of Thrifty's, 4550 Mesquite and 11 Visa Loma,
Rancho Mirage, stated that Thrifty's is a large company but local offices
are independently owned; that the local business is small with 109 cars in
the entire Palm Springs area as compared to an agency such as Hertz who has
1700 cars at peak season in the area which need storage, counters, and
washing facilities; that 86% utilization must be maintained for economics;
that the off-site storage area has only 68 cars for Thrifty's; that no more
than six spaces are needed; that with a 71% utilization of cars only 11
cars would be added to the E1 Cielo traffic count; that the office is open
10 hours a day during the season; that one rental and one check-in would be
all that would be at the facility each hour; that the traffic would not
affect the traffic in the area; that the company is concerned about the
image of the facility and has been trying to find a good location for two
years; that Thrifty's cannot afford to be in the airport terminal ; that the
operation is currently in an unaesthetic type of building; that moving out
of the City would not help the City revenue; that improvements will cost
$11,800; that the company would be foolish not to adhere to the conditions
because of the initial investment for improvements; and that there will be
no adverse affects on the neighborhood or on the airport operations .
Al Smoot, Director of Aviation, stated that he was not opposed to the
project but did not want the City to end up with a nightmare; that the use
is not a question of restraint of trade or of competition; that the Thrifty
organization pays 7% for airport pick-up which is accepted as a fair share
., by the Airport; that there is no problem with the location but there is a
concern regarding parking; that five rental agencies in the airport will be
complaining if the parking restriction is not enforced; and that the City
has to understand that there might not be enough parking spaces . He stated
that there are no more locations for rental cars at the airport; that when
leases expire the same 5 operators may or may not be at the airport; and
that in the Master Plan future build-out there may be places for additional
off-site rental agencies .
Bob Jennings , 401 S. E1 Cielo, #41, La Palme Condos, stated that he was
appearing on behalf of 90 condominium owners who strongly oppose the car
rental agency use; that a petition signed by 90 owners refuted the state-
ment in the staff report that only two responses were in opposition to the
use; that the use will benefit only the auto rental agency operators; that
there has been no discussion on the impacts on La Palme which is a luxury
condominium complex; that traffic and auto exhausts will be increased on El
Cielo; that the agencies are the wrong type of development for the area;
that there has been a large sign for Executive Auto Leasing at 400 E1 Cielo
which has been posted before approval of the use and that possibly the
decision was made to have the agency before notices were sent to the prop-
erty owners; that the La Palme owners were told that there would be a
restaurant and small stores in the complex; and that
i
j September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
another location can be found for the rental agency. He asked that the
Commission indicate its consideration of the welfare of the 242 La Palme
property owners by rejecting the application.
Chairman stated that there was no foregone conclusion by the Commission
members that the agency would be approved.
Bernie Crawford (Rebuttal ) stated that he understood the concern regarding
the Executive Car Leasing sign but that Executive does not have daily
rentals (only long-term leases) and that the occupancy is under present
zoning standards and is legal .
Mr. Jennings replied that his statement has no inference to the Commission,
but to the fact that negative factors were not taken into consideration in
the report.
(La Palme residents in the audience stated that Mr. Jennings had expressed
all of their views and that they were not going to speak.)
There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Olsen stated that by right of zone the complex could have a
Domi no's Pizza, for example; and that the rental car use is a better one;
that he had changed his opinion about the rental agency use because of the
other types of uses allowed in the zone; and that the business is small and
is workable given the parameters of a one year review and submittal of an
operations plan.
Commissioners Hough and Edgmon agreed, stating that they were comfortable
with the use.
Commissioner Dotson asked about the build-out of the Planned Development
District and also whether or not the agency would have a problem with
restriction of hours of operation.
Mr. Wilson stated that he had no problem with restricting the hours of
operations; that the hours presently are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and in the
peak season 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. ; that there is no evening business; and that
Executive Car Leasing probably had no night operations.
Commissioner Dotson asked about the completion date of the planned develop-
ment district and whether or not the car rental agency would have to wait
for its completion; and also asked about parking and uses in the planned
development district.
III
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
Mr. Crawford stated that he was in opposition to having to wait until the
PD completion because the projects are two separate ones and his economics
should not be tied to the planned development district completion date
since the building is Phase I of the planned development district.
Planning Director replied that the overall PD is the basis on which the
rental car agency use is being considered and staff interpretation is that
the PD is not in force until the rest of the corner is under construction.
