Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/2/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. a°�YALM sp9 iy c u v City Council Staff Report DATE: September 2, 2015 Public Hearing SUBJECT: DEBBIE GORDON APPEALING THE JUNE 24, 2015, DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT A VARIANCE APPLICATION AND APPROVE A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REQUEST BY GANDO PROPERTIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 96,445-SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE, WAREHOUSE AND SELF STORAGE FACILITY ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.5-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL & TACHEV_AH DRIVE, ZONE M-1-P. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal by Debbie Gordon seeking to overturn a decision of the Planning Commission of June 24, 2015 to grant a variance request and approval of a major architectural application by Gando Properties for the construction of an approximately 96,445 square feet of office space, warehouse and a self storage facility. The appellant is asking the City Council to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS REDUCTIONS AND APPROVAL OF MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR CASE NO. 3.3830-MAJ & 6.542-VAR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 96,445-SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE, WAREHOUSE AND SELF STORAGE FACILITY ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.5-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL & TACHEVAH DRIVE." ITEM NO._ 1 City Council Staff Report September 2,2015 3.3830-MAJ 16.542-VAR—Appeal Page 2 of 4 PRIOR ACTIONS: On February 2, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed a proposed project consisting of three commercial/industrial buildings and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. On March 28, 2007, the Planning Commission granted a variance application and approved a major architectural application to develop the three commercial/industrial buildings with off-street parking and associated landscaping at the site. On March 9, 2015, the AAC reviewed a new proposed project for the site and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. On April 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the proposal and after deliberations continued the hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2015. The Commission then directed the applicant to revise the site plan with 50 feet setbacks on the east and south sections and a 25 foot setback on the building abutting Tachevah Drive. On June 10, 2015, the revised plan with a 50 feet setback to the east, a 40 feet setback to the south and a 25 feet setback along Tachevah Drive was presented to the Commission. The Commission deliberated on the revised project and voted to continue the hearing to the meeting of June 24, 2015, with directions to the applicant to install story poles at the site to show the proposed height of the buildings. On June 17, 2015, the applicant informed staff that the story poles were being installed and would be ready for inspections on June 18, 2015 by the Commissioners. On June 24, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the project with a vote of 3-1-2, (Weremiuk opposed, Calerdine and Klatchko absent) On July 8, 2015, the City received an appeal request from the appellant of the Planning Commission's action on June 24, 2015. 5 �L I rt , IMI 1 _s _ =,I UU 1 F WMM P•iWY , J • 1 �. Proposed Project Site 02 City Council Staff Report September 2,2015 3.3830-MAJ 16.542-VAR—Appeal Page 3 of 4 BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The proposed project site is an irregularly shaped parcel located at the southeast corner of North Gene Autry Trail and Tachevah Drive. The site is generally flat but slopes gently to the east and is covered with low growing vegetation and coarse sand. The approximately 4.5-acre site is currently vacant and is surrounded by existing office buildings to the north, and vacant lands to the east, west and south. The site is enclosed by an approximately seven foot (T) high block wall along the east and southerly portions abutting the Escena Residential/Golf Course Development. The site was previously approved for the development of three commercial/industrial buildings but the project was never built. As proposed, the development will consist of a warehouse, office space and a self storage facility. The proposal calls for five separate buildings; Buildings A, B, C, D & E. Building "A" will be located along Gene Autry and is approximately 15,070 square feet in size. The building will contain fourteen (14) flex type office spaces; the southerly portion of this building will house the proposed self storage facility operation offices. Buildings B, C, D, & E will contain about 556 units of storage spaces. The units will range from 25 to 460 square feet in size. Access into the self storage facility will be through security gates controlled by key cards along Gene Autry Drive. APPEAL AND STAFF ANALYSIS: On July 8, 2015, Ms. Deb Gordon appealed the action of the Planning Commission; the basis of the appeal is the following: "There are already too many self storage facilities in Palm Springs and this site should not be allowed to be developed as a self storage facility" Regarding the number of existing and functioning storage facilities within the City, staff has determined that there are currently twelve (12) storage facilities within the City. These storage facilities are located in various