Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/12/22 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall December 22, 1982 1:30 p.m. F-Y 1982 - 1983 ROLL CALL present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 10 1X 11 0 Hugh Curtis X 9 2 Darel Harris X 10 1 Hugh Kaptur X 10 1 Peter Koetting X 9 2 Don Lawrence X 9 2 Paul Madsen Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Doug Evans , Planner III Robert Green, Planner II John Terrell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Architectural Advisory Committee Present - December 20, 1982 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Peter Koetting Chris Mills Hugh Curtis David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Absent: Earl Neel Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the December 8, 1982 meeting were approved with the following correction: P. 15, Case 3.543, paragraph 3, change "Commissioner" Koetting to "Applicant" Koetting. • December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0231-PD-139. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a planned development district to allow construction of three affordable housing projects on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/extension of Tramview Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue Case 5.0231-PD-139 to the January 12, 1983 meeting since comments from the State Clearinghouse have just been received. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was continued to January 12, 1983. CASE 5.0252-A (MISC.) . Initiation by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for Environmental Assessment/Initial Study of the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project area bordered by Indian Avenue/Alejo Road/Avenida Caballeros/Ramon Road, Section 14. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the preparation of an environmental impact report based on the findings established in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. Planning Director indicated the action available to the Commission at the present time and presented the background for the redevelopment district formation. Housing and Redevelopment Specialist reported the background of the environmental assessment and indicated that the major project in the Tahquitz/Andreas Redevelopment Project would be the convention center, (approximately 175,000 sq. ft. of meeting space) , and approximately 1 ,800 new hotel rooms in the area. Major environmental assessment issues included: 1. Wind erosion. 2. Air pollution. 3. Water runoff and flooding. 4. Use of natural resources. 5. Use of energy. 6. Aesthetics/high rise. 7. Traffic and circulation. 8. Noise. Commissioner Kaptur entered the meeting at this time. • Housing and Redevelopment Specialist continued with the staff report and the elements of mitigation that would be necessary and the study that would be appropriate to include in the Environmental Impact Report. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 • CASE 5.0252-A (MISC.) (Cont' d.) In answer to question by Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Specialist stated that the Tahquitz-Andreas area was being processed first to facilitate the possible convention center being studied for the vicinity. In answer to questions by the Commission, staff stated that the convention center site has only been tentatively selected; and that there are not many ten acre sites in the vicinity that would accommodate the convention facility. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. In answer to question by Commission as to why staff was preparing the environmental impact and if it were appropriate, Planning Director stated that the procedure was normal and staff was working with the consultants of the Redevelopment Agency to prepare the environmental study. Motionwas made by Koetting, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried that an environmental impact report be prepared for Case 5.0252-A (Misc. ) • Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that all of the vacant land and most of the developed land included in the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project Area is owned by individual allottees of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The developed parcel at the northeasterly corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way and Indian Avenue is Tribal Land. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council concurred with the findings and recommendations set forth in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated December 22, 1982 in that a focused Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to address those areas identified in the E.A./I .S. as being potentially significant impacts. In addition to the focused EIR, the Tribal Council understands that a Fiscal Impact Analysis will be prepared as a separate document. The Tribal Council requested the opportunity to review and comment in that document when it becomes available. This action by the Tribal Council with respect to the environmental documentation is not to be construed as an expression of the Tribal Council in support of, or in opposition to the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Project Area." • December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0253-GPA. Initiation by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a General Plan amendment to approve the concept of a revised master plan of flood control and drainage, Citywide, for the City of Palm Springs. (The environmental assessment will be completed by Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCD) . Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the revised Master Plan of Drainage in concept. Director of Community Development outlined the history of the drainage master plan originally adopted in 1967, noting that there had been little implementation of the plan; that there was a growing need to implement a Master Plan of Drainage due to the impacts of new development on the existing drainage system; and that the major changes to the 1967 Plan were as follows: a) adding the southeast area of the City, including a portion of Cathedral City which is within the Riverside County Flood Control District jurisdiction; b) utilizing the concept of large retention basins in four sites within the City which would hold flood waters up to 24 -36 hours which will allow downsized piping and reduce cost to the overall system; c) the overall price was about the same with the savings accomplished by retention basins offsetting the fact that there was additional area included over the 1967 Plan. He explained the process for approval of the revised Master Plan as: 1) concept approval by the Planning Commission; 2) concept • approval by the City Council ; 3) environmental assessment by RCFCD; 4) action for approval by RCFCD; 5) action for approval by the Planning Commission to amend the Master Plan for Drainage; and 6) action by the City Council to amend the Master Plan for Drainage. In response to questions by Commission, Director of Community Development explained that development fees were enacted to resolve funding for construction in critical areas and to mitigate the downstream impacts of new development and create a mechanism for construction of adjacent drainage facilities; that the drainage fees have already been adopted by the City Council ; that the overall funding for the flood control system came from three sources: 1) ad valorem taxes 2) benefit assessment district as passed by the voters in the form of Proposition "F" , and 3) developer acreage drainage fees. He indicated that the three sources would fund approximately one-half of the total system during the next 15 years based on projections by the Riverside County Flood Control District; explained the priorities of the drainage problems throughout the City and the process to amend a General Plan once it is adopted. He stated the basic assessment unit established by the Flood Control District based on the runoff from a single family house site and indicated that for commercial and industrial development, that multiples of that basic assessment unit were used to establish the fees. In answer to further questions by Commission, Director of Community Development stated that the Master Plan of Drainage was separate from the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Control Insurance Program • (FEMA) ; that FEMA identifies the potential flooding areas where water would leave major drainage channels; that the FEMA process would develop regulations would control development apt 1prone areas so h at such development waseasonablyprot and would hetobe proven so December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0253-GPA (Cont' d.) prior to the issuance of a building permit; that the primary areas of flooding would be the Tahquitz Wash, the Whitewater Channel area, and the Suth Tahquitz FloodoControlm Project would Canyn Wash; ago and halong hewayv top lessenment e the problems identified in the FEMA maps. Commission indicated a concern that the public might have a false sense of security upon the implementation of all or a portion of the Master Plan of Drainage, however, the flooding from the major flood channels would not be resolved through that program and further inquired as to the total cost of both the internal drainage being proposed at this time as well as the flood control measures necessary to protect from the external or flood plain management problem. Director of Community Development stated that improvements to the major channels would be handled separately; that developer fees were based on the implementation of the entire plan; that an owner would not pay the yearly benefit assessment fees once they had paid the acreage drainage fees imposed on new development; that the total cost estimated by Riverside County Flood Control was their best estimate based on current construction costs and the knowledge they had of these types of projects; that the speed with which the system could be implemented depends on how much development occurs in an area and how much funding • is collected via the benefit assessment district and ad valorem taxes; and that the priority projects identified through this process would be the projects which would proceed first. Planning Director stated that the plan was considered a fifteen year plan since that was the length of the benefit assessment district; and at the end of fifteen years , a major reevaluation of the plan and the funding available would have to take place. Chairman declared the hearing open. A. Perrier, 225 S. Civic Drive, attorney, stated that he represented several large property owners who would be affected by drainage fees and felt that the implementation of drainage fees by the City Council was done without adequate public input; that the three conditions of the 1967 Plan required prior to implementation, in his opinion, had not been met, i .e. , (1. Implementation is to follow a detailed benefit cost analysis prior to the implementation of the Master Plan; 2. Benefit cost ratio would have to be at least one; and 3. Sources of funds to come from bonds, Federal funding, or other non-local funds.) ; and that the Council was committed to the idea of fees without complete knowledge of the conditions that were being imposed on development. He questioned the fairness of the doctrine of development fees since the undeveloped land was supporting the majority of the funding and felt that other sources of funding should be explored prior to implementation of not fordrainage the drainage stated fe s; and e questioned the reasonable plan as a cost figures an if it re i gures that were • developed for the plan. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0253-GPA (Cont' d.) Mr. Perrier stated a series of questions relative to the implementation, primarily what involvement will the City have on the implementation of the system since the Riverside County Flood Control District is a Lead Agency? when will the cost benefit study be done? will the land be increased in value equal to the cost of improvements? is the aspect of City liability an issue in the cost benefit analysis? stated that he had seen no information as to the benefits of the $72 million system; questioned whether the ten year storm retention program was still a policy of the city? would the money generated in the subdrainage areas stay within those areas? and asked if the new City Council would take a fresh look at the drainage fees and not be saddled with the decisions of the previous Council . In answer to question by Chairman, Director of Community Development stated that financing was not an issue before the Planning Commission. C. Nichols, 899 N. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that he was a property owner in the affected area; that he objected to the concept of developer fees to fund the project; that he agreed with the design concept on the whole; related his background on the issue of flood control and water problems dating back to and including the 1938 flood; and stated that land would be paying to the development fees without being able to be developed and at the same time such lands were limited by zoning, land • use regulations , limitations , sewer capacities, etc. which hampered their abil-ity to develop. He protested the concept of funding mechanism as contrary to the limitations on taxation as approved by the voters. Chairman stated that the Commission was unable to discuss funding at this meeting. P. Selzer, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, attorney, stated that the matter should be tabled until the question of funding was resolved; concurred that the catastrophic flood problems caused from the major channels should be attacked and resolved prior to the implementation of the drainage system as proposed. There being no futher appearances, the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the Master Plan of Flood Control revisions; questioned the funding and the concern of the resolution of the nuisance drainage waters vs. the flood channel flood problem as to which should come first. Director of Community Development stated that the need was to develop the plan for resolving the flood problems of the interior of the City and then to resolve the funding issue once the comprehensive solution was known; and that there was no mandatory ten year storm retention program still in effect with the City. . Planning Director stated that the Master Plan, as proposed, was simply one engineering solution that was calculated on the hydraulics of the City. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0253-GPA (Cont' d.) Commission concensus was that the function of the Planning Commission was to critique the plan, and that additional time was needed for review with perhaps another study session with City Council . Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried to continue the case and the public hearing to the January 12, 1983 meeting. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that this action to update and revise the City' s 1967 Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage is consistent with some of the concerns and recommendations contained in the Tribal Council ' s letter of June 2, 1981 to the Honorable John F. Doyle, Mayor. In the June 2 letter it was noted that viable alternatives to the 1967 Plan should be fully considered in view of the magnitude of the updated estimate of construction costs (April 1981-$63,925,000) of the Master Plan System and the apparent shortfall of some $40,215,000 in funding based on collection of drainage fees. It was suggested that these alternatives could include revisions of the 1967 Plan based on a cost-benefit analysis, the modification and/or reconstructiondevelopment certain sr tentito increase their water-carrying capacity, facilities in public open-space areas, i .e. , parks, portions of the • airport site, etc. , and further development of existing dikes. In reviewing the Revised Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area - March, 1982, it was noted that alternatives to the 1967 Plan have been considered, that the use of regional retention basins was of prime consideration, and that construction cost estimates have been updated st of bridge0at0 Palm 00) aCanyon Wash tond includes h the dCathedral Canyonditional area achannelhe Highway 111 The Tribal Council understands that the follow-on considerations relative to this matter will include an Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, a public hearing on an Amendment to the General Plan Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage, establishment of construction priorities, and an evaluation of total costs and potential revenue sources for funding the construction of the Master Plan facilities. The Tribal Council will comment on these items after receipt and review of the relevant studies , reports , etc. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council approved the concept for a Revised Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage, Citywide, for the City of Palm Springs. PUBLIC COMMENTS • None * * * * * December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 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 3.541 & TTM 18979. Application by C. MILLS for Design Assoc. for archi- tectural approval and map approval for a 15-unit condominium project on El Cielo Road between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, R-2 Zone, Section 18. (Previously given an environmental assessment in conjunction with Cases 5.0100-CUP and 3.045.) Planning Director described the relationship of the project located on E1 Cielo with the airport and gave the background for the previous projects that had been approved on the site, including apartment and office projects. C. Mills, 278 N. Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, spoke in favor of the project citing that the application was being treated unfairly; that the project was consistent with the zoning and the General Plan for the area; and asked that the Commission approve the project. M. Klabaka, 1997 Brentwood Drive, Chairman of the Airport Commission, • spoke against the project stating that this was the only residential property that directly abutted the airport; and that it could cause problems in the future due to complaints from residents in the project. Transportation Director stated that the needs of public airports have been considered in zoning matters since 1949; that in 1967 the Airport Land Use Commission was established to control lands within the influence of the airport; that the airport staff was working on the Airport Master Plan and was developing noise contours to include the ground operations which heretofore had not been considered; that the consultant' s report was expected in January, 1983; that the preliminary recommendations of the consultants would be for a higher and better use for land around the airport; and recommended continuance of the case until the Airport Master Plan was at least drafted. In answer to Commission questions, Transportation Director stated that there was a hotel planned in the Airport Master Plan which could be adjacent to the subject property; that the airport had not responded to the previous office use, which had been approved by the Planning Commission, since their opinion was that the use was compatible; and that this project was a surprise to the airport staff. In answer to Commission questions, Assistant City Attorney stated that there could be a possibility of future liability in the event the residential project was negatively affected by the airport; and that covenants to not sue can and are being used in and around airports to • prevent liability-type law suits. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 3.541 & TTM 18979 (Cont'd.) In answer to Commission questions, Transportation Director stated that recent court decisions indicate that property owners can file under nuisance procedures and not just inverse condemnations and reiterated that the airport staff was hoping to have ground contour noise studies done within two to four weeks. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission should consider input from the Airport Commission but was not obligated to follow their recommendations. Due to a power failure at 4:30 p.m. , Commission adjourned to the Engineering Conference Room where auxiliary power was available. C. Mills, applicant, reiterated the project' s compliance with the master plan and zoning for the area; that the project was being marketed for second homes which would have less impact from noise since owners would not be in residence full time; and indicated that the developers would be willing to meet all standards for noise attenuation within the unit. Discussion continued relative to concerns of immediate adjacent property of the airport; State mandates relative to living environments, especially effects of noise during evening hours; and the averaging concept of the noise as established by the State. • B. Crawford, 1729 E. Palm Canyon Drive, principal in the project, stated that they had discussed development of the property last March 10, 1980 with the Transportation Director who was aware of possible residential use of the property in the event that the office use, as previously proposed, did not materialize; and further indicated that the developers are willing to mitigate any noise problem within the construction of the units themselves. Planning Director stated that in his opinion the project did not have to go back for any approvals through the county Airport Land Use Commission since the Commission had previously reviewed the Airport Specific Plan and had no comments on the plan or the surrounding land uses of which this was a part. The Commission requested information on sound proofing and other mitigation. Motion was made by Kaptur and seconded by Curtis that the matter be continued to the meeting of January 12, 1983 for further discussion on sound proofing, input from the Assistant City Attorney, input from the Airport Consultants, and the fact that the Commission' s decision must be an informed one prior to going to City Council . The vote was as follows: December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 3.541 & TTM 18979 (Cont' d. ) AYES: Kaptur, Curtis, Service NOES: Harris, Koetting, Lawrence, Madsen ABSENT: None The motion failed. Motion was made by Lawrence, seconded by Madsen, and carried (Curtis, Kaptur & Service dissenting) to approve the case and the map subject to the following conditions: 1. Insulation and sound proofing to meet State requirements under Title 24. 2. A non-suit covenant navigation easement as a condition of approval of the project. 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 4. That detailed final landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted. • CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 3.545 (Minor) . VINTAGE AUTO for architectural approval of minor remodel and landscape program for automobile sales business on Riverside Drive, C-2 Zone, Section 23. Conditions: 1. That the remodel is approved as submitted. 2. That the landscape plans be restudied and resubmitted. 