Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/08/25 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall August 25, 1982 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 2 1 Hugh Curtis X 3 0 Darel Harris X 3 0 Hugh Kaptur X 3 0 Peter Koetting X 3 0 Don Lawrence - 2 1 Paul Madsen X 2 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary L. Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - August 23, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman David Hamilton Earl Neel Hugh Curtis Hugh Kaptur Absent: Peter Koetting & James Cioffi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the July 28, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Page 5, paragraph 9 (Cases 5.0136-PD-111 & 5.0185-PD-132), add within motion in parenthesis (Kaptur abstained) . Page 9, last paragraph, (Case 5.0233-PD-113-A) change "Commission suggested" to "Commissioner Harris suggested . . . " 10 August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 Page 12, paragraph 4 (Case 5.0227-CUP), add the following conditions: 1. That the existing oleander hedge on the eastern, western and southern boundaries of the site be retained at a height of not less than six feet. 2. That the court be sunken a minimum of four feet. Page 14, paragraph 7 (Cases 5.0229-CUP & 6.326-Variance) , change "presently very busy intersection" to "the City's busiest intersection." Page 18, paragraph 3 (Case 5.0239-MISC) , change "Commission discussed . . . " to "Commissioner Harris stated . . . " NOTE: The Tribal Council did not meet during the month of August; therefore, there are no Tribal Council recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0230-CUP. Application by P. PICCHIONE for a CUP for a tennis court on Avenida Olivos between Tachevah Drive/El Alameda, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. . (This action is categorically exempt from EA, per CEQA guidelines; final action.) Planning Director presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action. He noted that several letters from neighbors had been received in support of the application although staff recommends denial. He stated that if the Commission approved the project, staff finding No. 2 would have to be revised; that if the applicant eliminates the typical ten foot fence, the intrusion of the mass would be lessened or if the court were sunk, would eliminate the need for a high fence. Discussion followed on setbacks of the court. Chairman declared the hearing open. P. Picchione, 968 Olivos, the applicant, requested approval stating that he had the support of the neighbors; that the house covers a part of three lots which makes the lot sizes unique; and that the tennis court is the best use of the land. Discussion ensued on the fencing of the court. D. Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon Drive, architect, requested approval stating that only staff has concerns, not the neighbors; that . the north/south orientation of the court is the best one, but a diagonal orientation could be built if necessary; that the applicant is willing to sink the court; that no elements will be visible from the street; and that two fences are unreasonable. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 Case 5.0230 (Cont'd. ) There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the substandard size of the lot and proposed landscaping. Planning Director stated that it could not be subdivided without a variance; that there is a precedent for landscape-type of fencing in the City, but not within four feet of an adjoining property. Discussion continued on the orientation of the court and whether or not it should be fenced or sunken. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Curtis abstained; Harris dissented; Lawrence absent) approving Case 5.0320-CUP subject to the following conditions: 1. That the court be oriented north/south. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That an eight foot fence be erected and the corners be cut. 4. That a vine type of material be used on the eight foot fence. 5. That additional plantings be placed within the four foot area • between the court and the property lines to hide the fence. Chairman stated that abstentions by the Commissioners must be declared when the agenda item is called and that the conflict must be stated. NOTE: Commissioner Harris stated that he dissented because the court was not sunken. CASE 5.0240-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the Zoning Text for revisions to hotel parking requirements City-wide. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Planning Director reviewed the history of the revisions to hotel parking and stated that it has been found that hotel parking needs are approximately one-half of current parking requirements; that revisions were made to the employee parking and meeting room requirements with no changes to parking for hotels, restaurants, bars or dining rooms in hotels. He discussed the ratio of rooms to parking spaces and noted that number 5.A on page six of the staff report (on file in the Department of Community Development) has been changed to read "a maximum of 30 sq. ft. of the above ancillary facilities will be allowed per each guest room without additional parking being assessed. " August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • Case 5.0240-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on open space deficiencies (which staff had not referenced in the staff report) . Chairman stated that the Ordinance