Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977/02/09 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 9, 1977 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL Fiscal Year 1976 - 1977 Present Present Excused Absences PlanninglCommission This Meeting To Date To Date Vyola Ortner, Chairman x 14 1 Carrie Allan x 3 0 Stephen Chase x 12 3 Sig Ehrens x 15 0 Michael Harris x 2 0 Larry Lapham x 15 0 John Wessman x 9 6 Staff Present John A. Mangione, City Planner MarvindD. Roosq,=City Planning Associate Rich Romer, Traffic Engineer Gloria Fiore, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - February 9, 1977 John Miller, Chairman Sigmund Ehrens Richard Harrison Hugh Kaptur Earl J. Neel Laszlo Sandor Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :35 pmm. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Approval of Minutes: The Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1977, drafts distributed, were unanimously approved. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 POBLIC HEARINGS: CASE 5.986-PD-71 - Application by AFFILIATED PROPERTIES for a Planned Development District to construct an office complex and residential apartments with recreational facilities on property situated on the east side of Farrell Drive between Tahquitz-McCallum Way and Baristo Road, P Zone, Section 13. Commission response to comments on Negative Declaration. Chairman advised that since no written comments had been received relative to the filing of a Negative Declaration, no response was necessary. City Planner reviewed the staff report, noting that the 240 residential units had been increased to 264 but that a portion of the professional buildings had beencdliminAted. He read the applicant's statement of the project into the record. The plot plans, including the master plan for the entire development, and a blow up of a portion of the project, were presented and explained as was Phase I. The Commission was ad- vised that the Architectural Advisory Committee had reviewed the item, that there had been a difference of opinion between the members, and the comments received from the Committee were read into the record. He advised that staff was recommending a two week continuance. Commissioner Ehrens stated that it should be noted that the Commissioners had been present at the Architectural Advisory Committee meeting during the presentation of this item. Chairman declared the hearing open and the following persons spoke from the audience: Harvey Goff, a representative from Affiliated Properties, advised that while they were not opposed to a continuance they would prefer to have the Commission give consideration to Committee member Kaptur's sug- gestion of blocking out that portion of the professional office build- ings that were not incorporated into Phase I. He advised that Phase I and I-A consistedd of about 60,000 sq. ft. of office building and that the market study that had been prepared for them had indicated that in Palm Springs there was between forty to fifty thousand square feet of office space need generated per year and in their location they should anticipate to capture between fifty to sixty per cent of the demand. He reported that this was why they had picked 20,000 sq. ft. to start with. He advised that to develop Phase I and I-A would take approxi- mately two years and that for them to plan, at this time, the size, location or type of building for the entire development would be dif- ficult. He explained they would prefer to show size and parking re- quirements on the remainder of the Farrell Drive and Tahquitz-McCallum frontage after seeing the results of Phase I and I-A and then, at that time, return to the City with actual experience which would enable them to better meet the requirem6nts of the City and also the market, in ``� developing the balance of the property. He asked whether it was February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued CASE 5.986-PD-71 - Continued possible to obtain approval of a portion of the development. City Planner advised that, within certain limitations, it was possible but not the way that it was being proposed by the applicant. He explained that in order to present preliminary plot plans to the City Council there would have to be a public hearing,which would be the basis on which a district could initially be granted, and that the only function of Final development plans, after the approval of the district and preliminary plot plans, would be to finalize details. Mt was noted that if, in fact, the project was so large that no one could determine what might happen with Phase II, the best recommendation might be to split the project into two separate proposals and file two separate applications. Mr. Goff stated that if there was to be a two week continuance they would like some in- dication from the Commission regarding whether or not their concept was acceptable and, if not, suggestions as to what would be more agreeable. Mr. Wayne, speaking in opposition, advised that he was the owner of two of the existing units in the professional park on the corner of Tahquitz-McCallum and Civic Drive, as well as Chairman df the entire ✓ project. He stated that they were concerned with the traffic patterns on South DiviciDrive as, at the present time, there was no other access to South Civic Drive except off of Tahquitz-McCallum. He noted, from looking At the plans, it appeared that South Civic Drive would be continued back in a southerly direction connecting with Baristo Road, and that to ultimately have 264 residential units coupled with professional buildings where there would be a turnover of °peop4e tee:kd,nig