3. That the sign be restudied to comply with the Sign Ordinance. • December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont' d.) CASE 5.0014-CUP. THOMPSON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP for architectural approval of storage building behind tennis courts at Sheraton Hotel on Tahquitz- McCallum Way/Amado Road/Calle Encilia/Calle El Segundo, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I .L.) , Section 14. Conditions: 1. That the building be relocated to give a 6 foot planting strip on the north elevation. 2. That vines be introduced to the north wall . 3. That detailed final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. CASE 5 .0209-PD-136. WESTAR ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of final development plans for Phase I of shopping center on North Palm Canyon Drive between Racquet Club/Cortez Roads, C-1 and R-G-A (6) Zones , Section 3. Commissioner Koetting abstained. Conditions: 1. That the trellis element be revised. 2. That the landscape plans be restudied and resubmitted with mounds used in-lieu of walls to screen the parking, increasing the size of the palm trees, elimination of walls to Palm Canyon Drive, and revision of plant list. CASE 3.089. R. HARRISON for architectural approval of revised site plan for industrial building at Bogie Road and Sunny Dunes Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Approved as submitted. TTM 15620. HALLMARK ENGINEERING for R. Carver for architectural approval of revised final grading plans and landscape program for subdivision of land for single family lots on Stevens Road/Vista Chino/Via Monte Vista, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Conditions: 1. That the recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That temporary irrigation be used to establish plant material (oats and barley) that is compatible to the desert. • 3. That existing plant material not be disturbed except on Lot 1. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont'd.) TTM 15620 (Cont' d. ) 4. That a restoration scheme be submitted for approval . 5. That the site be inspected by staff. TTM 16759. ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for P. Tynberg for architectural approval of revised landscape plans for subdivision of single family lots on Bogert Trail between South Palm Canyon Drive/Andreas Hills Road, R-1-8 Zone, Section 35. Conditions: 1. That 15 gallon containers be used for Eucalyptus. 2. That 80% of the street trees (Rhus Lancia) be 24" box size or greater. 3. That Japanese Oleander (or similar) approved by staff be used as a backdrop (behind wrought iron) . 4. That the wrought iron detail be 42 feet in height. 5. That the Juniper Tam be planted 2 - 3 feet on center. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.520 (Ref. TTM 14009) . Application by B. LEUNG for Friedman Ventures for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for moderate cost residential condominiums on Amado Road between Avenida Caballeros/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. (Previously given environmental assessment. ) Motion was made by Harris , seconded by Kaptur, and carried (Curtis dissented) to approve Case 3.520 subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • 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 19036. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES for P.V. Picchione for approval of combination of lots for tennis court on Avenida Olivos between Tachevah Road/El Alameda, R-1-B Zone, Section 11. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA. ) Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Madsen, and unanimously carried (Curtis abstained) approving TPM 19036 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0141-PD-115. C. MILLS for H. Heers (Harmony Homes) for architectural approval of revised floor plan for Phase II for affordable housing project on the southwest corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael Drive, 0-5 Zone, Section 2. Planning Director presented the request from the developer to increase the size of one unit with the addition of a bathroom, making 134 units two-bedroom, two-bath rather than two-bedroom, one-bath. Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Curtis abstained) to approve Case 5.0141-PD-115 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That working drawings be submitted for AAC review. December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 CONTINUED ITEM CASE 3.512. W. VEITH for F. Matijasich for architectural approval of revised plans for single family residence on Southridge Drive between Tigertail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-C Zone, Section 25. (Ref. Case 6.330- Variance.) (Environmental assessment and tentative approval . ) Continued for applicant to address concerns of the AAC, Planning Commission, and staff. 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 3.405. D. LEVY for H. Berry for architectural approval of final working drawings for a 4-unit apartment building on Junipero Avenue, north of Cabrillo Road, R-G-A (6) Zone, Section 3. Removed pending restudy, noting that elevations needed refinement. CASE 3.560 (Minor) . TRINIDAD HOTEL for architectual approval of minor exterior revisions to hotel at 1900 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Removed pending restudy, noting that the remodel be based on refinement of the architectural features of the building and for an alternate species to Wheeler' s dwarf. CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. C. HELLMAN for First Nationwide Savings/First Wisconsin National Bank for architectual 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 5.0215-CZ & 5.0235-GPA. Removed pending restudy, noting revision of material for the garden wall , for lights to be placed in planters or on a concrete base, and for revision to the plant list. v . December 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. MDR/mi PLANNING DIRECTOR WP