Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/02/23 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Council Chamber, City Hall February 23, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 14 1 Hugh Curtis X 15 0 Darel Harris X 13 2 Hugh Kaptur X 14 1 Peter Koetting X 14 1 Don Lawrence X 13 2 Paul Madsen X 13 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos , Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Vicki Nelson, Economic Development Coordinator John Terell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Doug Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II • Stephen Graham, Planner III Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - Tuesday, February 22, 1983 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Chris Mills David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Hugh Curtis Peter Koetting Absent: Earl Neel Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Due to the President' s holiday, minutes of the February 9 meeting were not available and will be reviewed at the March 9 meeting. February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 rl PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0132-GPA (Revised) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of adminis- strative revisions to the Housing Element of the General Plan. (A Negative Declaration was previously given in conjunction with the original review of the case.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.0132-GPA (Revised) per staff recommendations. Planning Director explained that revisions proposed were administrative in nature; that the Tribal Council has requested a two-week delay for its review; and that the delay would cause no problems for staff. Housing & Redevelopment Specialist explained the background of the Housing Element and stated that it was adopted on June 3, 1981; that staff has been working with the State to develop a format for State approval which includes an expanded policy statement, addition of objective statements, program statements, additions to the implementation section, and addition of three appendices; that there were no additions in programs or policy; and that the revisions were not a pressing issue but should be sent to the State for their certification as soon as possible. • In answer to a question from the Commission concerning AFCOM, Economic & Housing Director explained that the original profit policy was in the UDAG application with intent to limit profits for the sale of single family residences , the UDAG however was unsuccessful . He stated that since that time, Fredricks , Inc. has bought the single family home portion; that AFCOM' s profit is still limited on the mobilehome park and the company is experiencing a $150,000 a year loss; that owner-occupancy is required only on 50% of the first phase of the single family project; that of the 115 mobilehome spaces in the mobilehome park, 85 are occupied with the remaining 30 spaces to be placed on the market within the near future; and that some of the residents of the Tahquitz Trailer Park, which will be closed, will be occupying some of the spaces. Commissioner Koetting stated that if the Housing Element is certified, the City will receive preferences by the State and will also have more authority if challenged in court; and that certification means that the State accepts the City' s guidelines. Housing & Redevelopment Specialist stated that the law requires updating of the Element per 1982 guidelines by July 1 , 1984, and that the Element is nearing 1982 guidelines at the present time. Economic Development & Housing Director stated that the Housing Element will need to be amended again by the Commission and Council in 1984. M/S/C (Koetting/Harris) continuing Case 5.0132-GPA (Revised) per staff recommendations to March 9 in response to the Tribal Council ' s request. February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CSE 5.0132-GPA (Cont' d. ) Tribal Council comments: "A copy of the "Housing Element of the Palm Springs General Plan - Revised January, 1983" was received by the Tribal Planning Consultant on February 21, 1983. A Staff Report was not included in the transmittal . To provide adequate time for the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Planning Consultant to identify, review, and comment on the proposed revisions contained in the 76-page document, the Tribal Council requested that the Planning Commission' s final action on this case be continued to the Commission' s regularly-scheduled meeting of March 9, 1983." PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS . DETERMINATION 10.329. Request by RIMROCK PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER for Planning Commission determination that basement storage space not require additional parking. Planning Director stated that a letter had been received from the attorneys representing a potential user of Rimrock Plaza seeking a determination that significant storage space may be constructed without adding additional parking; that the proposed use is unique since the applicants wish to store china on-site; that if the determination were granted, the provisions would apply Citywide; that staff is concerned that the additional space may, at a future date, be converted to retail use or gross leasable area and increasing the footage increases the retail ability of the rest of the facility; that the applicant will effect any reasonable document to retain the storage character of the space; that the City could prepare a covenant applying to the land for specifics; that staff has no problems with the details but requires direction and input from the Commission; that it should cause no enforcement problems; that a determination would not allow building space to be converted to retail as happened in the former Aaron Brothers store on S. Indian Avenue; that the determination would not effect the Parking Ordinance; and that the concept could be applied in unusual circumstances or long-term commitment as a provision of non-use of space. J . Schlecht, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the use is an odd one because the applicants require this type of storage for the • sale of china because sales are missed if the company cannot deliver the merchandise immediately, and that in addition, the client is buying