services, would create a great burden. He questioned whether there would be a traffic light installed at the corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way and South Civic Drive and asked that the Com- mission take that into consideration. Tom Kiely, 2777 E. Baristo Road, advised that at this time he did not know Whether or not his family or the neighbors in the area were actually opposed to the proposed development, but that they would like to reserve their time to be heard at such time as the final plans were brought before the Planning Commission and City Council . There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ehrens asked whether or not a traffic study had been made for South Civic Drive and he was advised by City Planner that only a cursory check had been done by the Traffic Engineer, and that he had indicated that the additional traffic would not impact the area. He noted that because traffic was increasing everywhere in the City, every day, and for that reason traffic counts were taken from time to time `�' and as signals or control devices were warranted they were installed. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued CASE 5.986-PD-71 - Continued He explained the warrant system required by the State and noted, at this time, it would hot be possible to develop enough of a case to warrant a signal . Commissioner Lapham observed that they were considering a development on a truly outstanding piece of property that a few months ago had been given an unusual and outstanding zone and that, in his opinion, to date they had only looked at mediocre planning. He advised that it was his recommendation that the Commission not consider the project on a "piece meal" basis and suggested that the applicant take a whole new approach to the plan so that something could be developed as out- standing as the property. The Commissioners agreed and this item was continued to the February 23, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued CASE 6.293 - Application by ROSE ROSE for a variance from setback require- ments for construction of a single family residence on property located at the southwest corner of Vereda Norte and Camino Centro, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Commission response to comments on Negative Declaration. Chairman advised that since no written comments had been received relative to the filing of a Negative Declaration, no response was necessavy. City Planner advised that he would like to clarify the action taken by the Commission at their last meeting relative to the Negative Declara- tion. He aeexq)11 in�dl that a Negative Declaration could not be conditioned, set forth the reasons, and advised that the requested variances were of such a nature that they would not require a full environmental impact report so staff had proceeded with the Negative Declaration, minus the condition. He reviewed the variances being requested and alternate recommendations by staff, and read the findings based on staff's recom- mended variances. The staff report containing adjacent zoning, exist- ing landuuse, background and statistical breakdown was presented, as were statements set forth by the applicant in support of her request. A plan showing requested and recommended setbacks was reviewed, as was the location of the property. The Commission was advised that to date one letter in opposition had been received and the letter was read into the record. Chairman declared the hearing open and the following persons spoke from The audience: Jack Futch, assistant to Mrs. Rose, advised that he was not unfamiliar with zoning but that he had just obtained a copy of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance that morning, upon arrival from Georgia, which he had briefly reviewed. He requested clarification of Section 9203.3(e) on page 37, which stated that corner lots siding on a local street shall have a side yard on the street of not less than 20 ft. He explained that, in his opinion, the property faced Camino Centro and that Vereda Norte was, in fact, the side yard and not the front yard. He noted that the setback requested was 17'6" which was well within the adminis- trative twentypper cent, as stated in Section 9203.3(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, and that in order to maintain the integrity of the house it would be impossible to increase that setback. He advised that the front yard setback on Camino Centro was presently 20 ft. which was also within the administrative twenty per cent, and that the requested 9 ft. rear yard setback was, after a ground survey, exactly the same as the neighbors. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued CASE 6.293 - Continued City Planner, in response to the request for clarification, advised that in the Zoning Ordinance under side yard provisions there was a definition for reverse corner lots. He explained that by definition of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance a reverse corner meant backing a lot to the side yard of the adjacent lots, and that if you looked at the lot on which Mrs. Rose proposcdo to build a home, there was no question by subdivision of the property, that the front of the lot faced north aaddid the front of all the other homes along the block. He noted that a reverse corner lot should have a side yard on the street side of a -width not less than the required front yard on the key lot. He advised that it was possible to have the house face E1 Centro but that the side yard setback on Vereda Norte would then become 25 ft. instead of 20. Jack Futch advised that, in his opinion, this was in fact an addiinistrative