The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/2/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (14) �s DATE: October 2, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning and Zoning APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 3.2198 -AN APPLICATION BY JIM REINMUTH FOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 40 X 60 STORAGE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 231 OASIS ROAD, ZONE M-1, SECTION 34. APPEAL An appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Case 3.2198 for the construction of a new 40 x 60 storage building, located at 231 Oasis Road. The applicant is Jim Reinmuth, representing the property owner, Bob Cornish. The City Council may uphold, override or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council should provide staff direction, in the form of a motion, so that a resolution can be prepared for consideration at the next City Council meeting. SUMMARY The Planning Commission, at its August 14, 2002 meeting, approved, by a 7-0 vote, Case 3.2198 for the construction of a 40 x 60 storage building at 231 Oasis Road. The approval was subject to conditions including a requirement that split face colored block be used as the facade of the building to a height of 12 feet with a return acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. BACKGROUND The item was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2002 where the metal building was supported with cosmetic changes and a split face colored block wall,approximately 7 feet high, to be constructed on the front face of the building. The wall was intended to give the building the appearance of not being all metal. The Committee felt that the proposed landscaping and surrounding block wall would provide sufficient screening. The item was again reviewed by the Design Review Committee on August 12, 2002, where the Committee recommended that the split face colored block be raised to a height of 12 feet, to match the height of the roll-up doors. The Committee also recommended that the 12 foot high block wall wrap around the entire building, instead of the just the face. On August 14, 2002, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the metal building without the facade wrapping around the entire building, due to the cost of construction. Instead, the Commission adopted Design Review's cosmetic changes and recommended that the block wall remain at the 12 foot height with a return acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. The Director advised both the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission that approval of the metal building would be a cause for concern. He noted that previous applicants, in this neighborhood and others, were restricted from constructing metal buildings and were required to add architectural features and upgrades to their buildings. In order for both decision making bodies to remain fair and equitable to previous applicants, the Director stated that the recommendations should be consistent with previous decisions. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was received on August 28, 2002. The appeal was filed due to concerns regarding the approval of a pre-fabricated commercial building and that previous applicants who have tried to submit similar projects have been told to upgrade their buildings. Director o lanning and Building City Manager o� ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Notice of review by City Councilmember 3. Planning Commission minutes of August 14, 2002 VICINITYMAP, TRAMVIEW SUNVIEW AV z " M < M LM A 0C 1-1 CC C f BON CO ZO AV CC C:' BON AIR DR CC AV C R C:) E C) LAS fi VEGAS RD > np SITE PL C) VILLA CT CwQ�, , EE .SANTA CATALIN > 19 <�J= JAR 1 RD TO PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY A \CO FX RD SAN CARLOS U SANPp Jj. MEW A z MARCO OLVEDA RD U) RD 5�14,MARC(y FRAN( ALVA DO RD < 40 .RD;� CABRI LO RD 2f 11110 / COFHrTE RD DESI 19f Uj --- GIRAST� RD PC \ t ET uk RACQU CLUB RAC( Cn GLEE 1c) r cr LMA "pz ROCk" CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 3.2198 DESCRIPTION Appeal of Planning Commission approval of APPLICANT Jim Reinmuth Case 3.2198-an application by Jim Reinmuth for architectural approval to construct a 40x60 storage building, located at 231 Oasis Rd.,Zone M-11, Section 34. PALM SF v On City of Palm Springs Ll � M1 City Council ro••.co- 3200 Tah uits Canyon Way Palm Springs,California 2262 C ��,-< P 9 Y Y• 9 9(/FO P, TEL:(760)323-8200 • FAX:(760)323-8207 •Too(760)864,9527 28 August02 Ms. Patricia Sanders City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Ms. Sanders: Pursuant to 94.10.00 of the Zoning Code of the City of Palm Springs, I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on 14 August 02 regarding Case # 3.2198. In over twenty years of architectural approval history within our city, never has a pre-fabricated building of this nature been approved. The City has held a higher bar and it should be adhered to. Many applicants have submitted or attempted to submit similar projects and have been required to upgrade. This has created an excepted standard within our City. The Planning Commission approval of this item is not consistent with that standard. We are again sending a mixed message to developers and property owners. We must be equitable and consistent. Sincerely, (2i Councilmember mydocs/cityofps/cityclerkzoningltr Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 `Vh Y PALA, F S f ` =' City of Palm Springs ry _ Office of the City Clerk e .\°o�torerta`•�• 's 3200 Tahgma Canyon Way • palm Springs.California 92262 —Q�--^ /P/,O TGL.(760)323-8204 • FAX:(760)322-8332 •TDD:(760)864-9527 f i September 6, 2002 Councilmember Chris Mills P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Mr. Mills: RE: Appeal of Palm Springs Planning Commission Decision dated August 14, 2002 Case 3.2198 1 have received your request for appeal for the above-mentioned case. Your Appeal Hearing has been set for October 2, 2002, before the City Council of the City of Palm Sphngs, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way at 7:00 p.m. If you wish to provide any written material to the City Council, to be included in its agenda packet prior to the meeting, please furnish 10 copies to me no later than September 26, 2002. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk cc: Planning Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes j August 14, 2002 Case 3.2198 —Application by Jim Reinmuth for an Architectural Approval to construct a new 40' x 60' storage building to be located at 231 Oasis Road, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Jing Yeo, Assistant Planner, reported that the Design Review group has reconsidered its original recommendation of a metal building and recommends that a blockwall be constructed to the height of the top of the roll-up doors (12') on all four sides of the proposed metal building. Director confirmed that with that recommendation, the building would appear to be split-face block with a metal roof. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Jim Reinmuth, representing the property owner, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the rear setback of the proposed building is a concern as the adjacent property has buildings located on the property line. He stated that he plans to screen the sides of the building with plantings, replace trees in the front to buffer the view, move the garden wall back and add block veneer and gates. He stated that, in his opinion, a massive block facade will not enhance the appearance of the building and would look extremely heavy. He stated that the nature of the building is storage and is not a business with customers coming in and out—that it is intended to be used by the property owner for storage of his own personal vehicles. Commissioner Conrad suggested that the entire facade be clad and a wrap and return in block. Mr. Reinmuth commented that he would need to consult with his client regarding that suggestion. He stated that several of the proposed Conditions of Approval are a concern to him. Commissioner Conrad commented that compromise such as cladding the front of the building and using a masonry return may be reasonable as the City does not want metal buildings to promulgate. Director reported that fully cladding the building is not a structural concern and that the efficiency of the metal roof design is beneficial. He also reported that the two architects present at the Design Review group meeting of August 12, 2002 commented that this is an efficient building design and is far less costly than a block structure. However, he reported that there are projects in plan check and existing buildings at this time for upgraded and embellished metal buildings and that those applicants would have a legitimate complaint if this proposed all-metal building project is approved as submitted and would be a complaint that staff would have trouble defending. He reported that a renovated automotive repair facility lot and an old church are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building, in addition to an all-masonry building on the corner and OMAG machine shop nearby which was recently approved for renovations with similar conditions by the Planning Commission. He also reported that, for the past 10-15 years, the City has required all metal building facades to be upgraded. Director reported that the City has required metal buildings to be architecturally enhanced and that the proposed building is not consistent with past Planning Commission approvals in this area (and City-wide). He stated that, if approved, a number of property owners may question this project and staff would have a difficult time explaining the approval. Commissioner Grence commented that metal buildings are common in the area. 1641 J Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2002 M/S/C (Conrad/Grence 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and: 1. No painting at rear of building (no stripe); 2. Wrought iron fence at front with proposed entry gate; 3. No brick veneer; 4. Split-face, colored block to be added to the facade of the building with a return on the ease and west sides (past doors) acceptable to the Director of Planning & Zoning. Case 5.0908—TTM 30574—PD 276—Application by Architectural Properties for a Final Planned Development District for property located at 772 Prescott Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 10. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner,reported thatthe proposed project was approved by City Council at its June 19, 2002 meeting and that the Design Review group found that the final development plans are consistent with the preliminary Planned Development District plans. He also reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission which included two changes (change of location of garage doors and increased landscaping due to the relocation of some parking area) which were acceptable to the Design Review group. } M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 7-0) to approve as submitted. Case 3.2239—Application by Lawrence Lapham for an Architectural Approval for a single family residence located at 259 Crestview Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. Gabriel Diaz, Planning Technician, reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission and reported that exterior finish will be three-coat plaster finish and two-piece mudded mission roof tile. He reported that, per Design Review group suggestions, the developer has agreed to lower the western elevation by eight inches. Director reported that the developer has agreed to move the house location back to conform with the front set back requirement for the R-1-C Zone after dedication. M/S/C (Matthews/Conrad 7-0)to approve subject to Conditions of Approval, including moving the house five feet to provide a 25 foot setback after dedication. MISCELLANEOUS: DISCUSSION —Gene Autry Trail & Interstate 10 Interchange Aesthetics. Director reviewed drawings of proposed designs as reviewed by the joint Public Arts Commission and Planning Commission subcommittee and stated that costs must be kept within budget, maintenance, and safety parameters for the Caltrans project but that the goal is to have a distinctly "Palm Springs" design statement to the interchange to differentiate it from other Coachella Valley interchange areas. He stated that the design team is still working on ground features and iyA7 OF PALM S 10 City of Palm Springs e City Council 3200 Tahqui[z Canyon Way•Palm Springs,CahFania 92262 I FO?NW- ''TEL:(760)323-8200 • FAX (760)323-8207 •TDD(760)86479527 28 August 02 Ms. Patricia Sanders City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Ms. Sanders: Pursuant to 94.10.00 of the Zoning Code of the City of Palm Springs, I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on 14 August 02 regarding Case # 3.2198. In over twenty years of architectural approval history within our city, never has a pre-fabricated building of this nature been approved. The City has held a higher bar and it should be adhered to. Many applicants have submitted or attempted to submit similar projects and have been required to upgrade. This has created an excepted standard within our City. The Planning Commission approval of this item is not consistent with that standard. We are again sending a mixed message to developers and property owners. We must be equitable and consistent. Sincerely, T1� LL-' Chris S. Mills Councilmember mydocs/cityofps/cityclerkzoningltr Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 City of Palm Springs y 1 x ' Office of the City Clerk 3200 Tahgwa Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262 AN TEL (760)323-8204 •PAX:(760)322-8332 •TDD:(760)864-9527 q� F 0 0A September 6, 2002 Councilmember Chris Mills P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Mr. Mills: RE: Appeal of Palm Springs Planning Commission Decision dated August 14, 2002 Case 3.2198 1 have received your request for appeal for the above-mentioned case. Your Appeal Hearing has been set for October 2, 2002, before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way at 7:00 p.m. If you wish to provide any written material to the City Council, to be included in its agenda packet prior to the meeting, please furnish 10 copies to me no later than September 26, 2002. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk cc: Planning Post Office Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 /