addresses new hotels; and that existing facilities would be individually addressed regarding open space. Commissioner Madsen stated that in the study session of July 21, the Commission felt that non-asphalt parking might be investigated. Discussion continued on the concept of non-asphalt parking, its utilization, and ratio of open space to parking. Planning Director stated that the case had not been noticed for revisions to hotel standards on open space and that additional studies and public hearings would be necessary if such a revision were proposed. Discussion then ensued on designation of hotel employee parking areas and ancillary service facilities on hotel sites. Planning Director stated that separated restaurants are calculated for parking as a typical restaurant use. Further discussion followed on hotel employee parking at the Sheraton Plaza Hotel, especially regarding street parking. Planning Director stated that employee parking is difficult to monitor. In answer to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that parking at the Canyon Hotel would be reviewed by staff for a report at the September 8 meeting. . Chairman declared the hearing open. v D. Christian, 1000 South Palm Canyon Drive, stated that he was in favor of any concept which allowed more developable land, and the use of valet parking and designated employee parking are viable concepts. Planning Director stated that restaurants in hotels would be part of the reduced standards and that there is a possibility that dual use parking for separated restaurants and hotels could be investigated and would be within the purview of the Commission to review. He noted that no survey had been done on who was parking on the street after five p.m. A. Nigro, General Manager of the Sheraton Plaza Hotel, complimented staff on its report and stated that the .75 ratio would not be needed except in the middle of the season although the ratio is an improvement over the current standards. He requested that restaurant parking in hotels be reviewed since a good ratio, in his opinion, would be one space for five diners or an allowance for tandem parking; that he had no statistics on the number of cars per hotel room at the Sheraton, and noted that he did not know if it were legal to force employees to park in a designated area except for the areas directly around the hotel which is done now. Discussion followed on the estimation of the number of employees at a given time at the hotel and the ratio for determining the number of employee parking spaces. Planning Director stated that the .75 ratio . has been determined by staff to be the most logical. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 Case 5.0240-ZTA (Cont'd. ) Discussion continued on reduction of hotel restaurant parking and the parking advantage this might give to other restaurants. Mr. Nigro suggested that 30 sq. ft. of public space was not adequate for conventions and possibly should be doubled. Discussion followed on employee parking and current standards for ancillary uses. Planning Director stated that he would, within the next two weeks, meet with the Sheraton Plaza Manager and the Chamber of Commerce relative to ancillary parking. Mr. Nigro stated that he would try to provide the Commission with the hotel 's research department statistics for parking on new projects although he felt that the statistics would be varied according to a hotel 's location, type of use, etc. He stated that no hotel can be successful that has high occupancy only two days a week and they were interested in increasing their convention and meeting space in order to sell more rooms. He stated they would not sell meeting space to outside groups during the busy season. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Lawrence absent; Kaptur dissented) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative • Declaration, tentative approval of Case 5.00240-ZTA and continuation of further action to the September 8 meeting. CASE 6.327-VARIANCE & CASE 3.514. Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for T. Stykes for a variance from rear yard setback requirement for renovation of a single family residence at 2321 Araby Drive, R-IB Zone, Section 25. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. Final action on variance and architectural case. ) Planner III presented the staff report including findings, recommendation and direction for Commission action and discussed pool setback requirements, the proposed six foot perimeter wall and a Commission concern that the existing plantings obstruct the view. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Scarlett, 2360 Smokewood, property owner south of the project, voiced concerns of obstruction of view; numerous violations of setbacks in the Araby Tract because of its long existence; and suggested the possibility of moving the proposed residence forward into the front setback since the adjoining homes are in the front setbacks. Planning Director explained that on hillside lots, the front setbacks • can be modified to ten feet under an administrative minor modification. He stated that one of the areas of concern was the pitched roof, but that it would not create substantial view blockage and that there would be some view blockage with or without a variance. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 Case 6.327-Variance & Case 3.514 (Cont'd. ) G. Hough, 2330 Smokewood, voiced concerns relative to the view blockage, especially in the rear where an extension is proposed. Planner III stated that the extension is a screen wall for privacy. Discussion continued on the proposed screen wall. Mr. Hough stated that he had applied for a variance when he built to lessen blockage of his neighbors' view but that there had been no interaction between the applicant and the neighbors. Planner III suggested that the architect be contacted for a compromise in the roof design to keep the view unobstructed. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planner III stated that there was an error in the staff report and that the building extension would come within five feet of the rear property line. Discussion followed on the color of the addition. A Commission request was made that in the future, the diagram in the public hearing notices show both existing and proposed construction for clarity. Discussion followed on whether or not there was a basis for the • variance. Commission was divided in opinion. Discussion continued on W the obstruction of the view and the roof pitch. Commission discussed whether action should be taken in two motions. Assistant City Attorney stated that action on both the architectural case and the variance are before the Commission but that a restudy would be for architectural approval and that a motion should be made to return the architecture to the applicant for restudy and then returned to the Commission on a specific date and the application for a variance continued to that same date. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained) for a restudy in order for the applicant to meet with his neighbors to discuss their concerns and to lower or redesign the roof line; and to continue both the variance and the architectural case to the September 8, 1982 meeting. CASE 6.329-VARIANCE & CASE 3.513. Application by E. HORENSTEIN & D. LOWMAN for a variance from setback requirement to allow construction of carports on Calle Palo Fierro between Twin Palms Drive/Laverne Way, R-TP Zone, Section 26. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. Final action on variance and architectural case. ) Chairman explained that there was a noticing error on the application and that staff would renotice but will take testimony of anyone in the audience wishing to speak. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 Case 6.329-Variance & Case 3.513 (Cont'd. ) Assistant City Attorney stated that discussion of the item would be a break from policy but that testimony can be taken with a summary prepared for the September 8 meeting so persons in attendance will know what the Commission is taking into consideration. Planning Director stated that there was no staff report because of the noticing error in which the notices were sent to property addresses not mailing addresses in some instances and that for several years the homeowners association has been working with staff to find a method of constructing carports on the property because of setback and other problems since there are fairly massive intrusions into the front yard setbacks for carports. He stated that there were problems with units on City streets and that staff did not know whether the construction of the carports can be supported although the application is proper. Chairman declared the hearing open. E. Horenstein, 2015 Palo Fierro, the applicant, stated that he had driven many miles to represent the homeowners in their application for carports and then had been told that there had been irregularities in the noticing, but that he would come back on September 8; that the homeowners want the application to be correct; and that he would postpone his presentation to the next meeting. R. Hohenstein, representing Canyon South II, located on Palo Fierro, stated that the street narrows into an alley-type of street with overhanging oleanders which encroach into the street; that if carports are allowed, they will further encroach upon Calle Palo Fierro; that the street would be widened when the old mobilehome park is razed; and presented a letter from M. Andresen of Laverne Way who is out of town, but is protesting the carport application since he feels it will not be sensitive to the high standards of the area. Mr. Hohenstein requested that the homeowners concerns be addressed and stated that summer is an inappropriate time for a hearing since many of the residents are out of town. He stated that he felt that he would not have to attend the September 8 meeting to express his views since he was now presenting them. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman continued the application for further review and action to the September 8 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS G. McMillan, 2160 Broadmoor, requested that the Commission consider rezoning a two and one-half block area south of Vista Chino between Indian Avenue and North Palm Canyon Drive from R-3 to C-1 to allow more shops which would upgrade the area since much of the property is vacant. A. Belohlavek, architect for EQUITEC 80, stated that he was present to answer questions. (Case 3.506)• August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd.) R. George, Imperial Sign Company, explained that his clients at the Riviera Hotel want a high degree of visibility for the hotel attraction board; that they want it raised to prevent vandalism; that the sign has been reduced in size and in letters so that the letters are of minimal visibility; and that the AAC recommended even a smaller sign and also desire line drawings of the sign. Mr. George stated that in reference to the Union Oil Company sign, the whole situation is confusing since the sign meets the ordinance requirements and that the company desires a firm action by the Commission at this meeting. A. Ariza, applicant in Case 3.522, stated that the project has been recommended for approval by the AAC and staff and that he was present to answer questions. The following persons stated that they were present to answer questions: D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive (Case 5.0201-PD-135) . E. Noia, applicant for sign application for Case 5.0228-CUP. C. Dunham, 339 Vereda Norte, applicant for TTM 16495. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: SIGN APPLICATION. Application by TAHQUITZ PROPERTIES for the Heritage Bank for architectural approval of main sign for bank at 901 Tahquitz- McCallum Way between Calle Alvarado and Avenida Caballeros, C-1-AA Zone (I.L.), Section 14. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Madsen CASE 3.368. Application by J. WALLING for J. Murphy for architectural approval of revised elevations and materials for office/light manufacturing/storage building on Valdivia Way between Tachevah Dr./Chia Rd. , M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Approved as submitted. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 SIGN APPLICATION (Ref. 5.0228-CUP). Application by E. NOIA for architectural approval of main sign with landscaping for condominium complex at 250 W. Vista Chino between N. Palm Canyon Dr./Via Norte, R-3 Zone, Section 3. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.521 (Minor) . Application by RAMADA INN for architectural approval of revised colors for hotel at 1177 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 & R-1 Zones, Section 10. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.523 (Minor) . Application by DEEPWELL RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for architectural approval of enclosure of balcony at 1276 Otono Drive, Deepwell Ranch, PD-10, Section 25. (Ref. Case 2.815) Approved as submitted. NOTE: Alterations of this type are only acceptable on the interior elevations. CASE 5.0188-CUP. Application by H. HUPE for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for restaurant on East Palm Canyon Drive/Calle Palo fierro, R-3 Zone, Section 23. • Conditions: 1. That walkways to the immediate west of the building be eliminated. 2. That the trash enclosure be screened by landscaping. 3. That details of the roof vents be submitted for staff approval. TENTATIVE TRACT & PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following maps based on the finding that the proposed subdivision; together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16495. Application by ERVIN ENGINEERING for C. G. Dunham for subdivision of land to construct 11 single family hillside lots on South Palm Canyon Drive, between Cahuilla Hills Dr./Murray Canyon Dr. , R-2 Zones (I.L. ), Section 34. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 5.0136-PD-111.) . Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving TTM 16495 subject to the following conditions: August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 TTM 16495 (Cont'd. ) 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all mitigative measures identified in the EIR for PD-111 be implemented. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17082 (Ref. 3.473) . Application by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for M. Whitebook for approval of phasing plan only for subdivision of land to allow construction of residential condominiums on property bounded by E1 Segundo, Amado, Alvarado, and Andreas Rds, R-4 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 3.473. ) Discussion ensued on the improvements required for Phase I and their implementation. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving a phasing plan only for TTM 17082 subject to the following condition: • That Phase I improvements include complete street improvements adjacent to the phase plus curbs, gutters, and half street for the Amado Road and Andreas Road frontages. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SECOND TIME EXTENSION-TTM 15493. Request by D. H. WHITE for DPD Development Co. for a second 12-month time extension for a subdivision of land east of S. Palm Canyon Drive, south of Bogert Trail at the south City limits boundary, W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving a second 12-month time extension for TTM 15493 subject to the original conditions of approval with the following additional notes: 1. That a soils report be required for the proposed site prior to approval of a grading plan. (To be submitted to the Building & Engineering Divisions. ) 2. That the proposed subdivision map be subject to the conveyance or elimination of various title encumbrances (copy of the current title report to be submitted to the Engineering Division with the final map and prior to its consequent approval) . August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 TIME EXTENSION-TTM 17513. Request by HACKER ENG. for D. Wong for a 12-month time extension for a subdivision of land for condominium purposes on the southwest corner of Camino Parocela between Cerritos Dr./Sunrise Way, R-G-A (8) & W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving a second 12-month time extension for TTM 17513 subject to all original conditions of approval and with the following additional notes: 1. That school impact fees will be applicable. 