the site and building the building and will be willing to record against the title a document to satisfy the City. In response a to question by Chairman, Mr. Schlecht stated that storage on-site is preferable because February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 DETERMINATION 10.329 (Cont'd. ) of service and security. (The applicant stated that off-site storage would require additional personnel as well . ) In response to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that a staff determination had previously been made that "dead" storage areas of supermarkets would not be required to meet parking requirements , and that parking was decreased 33% in the Ordinance which helped the parking monitoring problem for neighborhood shopping centers. Discussion followed on other business uses with lesser parking requirements because of the nature of the use. Planning Director explained that the proposed building would be the "key" block in the parking of the site; that the applicant is trying to increase the parking on-site by the use of compact car spaces; and that the applicant would be allowed to build provided the parking is available. He stated that the applicant is trying to maximize the parking and does not want to be penalized by dead storage space; and that staff is trying to effect a compromise. Discussion continued on access to the basement and the development of a covenant to control storage space use. In response to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that there are two different • outlets for the same manufacturer and they are using the same storage space in the proposed building, but there would be no problem if the uses in the building were changed. Chairman explained that if a determination were made that dead storage would not require additional parking, it would apply to anyone, not just the applicant. Planning Director stated that there are no problems in other parts of the City since there are very few basements or businesses requiring the proposed amount of storage space on-site. Assistant City Attorney stated that the covenant would be acceptable, would be recorded, and would appear in a title search. Further discussion followed on the acceptability of basement storage rather than above-ground storage. Commission Kaptur stated that the Ordinance should be reviewed relating to not requiring additional parking if storage did not increase the building footprint. Commission requested a draft covenant be prepared for review at the March 9 meeting. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur) tentatively approving determination 10.329 and continuing the determination to the March 9 meeting for Commission review of the covenant. • February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 DISCUSSION-WIND ENERGY PROJECTS. Request by staff for Planning Commission review of wind energy projects located outside City limits currently being processed by Riverside County. Planning Director stated that the wind energy projects had been dis- cussed at both the February 9 meeting and the February 16 study ses- sion. He stated that staff is requesting that the Commission take action to support the projects for presentation to Riverside County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors who have re- quested Planning Commission and City Council recommendations, rather than that of staff. He stated that in the future more action will be requested by the Commission regarding sphere and County-wide matters. Planner III presented the two projects in the sphere of influence as follows: Public Use Permits (PUP) 443 and 447 are both located north of I-10. PUP 447 is on the same property as the 8 machines currently in operation. PUP 443 is on the north side of Whitewater Hill . Both proposals are requesting 60 Jay Carter turbines, 105 feet in height. PUP 447 is on the northeast corner of Dillon and Diablo Roads. He stated that the projects have the smallest commercial turbines pro- posed except for a project on BLM land, and staff is requesting Planning Commission support of the projects subject to conditions as • follows: That all mitigative measures outlined in the project summary and EIR be applicable as conditions of approval . He stated that mitigation measures include provisions for locating turbines out of the drainage channels, limited grading, revegetation programs, biologi- cal surveys and noise and wind erosion control programs. He stated that noise is considered to be a problem although a resident living near one of the currently operating machines has stated that there is no noise. In response to a Commission question Planner III stated that staff is requesting a Commission resolution of support for the wind energy projects subject to mitigation measures as contained in the EIR which will be forwarded to City Council and then to the County. Chairman stated he was curious about the "load" factor, and that PUP's 443 and 447 are located on the Mission Creek Fault. Planner III stated that the projects are considered to be critical facilities such as utilities and will be designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. In response to a question by Chairman Planner III stated that the City Council has agreed to the mitigative measures in principle. M/S/C (Madsen, Curtis) recommending to the City Council that it sup- port PUP 's 443 and 447, pursuant to recommended mitigation, outside City limits currently being processed by Riverside County. February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • 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 3.553. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for 180 unit condominium complex on Avenida Caballeros between Saturnino Road/Arenas Road, R-4 Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. No comments received. ) Planning Director stated that the item was continued from the February 9 meeting; that staff would not be in favor of reducing parking but would defer to the Commission; that the AAC recommended approval ; and that the architecture had not changed significantly. Planner II described revisions to the project on the display board and stated that the site plan showed a parking reduction of 10%; and that an AMM application is required for this reduction. Discussion followed on roofing material and samples were shown to the Commission. Discussion of traditional versus modern types of tile • ensued. R. Wiley, the architect, stated that the AAC recommended the combination of two shades of grey concrete tile because of the roof mass and the two color combinations of the models. He requested that a decision be made on placement of the columns within the setbacks considering neighboring structures and stated that a fencing plan would be submitted. Commissioner Harris requested that parking meet code. Mr. Wiley stated that the parking reduction does not affect the project. M/S/C (Harris/Curtis; Kaptur/Madsen abstained) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving Case 3.553 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That working drawings be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 4. That all parking meet code. 5. That the submitted grey concrete tile be used (combination of two tiles acceptable) . February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • Case 3.553 (Cont' d. ) Tribal Council comments: "This Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meetings of January 11, January 25 and February 8, 1983. As noted on those occasions , it is the general policy of the Tribal council to abstain from acting on cases involving only architectural approval . It was also noted that this case constitutes a major development in Section 14 which is an area of the City of particular concern to the Tribal Council . After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council reiterated its action of February 8 to: a. Approve the filing of a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment/Initial Study dated January 12, 1983. b. Approve the conditions recommended in Development Committee Meeting Minutes dated December 16, 1982 with the exception that action on the condition requiring payment of drainage fees was withheld pending receipt and review of the benefit- cost analysis to be prepared by City Staff. 2. Make no comments and/or recommendations on the architectural features of the project except to note that the Planning Commission continued the case on February 9, 1983 in order for the concerns relative to refinement of the Site Plan and elevations." CASE 3.416 (Minor) . Application by A. BERKET for architectural approval of exterior elevator on professional buliding on Via Lola/N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planner III stated that the elevator is in an internal courtyard and will serve plastic surgery patients in the residential care units; that the project was delayed because of State considerations of classification of the use as a hospital ; and that the State has determined that no State permits are required. Discussion followed on repaint and cleanup of the property prior to approval of the elevator. Assistant City Attorney stated that the two items are unrelated, and that approval of the elevator does not affect aesthetics; that the Commission does not have the power to sieze upon approval of the elevator for items not directly related unless it is determined that the building is a nuisance. A. Berket, the architect, stated that the doctor who owns the building intends to upgrade it. Planner III explained that originally the AAC recommended a restudy of the building when an application to remodel was received because the character of the original architecture was more aesthetically pleasing than the proposed remodel ; and that the elevator application was requested by staff. February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 • Case 3.416 (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed on requiring submission of plans showing the renovation. Mr. Berket requested a six-month period in which to submit these plans because the elevator has been ordered, will be received shortly and architectural approval is required as soon as possible. Planner III explained the delay in bringing the application to the Commission. Mr. Berket stated that the elevator will improve the function of the building and was ordered in that respect. M/S/C (Koetting/Harris) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That improvement plans be submitted of the exterior and landscaping within 30 days. CASE 3.559. Application by EISNER-SMITH for Palm Canyon Associates for archi- tectural approval of revised site plan and elevations for a 270-room • resort hotel on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Cherokee Way/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 30. Planning Director explained that there had been a long discussion on the case at the AAC meeting; that the applicants wished to present an audio visual display at the meeting. M. Alterson, developer, explained the concept of the Granada Royale hotel and stated that he was in concurrence with staff recommendations. He expressed a desire for quick action since a lease hold interest must be purchased on the land. He then reviewed the hotel concept with a slide presentation. T. Koehnlein, architect, stated that a revised site plan had been submitted for the Commission addressing AAC comments of February 22 with parking removed and open space provided. Discussion followed on the amenities of the hotel . In response to a question by Commission, Planner II stated that the two dissenting members of the AAC voted against the motion because of the nature of the motion which was for concept approval because the two members wanted a restudy; and that concerns were listed on the last page of the AAC minutes of February 22 as an addendum. Planning Director stated that the approval was not for architectural approval of the case or to release the architect to do working drawings , but to refine the design; that staff has not had a chance to review open space elements and parking; that final Development Committee recommendations have not been formulated based on the final plan; and that staff wants to avoid concept approval , but that the applicant has February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 3.559 (Cont' d. ) sought it in this case to make sure that the application is going in an appropriate direction. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he disliked being pressured for approval of the case for economic reasons. R. Smith, the applicant, stated that timing is critical but that no pressure is being applied; that the AAC approved the overall concept; and that architectural approval is whether or not the site plan and elevations are acceptable with details reviewed before submission of working drawings. He requested a timely decision on the project. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the reason the project is progressing slowly is because the Commission does not like the architecture. Mr. Smith stated that if the Commission does not like a project, they should deny it so it can be appealed. Discussion followed on pressure being applied to the Commission. Commissioner Curtis stated that he understood the applicant' s reasons for quick approval because of the Indian land leases; that the applicants have redesigned the project addressing Commission concerns; and that action should be taken for denial or approval . • Further discussion followed on the type of action to be taken. Commissioner Koetting stated that the AAC had worked with the applicant and had recommended changes; that the details will determine the appearance of the project; that the list (addendum) was developed in response to AAC concerns; that the applicant was proceeding in a correct direction with details to be returned for Commission review; and that areas of concern are as follows: 1. That detailed preliminary landscape plans be submitted in conjunction with the final site plan. 2. That modifications shown on the south and west elevations be reviewed by the AAC because of revisions. He recommended that parking on the project meet code. M/S/C (Koetting/Harris; Kaptur/Madsen dissented) approving Case 3.559 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That plans be submitted within 60 days detailing areas of AAC and Commission concerns (detailed preliminary landscape plans submitted in conjunction with final site plan and submission of modifications of the south and west elevations) . NOTE: After the motion and before the vote was taken, discussion ensued on the Commission' s concern on the architecture of the project and the fact that some of the Commissioners feel the project is not ready for approval because of the numerous conditions. Commission consensus was that the applicant had received direction and time from the Commission. February 23; 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 3.559 (Cont'd. ) Planning Director stated that staff has not had time to review the revisions , including the tower which does not meet code and would require a conditional use permit. Further discussion ensued on the fact that hotel development is a high priority item. "Concept approval " and the numerous areas of concern were discussed. Mr. Smith stated that he did not want concept approval but wanted approval with viable conditions and that he did not understand Commissioner Koetting' s motion as concept approval . Planning Director left the meeting at this point. CASE 3.567. Application by G. NEESAN for architectural approval of a 4-unit condominium project on Calle de Ricardo between Avenida Evelita/Paseo Dorotea, N-R-2 Zone, Section 19. Planner III stated that the project exceeds parking requirements and is slightly under open space requirements. • Use of open space in the project was discussed. Planner III stated that an AMM is often requested because the lots are substandard; that Palm Springs Gold gravel was recommended to be substituted for gazanias because of maintenance. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence) approving Case 3.567 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the fin elements on the garage exterior wall be of equal width. 3. That the fin elements intrude into the roof slab per notes on the plan. 4. That all gates and garage doors be constructed of angle steel frames with aluminum inserts. 5. That the proposed Palm Springs Gold gravel be substituted for gazanias. 6. That pyracantha be substituted for dwarf oleander on the south elevation. February 23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 3.463 (Minor) . Application by R. HARRISON for G. Maloof for archi- tectural approval of revisions and additions to building at 186 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman abstained; Vice-Chairman presided. Planner III stated that parking for the project requires review because of "grand fathered" use of parking spaces, and that staff recommends soffit lighting underneath the walkway. R. Harrison, 577 E. Sunny Dunes , the architect, described problems with the AAC recommendation for a uniform roof pitch. Further discussion ensued on roof treatment and detailing. Commissioner Curtis stated that he would not support the application without a plan showing the details. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Curtis dissented; Service abstained) approving Case 3.463 subject to the following conditions: 1. That soffit lighting be installed underneath the soffit. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the planter in the parking lot adjoining Arenas Road be extended to form a border to the parking space. • 4. That the landscape under the canopy on the Arenas Road elevations be extended by approximately one-half a bay, east and west. 5. That signs be submitted for staff approval . 6. That palm tree lights be unobstructed. 7. That the architecture conform to the Spanish architecture of the Plaza. Chairman left the meeting at this point; Vice-Chairman presided. CASE 5.0014-CUP. Application by THOMPSON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP for Sheraton Hotel for architectural approval of revised elevations for banquet/storage addition to hotel on Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Amado Road/Calle Encilia/Calle E1 Segundo, C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I .L. ) , Section 14. Planner II stated that staff has no problem with the valet parking and that the deficiency in open space could be made up by decorative paving on the south side. • Discussion ensued on the project' s lack of compatibility with the hotel architecture and whether or not the application should be continued to the March 9 meeting or should be restudied. February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 . CASE 5.0014-CUP (Cont' d. ) Assistant City Attorney stated that a continuance would be to a certain date; a restudy is like a denial . W. Thompson, the architect, stated that he could not attend the March 7 AAC meeting but could attend the March 9 Planning Commission meeting. M/S (Kaptur/Harris; Service absent) for approval of the valet parking scheme and for continuance of the architecture so the applicant can revise the application to reflect the architecture of the hotel . Discussion followed on the proper direction to give the applicant and whether or not the application should be continued or restudied. Assistant City Attorney reiterated that a restudy means denial and is subject to appeal , and that a continuance is not a final decision and not subject to appeal and that the AAC would have to be included in the review if the case were continued. Commissioner Kaptur withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. M/S (Kaptur/Lawrence; Service absent) for a restudy on the points discussed by Commission and the AAC including continuing the "band" detail with a new rendering to be submitted for review. • Discussion followed on parking deficiencies. Planner II stated that the parking deficiency is 40 spaces with valet parking making up the deficit. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he wanted to withdraw his motion since he did not realize there was a 40 space parking deficiency. The motion was withdrawn with the consent of the seconder. Planner III stated that the variance granted by the Commission on parking was overturned by City Council , but the valet parking system would alleviate parking problems. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had just discovered that he had to abstain on the application because he owned a building within 400 feet of the project. Vice-Chairman suggested that a motion be made on the architecture and on the valet parking. M/S/C (Madsen/Lawrence; Service absent; Curtis/Harris dissented; Kaptur abstained) for a restudy for integration of the building into the hotel architecture, tentatively approving the parking plan if the architecture is approved, and continuing the application to the March 9 meeting. • February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 • CASE 3.351. Application by T. DALU for architectural approval of a canopy detail for business (formerly Aaron Brothers) on S. Indian Avenue, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the awnings are proposed on Arenas and Indian Avenue elevations and are similar to the awnings on the Jessie Davis store. T. Dalu, the applicant, stated that the color is terra cotta and beige because the building is part of the old Plaza. Discussion followed on the colors. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the submittal was different from what was proposed and staff wanted to review a material sample and colors. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Service absent; Koetting dissented) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the awning material in the colors proposed be submitted for staff approval . NOTE: Vice-Chairman dissented because he felt that the design should be traditional , not modern. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by SEASONS (formerly Sambo' s) for architectural • approval of main identification sign for restaurants on North and East Palm Canyon Drive. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Service absent) approving the following: The East Palm Canyon sign subject to the corners being rounded; and restudying the North Palm Canyon sign. (It is recommended that a monument sign be designed. ) CASE 3.300. Application by VILISA ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of revised elevations for a light industrial/commercial buliding on Montano Way between Tachevah Drive/Chia Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7. Planner III stated that in vacation of Tachevah Way, the applicant gained 30 feet which staff feels should be landscaped with plans submitted for AAC and Planning Commission review. M/S/C (Harris/Lawrence; Service absent; Kaptur abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: That if the applicant does not extend the building 30 additional feet, the area be landscaped and final landscape plans submitted for review. • February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • DETERMINATION 10.330. Request by staff for determination on appropriate zoning for tattoo parlors . Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that within a short time, two applications had been received for tattoo parlors and staff requires direction on whether or not it would be a desirable type of business and if so, the zoning in which it would be appropriate. Discussion followed on appropriate zoning for tattoo parlors. Assistant City Attorney reminded Commission that a determination should be made in context with Section 9400 of the Zoning Ordinance and a determining that the use is similar to uses permitted in various zones and if the Commission finds it is fully similar, the tattoo parlor use is similar to that zone. Commissioner Kaptur stated that City Council has directed staff and Commission that the C-B-D Zone is elite, and he felt that it would be downgraded by the approval of tattoo parlors downtown. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to allow the use in certain zones. Zoning Enforcement Office reiterated staff' s request for direction. • M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Service absent) continuing Determination 10.330 to the study session of March 16 with staff to review the subject with other cities and to formulate a report to the Commission. Planning Director returned to the meeting. CONTINUED ITEMS DISCUSSION. Planning Commission discussion of request by Elsco lighting to modify tennis court lighting guidelines by allowing 1 ,000 watt fixtures . Continued to March 9 at staff's request. • tl February23, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 • COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Joint City Council , Planning Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee dinner meeting. Planning Director reminded Commissioners that it would be held at 6:30 p.m. , March 7 at Hank' s restaurant on Belardo Road. (The date was later revised to March 21. ) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss , Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. N�Z MDR/mi V . PLAG D RECTOR • • WP