sections of the City (See attachment 5). The City of Palm Springs Zoning Code does not limit storage facilities within the City. The subject storage facility project is located on a vacant property zoned M-I-P. Pursuant to Section 92.16.00 (A) of the Zoning Code, "the zone is intended to provide for and encourage planned industrial districts compatible with surrounding or abutting residential zones and which would not in any way depreciate the character of the resort community. Uses are to be confined to those administrative, wholesaling, warehousing and light manufacturing activities that can be carried on in an unobtrusive manner, and to certain accessory commercial facilities that are necessary to service the employees of the zone. Regulations provide for suitable open spaces, landscaping, access, parking and loading, a low intensity of development, and performance standards to assure unobtrusive operation". The storage facility is an appropriate use at the location; the site layout, associated landscaping and parking spaces are all consistent with requirements of the ordinance. 03 City Council Staff Report September 2,2015 3.3830-MAJ 16.542-VAR—Appeal Page 4 of 4 Again, there are no limitations on the number of storage facilities within the Ordinance as long as they are located in appropriate zones where they are permitted uses. CONCLUSION: The storage facility is a permitted use within the M-1-P zone; furthermore, the Palms Springs Zoning Code does not place a limit on the number of any specific use when such a use is permitted within the appropriate zone. In reviewing and approving the proposed project, the Planning Commission made the necessary required findings and approved the project at the location. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action of June 24, 2015. NOTIFICATION: A public hearing notice was published in accordance with the requirements of State law and local ordinance. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment on the appeal request. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City. ��/l/"A inn Fagg, AI P Marcus L. Fuller Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer David H. Ready, E City Manager Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Appeal letter dated July I, 2015 (Received on July 8, 2015) 4. Excerpts from Planning Commission's Minutes of June 24, 2015 5. Map showing locations of existing and recently approved storage facilities. 04 N wO�PLM Sp9 Department of Planning Services w ...o Vicinity Map NTI �4[�raaN`P CHIA RD a ¢ P i : TACHEVAH OR IP ck ti� J Legend � Q 500 Feet Y} CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 05 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS REDUCTIONS AND APPROVAL OF MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR CASE NO. 3.3830-MAJ & 6.542-VAR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 96,445-SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE, WAREHOUSE AND SELF STORAGE FACILITY ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.5- ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL & TACHEVAH DRIVE, ZONE M-1-P. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds: A. On January 12, 2015, Gando Properties submitted a variance request and major architectural approval applications to the City of Palm Springs to develop an approximately 96,445-sq. ft. office space, warehouse and a self storage facility on an approximately 4.5-acre parcel within an M-1-P zoning designation. B. The property located at the southeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Tachevah Drive is zoned M-1-P (Planned Research and Development Park Zone); storage facility is a permitted use in the M-1-P zone. C. The Planning Commission considered the variance request and major architectural approval application at its public hearing meetings of March 9, April 22, June 10 and 24, 2015, granted the variance for rear and side yard setback reductions and approved the project. D. On July 8, 2015, Debbie Gordon, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 and Section 8.05.230 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, filed an appeal of the actions of the Planning Commission to approve the application for the construction of a storage facility. E. On September 2, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve the application by Gando Properties for the construction of a storage facility. F. At its public hearing conducted on September 2, 2015, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the appeal, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs resolves: SECTION 1. The above findings are all true and correct. 06 Resolution No. _ Page 2 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby denies the appeal submitted by Debbie Gordon, regarding the approval of an application by the Planning Commission to construct an approximately 96,445 sq. ft. office space, warehouse and self storage facility at the southeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Tachevah Drive. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2015. DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK 07 Resolution No. _ Page 3 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on July 15, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California 08 RECEIVED July 1, 2015 JUL 0 8 2015 PLANNING SERVICES Mr. Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Services DEPARTMENT City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Case 3.3830-MAJ — Gene Autry Trail Self Storage Dear Mr. Fagg: This letter will serve as a formal written appeal of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission approval of Case 3.3830-MAJ that was heard and approved on June 24, 2015. I watched the Planning Commission Hearing on television, and as a Palm Springs resident, I believe there are already too many self storage facilities in Palm Springs and this site should not be allowed to be developed as a self storage facility. Thank you C Deb Gordon 2073 W. Acacia Road co >rn r Palm Springs, California 09 REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S RECEIPT TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CASHIER DATE: "I •C6 - 0015 FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PAID ti13 PLEASE ACCEPT $ JUL 08 2015 FROM: D& C'IOY dbY1_ CITY OF RAI M RPRWL FOR: b ' Cck, I 1S30 MAPS & PUBLICATIONS - 001-34106 �`�' A `r.� `- OTHER CHARGES - CURRENT SERVICE 01-341 - - CREDIT ACCOUNT NO. CIRCLED ABOVE- BY ORDER OF rr a City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2015 Plan that was approved for this area. There being no further speakers public comments was closed. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 10, 2015 DY SESSION & REGULAR MEETING MINUTES ACTION: Approve the Planning Comm' n Minutes of June 10, 2015 Study Session and Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion: Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner Middleton and unanimously carried 5-0-2 on a r vote. AYES: ommissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk ne Vice-Chair Kiatchko 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2A. CONTD - GANDO PROPERTIES FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 103,943 SQUARE FEET OFFICE SPACE, WAREHOUSE AND A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON AN APPROXIMATE 4.5-ACRE PARCEL AND A VARIANCE APPLICATION SEEKING FOR THE REDUCTION OF SIDE-YARD SETBACKS LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL AND TACHEVAH DRIVE, ZONE M-1-P (CASE 3.3830 MAJ 16.542 VAR). (ER) (BUILDING SIZE INCORRECTLY NOTED AS 96,445 SO. FT.) Principal Planner Robertson provided background information on the installation of the story poles placed on the site. Commissioner Roberts opened the public hearing: DAVID PICK, partner & storage consultant, spoke about the height of the buildings and addressed the story poles on the site; he provided details on the original and revised plans. LJ Edgcomb, representing Escena New Valley, requested 50 ft. setbacks on both sides and expressed concern with drainage. 21r - � _ 11 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes June 24. 2015 THOM GOTTBERG, represents Familian (landowner), commented that the setbacks would not be an issue and pointed-out that residential setbacks are only 10 ft. DAVID PIKE, offered to add an easement to the retention area if so desired. There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Weremiuk made the following comments: • Prefers 50 ft. setbacks on both sides -east and south; • Does not see a hardship to allow the reduced setbacks. ACTION: To approve with condition that setbacks shall be 50 ft. on both sides (East and South). Motion: Commissioner Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Roberts and MOTION FAILED on a 2-2 roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk NOES: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton ABSENT: Commissioner Calerdine, Vice-Chair Klatchko Commissioner Middleton noted that she is at a disadvantage because she was not able to see the story poles. She's hearing that the views are acceptable at the 40 and 50 ft. setbacks. She pointed-out that the applicant has gone beyond what was asked and does not want to lose project approval over a 10 ft. difference. Commissioner Roberts commented that the applicant has gone to great lengths to make this work; and noticed how much higher the other buildings are in the neighborhood; he's uncertain about the impacts of a 10 ft, setback difference. ACTION: Approve, subject to conditions as amended: • 50 feet setbacks along the East; • 40 feet setbacks along the South. Motion: Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Lowe and carried 3-1-2 on a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Commissioner Roberts NOES: Commissioner Weremiuk ABSENT: Commissioner Calerdine, Vice-Chair Klatchko A recess was taken a 2:25 pm. The meeting resumed at 2:30 pm. 31P ,= F; r 12 VERONA RD ROSA PARKS RD VICENTIARD VISTAAGAVE 0 p RADIO RD z U Y O C� O r _ a Z VIA ESCUELA NORLOTI ST OASIS RD U ¢ p ¢ z O ARNICO ST > U ¢ p z SAN MARINO RD J p U W � X E VISTA CHINO w SAN RAFAEL DR PASEO BARBARA � TOLTEC CT CHIA RD S CHIMAYO DR Q z a F M-P TACHEVAH DR / C o CO P S� o A vcG2 A PR w O _ Q > A G w w z O X PJPNS �PV y m p ALEJO RD U U a 30TH AVE uj ° Nq�F ° (P L) W ti a > o p U AVIATION WAY FO ° O w PLAIMOR AVE z 0 w LIVMORAVE ¢ U O p ANDREAS RD > � V Z Q E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY N VIRGO CT MISSION DR J BARI STO RD fy p r C = OW r j��j/M J Q w v AIRPORT CENTRE OR Q � w � ° w ° RAMON RD a X p CALLE DE RICARDO p C z w X z ¢J CAMINO PAROCELA Z O z X ° m U = SUNNY DUNES RD O C w of J > U U CALLE SAN RAPHAEL �mm§ w j O Q z of Q U w Z U) MESQUITE AVE MESQUITE AVE DINAH SHORE DR Legend . -- GX WOO Recently Approved Storage Facilities n _ Existing Storage Facilities N Recently Approved Storage Facilities: 2 Existing Storage Facilities: 12 ti µ� - - - - - - - - - - - - - _�-_---------_--_-_---_------- VERON VI RD ROSA PARKS VICENTIA RD � VISTA AGAVE RADIO RD z N a O ' C � O } z p � Z VIA ESCUELA ¢ NORLOTI ST