Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/01/26 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 26, 1983 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 12 1 Hugh Curtis X 13 0 Darel Harris X 11 2 Hugh Kaptur X 12 1 Peter Koetting X 12 1 Don Lawrence X 11 2 Paul Madsen X 11 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Doug Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Stephen Graham, Planner III Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - January 24, 1983 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Chris Mills Hugh Curtis David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Earl Neel Absent: Peter Koetting Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the January 12 meeting were approved as submitted. (M/S/C Koetting/Lawrence) January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman explained the public hearing procedure. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0254-CUP. Application by P. SPICKLER & J. WEBB for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a video game arcade on E. Vista Chino between Via Negocio/Biskra Road, C-1 Zone, Section 1. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve CUP 5.0254 subject to conditions. Planner II presented the staff report and stated that one letter had been received from owners of the Bank of America property in opposition; that conditions of approval do not restrict any other video arcade from being located in the area; and that no hours of operation have been established as a condition of approval . In reply to a question from Commission, Planning Director stated that the location was more than 1 ,000 feet from the nearest school and that school has a closed campus. In reply to questions from Commission, Assistant City Attorney stated that if the Commission were concerned about problems arising from the arcade use, a condition could be placed on the conditional use permit approval that a security guard would be on the premises during hours of operation. Discussion followed on the parking lot redesign and the service alley. Planning Director stated that the redesign meets current codes , that the service alley is necessary because other businesses are also served by it, and that the parking lot would be landscaped per Development Committee recommendations. Discussion continued regarding the renovation of the slatted wood on the fascia. Planner II stated that the existing slats are in poor condition and would be repainted with damaged ones replaced although the graphics on the display board do not show this clearly. Chairman declared the hearing open. B. Perlin, 3921 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles, owner of Bank of America property, stated that although he did not object to the concept, he objected to the video arcade in that location because of police problems, lack of compatibility with existing uses, and requested that the Commission deny the project. • Commissioner Koetting stated that the proposal was new to the Commission and the mode of transportation of the customers was unknown, and that he felt that the facility would be upgraded aesthetically. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0254-CUP (Cont' d.) In reply to question by Commission, Mr. Perlin stated that there had been no problem with other businesses in the area which are open unusual hours but that in his experience arcades presented problems with the influx of vehicles during late hours; that one arcade in Westwood in which he was familiar employs a full-time security guard; that other uses proposed in the arcade area are quality commercial with which the video arcade would not be compatible; that a security patrolman or service would assist in reduction of problems although they would not be eliminated; and that no complaints have been received relative to the two video games in the nearby Seven-Eleven market. D. Hemphill , 1810 Biskra Road, representing P. & A. Hemphill , F. L. Vick (Texaco station owner) and other property owners of the Desert Park area, voiced objection to the project because of a lowering of property values; increase of traffic and noise in the residential area; and increased crime and vandalism. He stated that there are police problems at the present time with the Seven-Eleven store operation and suggested that the arcade be placed in a fitness center, not a residential neighborhood. Chairman stated that during the course of preparation of the Video Arcade Ordinance, police departments and planning commissions were contacted in other cities relative to problems of arcades but the cities indicated no negative results from aracade use; and that the Commission does not necessarily assume that video arcades breed crime. D. Hart, 208 S. Glendale Ave. , Glendale, Ca. , property owner at 1800 Via Negocia, objected to the arcade stating that there had been problems in Glendale with arcades; that problems will arise after hours of operation because of litter and loitering; that his maintenance costs will be increased because of his property' s location; and suggested that security guards be employed for the entire area because of the dimly lit service alley. Mrs. K. Phillips, 1890 Desert Park Estates, stated that she had an additional petition of neighbors objecting to the arcade; that there have been problems of vandalism from the customers of the Seven-Eleven and that the arcade will become a gathering point for youths; that traffic and debris will be increased; and that a guard would not help the entire area. A. Guevara, 1091 Paseo El Mirador, property owner in the area, stated that it would be advantageous to have an arcade to create activity; that the building would be upgraded which would enhance the area; that he understood the objections of residents, but that some type of business will eventually be located in the building; and that there is a good teenage element and senior citizens who will use the arcade. Discussion followed on the role the Commission has in reviewing arcades; • controls of customers of the arcade on and away from the premises; problems arising from a free-standing building rather than one in a controlled shopping center atmosphere; and findings in the staff report. Planning Director and Chairman explained that the findings are necessary by law. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0254-CUP (Cont' d.) Planning Director stated that staff did not find the use out of character with the neighborhood although perhaps the building is an unusual situation; and that there is a tendency to associate activities with the subject occupation that go beyond the arcade activity itself. Commissioner Koetting suggested that perhaps the should ordinance be reviewed but that the subject application conforms to the ordinance and that he would add additional conditions to alleviate concerns (if the application were approved) . Chairman stated that the building needs to be aesthetically upgraded before a CUP is approved and that he would not support a motion which included approval of the present architecture. P. Spickler, 2330 Desert Park Estates, the applicant, explained the renovation of the facade of the building and stated that the hours of operation would probably be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on school days and later on weekends and that an hourly security patrol will be retained during hours of darkness with a routine patrol after hours. Discussion followed on compatibility of the use with the area and the aethestics of the building. • Motion was made by Harris and seconded by Kaptur, to deny the application based on the architecture and lack of compatibility with the neighborhood. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Harris, Kaptur NOES: Koetting, Lawrence, Madsen, Service ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Curtis, Harris, Kaptur dissented) approving Case 5.0254-CUP with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That a video arcade at the location set forth in the application is properly a use for which a CUP is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the existing building is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed video arcade and has adequate parking. 3. That the use is acceptable and normal in the development of the community and is not materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5 .0254-CUP (Cont' d.) 4. That the proposal will have an insignificant effect on the General Plan Street Plan. CONDITIONS: 1. That a security guard be on the premises during non-school hours. 2. That the alley be lighted adequately. 3. That the hours of operation be from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on school days and 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on other days. 4. That a covenant be signed for undergrounding of utilities when they are required in the development of the area. 5. That a preliminary landscape and exterior lighting plan be submitted. 6. That no noise or vibration that is detectable without the aid of any mechanical device or instrument be allowed beyond the outer perimeters of the building. 7. That the operators report the location to the school truancy officer and assist the office in its responsibilities. 7. That an annual review of the site be made by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of a business license. 8. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 9. That a sign program be submitted and approved. 10. That no adult type video games be allowed under CUP 5 .0254 and that any future requests for adult video games be made by an amended CUP application. 11. That the use be commenced within one year or the CUP shall become null and void. 12. That the CUP be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the end of one year to insure compliance with conditions and compatibility with the neighborhood. 13. That the CUP is not in effect until the architectural elements have been upgraded and approved by the Planning Commission. NOTE: During discussion of conditions of the motion, Planning Director explained that undergrounding of utilities is generally associated with the subdivision of land but that a covenant could be required for future undergrounding of the utilities. Hours of operation were also discussed. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0254-CUP (Cont' d. ) In reply to question by Commission, Planning Director stated that if the Commission were concerned about the aesthetics of the building, a condition could be added that the CUP not be valid until all conditions of approval are met. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried that the conditional use permit shall not be in force until the architectural elements have been upgraded and approved by the Planning Commission. CASE 5.0255- ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a Flood Plain Management Ordinance, Citywide, pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, and final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Case 5.0255-MISC. Community Development Coordinator explained the three memos (on file in • the Department of Community Development) distributed to the Commission as follows: 1 . Changes to the Flood Plain Ordinance. 2. Maximum flood insurance coverage available. 3. Flood insurance rates in specific instances. Discussion ensued on the coverage afforded by the flood insurance program. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Discussion followed on insurance rates. Commissioner Curtis stated that the insurance is not applicable to Indian land. Community Development Coordinator stated that the Agua Caliente Indians could take steps for coverage on their land but have not done so at the present time. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 5.0255- ZTA, per staff recommendations. NOTE: Staff was directed by Commission to prepare a letter (to be signed by Chairman) to the Agua Caliente Indians requested that they • expedite entrance into the FEMA insurance program so that all residences and commercial properties in the City are covered by the program. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0255-ZTA (Cont' d. ) Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of January 11, 1983. It was noted that this proposed Ordinance would be beneficial to the community and would also be a prerequisite to establishing eligibility for Federal Flood Insurance coverage. Action on the Environmental Assessment and draft Ordinance was withheld pending further review by the Tribal Planning Consultant and the Tribal Attorney with respect to the environmental , legal , and procedural impacts of this proposed ordinance. After further review of the draft Ordinance, an inconsistency was noted relative to the restriction on any increase in flood levels per Section 9317.18 F-1 and the 1-foot increase permitted by Section 9317.11-C. Also, there appears to be no rationale for prohibiting the placement of mobilehomes in a floodway, except in an existing mobilehome park or subdivision. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal council approved the filing of a Negative Declaration and approved the draft Flood Plain Management Ordinance subject to clarification of the inconsistency in criteria for permitted increase in flood levels and reconsideration of the restriction on • placement of mobilehomes." CASE 5.0256-GPA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to the General Plan Street Plan to eliminate Rose Avenue as a collector street northerly of Stevens Road, Section 10. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentatively approve Case 5.0256-GPA. Planning Director presented the staff report and explained the configuration and accessing of Coronado Road. He stated that the area is subject to sheet flow from storms; and that there was no issue of access to the lots. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Smith, the applicant, explained the reasons for requesting elimination of Rose Avenue north of Stevens. He stated that the residents wished to erect a card-controlled security gate; that logistic problems of entrance through the gate for service workers and emergency vehicles have been resolved; and that vehicle access was what was proposed to be controlled since pedestrians can enter. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • CASE 5.0256-GPA (Cont' d. ) Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, tentatively approving Case 5.0256-GPA per staff recommendations, and continuing the Case to February 9 for final review. After the vote, Planning Director explained the mechanics of the card- controlled security gate. Tribal Council comments: "While this proposed General Plan Amendment does not materially affect Indian lands , it has been the policy of the Tribal Council to consider and comment on all General Plan Amendments. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved this proposed amendment that would delete Rose Avenue, northerly of Stevens Road, as a Collector Street from the General Plan Street Plan." PUBLIC COMMENTS None 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 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. TPM 18787. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOC. for Golden West Equity Properties for a subdivision of land for industrial purposes on Ramon Road between Bogie Road/San Luis Rey, M-1-P Zone, Section 17. (Environmental assessment previously given in conjunction with 5 .0160:CZ. ) Planning Director explained the background of the map and stated that the variances previously requested were denied. He presented the map on the display board and enumerated staff conditions. He stated that the east side of the project is a City limit boundary line abutting Cathedral City; that staff has contacted Cathedral City staff to gain • access through a buffer lot to San Luis Rey which is recommended by the City Engineer; and that after discussions with the City Attorney, a more formal agreement must be reached with the City of Cathedral City. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 TPM 18787 (Cont'd.) Commissioner Koetting stated that Cathedral City should reciprocate with projects abutting Palm Springs. Discussion followed on accessing of the lots. Planning Director stated that lots would not directly access to Ramon Road as presently configured; that ownership of the land at the northeast corner of the project; explained the landscape concept at the rear of the project (the old dump site) ; and stated that the applicant feels that reclamation of the dump site is presently economically unfeasible, but that no structures will be allowed until clean fill is placed. B. McDonald, of Golden West Equity Properties the applicant, stated that the current map is the fourth one submitted and has been designed to staff requirements; that matters pertaining to another city do not affect the map and raised objections to the Planning Division conditions in the Development Committee minutes (on file in the Department of Community Development) ; and objected to delaying processing of the map in order for staff to contact Cathedral City. He stated that a 25 foot landscape strip on a private street is unnecessary since there is a 25 foot perimeter landscape border. Planning Director explained landscape requirements and setbacks according to industrial minor collector street standards. He requested • continuance of the application until input can be received from Cathedral City. Discussion followed on the cost to the applicant of continuance. Consensus was that in the future, this type of problem should be resolved before placing the item on the agenda. Planning Director stated that it was first thought that staff could formulate the agreement but with the legalities involved, the agreement must be more formal ; that a letter will be hand carried via the City Engineer of both cities (R. McCoy) ; and input will probably be received before February 9. L. McDonald, representing Golden West Equity Properties, the applicant, stated that the State Map Act does not provide for any provisions to allow continuance on the basis of what was being discussed; that the map has been submitted and presented to staff and Commission within the bounds of the Map Act and that anything further is illegal (and has been discussed with his counsel ) ; that the project does not abut Cathedral City; and urged that action be taken. Discussion followed on the concept of accessing of lots to Ramon Road and the length of time for processing the map. Planning Director explained that the site plan has been redesigned approximately to minimum staff recommendations without individual lot access to Ramon Road and that the map processing is not over the time limit. He explained that perhaps Cathedral City could have been formally contacted . earlier but that the legality of the problem had not been realized until discussions with the City