He stated that the uses would normally be office types and some food
service under a CUP and that approval of the PD is part of the project.
Mr. Crawford stated that completion of the PD was never a condition of
approval .
Commissioner Dotson asked if further development of the site would buffer
the rental car agency use.
Planning Director stated that there would be more flexibility in the
parking after the two projects were merged; that the CUP runs with the
property, not with individuals or operators; and that if the proposed
rental car agency left, another could come in.
Commissioner Dotson commented that office uses would require 47 spaces and
that the rental car agency use is providing 11 additional spaces. asked
about Condition Number 6 which prohibits night storage of rentals or vans
and stated that there is no condition to monitor this requirement. He
asked about the hours of cars returning and cars waiting.
Commissioner Dotson commented that he did not know how the situation could
be monitored and that the only way to condition it would be to require cars
to be returned while the agency is open; and that the agency is not tied to
the completion of the planned development district, a review should be made
at the height of the season.
Chairman stated that a CUP can be revoked at any time and the condition is
not necessary.
Planning Director stated that the relation between the CUP and PD was tied
to the beginning of construction (obtaining building permits) ; not com-
pleted construction.
Commissioner Dotson stated that sometimes uses take on a life of their own.
Chairman asked if it is beyond the City's purview to review the terms of
the lease to make sure that it complies with the CUP.
i
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
Assistant City Attorney stated that there is no occasion to review terms of
leases and that the owner has that responsibility; and that if the lease if
violated, the owner of the property is charged with the violation and has
the responsibility for tenant compliance with the law.
Planning Director stated 12 spaces are allocated for two agencies; that any
further operations will come back under a CUP; and that staff does not
anticipate any problems.
Commissioner Whitney stated that she had no problem with the use but
wondered whether or not the applicants were clear on the phasing and on the
CUP.
Planning Director stated that Mr. Crawford understands but does not agree;
that the project was approved under a planned development district as a
professional complex; that the PD covered the larger 3 acre project and has
been approved, including the subject building which would allow C-1-AA uses
such as those on Tahquitz-McCallum, commercial types of uses; that the
final development plans have not been approved by Council ; and that the PD
is not in full force or affect. He stated that if the rest of the project
does not proceed, the elements of uses and major scale parking are not in
place and since the final PD is not approved, the conditions of the PD
cannot be enforced because they are not in effect.
Planner explained that Executive Car Leasing has an office use only on the
site with no auto storage; that it is legal in the zone; that there is an
approved sign program for the complex and Executive has applied for a sign
which is being built presently; and a temporary sign is allowed.
Commissioner Whitney asked if the use were approved would the auto retail
rental agency have to wait until the final phase of planned development
district is approved.
Planning Director stated that the auto rental use would not be in effect
until construction starts on the PD.
Commissioner Olsen left.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
M/S/C (Hough/Whitney; Mills abstained; Olsen absent) approving CUP 5.0515
based on the following findings and subject to the followings conditions:
i
Findings:
1. That the proposed auto rental use is compatible with the planned
development district and the office complex development subject to
conditions.
2. That field investigations have disclosed that the subject use and its
operation are compatible with the uses permitted in the zone where it
is proposed to be located, and that the storage and maintenance of
rental vehicles will be controlled with stringent conditions.
3. That the proposed use subject to the conditions recommended is not
detrimental to the general public health, safety, or welfare.
4. That the proximity to the airport will benefit both the visitors
arriving and departing the airport as well as the auto rental
operators.
Conditions:
1. That this conditional use permit shall not become effective until
Planned Development District 193 commences construction.
2. That the conditional use permit approval is for a maximum of two auto
rental agencies.
3. That no more than six (6) auto rental vehicles per agency including a
shuttle van be permitted on the property site.
4. That auto rental vehicles and vans be parked in designated parking
stalls on the east side of the project.
5. That maintenance, cleaning, or washing of auto rentals or vans is
prohibited on the project site.
6. That overnight storage of auto rentals or vans is prohibited.
Customer autos returned after hours or clean autos ready for next day
early plane arrivals are acceptable exemptions.
7. That auto rental agencies shall provide to the City a copy of a lease
or other document which demonstrates that a full service maintenance
and storage facility (off-site facility) is operated by the appli-
cant. The off-site facility shall be located within close proximity
to the subject property and shall provide all services
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0515-CUP (Continued) . (Continued)
required to support the proposed on-site facility and shall be
operated continuously. If at anytime the off-site facility discon-
tinues operation, the City shall be notified in writing and the CUP
may be revoked.
8. That prior to approval of any tenant improvement plans for an auto
rental agency, the operator shall provide a comprehensive business
operations plan which outlines hours of operation, number of
employees (on and off-site) , number of autos rented per day, and
demonstration of compliance with the conditions of approval stated
herein. The Planning Director may approve or deny the business plan.
Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning
Commission.
9. That the conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year to
insure that the auto rental use is operating as intended and to
review all complaints (if any) filed with the Planning Commission.
10. That the auto rental agency shall not be in operation until final
development plans have been approved for the planned development
district on the property and construction begun on the planned
development district.
Commissioner Whitney left.
CASE 5.0521-CUP. Application by GLEN IVY RESORTS, INC. for a conditional use
permit for a time share project in an existing condominium project
(Sundown) located at 400 S. Hermosa Drive, R-2 Zone (I.L.) , Section 14.
(This action is categorically exempt from Environmental assessment per CEQA
guidelines.)
Planner (Goodwin) gave the report and stated that since there is pending
litigation on the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) the project will be subject
to a Timeshare Tax which is $4.00 a day based on occupancy and that the
project will not be subject to drainage fees since they were imposed on the
original tract map.
Chairman declared the hearing open.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0521-CUP. (Continued)
H.C. Reed, Vice-President of Glen Ivy Resort, Lincoln Avenue, Corona,
stated that staff has cooperated with them; that the project will maximize
revenue in the City without impacting the infrastructure; that time-shares
would add more tax revenue to the City than condominiums; that the project
would be well maintained; and that the organization has a solid financial
base.
There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed.
Planner stated that the location of the project is on the northeast corner
of Ramon and Hermosa between Sunrise and Caballeros.
Planning Director stated that the project has taken 10 years to receive a
Certificate of Occupancy and was vacant until two years ago; and that the
original developers did not market the project.
Planner explained that a letter had been received in opposition because the
writer felt the project would be too crowded and a detriment to the City.
Chairman stated that the general public thinks that a timeshare is
more intense in use than a condominium, but that the numbers remain the
same.
Planning Director stated that no on-site sales will be made because the
project will be marketed out of the area and that the impacts of people
coming and going to look and to buy will be eliminated. He stated that the
project is totally time-share.
Commissioner Dotson asked about the need for timeshare and the impact on
the housing stock of the City.
Planning Director stated that the applicant has another time share project
in the City and the market apparently existsfor timeshares; that no time-
share has been approved since the Desert Isle project several years ago;
that timeshares take time to absorb into the community; that there is no
shortage of condominiums in the City; and that the subject project was
approved as condominiums without Housing Division review and no lessening
of rental stock will occur.
Commissioner Edgmon stated that when the project was rented as apartments
street traffic was impacted. She asked about mitigative measures.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0521-CUP. (Continued)
Planning Director explained that the project meets condominium and apart-
ment parking standards; that the carports were upgraded to garages at the
time of construction of the project and perhaps people are using the
garages as storage rather than parking; that there have been no complaints
or investigations; and that maybe it was easier to park on the street to
reach the condominiums.
M/S/C (Hough/Dotson; Mills abstained; Whitney/Olsen absent) approving Case
5.0521-CUP based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings•
1. That a conditional use permit application for a timeshare in an R-2
Zone is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro-
posed use.
3. That the project is located in an area well suited to the timeshare
use.
4. That Ramon Road is adequately designed to accommodate any traffic
generated by this project.
Condition•
That the project may be subject to transient occupancy tax as out-
lined in Chapter 3.24 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, and if not;
the project shall be subject to a timeshare occupancy tax as outlined
in Chapter 3.28 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. This condition
shall be referenced in the recorded codes, covenants and restrictions
for the timeshare project.
TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS
The Tribal Council understands that this case is being continued until
issues related to the City's Transient Occupancy Tax are resolved. Tribal
Council comments on the CUP will be submitted at such time as a planning
staff report is received.
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. Application by BENCO DEVELOPMENT for a planned development
district for a retail center with a corner pad for a restaurant and a
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued)
center pad for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through on the northwest
corner of Sunrise Way/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone (I .L.) , Section 14.
(Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no
comments received; action.)
Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative
Declaration and approve the planned development district subject to con-
ditions.