decision, and that it would not materially affect anyone in the area. In addition, that to enforce the letteroof the Zoning Ordinance instead of the spirit, which would promote orderly growth with respect to aesthetic values, would create an undue hardbhip on the development of the property. He observed that what was being requested in variances was not un- reasonable and asked the Commission to give the request careful con- sideration. Rose Rose, the applicant, reviewed her background as a developer, as well as the background of the Las Palmas area. She stated that she believed an error had been made in the zoning as she could not under- stand how her lot could be zoned R-1 -A when it was only 15,000 sq. ft., as opposed to 20,000 sq. ft. required for that particular zone. She questioned the difference between the R-1-A, B and C designations, noting that she had been advised by the Director of Community Develop- ment that "C" denoted a new subdivision and that a new subdivision was not possible because 98% of the property in the arena was already occupied. She inquired why her neighbor could have a garage 9 ft. away from her property line and she could not. She advised that she had designed the proposed house 22 years ago and that in its re- design it had been cut down in size. In addition, that she did not believe in overbuilding on any lot no matter where it was situated. She noted that she had been paying taxes not only on this lot but others that she owned in the area for over 18 years. She :requested an answer to her question regarding the zoning of her lot. City Planner explained that the rezoning of the Las Palmas area had taken place prior to 1965, and that because of the predominance of large estate size lots, and so it wouldr;notbbe possible to subdivide the lots into something smaller, the whole area had been zoned R-1 -A. He noted that while you could find a scattered pattern of 15,000 sq. ft. and 20,000 sq. ft. lots in the area this would not mean that you would find a checkerboard type of zoning, as a single zoning had been applied to keep the standards the same throughout. He noted that �.. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued I CASE 6.293 - Continued regardless of what a lot was zoned, R-1-A, B or C, the development standards for a front yard setback of 25 ft. were the same. In reply to a question by Rose Rose as to what R-1-C meant and what could be built on such a lot, he explained that any R-1 designation indicated single family residential use of the land, with the A, B and C designating minimum lot sizes for new subdivision, and that C would indicate a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. There being no further appearances the hearing was closed. Commissioner Allan asked whether or not the minimum side or rear yard setback for any residential lot was 10 ft. , and how many substandard lots were available in the Las Palmas area. She was advised by City Planner.rth6t the minimum would be 10 ft. in terms of a standard lot size, but that there were many instances throughout the City where there were lots mmaller than standard and for those lots there were some provisions to allow the width of a side yard based on a per- centage of the width of the lot. He reported that the absolute minimum side yard for any lot would be five feet, but that would be where the lot was only 55 or 60 feet wide. With reference to the question regarding substandard lots in the Las Palmas area, he re- ported that in terms of developed lots they would be substandard by our Zoning Ordinance today, but that at the time they were subdivided they were not substandard. He advised that originally the minimum standard size lot for the area was 10,000 sq. ft. and since there had been many instances where lots had been combined into half acre in size or larger, the City father$, some years ago, zoned the area to 20,000 sq. ft. minimum estate size lots in order to retain the quality of the area. Commissioner Ehrens noted that it appeared the house had been designed to be placed on a lot where it would be too close to property lines and, therefore, the variance was being requested. He advised that he did not see any hardship by using the proper setbacks, and that the house should fit into those setbacks like any other house being built in Palm Springs. Commissioner Chase asked whether or not staff, because of the lot being substandard in size, would have the option of granting a 20% reduction on the side setbacks without the matter being presented to the Planning Commission. He was advised by City Planner that he was correct, but that the applicant was requesting more than a 20 per cent reduction. Commissioner Chase indicated that he would not be in favor of recom- mending even the 20 per cent reduction. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued CASE 6.293 - Continued Chairman observed that the house was too big for the lot and that to grant the rqquested variance would be granting a special privilgge that could lead to other home owners in the area requesting variances at some future date for the purpose of additions or remodeling. Motion was made by La ham, seconded by Ehrens, approving the applica- tion for a variance on setbacks based on the following findings and subject to the conditions that the setbacks to be used are those recommended by Itaff. FINDINGS: 1 . Special circumstances relative to the substandard width of the subject property exist which might deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. 2. The granting of a variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege to this property not enjoyed by others in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the neighbor$nguproperties and improvements in the vicinity. 