o C OASIS RD U z N W ' U z Q > O ARNICO ST > ' U ¢ 0 SAN MARINO RD E VISTA CHINO PASEOBARBARA W VI; SAN RAFAEL OR ;+ TOL TEC C T CHIA RD S CHIMAYO DR z a F NLI� TACHEVAH DR �/ C NF / ty vpOR�OP51 �cGv P w O C � w Z � O Y� PNP P v m p ALEJO RD O U a 30TH AVE FS C ° p��AOF 4 ° LP 2 a > o p LL U AVIATION WAY �C ° O w PLAIMORAVE z O� w LIVMORAVE o a r U O p ANDREASRD 5 2 U z Q E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY U VIRGO CT MISSION OR BARI STO RD r ° r ° W af w U AIRPORT CENTRE DR r¢ fY J N o w Q� p RAMON RD a X in CALLE DE RICARDO 2 o C O OU X z g CAMINO PAROCELA QO z o ¢ = J w U SUNNY DUNES RD S o Z w w } m J Q w } n fr J C7 CALLE SAN RAPHAEL w o ¢ z a U w z V) '7 w MESQUITE AVE MESQUITE AVE �DINAH SHORE DR Legend E` G 00.1 Recently Approved Storage Facilities n — Existing Storage Facilities N Recently Approved Storage Facilities: 2 Existing Storage Facilities: 12 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Date: September 2, 2015 Subject: Gando Properties at 1066 Gene Autry Trail Case 3.3830 and 6.542 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on August 15, 2015. 11 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. �-�FMs Kathie Hart, MMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board, and in the Office of the City Clerk on August 12, 2015. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, MMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on August 12, 2015, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (35 notices) IlIdeclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 1 Kathie Hart, MMC Chief Deputy City Clerk 14 °"''NEIIGHBQRHIO SPQNSQR Rg MO•-CaSBSs38Q MRPETEMORUZZI - H SDOR COM AND. C S TE REP b a PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PH IG _ttk# �,08 0145" P.O. BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 3.3830 MAJ PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VER} OAlN NOTlCE'^t �0 ATTN SECRETARY/3.3830 MAJ 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS PATRICIA GARCIA MS MARGARET PARK, DIRECTOR TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4kGUACALIEN7' (3ANQ'O',," IILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA OFFICER INDAAN ` 1'as ;`' INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT DEPT. INDIANS 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS ATTN: JOSEPH ONTIVEROS MR FRANK TYSEN ':"`'IN#EF2E D J RTIE �d Y DY INN s . ' CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER 175 S- CAHUILLA x.' 175 S. CAHUILLA ROAD P.O. BOX 487 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 SAN JACINTO, CA 92581 MR DAVID GANDOLFO MR BRUCE FAMILIAN SPONSORFr � .4-D` GANDO PROPERTIES KNOLLWOOD PARTNERSHIP PALM 3950 AIRPORT CENTR DRIVE SPRINGS, LLC PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 LAS AS VEGAS, V STREET GAS, NV 89122 MR ARIEL L. VALLI MR PHILLIP FOMOTOR MR RAY MARTIN VALLI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP FOMOTOR ENGINEERING RAY MARTIN DESIGN 12 JOURNEY,#270 225 S. CIVIC DRIVE,#1-5 78150 CALLE TAMPICO ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR DENNIS ALFIERI MR DAVID A PICK GANGI DEVELOPMENT PICK PROPERTIES 229 E. PALM AVENUE 1609 ELVERHOY WAY BURBANK, CA 91502 SOLVANG, CA 93463 l'� ,3. 3 94 0 /�. �`f�2 ✓,q_,g 9CA.2e 677 250 022 677 250 024 677 250 029 McCullough Inv Co Bird Medical Technologies Inc White & Sons Bernard 30 Meeks Ln 75 N Fairway Dr 71905 Highway 111 #E Oakley Ca 94561 Vernon Hills II 60061 Rancho Mirage Ca 92270 677 260 012 677 260 017 677 260 018 City Of Palm Springs City Of Palm Springs 'City Of Palm Springs Po Box 2743 Po Box 2743 Po Box 2743 Palm Springs Ca 92263 Palm Springs Ca 92263 Palm Springs Ca 92263 677 260 022 677 260 039 677 260 039 V City Of Palm Springs New Valley Ps Toll CA II LP Po Box 2743 712 5th Ave#52ND 8767 E Via de Ventura#390 Palm Springs Ca 92263 New York Ny 10019 Scottsdale AZ 85258 677 260 043 677 260 044 677 260 047 New Valley Ps New Valley Ps Golf New Valley Ps 712 5th Ave#52ND 712 5th Avenue 52nd SI 712 5th Ave#52ND New York Ny 10019 New York Ny 10019 New York Ny 10019 677 260 054 677 453 003 677 453 004 Knollwood Partner p Palm Springs Raymond Paige Horizon Crest Partners 272 Loch Lom Rd Po Box 5005 929 E 2nd St#181 Rancho M ge Ca 92270 Rancho Mirage Ca 92270 Los Angeles Ca 90012 677 453 007 677 453 008 Lake San Marcos Ltd Partnership 1243 Gene Autry Trail 1918 W Grant St Po Box 1419 Phoenix Az 85009 Cathedral City Ca 92235 Developer/Project Owner Developer/Project Owner Owner of Land David J Gandolfo David A Pick Burce Familian Gando Properties Pick Properties Knollwood Partnership Palm Springs LLC 3950 Airport Center Dr 1609 Elverhoy Way 36 Mayfair Dr Palm Springs CA 92264 Solvang CA 93463 Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Architect Civil Engineer Landscape Architect Ariel Valli Phillip Fomotor Ray Martin,/ �� Valli Architectural Group Fomotor Engineering Ray M n Design 12 Journey#270 225 S Civic Dr#1-5 781 Calle Tampico Aliso Viejo CA 92656 Palm Springs CA 92262 Quinta CA 92253 677 453 007 Knollwood Partnership Palm Springs RETURNED MAIL 36 Mayfair Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS APPEAL OF CASE 3.3830-MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL AND 6.542-VARIANCE FOR GANDO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1066 NORTH GENE AUTRY TRAIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of September 2, 2015. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal by Deb Gordon regarding the Planning Commission's decision on June 24, 2015, to approve a proposal by Gando Properties to construct an approximately 96,445 square feet office space, warehouse and a self-storage facility on approximately 4.5-acre parcel and a variance application for the reduction of side yard setbacks. The subject site is located at 1066 North Gene Autry Trail, zoned M-1-P. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that the project will not have significant adverse impacts. The City adopted a Categorical Exemption for the project. Members of the public may view this document at the Planning Services Department, City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward 0. Robertson, Principal Planner, at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Felipe Primera (760) 323-8253. ames Thompson, City Clerk 5 N ^O`PPLM s<42 Department of Planning Services w .. Vicinity Map Cq[IFORN��' CHA R© r TACHEVAH DR IP pG J Legend � a CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 16 Kathie Hart From: Kathie Hart Sent: Friday,August 14, 2015 3:35 PM To: 'erikrosenow@yahoo.com' Cc: Jay Thompson; Cindy Berardi;Joanne Bruggemans; Lee A. Bonno Subject: Case 3.3830 MAJ -Gando Properties Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf Please find attached a public hearing notice for the City Council Meeting to be held on September 2, 2015. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal by Deb Gordon regarding the Planning Commission's decision on June 24, 2015, to approve a proposal by Gando Properties to construct an approximately 96,445 square feet office space, warehouse and a self-storage facility on approximately 4.5-acre parcel and a variance application for the reduction of side yard setbacks. The subject site is located at 1066 North Gene Autry Trail. This project is in the Rancho Vista Estates neighborhood. Please contact the Planning Services Department if there are questions, 760-323-8245. K, e Kathie Hart, MMC Chief Deputy City Clerk i City of Palm Springs (760) 323-8206 L (760) 322-8332 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way I -1 Kathie.Hart@PolmSprm9sCA.9ov Palm Springs, CA 92262 City Hall is open 8 am to 6 pm, Monday through Thursday, and closed on Fridays. 1 17 George Henzel 8055671169 p.1 V� VA av\j CS � �SCUv��IeG r� REC€IVED OF PALM SP' r July 3, 2015 2015 AL -8 PM 3: 02 Mr. lames Thom son, Ci Clerk JAM 7 WIMP S G H P t9 O1 Y aLERK City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Palm Springs Planning Item 3.3830MAJ Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Dear Mr_ Thompson I am involved as a partner in a Limited Liability Company that has owns land in Palm Springs and have previously been involved in the development and ownership of other land in Palm Springs. This letter will serve as my appeal of the City of Palm Springs PlanninE Commission approval of Item 3.3830-MAJ that was heard and approved on June 24 , 2015. I believe that the Planning Commission is establishing an incorrect and bad precedent by increasing the 20 foot rear and side setbacks on this property to 40 and 50 feet on the South and East side of their property. This action will penalize other properties that abut the Escena development. Your current zoning code provides for a 20 foot rear and side setback when M-1-P property abuts other M-1-P property and that all zoning and or change of zoning, including Planned Developments, must be reflected on your Official -Zoning Map. I have visited your official Zoning Map on line and it does not reflect that the adjacent Planned Development was every finalized and shows the property involved in Item 3.3830-MAJ, and the adjacent Escena land, to be both zoned M-1-P. Thus a side and rear setback of 20 foot is the maximum required and no variance and a larger setback should legally have been required of this project. Thank you, 4Santari Deea, CA 93454 07/08/2015 15:30 FAX 7603228332 PALM SPRINGS CITY CLERK Z 001 $$$$$$$$kk$kkk$$$kkkkkkkkkk kkk ERROR TX REPORT $$$ :k8:kkk kkkk$:k$$$$:f::k%kkW.B:kkkkkk TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO 1284 CONNECTION TEL 918055671169 CONNECTION Ill ST. TIME 07/08 15: 29 USAGE T 00'00 PGS. SENT 0 RESULT NG =0018 BUSY/NO SIGNAL City of Palm Springs N Office of the City Clerk _ P. O. Box 2743, Paim springs, cA 92263 (760) 323-8204 ro"°�•" Fax(760) 322-8332 F09. www.palmspringsca.gov i Fax Transmittal 1 TO: George Henzel FROM: Cin`Jy Berardi, Deputy City Clerk (760) 323-8204 i i DATE: July 8, 2015 Pages: (Intl this page) 6 SUBJECT: ApKieal Case No. 3.3830-MAJ "�Urgexrt � ~ X "For R®yi - �, � •:; ew/Reply.. ` :�. �'w ��_ lea a>CorrrxneFlt _.._------.------ ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-----------.-.._.._.. Comments: We received you- request for appeal; however, receipt of $982.18 ($546.00 appeal fee plus $436.16 notification charges) is due today (we close at 6:00pm) in accordance with�the following section of the Palm Springs Municipal Code regarding appeals to the City Council. For your information, we have just received another appeal on the same case. f i City of Palm Springs OF PA LM Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 2743, Palm Springs, CA 92263 (760) 323-8204 Fax(760) 322-8332 C�4I F01tN www.palmspringsca.gov Fax Transmittal TO: George Henzel FROM: Cindy Berardi, Deputy City Clerk (760) 323-8204 DATE: July 8, 2015 Pages: (incl this page) 6 SUBJECT: Appeal Case No. 3.3830-MAJ _Urgent X For Review/Reply _Please Comment Comments: We received your request for appeal; however, receipt of $982.18 ($546.00 appeal fee plus $436.18 notification charges) is due today (we close at 6:00pm) in accordance with the following section of the Palm Springs Municipal Code regarding appeals to the City Council. For your information, we have just received another appeal on the same case. R:\Users\C-CLK\Cindy\faxes\Fax Transmittal1.doc Chapter 2.05 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 3 Palm Springs Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames Title 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL Chapter_2.05 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 2.05.010 Exclusive procedure. Except in cases involving the administrative appeals board pursuant to Chapter 2.50 or as otherwise specifically provided by this code or other ordinances, all appeals to the city council otherwise allowed by the code or other ordinances shall be prosecuted in accordance with this chapter. (Ord. 1537 § 1, 1996: Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter: (1) `Aggrieved person"means: (A) Any applicant who has been denied a permit or license or who has been granted a permit or license subject to conditions by any administrative officer or agency of the city, where such denial or grant is otherwise appealable; or (B) Any person who was entitled to notice of the application by another for a permit or license, whether or not such notice was actually given, and who is dissatisfied that the permit or license was granted with or without conditions, where such grant is otherwise appealable; or (C) Any person whose personal, pecuniary or property right or interest is directly and adversely affected, or upon whom a substantial burden or obligation is imposed by the action or decision appealed from. (2) "Administrative agency"means an organ of the city government other than the city council which affects the rights of private parties through adjudication or rulemaking. (3) "Administrative officer" means an officer of the city who is not a member of the legislative body or appointed boards or commissions. Such officers include but are not limited to the city manager, chief of police, director of transportation and director of community development. (4) "Appellant" means an aggrieved person directly affected by an action,who files an appeal. (5) "Intervenor"means a person aggrieved by the grant of a permit or license to another, or who was entitled by law to notice of the action taken, who seeks to be heard concerning such person's interest in an appeal. (6) "Respondent" means the administrative officer or agency which took the action appealed from, and any other administrative officer or agency named as respondent in an appeal. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.030 Filing of appeal. A person aggrieved by an action taken by an administrative officer or administrative agency of the city may appeal the action to the city council, if the action is made appealable by applicable provision of the Palm Springs Municipal Code or other city ordinance, by filing with the city clerk a written notice of appeal which sets forth the appellant's full name and mailing address, the specific action appealed from, the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought; and paying to the city clerk such fee as the city council may establish by resolution. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.040 Time of filing. The notice required by Section 2.05.030 shall be filed no later than ten days following the date of mailing to appellant of notice of the action from which the appeal is taken or, if there is no such mailing and/or none is required, no later than fifteen days following the date of the action which is the subject of the appeal. The city clerk shall furnish a copy of the appeal to the respondent within five days after filing. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.050 Time of hearing—Notice. (a) The city clerk, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, shall set a time and place for the hearing of such appeal by the council. http://www.gcode.us/codes/paimsprings/view.php?topic=2-2_05&showA11=1&frames=on 7/8/2015 Chapter 2.05 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 3 The appeal shall be heard no more than forty-five days following the filing of the notice of appeal unless the parties waive such time limits. (b) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be mailed or otherwise delivered by the city clerk to the appellant, respondent and all other persons, if any, to whom notice of the initial application or action was required, not less than ten days prior to hearing. If publication of the initial application or action being appealed was required, the notice of appeal shall be published in like manner. (Ord. 1233 § I, 1985: Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.060 Answer and cross-appeal. Respondent is not required to file an answer to the appeal. If no answer is tiled, every material allegation of the appeal is in issue. After an appeal has been initiated, a cross-appeal may be brought by any person who would otherwise have had standing to appeal the subject action or decision. The cross-appellant shall file a written notice of cross-appeal with the city clerk stating cross-appellant's full name and mailing address,the specific action appealed from, the grounds for the cross-appeal and the relief sought. Such notice shall be filed no less than five days prior to hearing except for good cause shown to the satisfaction of the city council. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.070 Designation of parties. (a) A person who is aggrieved by the denial to him of a permit or license or the grant to him of such permit or license with conditions, or whose personal or property right was the subject of the action appealed from, shall be designated "appellant." (b) A person who is aggrieved by the grant with or without conditions of a permit or license to another, or who was entitled by law to receive notice of the application for permit or license whether or not such notice was actually given, shall be designated "intervenor." (c) Unless the appeal names some other respondent, the administrative officer or administrative agency which took the action or made the decision appealed from shall be designated "respondent." (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.080 Hearing by council. At the time of hearing of the appeal by the city council, the appellant shall be limited in his presentation to the specific grounds for appeal set forth in his notice of appeal and shall have the burden of establishing cause why the action appealed from should be altered, reversed or modified. All parties shall have the right to be heard by the council either in person or by counsel. Technical rules of evidence shall not apply in proceedings under this chapter. No party shall have the right to cross-examine any other party or witness except for good cause shown to the satisfaction of the council. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.090 Dismissal for nonprosecution. If appellant fails to appear, either in person or by counsel, at the appointed time and place for hearing, such failure to appear shall constitute sufficient grounds for denial of the appeal. Such denial for nonprosecution shall not affect the right of a cross-appellant, if any, to proceed with a cross-appeal. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.100 Time for decision—Effective when. (a) The city council shall render its decision within fifteen days following the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal. Upon finding good cause to do so, the city council may extend the time for rendering its decision up to ninety days. The council by its decision may reverse, modify or affirm the administrative action taken. (b) No later than five days following the rendering of the council's decision the city clerk shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of said decision to each party who appeared during the proceedings, or who requested to be furnished a copy of the decision. Failure of the city clerk to mail or deliver a copy of the decision to each party or to any party shall not affect the finality or effectiveness of the decision. The council's decision shall be final and effec five at the final adjournment of the meeting at which the decision is rendered, except in those cases where the council is authorized to grant a rehearing, in which case the council's decision shall be final and effective: (1) When the time to petition for rehearing has expired without the filing of a petition for rehearing; or (2) Upon the denial of a petition for rehearing. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) http://www.gcode.us/codes/palmsprings/view.php?topic=2-2_05&showAll=1&frames=on 7/8/2015 Chapter 2.05 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 3 2.05.110 Reconsideration. Without granting a rehearing, the city council may reopen and reconsider a decision at any time before the decision becomes final. A motion to reconsider may be made only by a member of the city council who voted in favor of the decision. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) 2.05.120 Rehearing. In those cases where the effect of a decision on appeal is to deny a permit or entitlement, an appellant may apply for a rehearing by filing with the city clerk and serving upon the other parties, within fifteen days of the date when the decision was rendered, a petition therefor. Within thirty days after the filing of such petition, the council shall grant or deny the petition, in whole or in part. Failure to act within the thirty day limit shall constitute denial of the petition. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1984) View the mobile version. http://www.gcode.us/codes/palmsprings/view.php?topic=2-2_05&showAll-1&frames=on 7/8/2015 PLANNING 1.Some fees may be discounted for multiple applications of similar nature(excludes maps&legislative actions.) 2.Work done without permits will be assessed the base fee plus a fine of the same amount. 3.Major project revisions during application review/plan check may result in 50%additional fee. Imaging Fees Current Fees Administrative Minor Modifications 10.00 556.00 Adult Oriented Business Permits Processing and Issuing 2,136.00 Annexation to Palm Springs 5,000 Deposit Actual consultant/attorney/staff costs Antenna Permits Homeowner 10.00 69.00 Commercial 10.00 417.00 Appeals Planning Commission decision to City Council 26.00 520.00 plus notification Planning Director decision to Planning Commission 26.00 279.00 plus notification Architectural Approval (SEE:"Plan Checking Fees-Planning"for additional charges) (SEE: "Building Division'Permits'and'Plan Check'.) Major Architectural Approval(See note re:discounted fees) Over 5 acres 88.00 4,236.00 50%increase—bldg.area to 5 acres 88.00 1,736.00 Single-Family House—Hillside 52.00 3,217.00 Single-Family House—Non-Hillside 52.00 1,759.00 Minor Architectural Approval—P.C. Planning Commission Review 26.00 580.00 Front Yard Gates,Entry Features, Landscaping—non SFR 10.00 117.00 Incidental Minor Architectural(Staff Approval) 10.00 244.00 Re-paints—to