Planner (Goodwin) described the project and stated that the AAC had con-
cerns about the entry off Sunrise Way and the amount of cars backing into
the entryway and felt that parking spaces should be deleted, and also
deleted at the Tahquitz entrance; that the PD is required to reduce set-
backs, to incorporate a drive-through restaurant, and the project will also
have reduced parking standards . She stated that the parking lot shading
plan would not be met on Building A; that the AAC felt that the archi-
tecture was strong enough that further trees were not necessary and the
condition could be waived; that the Traffic Engineer's recommendation is 50
ft. minimum stacking space in the driveway on Sunrise which would reduce
the spaces by two; that mechanical screening will be required from the
street but not from above; that the parkway will be bermed so most of the
cars will not be seen from Tahquitz; that one letter had been received in
opposition with the writer stating that a fast-food restaurant will degrade
his property value on Luring Drive; that the AAC recommended that there be
decorative paving on the front of Building C, and in the pedestrianways
from the street and from Building C to the other buildings.
Planning Director stated that the design is good although Planning staff is
concerned with getting cars off the street and not conflicting with on-site
manuevering; that a lesser number of parking spaces would be acceptable;
that eliminating parking on Sunrise and Tahquitz would make a more impres-
sive complex since more landscaping could be added.
Chairman stated that the issues could be resolved before final approvals.
Planning Director stated that the drive-through will probably elicit
Council interest.
Commissioner Hough stated that drive-through use may not be allowed by the
Air Quality Management District (AQMD) .
Planning Director stated that there has been no directive yet but Assistant
Planning Director stated that the possibility is in the preliminary plan of
the SCAQM.
Commissioner Dotson stated that the City seemed to be giving up a lot in
order to build the project and wondered what the City was receiving. He
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 16
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued)
stated that compact spaces and loading ramps were being eliminated, for
example.
Planning Director stated that the primary reason for the PD was because of
CUP requirements for the drive-through and other issues such as setbacks
and that staff does not support the setback request on Tahquitz. He stated
that the City is getting 15 ft. of landscaping (instead of 5 ft. and an
alleywayl and that the Tahquitz appearance will be improved by the
residential appearance of the buildings. He stated that there is more
vertical than horizontal movement in the design and that there will be
right turn in and right out on the project because there is a barrier to
left turns.
Chairman declared the hearing open.
Jim Reinmuth, 121 S. Palm Canyon, representing Chris Mills, project archi-
tect, stated that three spaces will be eliminated at the restaurant to
increase stacking for cars at the Sunrise entrance; that two stalls will be
eliminated at the Tahquitz entrance to allow for stacking of two cars; that
the condition occurs at Carl 's Jrs. , at Jensens, at Palm Springs Mall ; that
condition #44 to provide parking lot shading should be modified since there
are tall palm trees and planters in line with the island; that the store
owners oppose trees because of sign blockage; that the islands create
entries to the building and will be stamped concrete or decorate paving;
that condition #3 should be deleted because the paving will be hidden by
cars; that decorative paving should not be placed between buildings because
it will be uncomfortable for walking and difficult to follow the pattern it
will create; and that the Traffic Engineer feels there is no problem with
the original submittal .
Frank Bennett, president of BENCO, stated that the project was designed to
add drama to the corner architecturally and that vertical rather than hori-
zontal elements were used because tenants want storefront windows; that the
structures are not in a straight line and have canopies on the side eleva-
tions and on the walkways; that the west elevation of the project is
treated in a residential manner; that the parking locations were created
for the shoppers and to avoid crossing parking lots to get to the stores;
and that decorative paving encourages people to cross traffic lanes which
should be discouraged for safety reasons.
There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed.
Chairman stated that decorative paving between the buildings is a waste
because people will take the shortest route to a store and the paving will
be ignored.
Commissioner Hough stated that decorative paving provides a crosswalk and a
safety factor; that the AAC opposed the parking condition at the entry and
that AAC members Johnson and Young voiced strong concern after the
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 17
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued)
meeting because of parking problems and felt that three spaces at least
should be removed.
Commissioner Edgmon stated that she liked the strong architecture but the
drive through and the setbacks are a concern and the landscaping should be
bermed to hide the cars.
Commissioner Hough stated that both AAC members Young and Johnson felt that
the drive-through made the site plan difficult to design.
Commissioner Dotson asked about AQMD requirements.