4. The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the Genera] Plan 6or the City. CONDITIONS: 1 . That the side front (Cgmrhno Del Centro) setback is to be a minimum of 16 ft. 2. That the side yard setback is to be a minimum of 10 ft. 3. That the rear yard setback is to be a minimum of 10 ft. 4. That the front yard setback is to be a minimum of 25 ft. AYES: Ortner, Allan, Chase, Ehrens, Harris, Lapham NOES: ABSENT: Wessman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page (9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS: Staff reports and environmental evaluations were presented, maps or plans were explained and reviewed, and the Planning Commission dis- cussed and took action `on- theifolloiwing environmental assessment items. CASE 5.999 - Environmental Assessment on application by SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK Agents for Pacific Southwest Realty Co. for Conditional Use Permit to expand existing parking facilities on property situated on the west side of Calle Ajo, between Ramon Road and Camino Parocela, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Motion was made by Ehrens, seconded by Chase, and unanimously carried, (Wessman absent) that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be prepared and filed. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 9205 - Environmental Assessment on request by WEBB ENGINEERING INC., representinq U.S.A. and Desert Dorados, Inc., for approval of Tentative Tract Map 9205, dividing 37.0+ acres into 108 lots, R-2 and R-1 -C Zones, Section 2. Commissioners kop.hama ndaMar r,isr:abstaainedefrrbrhoconsidbratidnmof this item. Mo tion was made by Ehrens, seconded by Allan, 4ndpbnanamous.ly. carried, ('Lp ham and Harr. syabst dni.og W sgman r.a seat)Ei �aato r NegatirvenDetlara- tdop►of«EnuironmbntaT.Impact be prepared and filed. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8912 - Environmental Assessment on request by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC., representing Hal Wallis, for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 8912, dividing 20+ acres into two lots, R-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 24. Commissioners Lapham and Harris abstained from consideration of this item. Motion was made by Chase, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried, (Lapham and Harrisa: �taanings, Wessman absent) that a Negative Declara- tion of Environmental Impact be prepared and filed. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8789 - Environmental Assessment on request by WEBB ENGINEERING, INC., representing Farrell Canyon Estates, for approval of Tentative Tract Map 8789 dividing 11 .4+ acres into 35 lots, R-1-C Zone, Section 24. Commissioners Lapham and Harris abstained from consideration of this item. Motion was made by Ehrens, seconded by Chase, and unanimously carried, (Lapham and Harris abstaining, Wessman Went) that a Negative Declara- tion be ft&pdred and filed. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 TENTATIVE PARCEL AND TRACT MAPS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8221 - Reggest by ABRAMS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, repre- senting Stewart Cramer, to delete sidewalk requirement for Tentative Parcel Map 8221 . Commissioner Lapham abstained from consideration of this item. City Planner explained the location of the subject property on an aerial photograph of the City,and presented a copy of the tentative map showing the division of the property into three lots. He explain- ed that the lots had been developed with homes by the owner of the parcel , and that a standard requirement of the Engineering Division requiring curbs, gutters and sidewalks, as off site improvements, had been imposed as a condition of the parcel map. He advised that the applicant's request for a variance from the engineering condition re- quiring sidewalks was based on the fact thAt there were no sidewalks existing in the area, as well as no sidewalks along Ruth Hardy park. He reported that staff, after looking at the area, could not see where a sidewalk would serve any useful putzpose at this time , but that if the requirement were deleted it should be on the basis of an agreement that at such time as an assessment district for sidewalks was formed, the three lots involved in this parcel should automatically participate. Following discussion, motion was made by Ehrens, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Lapham abstaining, Wessman absent) that the sidewalk requirement be deleted for the above numbered map, subject to the condition that an agreement be entered into stating that at such time as an assessment district for sidewalks is formed, the three lots involved in this parcel map shall participate. Discussion Item: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8132 - KWL ASSOCIATES City Planner explained that this item was before the Commission so t ey could be apprised of what was happening to the map in question. The property, known as the Andreas Hills project, was located on the aerial photograph and it was noted that 280 acres had been annexed during December of 1976. He reported that the tentative tract map had been approved by Riverside County while the property had been under their jurisdiction, but since the annexation the County had done nothing further by way of processing and as a result the City had a tentative map approved under County standards with a final map ready to be processed before the City Council . The Commission was informed that, based on the RLEcorder's acceptance of a valid tentative map, the City would proceed with a hearing on the fdnal map before the City Council . "' Public Comments: None. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed and approved the following items involving Architectural Approval , subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 2.913 - Application by JAMES E. BROWN for Architectural Approval of revised plans for construction of 88 single story units to be located on Ramon Road west of E1 Cielo, R-2 Zone, Section 24. City Planning Associate presented and explained revised elevations, the site plan, colors and materials and advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee had reviewed this item and recommended approval . In reply to a question by Commissioner Ohase, he reviewed the areas on the plans where the proposed white color was to be used. Commissioner Lapham stated that he was still disturbed by the "piece- meal " service road, noting that the Commission had the opportunity to require a scenic parkway, which was needed, for approximately three blocks along Ramon Road. He expressed concern with reference to the parking along a residential area, pointing out that there was nothing to keep people from parking on both sides of the street all along Teresa Drive Commissioner Chase agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Lapham and, in addition, spggested that the sidewalks leading from Teresa be eliminated. He observed that the reason for the frontage road was to keep people. off of Teresa Drive, and that conditions should be imposed that the street be red curbed and the walk removed. With reference to the white proposed for the bu kdof the buildings, he advised that there would be too much of a contrast with the other earth colors and that he would suggest the use of a soft sand or beige color. Chaitiirman°-�askedatf pit-was :poss,�bl.e ,for the Commits.i:onktoaimpose a condo lo►t sfor red curbing or whether that should come from the Traffic and Parking Commission. City Planner advised that if such a motion were made it should contain a request that the Traffic and Parking Commission look at the situation and make a recommendation based on a traffic report. He noted, however, that since there was a barrier strip with no indication of what the Barrie, would provide, a condition could be imposed requiring a wall with no breaks in it for the full length of Teresa which should eliminate pedestrian access and street parking. Commissioner Harris advised that -,,.he would like to make a motion to refer this item to the Traffic and Parking Commission for study be- fore making any decision on the wall . Commissioner Allan seconded the motion. Commissioner Lapham noted that the Commission could impose a require- ment for a 3 to 3-1/2- foot wall along Teresa Drive, with the plans for that wall being submitted to the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for approval . February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ; Page 12 Architectural Review Items - Continued CASE 2.913 - Continued The motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Allan was withdrawn. City Planner advised that, in terms of clarification regarding: the wall , sance this was a setback area fronting on a street the Zoning Ordinance would permit a 4-1/2 foot wall which would allow some flexibility in the wall height. Motion was made by Ehrens approving the application subject to the condition that a continuous, unbroken wall bepplaced the length of Teresa Drive, with plans for the wall to be submitted to the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for approval . Commissioner Chase seconded the motion based on the further condition that the white proposed for the buildings be eliminated, and that a sand or beige color be submitted for approval . AYES: Allan, Chase, Ehrens, Harris NOES: Ortner, Lapham ABSENT: Wessman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 Architectural Approval Items - Continued CASE 2.918 - Application by R. D. CHRISTOFERSON representing Dr. Richard E. Kraus for Architectural Approval of plans for remodel of front of office building located at 1546 N. Palm Canyon Drive. Motion was made by Chase, seconded by Ehrens, and unanimously carried (Wessman absent) approving this application as submitted. CASE 2.855 - Application by LARRY LAPHAM for Architectural Approval of detailed colors and materials for Burger King Restaurant located in the 400 block on South Indian Avenue, Section 14. Commissioner Lapham abstained. Motion was made by Ehrens, seconded by Chase, A4 *ftanimously carried (Lapham abstaining, Wessman absent), approving this application as submitted. CASE 2.860 - Application by DON McKINNEY for Architectural Approval of re- vised site plan for industrial/commercial building to be located at 4589-99 Sunny Dunes Road, Section 19. Motion was made by Chase, seconded by Allan, and unanimously carried (Wessman absent), approving this application, subject to detailed landscape, irrigation and signing plans be submitted. CASE 2.874 - Appligtior by DAVE HAMILTON (representing the Desert Water Agency) or Architectural Approval of landscape.and irrigation Pans. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by La , iam, and unanimously carried (Wessman absent), approving this application subject to the condition that a substitution for the proposed Parkinsonia Aculeate tree be sub- mitted to staff for approval . _CASE 5.925 - El Cielo Corporation (Clarkston Recreation Center) . Planning Commission review of driving range lights per condition of original Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Harris abstained. Motion was made by Allan, seconded byChase, apdunanimbbslPcarr :edi (Harris abttaining, Wessman absent), approving the driving range lights subject to the condition that landscape plans showing quantity and location of plant materials to screen the lighting from adjacent properties be submitted to staff for approval . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 Architectural Approval Items - Continued CASE 5.926 - Application by PALM SPRINGS PROFESSIONAL ARTS CENTER for Architectural Approval of revised elevations for construction of a professional building on the south side of Tachevah Drive, between Indian Avenue and Avenida Palos Verdes, R-2 Zone, Section 11 . Motion was made by La ham, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Wessman absent), approving this application as submitted. SIGN APPLICATION - Application by VALINTINOS ITALIAN RESTAURANT for Architectural Approval of sign scheme,150 East Vista Chino. City Planning Associate advised that in addition to reviewing the proposed sign bbe Architectural Advisory Committee had also looked at a proposed canopy for the entrance and had recommended approval of both the sign and canopy as submitted. In reply to questions he reported that the canopy would be made from a dark brown canvass with wrought iron fixtures and would not have any type of sign on it. The Commissioners were in agreement that the canopy should not be permitted, indicating that it would not enhance the appearance of the building. Motion was made by Chase, seconded by Ehrens, and unanimously carried (Wessman absent), denying th6husegf a�cOnopyiand approving the sign subject to the condition that the cut out letters proposed are to be one inch thick. CASE 5.940 - Application by SMOKE TREE PLAZA PARTNHRSHIP for Architectural Approval of landscape and irrigation plans for Smoke Tree Cottage Inn. U!-ommri,ssdtoner�Uaph#m abstained. Motion was made by Chase, seconded by Allan, andrunanimously carried (Lapham abstaining, Wessman absent), approving this application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That African Sumac be substituted for the Parkinsonia Aculeata. 2. That Eucalyptus Polyanthemas be used in place of Eucalyptus Cinera. 3. That the Potential& and Baccharis groundcover be deleted and that other groundcover used elsewhere in the plans be used. 4. That 12, 24 inch box grapefruit trees be added. 5. That a 3'O" screen wall is required by the Zoning Ordinance along the test and east lines of the parking area. February 9, 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 The Planning Commission continued the following items to its meeting_ of February 23, 1977. SIGN APPLICATION - A lication bY TROPICS HOTEL for Architectural Approval of rev sed sign scheme, 411 East Palm Canyon Drive. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Planning Commission removed the following items from its agenda pending restudy. CASE 21,911 Application by HOWARD LAPHAM for Architectural Approval of revised plans for constru ction of apartment complex lex to b located at the corner of Highway 111 , Broadmoor Drive and extension of Waverly Drive, Section 29. CASE 2 .911, Application by MARK BLAICH for Architectural Approval of revised plans for construction of hillside residence, R 1 B Zone, Section 3. Reports and Requests: Chairman inquired whether the security wrought iron gates at the Ruby Dunes restaurant had been a part of the plan approved by the Planning Commission. City Planning Associate advised that the security gates had not been approved, that other construction variations had been noted and that the applicants were going to resubmit plans covering such items as the security gates, change in detail on the wall ,further screening and staining of parapet walls and, in addition, he reported that the landscaping had not been totally installed as yet. Chairman advised that the joint meeting with the City Council had been changed from February 24 to February 22, but that it would still be held at noon at the Spa Hotel . There being no further bueiness the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. CI PL N JAM/gvf PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall February 23,1977 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL Fiscal Year 1976 - 1977 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting To Date To. Date Vyola Ortner, Chairman x 15 1 Carrie Allan x 4 0 Stephen Chase x 13 3 Sig Ehrens x 16 0 Michael Harris x 3 0 Larry Lapham x 16 0 John Wessman - 9 7 Staff Present John A. Mangione, City Planner Marvin D. Roos, City Planning Associate • Gloria Fiore, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - February 22, 1977 John Miller, Chairman Michael Buccino Richard Harrison Hugh Kaptur Laszlo Sandor Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :35 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Approval of Minutes: The Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 1977, drafts distributed, were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Delete the name "Mr. Wayne" appearing on page 3 and insert the name of "Mr. Jamin. " Tentative Tract Map 8789 and Tentative Parcel Map 8912, reported on page 9, should show Commissioners Harris and Lapham as absent instead of abstaining. Commissioner Ehrens advised that he would like to have it reported in Case 2.874, appearing on page 13 of the Minutes, that he had asked the question whether the Desert Water Agency was going to use reclaimed water in connection with their landscape and irrigation plans, and that he had been advised by them that it was too expensive. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *