Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/06/25 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall June 25, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen , Chairman X 21 1 Hugh Curtis X 21 0 Hugh Kaptur - 19 3 Larry Lapham X 22 0 Curt Ealy X 17 0 Earl Neel - 12 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - June 23, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Kaptur/Neel absent) approving minutes of June 11, 1986, as submitted. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Kaptur/Neel absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0042-MINOR. Application by SIGN TECH for architectural approval of revised plans for two main identification signs and an attraction board for a six-plex motion picture theater at the Courtyard, 789 E. Tahquitz Way, between Calle Alvarado/Calle E1 Segundo, C-1-AA Zone (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309.) Approved as submitted. Note: The AAC reviewed the revised building elevations (west) and recommended protection on the windows in the form of an extended fascia or recess of the window subject to staff review. CASE 3.785. Application by RICHARD EHRLICH for architectural approval of revised landscape and revised grading plan for 134-unit, multi-family residential complex on East Palm Canyon Drive, between Farrell Drive/Compadre Road, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Planning Director stated that there is a 150 ft. setback from the street on the two story elements facing the single family residences on the north. Approved subject to conditions: 1. That mounding and beaming be included in the streetscape. 2. That the Hwy 111 streetscape be coordinated with the adjacent (westerly) project. 3. That details be reviewed by staff. CASE 3.864. Application by OASIS LANDSCAPING for Brown Brosche, Inc. for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for hotel located on North Palm Canyon Drive (Super 8 Hotel ) , between East Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Approved subject to conditions: 1. That the groupings of palms have at least one tree that breaks the fascia line (minimum 18' ) . 2. That all tree sizes be increased. 3. That the planter wall within the finger island at the south prop- erty line be included. 4. That revised plans be reviewed by staff. CASE 3.952 (Ref Case 5.0135-PD-110 & TTM 16581) . Application by ROBERT LAW for Quail Contractors, for architectural approval of revised preliminary June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA landscape plans for 192-unit senior apartment complex on Sunrise Way, between Racquet Club Road/Francis Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 2. Approved as submitted. Note: The AAC informally reviewed the request to light the tennis courts and recommended that screen planting be included around the courts . It was also noted that more detailed comments could be provided on the preliminary plan if more information on proposed species were provided. CASE 3.960. Application by BENEQUITY PROPERTIES for architectural approval of working drawings for revisions to existing shopping center on Farrell Drive, between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Baristo Road, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the east elevation is approved except the K-Mart elevation(s) which were restudied (to match approved drawings 2-18-86) . 2. That no exposed flashing be allowed on the remodel . 3. Informal Sign Review: That the K-Mart signs follow the established sign program as typified by "Vons" and "Thrifty" and be reduced in size to meet the ordinance. CASE 5.0128-PD-107. Application by WESTGATE LANDSCAPE for H. Maxwell for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for condominium development on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 25 . Approved as submitted. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0030 (Continued). Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Geoff Gilbert for architectural approval of revised parking layout and building remodel for 32-unit hotel (El Moro Villa) , 350 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 23. Discussion ensued on the lack of quorum situation which had forced the application to be continued from the previous meeting. Planning Director stated that he felt the Rule of Necessity (action which effects the least numbers) is irrevocable since even with a full complement of Commissioners the rule would have to be evoked. He suggested that the Commissioners needed for the quorum be chosen by lot. He also stated that his opinion differed from that of the City Attorney. `" City Attorney stated that he had no further comment. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0030 (Cont'd. )' Abstaining members voting after lots were drawn were Ealy and Madsen. Planner (Vankeeken) described the project and stated that at the AAC meeting of June 23 the Committee felt that exterior plaster would be an acceptable alternative to the wood siding. M/S/C (Ealy/Neal/Kaptur absent; Curtis abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions. 1. That masonite siding be used. 2. That either a composition or proposed foam roof material is acceptable. 3. That exterior plaster is an acceptable alternative to wood siding. 