Planning Director stated that the list of possibilities for reducing air
pollution will affect the City eventually; that cars idling in drive-
throughs create more emissions than those in motion; that he did not know
whether or not the elimination or closing of drive-throughs would be a
guideline of the AQMD. He stated that the City employs over 400 people and
will be required to take some steps to stop air pollution such as car
pooling.
Commissioner Hough stated that people also might let their cars idle while
they pick up food at a drive-through restaurant.
Planning Director stated that staff is not waiving the condition that 50%
of the parking spaces be shade, after 15 years of landscape growth and that
tree forms should be required along the west side of the main building.
He stated that the final site plan, landscaping, irrigation and lighting,
and the two buildings independently will have Commission review.
M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Mills abstained; Whitney/Olsen absent) ordering the
filing of a Negative Declaration and approving PD 205 subject to condi-
tions.
Findings:
1. That a Planned Development District is the proper application for
this project as the developer is proposing altered standards from
those required in the C-1-AA and R-4-UP Zones.
2. That the proposed use is a suitable and desirable use for the com-
munity.
3. That the proposed development is consistent with the resort commer-
cial designation in the General Plan.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 18
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued)
4. That the 3.7 acre site is adequate to accommodate this project.
5. That Sunrise Way, Tahquitz Way and Andreas Road are adequately
designed to accommodate any traffic generated by this project.
6. That the conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Conditions•
1. That the Development Committee conditions dated September 27, 1989 be
met.
2. That all mitigation measures in the environmental assessment be met.
3. That the final development plans shall be submitted in accordance
with Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. That Tahquitz Way setbacks be met.
5. That the parking lot shading requirements be met.
6. That no outdoor storage be allowed.
7. That the proposed drive-through facility shall comply with Section
9306.00.c.18. of the Zoning Ordinance.
second
A / motion was made by Hough, seconded by Lapham, Mills abstained, Olsen
and Whitney absent to approve the drive-through at the restaurant site.
The vote was as follows:
Ayes: Hough, Lapham
Noes: Edgmon, Dotson
Abstension: Mills
Absent: Whitney, Olsen
Since there was a tie vote, the motion failed.
Mr. Bennett requested that the application be continued for the Commission
to understand the arguments for the drive-through at the October 11
meeting.
Planning Director stated that the application should stay on the agenda as
a public hearing and will be continued to October 11.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 19
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued)
,%W,;
TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS
The Tribal Council noted that a planned development district is the appro-
priate application to address the proposed deviations in development
standards. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian
Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions:
1. Concurred with the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation
measures.
2. Approved the request for a planned development district (PD 205) sub-
ject to the conditions outlined in Planning staff report dated
September 27, 1989.
3. Requested that further processing of this case, i .e. action by the
City Council be continued pending the applicant's payment of the
Tribal Land Use Fee per Tribal Resolution No. 24-86.
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions.
Case 5.0421-PD-185 (Desert Hospital Expansion) . Council approved the lay-
out and orientation ut recommended that the Commission restudy the loca-
tion of both the helipad and the emergency access. Council felt that the
helipad should be more centrally located off Indian Avenue but the change
was not a mandate. Staff has met with Hospital Planner and there will be
another meeting of the hospital planners and planning staff on September 28
at 4:30 p.m. at the hospital . Chairman and Commissioners were invited to
attend and Chairman stated that he would attend. Commissioner Dotson asked
if the hospital has to change the plan, the reasons the PD was approved.
Planning Director explained that only the helipad and access points were
not approved by the Council and will be acted upon by a separate motion.
Commission Dotson asked about the reason for approving the PD and stated
that he did not understand the rationale.
Assistant City Attorney stated that if the Council had not approved the
entire PD except for the two items, the Commission could make wholesale
changes but now cannot except for the two issues of the helipad location
and the emergency access.
November 6 Joint Dinner Meeting with AAC, EDC and Rent Review
Commission. Commissioners are to contact staff regarding attendance.
September 27, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 20
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued)
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. (Continued)
- Planning Commission/City Council Study Session. Will be held from 2 to 3
p.m. October 10 in the Large Conference Room. Agenda to originate with the
Commission. Planning Director will contact Commissioners for suggestions.
Downtown Design. Three Council members and staff met with John Jerdi and
Associates on the Downtown Plan. The firm deals in exciting projects and
begins with a review of the economic base of the City before plans are
developed. Council members and staff were impressed with Mr. Jerdi 's
presentation.
COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS.
None.
ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration. )
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:00
p.m.
PLANNING DIREC R
MDR/ml