Attorney before today' s meeting. He stated that although Cathedral City could not stop development of the property, it could comment on an inappropriate land use and recommend against the access to San Luis Rey although the Cathedral City staff is recommending January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 TPM 18787 (Cont' d. ) approval ; that if access were not granted, the design of the project would be affected and there would be complications in processing of the map in the future. He noted that no further environmental assessment is necessary since it was previously done in conjunction with the zone change on the property. Chairman stated that if Cathedral City does not have input on an environmental assessment, it should have input in the subdivision process and if an official agreement is required, it should be done. Discussion followed on delaying the map. Commissioner Madsen stated that the map was revised, has not been reviewed by the Commission previously, and that Cathedral City should have input. Planning Director stated that Cathedral City could deny access but could not disapprove the project; that the Traffic Engineer wants the access to San Luis Rey; and that the Cathedral City staff is supportive of allowing the access. Chairman suggested that a motion could be made for tentative approval of the map with a time limitation. Planning Director stated that staff would recommend deletion of Conditions No. 1 & 4 of the AAC recommendations; that an eight foot wall defeats good design; and that the wall along Ramon Road would have continuity if each building were reviewed individually to achieve that continuity. He noted that there should be a central access road to Ramon Road for marketing and traffic logic. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and carried (Curtis & Lawrence dissented) tentatively approving TPM 18787 subject to conditions of the AAC (with the deletion of Recommendations 1 & 4) and Development Committee, and subject to the condition that staff receive timely input from Cathedral City. The application was continued to the February 9 meeting. 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 3.309. Application by H. KASSINGER for the Bank of Palm Springs Center for architectural approval of entry canopies and revised sign program for retail center on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Calle E1 Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-4-VP & C-1-AA Zones (I .L.) , Section 14. Zoning Enforcement Officer and Planning Director reviewed the proposed • canopies and revised sign program on the display board. M. Kassinger, the applicant, stated that the Palm Springs Center sign would be removed and relocated in front of the bank; that there was confusion over the name "Bank of Palm Springs Center" ; that people do not know that it is a retail center; and that parking is not easily visible at the present time. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 3.309 (Cont' d.) Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the proposed lettering and stated that it would be outlined with an amber neon strip. Mr. Kassinger explained the configuration of the revised sign. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the proposed reader board meets code requirements. Commissioner Kaptur noted that the original intent of the C-1-AA Ordinance was to create a wide streetscape for Tahquitz-McCallum Way, but due to alignment of the street, the building approaches the curb closer than on the other side of the street and is closer than the Ordinance originally intended; and that the proposed signing would require a variance. Planning Director explained that marquees are allowed within eight feet of the curb line and that the structure can touch the ground. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the applicant desires a more definitive entryway. Planning Director stated that the revised application is a result of a series of meetings with the applicant to develop retail identification for the center, to delineate parking directions , and to generate pedestrian traffic; and that there would not be traffic problemsbecause the street is red-curbed and people will park • in the rear. Discussion followed on the concept of two signs with the long linear frontage of the building. Planning Director stated that the proposed signage was appropriate under the circumstances. Commissioner Koetting suggested a monument sign perpendicular to the street because of the mass of the proposed structure and stated that he felt that the canopies detract from the building. Commissioner Harris stated that originally the entrance was left open which was preferable, that the lighted signing gives the effect of a movie theater; and that the reader board is excessive. Mr. Kassinger stated that another entry is not being added since there are two entries at the present; that Tahquitz-McCallum is heavily landscaped and the building cannot be seen, and people cannot tell that it is a retail center. Discussion followed on placement of tenant signs. Mr. Kassinger stated that tenant signs in the windows cannot be seen in the sunken building. Discussion continued on identification of the center as a retail center. Mr. Kassinger stated that the center needs retail identification; and that the retailers are complaining that there is no identification on Tahquitz-McCallum Way. • Commissioner Lawrence stated that he was sympathetic to the proposal for the reader board but not the center sign. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CASE 3.309 (Cont' d. ) Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Harris dissented; Curtis & Madsen abstained) for a restudy of the main entry sign on the center, restudy of the canopies, and approval of the reader board. CASE 3.559. Application by EISNER-SMITH PLANNERS for Palm Canyon Assoc. for architectural approval of preliminary plans for a 270-room resort hotel on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Cherokee Way/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 30. Planning Director stated that staff had not reviewed the revised site plan in light of the ordinance. Planner II presented the project on the display board and read the seven AAC recommendations. R. Smith, the applicant, stated that he had no problems with the recommendations but wanted the frontage road situation resolved and explained that the project was redesigned with compromises suggested at the January 19 AAC/Planning Commission study session. • Discussion followed regarding the bay parking proposal . Mr. Smith stated that it would be decorative parking. Planning Director stated that staff would recommend no parking off the frontage road and no bay parking on the highway side of the frontage road; and that the frontage road is a hybrid and difficult to treat both functionally and technically, but that the applicant has attempted to make revisions according to AAC and Planning Commission recommendations. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that an overall project design be submitted with a frontage road that fits the project. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant favors the originally designed project but that the AAC did not like the original site plan (which meets code) . He stated that the elevations need revisions. Discussion followed on the original design concept. Mr. Smith suggested that the original site plan be approved with the elevations resolved with the AAC. Further discussion followed on the frontage road and the cooling towers. Planning II stated that the cooling towers adjoin the trailer park and were recommended to be relocated by the AAC, but could not be placed on the roof because of their size. Discussion continued on the length of processing the project and the "band-aid" approach to architecture. Mr. Smith stated that there was . nothing wrong with the original site plan, but the elevations need revisions . He requested that the processing continue while the architecture is being revised, and that direction be given on the site January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CASE 3.559 (Cont' d. ) plan. Commission direction was to open the site plan by relocating Building 'W' . Planning Director recommended that attention be given to the mass of asphalt in front of the building and lack of landscaping as well as the other Commission concerns. Further discussion on the frontage road and bay parking ensued. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Service dissented) to restudy Case 3.559 subject to the following direction: That the frontage road be designed per frontage road standard plans. CASE 3.562. Application by F. WISKOWSKI for architectural approval of single family residence at 1660 Hillview Cove between Dunham Road/Andreas Hills Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 1 . Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. . NOTE: Mr. Wiskowski , the applicant, requested clarification on placement of mechanical equipment. Planning Director stated that the equipment can be placed in the 5' buildable area in the side yard. DISCUSSION. Review of reader board installation at the Riviera Hotel on the northeast corner of Vista Chino/N. Indian Avenue, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Zoning Enforcement Officer presented a brief history of the reader board and stated that the AAC had recommended placement between and following the radius of the porte cochere columns; that when the six inch letters were placed on the board, they were too small to read and staff approved eight inch letters which indirectly increased the overall size of the sign and resulted in the sign being bolted and wrapped around the column; and that the sign is not as approved by the Planning Commission. J. London, representing the hotel , presented a brief history of the reader board from his viewpoint. He stated that the hotel owner liked the sign. In clarification, Chairman stated that the sign, as built, was denied by the Planning Commission originally. Mr. London protested the cost of refabricating the sign and stated that six inch letters as originally approved could not be seen from the • street. Discussion followed on the aesthetics of the sign as it affects the building. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the sign neither adds nor detracts from the aesthetics of the hotel . January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • DISCUSSION (Cont' d.) Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and carried (Curtis, Koetting & Service dissented) approving the sign. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission had approved in this instance an illegal sign which will encourage similar types of applications. Mr. London stated that the hotel had been as asset to the community. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried approving time extensions for the following items: TIME EXTENSION-TPM 18146. Request by HALLMARK ENGINEERING for G. Scholl for twelve-month time extension for consolidation of parcels for residential purposes at 500 W. Ramon Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. (Ref. Cases 3.426 & 6.315-Variance) NOTE: The 1983 Subdivision Map Act revised the validity period for tentative parcel maps which now expire after 24 months. Although the • Planning Commission approved a twelve-month time extension, no extension is required since the map does not expire until 11-18-83. TIME EXTENSION-TPM 18373. Request byL. ZEHFUSS for E. Schwartz for a twelve- month time extension for a subdivision of land on the northwest corner of Via Donna/Paseo E1 Mirador, R-1-A-H Zone, Section 11. Six-month time extension; new expiration date: 9/17/83 Conditions: 1. That the Engineering Division requirements as stated in memo dated December 21, 1981 remain the same except for item No. 1 on Paseo E1 Mirador which shall be amended to read as follows: Dedicated 20' radius property line return at the southwest corner of the subject property 2. That the school impact mitigation fee be applicable to the proposal . TIME EXTENSION-CASE 5.0188-CUP. Request by H. HUPE for a time extension on an expired CUP to allow construction of a restaurant on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Calle Palo Fierro/Via Salida, R-3 Zone, Section 23. Twelve-month time extension; new expiration date: 11-25-83 • Conditions: Subject to all original conditions of approval (no new conditions) . January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • CONSENT AGENDA NOTE: All items were removed from the Consent Agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd.) CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. C. HELMAN for First Nationwide Savings/First Wisconsin National Bank for architectural approval of revised final development plans for savings & loan branch office on East Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Way, R-3 Zone (I .L.) , Section 25. (Ref. Cases 5.0216-CZ & 5.0235-GPA. ) Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Koetting, and unanimously carried approving the revised application as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by M. FONTANA for Desert Hospital for archi- tectural approval of revised main entry signs for hospital on the northeast corner of Tachevah Drive/N. Indian Avenue, R-4 Zone, Section 11. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried . approving the revised sign application as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by F. PURCELL for Builders' Supply for archi- tectural approval of signage and wall graphic for business at 490 E. Sunny Dunes Road, C-M Zone, Section 23. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that allowing two signs would be outside of the Ordinance. Planning Director stated that signs could be adjusted on split buildings. Discussion followed on a monument sign concept. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that he needed consistency in the interpretation of the Ordinance and that the proposed concept would not be approved on a building such as Stockwell & Binney, for example; and that he needed direction from the Commission. Further discussion ensued on the concept of allowing the proposed signage on unusual buildings. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded Lawrence, and unanimously carried for a restudy of the signage and wall graphic. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 . CASE 3.411. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of architectural approval of modifications for outdoor display at the Visitor Information Center for the Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce on South Palm Canyon Drive, C- B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner II stated that although the application was recommended for approval by the AAC, the Redevelopment Director withdrew the item from the agenda. CASE 3.565 (MINOR) . Staff request for concept approval of parking revisions for Our Lady of Solitude Catholic Church on Alejo Road between North Palm Canyon Drive/Belardo Road, C-B-d Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planning Director explained that the intent was to develop additional parking around the Catholic Church and to allow the Church to eliminate the parking lot on the north side of Alejo Road. Motion was made by Curtis, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Service abstained) approving the site/parking plan subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CONTINUED ITEMS SIGN APPLICATION. W. HOWLETT for Cherokee Shoe Store for architectural approval of revised main identification sign at 226 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued to February 9 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. CASE 3.553. DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for architectural approval of an 184 unit condominium complex on Avenida Caballeros between Saturnino Road/Arenas Road, R-4 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing & final approval . ) Restudy for refinement of the elevations which may be distorted by extreme environmental conditions ; for revisions to the roof profile; for introduction of visual breaks in the rear service road; for combination of landscape islands to form larger peripheral planters on the rear service road, and for submission of revised preliminary landscape plans including focused areas such as the pool areas. January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • CASE 3.553 (Cont' d.) Tribal Council comments : "This case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of January 11 , 1983. As a general policy, the Tribal Council does not make recommendations on cases involving only architectural reviw and approval . However, it was noted that this case constitutes a major development in Section 14 which is a portion of the City of particular concern to the Tribal Council . Action was withheld at the January 11 meeting pending receipt and review of the Development Committee meeting minutes. After consideation of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated January 12, 1983. 2. Approved the conditions recommended in Development Committee Meeting Minutes dated December 16, 1982 with the exception that action on the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit-cost analysis to be prepared by City staff. • 3. Noted that this case was reconsidered by the Architectural Advisory Committee on January 24, 1983, and that the case was continued pending further restudy and/or modifications to the Site Plan and certain architectural features of the units. 4. In view of the action taken by the Architectural Advisory Committee, the Tribal council withheld final action on this case pending receipt and review of the modifications to the Site Plan and the architectural features referred to above. CASE 3.364. W. & J. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES for Columbia Savings & Loan for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for Savings & Loan branch office on East Palm Canyon Drive between South Palm Canyon Drive/West Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Restudy to widen the landscape strip on the west boundary and for portions of the building to be revised with lower elements placed closer to the street. • January 26, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Monument sign at Palm Springs Medical Center. Planning Director stated that it was approved by the Commission. Emergency signing. Commissioner Koetting suggested that hospital directional emergency signage should be exempt from the Ordinance to make the signs more visible. Planning Commissioners Conference, Monterey, March 2 - 4. Planning Director requested that Commissioners planning to attend notify staff by January 26. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss , Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. MDR/mi PLANKING DIRECTOR