2. That recorded deeds of trust recorded as instruments Nos. 53306 & 149872 may encumber portions of Tract 17513 and create unrecognized lots. If this is the case, the record document shall be either eliminated or reconveyed to conform to the proposed tract boundary. (A copy of the document to be submitted to the Engineering Division.) NOTE: Planning Director stated that there are two tentative maps on the same piece of property and the applicant wished to keep his map current in case the Trenchard golf course project is abandoned. DISCUSSION - ANNUAL REPORT. PLANNING COMMISSION adoption of annual report for fiscal year 1981-82. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) certifying the annual report as complete and recommending it to the City Council . NOTE: On page 81, the date should be December 16, 1981, not 1982. DETERMINATION 10.326. PLANNING COMMISSION determination that catering be allowed in the C-B-D zone. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that the request for a determination had arisen after a discussion of catering as a secondary use for a proposed delicatessen in the C-B-D Zone, and since determinations are applied zone-wide, it has been brought to the Planning Commission. He stated that if catering is an allowable secondary use, the Commission could take action, but if a primary use, staff would recommend continuance for further review. Discussion followed on placing the determination on the study session agenda of September 15. Assistant City Attorney stated that he would have comments at that time regarding catering as a secondary use. • The item was continued to the September 15 study session. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 3.386. Application by VACO DEVELOPERS for architectural approval of minor site plan revisions and landscape plans for 66-unit condominium complex on San Rafael Dr. between Virginia Rd./Indian Ave. , R-2 Zone, Section 3. Discussion ensued on the restricted internal circulation plan. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and carried (Lawrence absent; Koetting & Service dissented) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.496 (Minor). Application by UNITED PARCEL SERVICE for revised elevations for modular unit to be added to existing building on Commercial Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Chairman stated that he would like to see graphics on the proposal . Planning Director stated that the project is not visible because of the oleanders. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Lawrence absent; Kaptur abstained; Service dissented) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.506. Application by EQUITEC 80 for architectural approval of revised elevations for business park on Bogie Road west of San Joaquin Drive and north of Mission Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 18. Commission discussed the revisions at length. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That staff review the final plans. 2. That downspouts be added to drain the roof for staff approval. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0201-PD-135. Application by D. CHRISTIAN for Jewish Community Center for architectural approval of a portion of final development plans on the center bounded by Alejo Road, Vine, Chino Drive and Cahuilla Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. D. Christian, architect, explained that the windows are placed at right angles to the louvers with the materials as yet unresolved. He noted that a prominant artist, who is a member of the Temple, will probably design the stained glass in a simple design. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent; Madsen abstained) subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY for the Union Oil Co. for architectural approval of revised sign at gasoline station at 301 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner III presented the sign on the display board. Discussion followed on the architectural integrity of the sign. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Madsen for approval based on the buttress matching the shape of the column structures on the existing station, use of a white background, and deletion of the small logos. Discussion followed on the configuration of the sign and the appropriateness of the monument base rather than a pylon base. Planning Director gave a brief history of the sign which was at one time at a height above the canopy. Commissioner Kaptur withdrew his motion. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the sign subject to the following conditions: 1. That the two small logos be removed. 2. That all copy be as submitted. 3. That the can be blue. 4. That a monument base be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CASE 3.487. Application by D. HAMILTON for W. Lansdale for architectural approval of landscape plans and tennis court for a single family residence on a private road in an 0-20 Zone, Section 25. Planner III presented the tennis court and landscape plans on the display board. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.522 (Minor) . Application by M. ALCHIAN for architectural aprpoval of master bedroom addition to existing residence at 2223 Araby Drive, R-1 Zone, Section 25. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That staff approve the colors of the addition. CASE 3.399 (Minor) . Application by H. LAPHAM for the Boys' Club for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for a natatorium ( indoor swimming pool) at 450 S. Sunrise Way, 0 Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that the proposed revisions were less expensive. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for the Hilton Riviera Hotel for architectural approval of revised plans for a free-standing attraction board for the hotel on the northeast corner of Vista Chino/North Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Planner III described the sign on the display board. Discussion followed on the aesthetic value of the sign, the thought given to it originally, its placement on the building, the possibility of using a monument sign, and whether or not a mockup should be constructed for review before any action is taken. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) for a restudy of the sign with a direction taken toward a monument sign. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 3.517 (Minor). Application by LOUISE'S PANTRY RESTAURANT for archi- tectural approval of revised plans for awnings at 124 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D zone, Section 15. Planner III presented the awning plans on the display board. Discussion followed on retention of the original wood sign over the threshold and the canvas material of the awning not being in keeping with the area. Commission opinion was divided in this respect since some of the Commissioners felt the sign material was in keeping with the area as long as it was properly maintained. Further discussion followed on the appropriateness of an awning on Palm Canyon Drive. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Lawrence absent; Harris dissented) approving the awning as submitted (a light beige color). The Commission directed staff to review the possibility of saving the cut-out wood letter sign which was felt to have historic merit. CASE 3.411. Application by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of revised plans for a visitor information center for the Palm Springs • Chamber of Commerce on South Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner III described plans for the visitor information center on the display board. Discussion ensued on the aesthetics of the center in relation to the old Plaza. Commissioner Kaptur felt it was like putting a wart on Bo Derek's nose. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried (Lawrence absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the arches be constucted to the same depth as the adjoining arches in the "Plaza. " 2. That the corner element be thickened. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 3.265. Application by L. WINTERS for Palm Springs Airpark for archi- tectural approval of revised elevations for light industrial park adjacent to the airport, east of Farrell Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Continued to September 8 at the applicant' s request. CASE 3.516 (Minor) . Application by CREATIVE DESIGN for Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream for architectural approval of revisions to a store front at 110 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued to September 8 at the applicant's request. CASE 3.508 (Minor) . Application by THE AMERICAN NETWORK for architectural approval of revised landscpe plans for dish antenna for Hotel 7 Springs on E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26. Continued to September 8 at the applicant's request. ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda • pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18785 & CASE 3.511. Application by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC. for the Racquet Club of Palm Springs for subdivision of land and architectural approval of case to allow construction of condominiums on the northwest corner of Racquet Club Road/Indian Avenue, R-2 Zone, Section 3. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 3.215; final action on map and architectural case. ) Restudy of the site plan for a more varied layout and for the general architecture to be further refined. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by R. HAMMONDTREE for Goodyear Tire Center for architectural approval of revision to main sign at 296 South Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone ( I.L. ) , Section 14. Restudy for the letters to have a raised relief and for submission of accurate elevations and details of the composed sign. August 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Chairman stated that Mr. Curtis will replace Mr. Kaptur on the AAC as the Planning Commission representative and requested that the Commissioners think about candidates for an alternate and standing member of the AAC. - Video Arcade Ordinance. Planning Director stated that the Ordinance will probably be on the Planning Commission Agenda of September 22 and that the Assistant City Attorney will be reviewing action to be taken on the arcade which is attempting to do business on Arenas. Chairman requested that the secondary use definition be defined. (Case 5.0245- ZTA) Illegal signs. Staff was directed to investigate signs on the northwest corner of Palm Canyon Drive and Arenas Road on the second floor. - Planning Commission conference. Commissioner Koetting stated that the American Planning Association Conference would be in Anaheim on September 19 - 22 at the Disneyland Hotel . Planning Director stated that he would review the literature on the conference. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/mi WP