Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/12/08 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall 04 December 8, 1982 1:30 p.m. F-Y 1982 - 1983 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 9 1X 10 0 Hugh Curtis X 8 2 Darel Harris X g 1 Hugh Kaptur X 9 1 Peter Koetting X 8 2 Don Lawrence X 8 2 Paul Madsen Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Stephen Graham, Planner II Dudley Hemphill , Traffic Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - December 6, 1982 • Larry Lapham, Chairman Earl Neel James Cioffi Peter Koetting Chris Mills Hugh Curtis David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the November 10, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: There being no Tribal Council meeting on December 7, there were no Tribal Council comments. 0 December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0231-PD-139. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a planned development district to allow construction of three affordable housing projects on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/extension of Tramview Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue Case 5.0231-PD-139 to the December 22 meeting for response from the State Clearinghouse regarding environmental concerns. Planning Director gave a brief history of the project and discussed the site plan on the display board. He stated that the architecture was not defined at the present time but would probably be similar to the nearby Temple project in appearance. Commissioner Harris requested that the study session notes of November 17 be sent to the Commission since a portion of that session addressed the subject case. Commissioner Koetting requested that the architect design elevations which differ from the Temple project for the phase near Palm Canyon Drive. • hearingn declare the ued hearing Decemb open; er 22there for being response appearances, ro r s, the from the State Clearinghouse. shhould differssion consensus from that of theas that the adjacent Temple projectre of the project t. PUBLIC CON14ENTS None * * * * * ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. ADDED STARTER - CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009. Application by B. LEUNG for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for moderate cost residential condominiums on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L.) , Section 14. . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received.) December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 • CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that the application had been sent back for a restudy of both the architecture and site plan that some ng commission concerns; that the AAC had recommended app isi had been made although the number and size of the units remain as were originally proposed; that Commission concerns such as monotony of the elevations, driveways, distance of parking from the units, and open space have been addressed; that the AAC reviewed the project at its December 6 meeting and recommended approval of the site plan with a restudy of the elevations giving specific instructions to the applicant which the applicant has since addressed but which has not been reviewed by the AAC; and that the revisions should be reviewed by the AAC before Commission action is taken. Discussion followed on the concerns of the Commission which had been addressed by the applicant in the newest revision. P. Selzer, attorney, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has attempted to address commission concerns; that the AAC has requested review of the revisions since they were prepared after the December 6 meeting; that the elevations had been shown some members of the AAC who hve remarked that the revisions addressed AAC concerns. He requested that if the revisions meet that with Planning Commission approval, the project be approved the applicant can proceed with it and explained the correct site plan of the • four plans on the display board. Chairman stated that the alley-look of the Hermosa Drive frontage had been revised and was more sensitive than the original proposal . Commissioner Madsen stated that the AAC should review the revisions before action is taken by the Commission although he had no problem with taking action on the tract map. Commissioner Koetting stated that he had attended the AAC meeting and the major concern of the AAC was the plaster archway with the other condition of approval for submission of working drawings. Chairman stated that there were three items to be addressed: 1) filing of the Negative Declaration; 2) action on the map; and 3) architectural elevations and site plan. He stated that all three need not be approved. In answer to a question by Commissioner Curtis, Planning Director stated that staff is reviewing leasehold interests in Section 14 and has discussed the Commission's concerns from the November 17 study session with the rib have beenT made andnitl would beconsultant hmonths at no specific ar report recommendations can be developed. • Commissioner Harris stated that the carport location and the type of trash encltrash enclooureelocations will be resolved wth0final odevelopment plans. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 3.520 & TTM 14009 (Cont'd.) Commissioner Kaptur stated that the parking problem seemed to be resolved. Motion was made by Koetting and seconded by Lawrence ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving the map and tentatively approving the elevations and site plan subject to AAC review of the revised plans at its December 20 meeting. Discussion followed on the type of action to be taken since the AAC has not seen the revisions. Commissioner Koetting withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. Planning Director stated that the direction given by the Commission to the applicant was helpful and if the architectural portion is returned to the AAC, the applicant has the necessary direction and will not be delayed. Commissioner Madsen stated that the Commission has given direction but the AAC should not be overridden. Discussion continued on the type of action and Commission concerns. Chairman stated that he hoped that the clean line of the project would not be marred by drain spouts, exterior ladders, and other mechanical • appurtenances; that the elevations seemed to be long and monotonous or hidden by vegetation; that the project needs more imagination; and that the only concern of his that was addressed was more sensitivity to the parking lot. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Curtis dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration, approval of the map, and returning the architectural portion (site plan and elevations) to the AAC on December 20 for review of modifications presented at the December 8 meeting. The architectural approval application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 22. CASE 3.512. Application by W. VEITH for F. Matijasich for architectural approval of revised plans for single family residence on Southridge Drive between Tiger Tail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-C Zone, Section 25 (Ref. Case 6.330-Variance) . (Environmental assessment & tentative approval . ) Planning Director discussed the history of the project. He stated that the original variance request for height was denied by the Commission; that staff feels that the applicant still has a height problem although the architecture has been revised addressing concerns of the AAC and the Commission; that the Building & Safety Director has stated that he would override the Health Department and app regardingtictank system; stem;. that nothing has been received from the applicant of the hillside by the roadway but the applicant has indicated that with cut and fill and rock retaining walls, the appearance would be improved December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 3.512 (Cont'd.) since the he also intends to clean up the debris dumped on the site; that the item had been placed on the agenda for a determination whether a variance was still necessary; that staff would recommend scarring problems Commission find that a variance is necessary; that still exist although the septic tank issue seems to be resolved at the present time; that the variance would be for height in one minor area of the house; and that the City will assume responsibility for the allowance of a septic tank as it has on other sites in the area. He explained that, in one instance, the house would be 34 feet high from existing grade and the applicant's solution to the height was to fill that area, thus raising the pad height. He stated that any fill necessary because of the topography would result in a major fill slope; that the lot was not considered a building site when Southridge was approved but the applicant felt that the site showed potential ; that staff recommended that the house be placed on another portion of the site but that the view site was in the house's present location and was what the applicant chose; that the height variance had been denied by the Commission; that staff felt that the house should be redesigned to address the height issue; and that the AAC had recommended approval although one member had dissented. Discussion followed on the terrace area; amount of fill ; scarring caused by the driveway; and the proposed pad site. Planning Director showed the topography on a model and explained that the building height was • determined by measuring from the adjacent grade; height did not obstruct the neighbor's vie space generallly, and that the Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt height on a hillside should be reviewed on an individual basis; that staff was being bureaucratic on the height limit for the subject house when perhaps staff did not like the design and should state that; that he questioned whether or not the design was compatible with the hillside, but that the height should not be a major issue; that the road should be concealed although it would be difficult to do so; that the property was considered "not a part" of the Southridge Subdivision, and is considered a legal lot and the practice of uilizing "not a part parcels has generally been eliminated in the past four or five years by the State Map Act; and that the applicant is not asking to divide the property, just use it. He read from the Building Height portion of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the key to building height is determined from natural grade; that there is the ability of the Commission to say that the height is measured in a logical place; that he felt that houses should not be built oversize for their pads since there is a built-in variance for 15 feet of height; and that the height on the subject residence was exceeded not because of the e terrain but because of the design, and that there are no app p riat grounds for a variance which was stated at the meeting in which the variance was denied. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the Commission's powers • fall in a discretionary mode rather than a variance mode since the Commission reviews a project and if it feels that the height is within reason, it is a dicretionary decision; that in the subject case, the height limit is not on the skyline and would not be very visible but that the overall design is the problem since the residence seems too large for the location and creates a large mass. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 3.512 (Cont'd. ) Commission consensus was that the action will be on the residence's compatibilty with the site and that scarring is an issue as well. Planning Director read the motion from the Minutes of September 22. Chairman stated that although the Commission had requested a restudy, the elevations looked the same. W. Veith, 4777 Eagle Way, the architect, stated that he felt that the restudy of materials and the grading against the house changed its appearance; that his recollection of the intent of the restudy was different; that the AAC had accepted the house with the balcony; that dimensions were altered and materials revised to be more compatible with the hillside since the stone work will be the same color as the site and the house will settle into the hillside; that he had questioned staff on the height problems and because of staff's comments, felt that the height was not an issue and therefore he had not requested a variance; that the roadway sections had been submitted to the Planning Division; that the materials used would allow the house to blend into the hillside; that the AAC had recommended approval and felt the house was done in an acceptable manner; and that although one corner of the house is over the height limit, he felt it was not an issue from the comments at the last meeting. Discussion followed on the materials, colors, and orientation of the house. Commissioner Kaptur stated that one side of the house is a • totally different concept from the other. Chairman stated that he would not accept an exhibit from the podium on the entrance to the residence. Commissioner Harris stated that the exhibit was in answer to his question relative to the visibility of the roadway columns which were important and should be on the display board. Chairman stated that the exhibit would be excluded if there is a vote on the project. Commissioner Harris replied that the architect stated that he had submitted several drawings of the element which were not displayed and that the element has been questioned by several Commissioners. Planning Director stated that he did not know the type of road sections that were being addressed since there was nothing in the file and the Planner familiar with the case was absent; that he was surprised that Commissioner Kaptur had referred to staff' s being bureaucratic since the Commission had denied the height variance at its October 22 meeting; that if the Commission wanted to determine a different point of measurement based on the individual case it could; and that the item was on the agenda for review of the height issue, not final review. Chairman stated that the height issue at the previous meeting was paramount, as were the environmental issues; that he was surprised that the City would override the Health Department; that he voted against the variance and would not support the application because of the override • of the Health Department; that he had received calls about a two-story house being built with a 30 foot masonry wall above the old George Hamilton house; and questioned the architect on the reason for building a two-story house. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 3.512 (Cont'd. ) Mr. Veith replied that most houses are designed with the preferences and recommendations of the client in mind and that the house is 6500 sq. ft. which is not overly large for the site. Discussion continued on the narrowness of the roadway (14 feet) . Mr. Veith stated that the client was trying to be sensitive to the site in terms of scarring. F. Matijasich, the owner, questioned staff on the amount of square footage of other homes in Southridge and locations of other cut and fill areas. Chairman cautioned the applicant that the only house being discussed was that of the applicant. Mr. Matijasich stated that he would clean up the debris fill that was deposited on the property from other projects. Commissioner Harris stated that he would not support the application until the effects of the access is shown. Planning Director noted that staff had attempted to find the roadway access plans but none were located. He described the fill area that the applicant would clean up; stated that the applicant should understand the height limit; and that a field trip should be made to the site. Mr. Veith stated that the Southridge Homeowners Association had approved the house and the driveway. • Discussion followed on environmental concerns. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried to continue the application pending staff scheduling of a field trip for staff and Commission to the site. CASE 3.541 & TTM 18979. Application by C. MILLS for Design Assoc. for archi- tectural approval and map approval for a 15-unit condominium project on E1 Cielo Road between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, R-2 Zone, Section 18. (Previously given an environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 5.0100-CUP and Case 3.045. ) Planning Director stated that the project was previously given an environmental assessment in conjunction with Cases 5.0100-CUP and 3.045; that the airport noise did not impact the site, according to the consultant's reports; and that staff would recommend joint access to the adjoining property, including security gates if joint access can be achieved. Discussion followed on the boundaries of the CNEL Noise Contour and the • joint access. Chairman stated that he had had conversations with other Commissioners and the Airport Commission Chairman had asked why projects near the airport are not on the Airport Commission agenda; that he felt that it would be viable to have these types of project reviewed by the Airport Commission since they sometimes involve litigation. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 3.541 & TTM 18979 (Cont'd.) Planning Director explained the parameters of the Airport Noise Contour. He stated that the contour could change as flight numbers decrease or increase or aircraft becomes less noisy or more noisy. Further discussion followed on the parameters. Planning Director stated that the time of day of the noise affects the parameters and that private aircraft noise is not included in the noise contour. He stated gthat input bt saff use to utt tend oaethe nt Cpresent timommittee eetings and to t does no attend regularly at Assistant City Attorney stated that the Municipal Code grants the power of authority to review projects which occur on or adjacent to the airport which would be affected by or would affect airport operations; and that State Law creates an Airport Land Use Commission and requires that the projects nearest to the airport be reviewed by that Commission also. Discussion continued on the gray color proposed by the architect and the blue vertical elements on the front unit. Chris Mills, architect, explained that the element matches the mass of every unit but it creates a vertical element for the one area only. Chairman suggested that the project be referred to the Airport Mr. • Commission. Discussion continued on the joint access driveway. that a non- Mills stated that he and staff would resolve any problems; suit covenant would be required for the project; and requested that the date of the Airport Commission meeting be stated since he is under a time constraint. Chairmanay of he sed that it was the laws, the Planning �Commission rst d t month shouldprotect and that in light of new the airport from legal problems. Discussion followed on scheduling of the cases affected by or affecting the airport. A suggestion was made that to avoid delay, airport staff could review the project and report to the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Curtis that on any project scheduled for Planning Commission agendas within the sphere of influence of the airport or abutting the airport, the Planning Commission receive a report from the Airport Commission with a time limit placed in order to expedite the project and that in the case of the subject project it would be reviewed by the Commission at its first meeting in January. (January 11). Discussion followed on the review process by the airport staff and Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaptur amended his motion with the consent of the seconder • (Curtis) as follows: that all projects within the sphere of influence of the airport, or abutting the airport, be reviewed by airport staff before being scheduled for Planning Commission and in the subject case, to be returned to the Commission on December 22. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 3.541 & TTM 18979 (Cont'd. ) NOTE: Commissioner Madsen stated that he felt that referral to the airport staff was not fair but Chairman stated that it was no different from requiring a study. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following parcel map 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 Declaratin 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. TPM 18963. Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Westeq?Ventures for approval of TPM 18963, a consolidation of property to construct a 161- room hotel between Indian Avenue/Calle Encilia, south of Tahquitz- McCallum Way, C-2 &C-1-AA Zones (I.L.) , Section 14. (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 5.0106-CUP) . Planning Director stated that the map was a follow-up to the hotel project and that the applicants are preparing to clean up the site. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Service abstained) approving TPM 18963 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee and all conditions of Case 5.0106-CUP. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving time extensions for the following maps. 3RD TIME EXTENSION-TPM 14654. Request by ERVIN ENGINEREING for J. Cain for a third 12-month time extension for TPM 14654, a lot split into 3 parcels on the south side of Vista Chino, east of North Sunrise Way, P, N-R-G-A (6) & R-G-A (6) Zones (I.L.) , Section 12. Abstention: Madsen No new conditions; new expiration date: September 5, 1983. • December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Cont'd. ) 2ND TIME EXTENSION-TTM 16747 (Ref. Case 3.332) . Request by L. PHILLIPS for New World Development, Inc. for a second 12-month time extension for TTM 16747, a one lot subdivision for construction of a 74-unit condominium project on the northeast corner of North Indian Avenue/Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. No new conditions; new expiration date: September 16, 1983. TIME EXTENSION - TTM 18126. Request by ERVIN ENGINEERING for J. Cain for a 12-month time extension for TTM 18126, a subdivision for condominium purposes on the southwest corner of Vista Chino/Cerritos Road, R-G-A (6) & N-R-G-A (6) Zones (I.L.) , Section 12. Abstention: Madsen No new conditions; new expiration date: January 29, 1984. 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 3.544 (Minor) . Application by J. ALGAZI for architectural approval of buildingrevisions to front of delicatessen at 495 N. Palm Cnyon Drive,to CaB-Dte Zone, Se utside patio seating for Section 15 Planning Director stated that the application was continued for a review by the Chief of Police; that no problem had been found unless a liquor license were obtained. He stated that the Police Department is recommending that a condition of approval be that if a liquor license is obtained, alcoholic beverages will not be served in the patio area; that the applicant will agree to a seat count of 21 seats based on the seven and that he did not know if a condition could parking spaces available, be imposed prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages in the patio. Assistant City Attorney stated that such a condition would be beyond the scope of architectural review as would be a condition prohibiting the use of paper utensils; and that if the applicant wishes to serve alcoholic beverages, a CUP would probably be required. Planning Director stated that the establishment would be viewed as a beer garden which requires a CUP in the downtown area. Commissioner Koetting stated that although it might not be in the Commission's area of concern, sale of alcoholic beverages has been allowed in the past and should not be restricted. • Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Harris dissented) approving Case 3.544 (Minor) subject to the following conditions: December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 3.544 (Cont'd. ) 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That all proposed planters be constructed out of concrete block material as exists on-site with a concrete slab cut for planting purposes (as noted on the approved plans) . 3. That all planters be provided with five gallon Carissa and/or Petite Salmon Oleanders with annuals provided as proposed. CASE 3.481 (Minor) . Application by CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of additional expansion of parking lot at Everybody's Village between North Palm Canyon Drive/North Indian Avenue at Alejo Road, "0" Zone, Section 10 (Ref. Case 2.649) . Planning Director stated that the applicant is the Village Center of the Arts but since it is on City property, the City is authoring the proposal; that the applicant is proposing 24 to 25 parking spaces with access from Alejo Road with a possible connection to the existing parking lot along Indian Avenue; that the Traffic Engineer has remarked that there was probably not enough traffic to matter on the access to Alejo. He then discussed the landscape proposal ; and stated that the AAC recommended approval. • Discussion followed on the driveway on Alejo. Commission concerns includdtacking of cars Indianoing Aven eutandntheesafety drivers ofpedestrians and older drivers. Traffic Engineer stated that the access to Alejo is not a necessity but will not cause an operational problem and would make exiting more convenient; and that as a general rule, when traffic is moving slowly, driveway casued conflicts are not serious. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and carried (Madsen & Kaptur dissented) approving Case 3.481 (Minor) subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the driveway on Alejo Road be deleted. 3. That a detailed landscape and irrigation plan be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. NOTE: Commissioner Koetting requested that landscaping be used to screen the south parking lot. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CASE 3.545 (Minor) . Application by C. MILLS for Vintage Auto for archi- tectural approval of security fencing and partially covered auto storage area on Riverside Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Planning Director described the project on the display board and explained that the City is recommending a desert motif to landscape the frontage. He stated that the showroom will be remodeled at a later date to accommodate the Excaliber car dealership. Discussion followed on the history of the building. Planning Director stated that the applicants were originally proposing a vintage car outlet which has now evolved to accommodate both vintage cars and a new car dealership; that it was still a temporary use; that the fence had evolved from chainlink to a masonry wall which would screen the service bays and prevent thievery; and that cars would be displayed in the front. Chairman stated that a temporary use sometimes lasts a long time and landscaping along the frontage would enhance the appearance of Riverside Drive North. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried approving Case 3.545 (Minor) subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. • 2. That a detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plan be submitted. CASE 3.554 (Minor) . Application by L. MOHR for architectural approval of repaint and minor revisions to exterior elevations of building (formerly Rumor's) at 424 S. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Discussion ensued on the canvas curtains at the entrance. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Curtis to approve the application subject to conditions of the AAC. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Kaptur NOES: Harris, Koetting, Lawrence, Madsen, Service ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Kaptur dissented) approving Case 3.554 (Minor) subject to the following conditions: 1. That a detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plan . be submitted, including landscaping the planters in the parking area. 2. That the vertical and horizontal canvas elements underneath the canopy be deleted. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CASE 3.554 (Cont'd. ) 3. That the paint color is approved. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by W. HOWLETT for Cherokee Shoe Store for architectural approval of neon main identification sign at 226 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that there is a mixed group of signs on the building at the present time; that a sign program should be established when new businesses reapply for signs; and that the reason the application is before the Commission is because it proposed exposed neon tubing. Discussion ensued on other signs in the area and Commission reviewed photos of the signs on the building. Discussion followed on the precedent-setting nature of allowing a neon sign on the building; and improvements to the fascia of the building. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission was not in a position to request an owner/participation agreement for refurbishing the building; and that he felt a sign concept for the cans could be formulated but neon should not be placed on every sign in the building. • Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that most requests for the building are for a change of face, but that a sign program could be developed with signs recessed. W. Howlett, the applicant, stated that across the street from the building is the village Theatre which has had neon signage for 20 years; that a can could be developed which would be integrated into the fascia; that within this can, different types of signs could be used; and that his client has had neon as a logo which is why the application is for neon. Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the building fascia was thicker, any type of sign could be set into the fascia in a standard size; and that neon is a fine art form and, if designed well, would look better than the can signs on the building. Mr. Howlett stated that the sign glows pink on adjacent areas but the neon itself appears white. Further discussion followed on the appropriateness of neon. Mr. Howlett requested that direction be given for the sign if neon is not approved. Chairman stated the Commission could not design the sign. Planning Director noted that the a wood sign could be approved at staff level because of its small size and that the application was brought before the Commission because it is neon and for the discussion of a sign program and because the issue of neon is a sensitive one. Commissioner Harris stated that it should be a restudy with approval by • the Commission, not approval at staff level. Chairman stated that the applicant does not need Commission approval if a change of face is requested. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd. ) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that any sign that is extreme in lighting, design, or color will be scheduled for Commission review and that a backlit neon sign could be approved at staff level. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and carried (Kaptur dissented) for a restudy of the sign application. NOTE: Commission felt that neon with a reflective background is too gaudy. Commission also requested that any exterior revisions to the building be scheduled for Commission review. 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 Madsen, and unanimously carried 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. IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for Billy Reed's Restaurant for archi- PalmuCanyonapproval new Drive, northofmain identification C—1 Zone, Section 3. restaurant on N. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.550 (Minor) & SIGN APPLICATION. D. ROSENBERG for architectural approval of extension of existing service station and gasoline rate sign for EXXON station at 4633 East Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Sign conditions: 1. That the metal can be painted ivory to match the plexiglass. 2. That full blocks be used between the bottom of the upper sign and the top of the lower sign. 3. That the background of the lower sign be solid blue. Remodel conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plan be submitted. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.382. Application by KAPTUR/CIOFFI for D. Osman for architectural approval of landscape plans for single family hillside residence on Milo Drive/Sanborn Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Kaptur ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.548 (Minor) . Application by M. BUCCINO for architectural approval of entry to Jane Augustine Patencio Cemetery on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Avenida Caballeros/Hermosa Drive, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I.L. ) , Section 14. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried approving the use of logs as crossbeams on the entry portal. CASE 3.555 (Minor) . Application by SUNSHINE VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for architectural approval of lighted tennis courts at 2211 Sunshine Way, • R-1-C Zone (I.L. ) , Section 24. Planning Director stated that staff would recommend 400 watts as the maximum wattage for lighting the tennis courts. Assistant City Attorney stated that a light curfew could be a condition of approval . Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried condition: Thatdtheptennis9 Case 3.555 (Minor) following court lights extinguished at 11 p.m CASE 3.543. Application by WESTAR ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised final development plans for a retail building in PD-113 on the southeast corner of N. Palm Canyon Drive/Racquet Club Road, PD-113, Section 3. Planning Director presented the project on the display board. He stated that columns have been added to match the existing center and a denser landscape plan provided; and that there was no parking problem if the restaurant operates only at night. Commissioner Koetting stated that he had done a parking analysis which • showed adequate parking, even if the restaurant operated all day. Discussion ensued on the access to Palm Canyon Drive. Planning Director stated that it was approved by CalTrans. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS - CASE 3.543 (Cont'd. ) Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Koetting abstained) approving Case 3.543 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That staff review applicant's parking analysis. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CASE 3.557 (Minor) . BOWMAN'S TV for J. Zarowitz for architectural approval of a dish antenna for a single family residence on Lot 3, Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Removed at applicant's request; no further architectural review necessary. 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. TTM 15620. HALLMARK ENGINEERING for E. Marteka for architectural approval of final grading plan for subdivision of land for single family lots on Stevens Road/Vista Chino/Via Monte, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Restudy noting the following concerns: 1. That the drainage system be installed in rock rip-rap and made workable for individual lots. 2. That grading be done for individual lots to integrate the scheme into the topography of the site. CASE 3.475. JIMSAIR AVIATION SERVICES, INC. for architectural approval of preliminary landscape development plans and minor site revisions for fixed base operation at Palm Springs Municipal Airport, A Zone, Section 18. Abstention: Kaptur Restudy noting the following items: 1. That a combination of palms, eucalyptus, olives, and reduced amounts of lawns and a wall be used on the Bogie Road frontage. • 2. That the plant and tree list be revised. 3. That screen landscaping be introduced against the hangars. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • ITEMS FOR RESTUDY - CASE 3.475 (Cont'd. ) 4. That landscaping be introduced to visually buffer the parking lot from the street. 5. That the proposed internal link road be revised to form a smooth curve and provide a wider landscape strip on the Bogie Road frontage. 6. That the species of trees used to screen the fuel farm be restudied. 7. That oleanders be used on the northwestern boundary of the site. 8. That the position of trees and lights be coordinated. 9. That the maximum height of the light standards be 18 feet. 10. That the hangar-mounted lights be moved to the boundaries of the site. CASE 2.822. PALM SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for architectural approval of minor remodel of existing residence at 2603 "c" Whitewater Club Drive, R-G-A (8) Zone, Section 1. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen abstained) for a restudy of Case 2.822 noting the following: 1. That accurate plans and elevation showing details of all work be submitted. 2. That the extension have an overhanging roof toprovide shade for the windows. CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 3.556 (Minor) . DESERT INN FASHION PLAZA for K. Wilhelmsson for archi- tectural approval of revisions to exterior of Fashion Plaza, 151 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued at the applicant's request. SIGN APPLICATION. BEST SIGNS for architectural approval of revised main sign for business at 4153 Mathew Drive, C-M Zone, Section 30. Continued at the applicant' s request. SIGN APPLICATION. M. FONTANA for Desert Hospital for architectural approval of two main entry signs for hospital on the northeast corner of Tachevah Drive/North Indian Avenue, R-4 Zone, Section 11. Continued at the applicant's request. December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Chairman reminded Commissioners of a City Council/Planning Commission/Tribal Council joint study session on December 21 at 3:00 p.m. in the Large Conference at City Hall. Topic will be flood control plans. - Regular Planning Commission study session of December 15 will be cancelled. December 22 agenda will be small since there is no recording secretary. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. PLANN NG DIRECTOR MDR/mi • WP