match existing 16.00 34.00 Re-roof—similar materials—SFR—match existing 16.00 34.00 Comprehensive Fee Schedule 07-01-2015 Page-49- PLANNING(Continued) Imaoino Fees Current Fees Local Development Mitigation Fee(R22953 and CPI increase 7/l/15)(Cont'd) Commercial 5,809.00 per acre Industrial 5,809.00 per acre Lot Line Adjustments/Certificates of Compliance Staff Approval 10.00 913.00 each City Council Approval(See note re:discounted fees) 26.00 1,158.00 each (Changed conditions of map approval) Medical Cannabis Cooperatives or Collectives(R22458) Application Fee(full reimbursement of costs to administer) 7,500.00 deposit Appeal Fee(full reimbursement of costs to administer) 750.00 deposit Mural Permit(R23613) 1,872.00 Notification Charges Planning Commission Only 436.18 Planning Commission and City Council 872.36 Park Fees In-Lieu of Dedication15 Quimby Park Act Plan Checking Fees—Planning(see Plan Check Fees—Planning for additional charges) The following fee may be added to any plan requiring Planning Division reviews. Single-family residential(total building area:) 1,200—2,000 sq.ft. 347.00 2,001—4,000 sq.ft. 417.00 4,001—6,000 sq.ft. 508.00 Over 6,000 sq.ft. 741.00 Commercial/Multi—R Family—less than 1 acre 857.00 Commercial/Planned Developments,etc.—1 to 5 acres 1,240.00 Commercial/Planned Developments,etc.—over 5 acres 1,653.00 Multi-Family Residents—1 to 5 acres 1,240.00 Multi-family Residents—over 5 acres 1,653.00 Final Landscape/Ext.Lighting(New) 556.00 Planned Development District'(P.C.&C.C.) Application Fee—under 5 acres 180.00 4,178.00 plus notification Application Fee—over 5 acres 180.00 8.346.00 plus notification Comprehensive Fee Schedule 07-01-2015 Page-53- City of Palm Springs a ' Office of the City Clerk P. 0. Box 2743 *�°4arroxN�P, Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 fN CC Cab x U`t y George Henzel a General Delivery tw Santa Maria, CA 93454 E1 �� N .XIE 917 5E 1009 - 0009/02/25 RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED "NABLE TO iORWAR,D , 8C: 92253274343 *2704 01459 08-42 : The Desert sun Certificate of Publication 750 N Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs, CA 92262 R EUIV ED 760-778-45781 Fax 760-778-4731 I T Y OP �A L M S p R I'W, 204 AUG 20 AM 7r 50 State Of California ss: JAMES THQMF$0 i County of Riverside CITY CLERK Advertiser: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS/LEGALS PO BOX 2743 No 1161 •' PALM SPRINGS CA 922632 NOTICE COUNCIL RING CITY OF.PALM SPRINGS APPEAL zF,0ONOrrION,4L USE PERMIT CASE NO 5.0712 CUl 2 SHELL GAS STATION':" 000694981 '• -�2795 NORTH PALM CANYON pRNE NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIVEN .-that the CiN, Council of the Coy of Palm SpAgs,Calffomla,WI I hold a public headngg at ire meefing of Septem- tiet 2, .015 The City Council mee0ng begins at 6:00 pm In ihe4Coire Cth oral City Hall, 32W East TahquI Canyon Way,Pelm Sprigs. he pu ce th �hg to am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United T e of e eann is cons ter an ap- peal 9f 6 Planning Commission's June 10,2015 States and not a party to, or have Interest In this matter. I '.decision to ap rove a Conditional Use Permit for Go Is VousefPto iemode]an d:add floor space at hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared an exishn99 gassfadon la;aIs at 2796 Norih'Palm. ng Z C in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non panel) Ca on Dnve, onetl 1 by of Sprigs Modern Co The appeal was filed mmiftee. in each and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: •wmroM�s.Mrd'. , Newspaper: .The Desert Sun � 8/15/2015 tj I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of EN The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City •.tarot xu Bvawcsa.- of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. -ENVOONMENTAUDETERMINATIQN fT1{is proj•. The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general sect iscalegadcslly�e�zemptlromerivironmenteIre- circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the }�"viegpursuantta�2cuon15ao1(eprClaesl •Ez istin Faaldies of the Caldo, nvi r. ontaI County of Riverside, State of California Case No. "Oda'�ty ActJCE�A). 191236. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION The prO*bd appli6ation floor plan and related I W moms ale av oU mr ou la:review at C Hall between the hhour's of o . a.m.-and acts p.m. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true Mofidflil P gghThursday Plea se contact the o Tice"of me Cny Fledc al app, 323-62to ra you and correct E uted n this 15th day of August, 2015 in would like m'achadule en eppaTit to rewaw iheae dpbdmems a Palm Spri C ifor COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION Resppo�❑ae Hetaring'and/o�ln wmIng beforebthl h a-o Wbrlif top Comments maybe made to the Cm/Council by latter(mr mail orhantl do a )to. James Thompson C0y'_61erk 3200 E.Tahgwtz do in Way. .Palm Spdngs•CA 92262 s Any challenge of;the proposetl prgqea in toad eClarant's Signature may be kmrted to taising only thoselissues raised at 3Ae public heanng descdbetl N this nottce or In wd0ep corresfondance delivered to iha,Clty or `V) alitbr ryryrior o 4he ppublic hearing. (Gwemment Cpd@S ton 850p9tD](2]) Ad poduniy WII16e given at said�heanng tar all 1 (j„ inle7esmtl persons to be heaN Ouesbons regaN 1 }`Y1/) ing3higFase may fie dnectad to David A.Newell, ,I � Assatiate Plenner�at(760)82&324*� n 'TTdp syuda con esta Cana pppprtrtavor lam@ a Is Ld de Palm Springs puege hab�ar ton Felpe Fiddlers,telefono(70) a 82A5 ;ul il Jam@s Tho �rCity Oferk pgublished 3175M5'