4. That all conditions of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R. P. WARMINGTON CO. for architectural approval of revised grading plan and revised landscape plan for Planned Development District to allow a 195-unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Planning Director stated that the hotel has 600 ft. of frontage on Twin Palms Drive, that a 4 ft. berm or wall is a screening requirement but that the final grading plan showed a 2 to 3 foot depression from the property line to the sidewalk without screened parking (except for a iv slope) . He stated that although the Commission directed staff to review berming and wall details there was no strong direction that the berming be mounded, but staff feels that there should be a mound because cars are more visible when a parking lot is depressed. He stated that land- scaping will eventually screen the parking lot, but that parking was an issue of concern of the residents of Twin Palms Drive. He stated that the architect did not follow staff directions because he had not had time to analyze the situation, and that the applicant requested a con- tinuance if berming is required by the Commission. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Ealy abstained; Kaptur/Neel absent) continuing the application to July 9. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Tribal Council recommendations are as follows: ITEM NO. 1. CASE 5.0398-PD-80 (Continued) . Application by LAWRENCE PIERCE for a Planned Development District to construct a 91-unit, 3- story hotel on South Indian Avenue, between Calle Encilia/S. Indian Avenue, south of Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1AA Zones (I .L. ) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration. ) and June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revisions of the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration.) were considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of June 10, 1986, and the Tribal Council comments and recommendations with respect to these cases were presented at the Planning Commission hearings of June 11, 1986. No further comments are being submitted at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0400-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, no comments received.) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the item to July 9. Planning Director stated that a revised draft has been distributed but that there are minor changes including perfunctory language and coordin- ation details, and the document will be mailed to the Commission before July 9. He stated that a request had been received from Dr. Herman Salk to consider a veterinary clinic with no overnight boarding in a neighborhood shopping center (Rimrocks Plaza) , and that currently the most similar uses allowed in the C-D-N Zone are pet shops and grooming establishments . He stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows medical clinics in shopping centers, that uses in other cities had been researched and that Cathedral City allows the use as a right-of-zone in shopping centers , that Desert Hot Springs requires a CUP, and that the only zoning in the City of Palm Springs which allows boarding and overnight care is the M-1 Zone (with a Conditional Use Permit) . He stated that under a CUP, the use might be an appropriate adjunct in a neighborhood shopping center. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Ealy stated that he might object to the use because of the potential noise factor. Planning Director stated that pet shops and dog grooming businesses are allowed by right of zone and have not been causes for complaints. Discussion continued. Planning Director stated that although pet shops are allowed in the C-D-N Zone, there have been none. Chairman declared the hearing open. Dr. H. Salk, 1050 Mesquite, Palm Springs , stated that he is proposing a clinic for internal veterinary medicine that does not require hospitalization, and that all animals requiring hospitalization will be referred elsewhere. He stated that noise would be minimal since patients will be coming to the clinic on an appointment basis, and that `•-� sanitation would be by County code and the California Veterinary Medical Association. He stated he could not foresee any additional problems. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) Ms. Sandy Yahvitz, 559 S. Palm Canyon, representing Carver Company, spoke in favor of the revised parking standards for mixed use projects. She stated she felt it would be an asset to both Carver-owned Vineyard and Financial Plaza complexes. There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing. Discussion ensued. In response to staff question, Commissioner Lapham stated if grooming is allowed in the C-D-N Zone by right-of-zone, an out-patient veterinary clinic should be allowed. Chairman stated that it should be by right-of-zone, not under a condi- tional use permit. Planning Director remarked that the out-patient por- tion could be regulated if the Zoning Ordinance wording states an out- patient animal clinic only. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) continuing the application to July 9. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: See "ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE," page 5. CASE 5.0405-CUP. Initiation by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction and operation of a public park (McCallum Desert Reserve) on El Cielo Road, north of Sonora Road, W-R-1-C Zone, Section 19. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; final approval , no comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the application and order the filing of a Negative Declaration. Planner (Evans) stated that staff met with homeowners who expressed con- cerns about the type of park and location of and grading for facilities, and that the homeowners now accept the project. He stated that the application was continued because one property owner did not receive his public hearing notice, and that this property owner will probably want to present his position. He stated that the project is consistent with the General Plan and will have no adverse impact on the environment. Chairman declared the hearing open. T. Doczi , 1341 Luna Way, project landscape architect, stated that there is opportunity to preserve a unique desert area, that there will be four enhanced desert zones represented, that the areas will educate people to desert landscaping for future projects, and that there will be natural and educational trails with labeled plants. He stated that the proposed follows generally the 100 year flood plan, that parking is provided within the reserve, that there will be a designed entry, that the design ..- will be phased with El Ci el o being the first phase and that a circula- tion loop will be provided. He stated that detailed plans will be June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0405-CUP. (Continued) submitted for Commission review, that plants native to other deserts can be grown with proper watering, and that there is a plant overlap in the valley of desert regional plants . He stated that native plants will be used next to structures in the reserve to show that desert plants pro- vide texture and color as landscaping materials . Commissioner Curtis complimented Mr. Doczi on the project and asked about irrigation and equipment systems. Mr. Doczi stated that different plants have different watering needs and irrigation will be zoned with intermittent water to establish the plants and reduced watering there- after. He stated that parts of the systems will be in-ground to prevent tampering and vandalism and that the maintenance of the reserve will be by the City Parks Department. He explained that landscaper Eric Johnson will also be involved in a project, that Bermuda grass will be inhibited if watering is reduced and that drought-tolerant plants will be planted. In response to Commission question, he stated that the parks maintenance personnel will be involved in the development of the park, will be instructed about the types of plants and irrigation required, and that the landscaping will be designed to be low-maintenance. He stated that a natural roadway is proposed rather than a concrete road with curbs and gutters. L. Held, 803 El Placer, Palm Springs, the adjoining property owner, stated that he was more concerned about the project then opposed to it because his land abutts a portion of the park and some problems have not been resolved regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit to build condominiums, which the City says has expired. He requested that the application be continued for 30 days for him to resolve the problems and to develop a site plan. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the map for the condominium project was approved in 1979 and subsequently recorded but that the CUP has expired, and that the applicant will be required to reapply for it. He stated that because of the nature of the economy the applicant has indicated that he might want to change the development to si rgl e.fami ly homesand feels that he might not have enough property. He stated that a portion of the property has been dedicated to the City and that the applicants may not have enough time to resolve the differences if the park moves ahead quickly. He stated that the project does not have to be approved by Council since it is a Type 1 Conditional Use Permit. Planner stated that the map on the display board should be corrected since it shows the boundary along the entire 100 year flood plain. Mr. Held stated that the public hearing notices did not indicate dedica- tion of his property, and that he thought that the recorded map gave him the right to build. He stated that the City could not accept dedication from his property and not allow him to build on it. In response to Chairman' s question, City Attorney stated that a dedica- tion of land is open ended and irrevocable and is accepted by the City June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0405-CUP. (Continued) at the time it is justified. He stated he would assume that the parti- cular dedication falls within that category. Mr. Held stated that there is legal terminology that does not allow the City to take the land and not allow him to build. Planning Director stated that there is a groundbreaking ceremony for the park on July 1. Chairman stated that approving the project would not do anything irrevocable to the Held property. Ms. P. LiCalsi , Assistant to the Director of Community Services, stated that there are no definite construction plans for the reserve, that the groundbreaking is being held on July 1 before the McCallum Foundation expires, and that money has been budgeted for the project in Fiscal Year 1986/87. Mr. Held requested that there be some provision made to separate the dedicated land from the park while the park is being constructed so that problems can be resolved regarding the property. Planning Director stated that the project would not be sent to Council unless appealed, and that additional public hearings are not necessary unless the project expands beyond the portion noticed although the final boundary could change. Discussion continued. Commissioner Ealy stated that since the groundbreaking has been sche- duled and the City Attorney indicates that dedication is firm he felt that action should be taken. T. Doczi (rebuttal ) stated that the property in question is not a key element (does not contain a roadway or infra-structure) and that if approval were given, the phasing of the project could begin with the property questioned avoided until the property line is determined. He stated that the plans for the area in question can be flexible. There being no further appearance, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Ealy/Curtis; Neel/Kaptur absent) approving CUP 5.0405 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings• 1. That a conditional use permit is required for public park facilities within a W-R-1-C Zone. 2. That a Negative Declaration of environmental impact has been adopted and that no significant environmental effects have been identified. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0405-CUP. (Continued) 3. That the property is located on E1 Cielo Road and Sonora Road, both of which have available capacity to accommodate projected traffic demands . Both roadways will be improved to the full General Plan width during project phasing. 4. That the development of the proposed McCallum Reserve is desirable for the community and will implement the General Plan relative to the preservation of washes, open space, and implementation of the Tahquitz Creek Scenic Recreation Area Plan. The use will not be detrimental to existing uses or to future uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located. 5. That a third access will be provided to the Equestrian Center whereby peak traffic can be diffused and direct impacts to residences in the project vicinity will be reduced. 6. That the proposed 35-acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed Desert Reserve and that negative impacts to adjacent properties have not been identified. Conditions: 1. That detailed development plans be submitted for Planning Commission approval . Final plans shall include site, grading, phasing, landscape, irrigation, lighting, building and fencing, and roadway materials . 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be imple- mented. 3. That rough grading of portions of the site may be initiated prior to the final approval of the final development plans upon approval of the Director of Community Development. 4. That night lighting other than for safety and security shall be prohibited. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0016-MINOR (Continued). Application by KINNEY SHOE CORP. for archi- tectural approval of revised plans for new storefront (Footlocker) ' in the Desert Fashion Plaza, 100 block, North Palm Canyon Drive, between `� Tahquitz Way/Amado Road, PD-147, Section 15. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0016-MINOR. (Continued) Planner (Green) presented the project. He stated that signing has been submitted and will be a separate issue. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Neel/Kaptur absent) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That the glass store front shall be continued to the existing column. 2. That the glass storefront shall be recessed 12" from the proposed tile storefront. 3. That the soffit shall be tiled. 4. That the tile face be recessed 1" from the surrounding fascia of the building. 5. That the transom window above the door shall be deleted. CASE 3.0057 (MINOR) . Application by GOLDEN STATE SIGN SYSTEMS for archi- tectural approval of a monument sign to replace existing identification sign for Club Trinidad and restaurant at 1900 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Zoning Enforcement Officer (Forcucci ) stated that the Sign Ordinance allows four colors on a sign, but although well-designed the proposed sign has 7 or 8 colors. Discussion ensued on the design and the number of colors. Planning Director stated that the ordinance is specific on the numbers of colors although the intent of the ordinance is met by the well- designed sign. He stated that perhaps the Commission should make a determination that logos be considered separately. Discussion continued on the "spirit of the Ordinance" . Zoning Enforce- ment Officer stated that some of the colors probably will not be highly visible. Planning Director stated that a sign variance could be granted if the Commission found that the site plan and architecture were unique. He suggested that the sign be approved conditionally pending revisions to the Sign Ordinance to allow more than four colors. He stated that the colors would have to be changed back to four if the revisions were not approved. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the "multiple colors approved if allowed by the Commission" . Planning Director stated that the wording would not be adequate, that the sign would be eye catching and of interest, and the designer will probably request more than four colors on additional signs. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0057-MINOR. (Continued) Assistant City Attorney stated that the sign can be approved condi- tionally (as was done in the past with the Wessman project signs on S. Palm Canyon Drive) with an amendment to the sign ordinance for a limit of four colors unless approved by the Commission. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) approving the sign conditionally pending an ordinance change regarding the number of colors allowable. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.361. Planning Commission determination on the number of political flags allowable on a single parcel . Planning Director stated that there are two issues as follows: 1) the number of flags to be flown and under what conditions, 2) special event flags which are neither political nor commercial , such as the "C" and "Liberty" flags. He stated that the elements of the "C" flag! are difficult to discern, but that the "Liberty" flag graphics are more easily seen. He suggested that the wording "Presidential Award" be added to the "C" flag to make it special . He recommended that special event flags be sent to Council since they are not a Planning Commission issue, and Council has the authority to approve such items. Chairman stated that there is a difference between the political sub- division flag and special event flag. He asked if there were a time limit for flying the special event flag. Planning Director stated that there are time limits, and that staff could report appropriateness of flags to the Council , and that if the Commission wants to review flags, the Ordinance should be revised to allow it. Chairman remarked that he thought that the Council wanted the Commission to review such items and wondered if the Council were changing its mind. Commissioner Lapham stated that the Council needs recommendations from the Commission. He suggested that three bonafide political subdivision flags be allowed with any number of above three acted upon individually. Assistant City Attorney stated that the paragraph reqarding special permits in the Ordinance addresses the situation (after the definition of a sign was modified) , and that banners are reviewed by the Council . Planning Director stated that there is a committee working on a proposal for special event banners and flags. He stated that staff could approve up to three because sometimes three are too many because of limited frontage space. He stated that Mr. Untermeyer who designs and sells flags feels that one flag every fifteen feet should be allowed with a maximum of 15 flags. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) DETERMINATION 10.361. (Continued) Discussion continued. Planning Director stated that flags are con- sidered architectural statements at entries of hotels by some people. Commissioner Lapham stated that there should be a separate application for this type of flag proposal . H. Untermeyer, 1630 La Reina, stated that the problem is the word "political " , which was the cause of the code violation for Robinson' s Department Store. He suggested using the term "non-commercial " and stated that the Council would not object to this special event flag and that the Planning staff could address pro- blems arising from special event activities. He stated that two hotels now fly flags, and that one (the Biltmore) has ten flags. He requested on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce Committee that the "C" flag be allowed. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur) determining that three political sub- division flags are allowed with staff approval with any proposal for additional flags to be reviewed by the Commission on an architectural basis and that non-political subdivision flags such as the "C" flag be reviewed by the City Council . ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0022. Application by R. Gengler for architectural approval of a 5 unit apartment complex located on Saturmino and Calle Lileta, R-2 Zone, Section 13. Planner (Green) presented the project and stated that the AAC recommended a restudy noting that a simple roof would be more appro- priate, that the laundry room should have a flat roof and that the applicant wants to contest the condition and has brought in revised plans which the AAC has not seen. R. Gengler, 520 Desert Holly Circle, the applicant and owner, stated that the revised roof plan has been submitted although the idea behind the stepped roof was to give more interest to the roofline and to allow more visibility for one of the units. He stated that the laundry room was an amenity, but could be deleted. He stated that he objected to the A.M.M. requirements. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) for a restudy of the architec- ture and landscaping noting the following: 1. That a simple hip roof form shall be used. 2. That the air conditioning units shall be placed in side yards. 3. That walls shall be included to screen side yards. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0022. (Continued) 4. That the laundry building shall be revised (flat roof which breaks plane of main building suggested) . 5. That a refined preliminary landscaping plan shall be submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0398-PD- 180 (Continued) . Application by LAWRENCE PIERCE for a Planned Development District to construct a 91-unit, 3-story hotel on South Indian Avenue, between Calle Encilia/S. Indian Avenue, south of Arenas Road, C-2 and C-1AA Zones (I .L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, no comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the application to July 23. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for revised plans which have not been submitted and recommended that the application be continued to July 23 with other action to be taken if new plans have not been submitted for that meeting. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) continuing the application to July 23. Tribal Council comments: See *"ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE", page 5. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.880. Application by CARVER CO. for architectural approval of revised landscape planter for restaurant in rear portion of the vineyard retail complex on S. Palm Canyon Dr. , CBD Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions : 1. That the north planter be reduced in length and centered under the windows. 2. That the trellis poles be protected by curbing in a triangular shape (no concrete wheel stops) . CASE 3.0058 (MINOR). Application by GOLDEN STATE SIGN SYSTEMS for architectural approval of a main identification sign for Cafe Mahvalous in the Desert Fashion Plaza on North Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, �.. Section 15. June 2.5, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0058. (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham; Neel/Kaptur absent) continuing the application to July 9. CASE 3.0023 (Continued) . Application by ABRAHAM YERMIAN for architectural approval of revised elevations for a commercial building at Camino Monte Vista/North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That the wing wall be furred out at the end. 2. That the false outlookers be eliminated from the east elevation. 3. That the roof access ladder be relocated inside one of the units. Planning Director stated that staff would not support recommendation #4, (that turf be placed adjacent to the curb and sidewalk on N. Palm Canyon adjacent to the door front) , which is a reverse of City standards . CASE 3.0047. Application by HOWARD LAPHAM for the Boys' Club of Palm Springs for architectural approval of an addition to the Boys' Club on Sunrise Way, between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, "0" Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that the applicant is out of state and has requested a continuance. M/S/C (Ealy/Curtis; Neel/Kaptur absent; Lapham abstained) continuing the application to July 9. CASE 5.0408-MISC. Planning Commission discussion of draft EIR and draft San Bernardino National Forest Land & Resource Management Plan. Planner (Evans) described the area involved in the master plan and stated that the plan would be effective for the next 15 years. He stated that staff is recommending that the boundaries extend to the City limit line which would relieve the City of some exposure to fire on the west. He stated that the plan does not suggest improvements to the wilderness areas and that response time for input from the City is limited. He noted that since the boundary extends into the City limits on Indian land, the Indians may have concerns, but that there are no disadvantages to the City because of the extension of the boundary. He stated that a management agreement could be developed through the BIA, and that the government cannot improve private land. He stated that much of the property is not developable and that staff will meet with the Forest Service on pros and cons, with the City position to be formulated by July 24. He noted that an endorsement is needed by the Commission to study the boundary expansion, that the Fire Department receives the most advantage because of lowering of firefighting costs, and that -the City has been lucky because there have been very few fires inside the City limits. June 25, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0408-MISC. (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Ealy; Neel/Kaptur absent) endorsing staff' s recommendation to extend the forest service boundary (wilderness area) easterly to the City limit line subject to staff review. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0033 (Minor) . Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for Desert Hospital for architectural approval of final landscape plans for temporary modular building (adjacent to radiology department) on Paseo E1 Mirador, R-4 Zone, Section 11. M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Kaptur/Neel absent) approving the application as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission update on City Council actions. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS #16. Commissioner Lapham questioned the cost of the crash fire rescue vehicle for the airport ($215,540) . Planning Director stated that its high cost is because it is special airport equipment. - CASE 5.0389-PD-177. Planning Director stated that this item was con- tinued for a field trip and that the City Council has concerns of access and hillside development which had also been Commission concerns. CASE 3.995. Planning Director stated that Councilperson Apfelbaum is appealing the Planning Commission approval of the chain link fence at 815 Panorama (hillside lot) . DETERMINATION 10.360 (Continued). Planning Commission review of request to convert hotel lobby to retail space for a non-conforming use in the 300 block of N. Palm Canyon Drive (Patio Manor Hotel ) , CBD Zone, Section 15. Planning Director stated that staff does not recommend that conversion to retail space in lobbies of non-resort hotels be an allowable use in the C-B-D Zone. He stated that the old buildings should be brought into conformance to make them either all hotels or all retail . M/S/C (Lapham/Curtis; Kaptur/Neel absent) determining that conversion of hotel lobbies to retail space for non-resort hotels in the C-B-D Zone is not an allowable use. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 25, 1986 Page 16 Chairman stated that it was his last meeting since his term of office will expire on June 30. He stated that he wanted to thank staff and other Commissioners for their advice, help and honest efforts through the years of his tenure. ADJOURNMENT There being no further . business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. PLANNING DI ECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall July 9, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 1 0 Hugh Curtis X 1 0 Hugh Kaptur X 1 0 Curt Ealy X 1 0 Earl Neel - 0 1 Gary Olsen X 1 0 Paul Madsen X 1 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - July 7, 1986 • J. Cioffi , Chairman Chris Mills Tom Doczi Curt Ealy William Johnson Earl Neel Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Lapham/Ealy; Neel absent; Olsen abstained) approving minutes of June 25, 1986 as submitted. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairman: (M/S/C Kaptur/Curtis; Neel absent) unanimously electing Larry Lapham Chairman. Vice Chairman: (M/S/C Madsen/Kaptur; Neel absent) unanimously electing Hugh Curtis Vice-Chairman. •