The Palm Springs City Council denied an appeal Wednesday evening for a proposed 715-square-foot building addition at a former gas station at 1100 South Palm Canyon Dr., following an extensive hearing that highlighted tensions between development requirements and the challenges facing small property owners.
The council voted 4-1, with Councilmember David Ready voting no, to uphold staff’s denial of Joseph Pranevicius’ appeal regarding conditions of approval for his project at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive. Pranevicius, through attorney Eve Brackmann, had sought removal of most conditions attached to the city planning director’s July 2024 approval of the minor architectural application.
The proposed addition would be constructed beneath an existing non-conforming shade canopy at the former gas station property. Staff had attached numerous conditions including requirements for off-street parking compliance, trash enclosures, right-of-way dedications, and various street improvements.
During discussion of the appeal, Ready acknowledged the broader policy implications, noting the property has been vacant for over 20 years and the project represents the first owner who’s come forward to redevelop it.
“These are the things that create barriers for even minor improvements to occur,” Ready said, citing costs like a $7,000 encroachment permit for an existing canopy structure. “If this doesn’t happen, this building will sit here for a long, long time, I suspect, and it will continue to be a blighting influence.”
The case drew extensive discussion about whether city requirements are proportional to small development projects. Brackmann argued many conditions lacked sufficient nexus to the project’s scope, particularly a required 10-foot right-of-way dedication along South Palm Canyon Drive.
Principal City Planner Ken Lyon defended the conditions, explaining the project would significantly disrupt on-site vehicular circulation and require parking lot redesign. “We need an actual site plan that is drawn” with proper dimensions and engineering specifications, Lyon said.
Engineering staff noted they had already offered substantial concessions, including waiving parking lot lighting requirements, reducing parking space dimensions, and deferring numerous off-site improvements. However, core issues remained around parking compliance, encroachment permits, and basic infrastructure requirements.
Councilmember Grace Garner criticized the applicant’s approach, saying “staff has bent over backwards to work on this project, and the applicant has not been operating in good faith.” Councilmember Jeffrey Bernstein agreed, noting staff “have waived every possible requirement that they can.”
The appeal process itself became contentious when Brackmann requested a continuance due to a trial conflict, which city staff denied after multiple previous postponements. The Architectural Review Committee had previously denied the appeal March 17 in the applicant’s absence.
Ready initially attempted to continue the hearing to allow further negotiations between the applicant and staff, but the motion failed for lack of a second. The council then voted to deny the appeal and uphold the planning director’s conditioned approval.
