Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/09/28 - MINUTES (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall September 28, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 4 2 Hugh Curtis X 5 1 Hugh Kaptur X 4 2 Peter Koetting X 6 0 Don Lawrence X 6 0 Paul Madsen X 5 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 5 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Richard McCoy, City Engineer Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell , Housing & Redevelopment Specialist Vicki Nelson, Economic Development Coordinator Douglas R. Evans, Planner III • Robert Green, Planner II Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - September 26, 1983 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. MSC (Lawrence/Koetting) approving minutes of the September 14 meeting with the following corrections: Page 4, last paragraph (Case 5.0276-PD-148) add under CONDITIONS: 6. That after a period of two years, a new public hearing shall be held to determine the sufficiency of parking and whether or not the second lot should be installed and implemented. • Page 23, paragraph 3 (Determination on CIP) delete "and that the $15,000 is not improving the living environment for low income residents. She stated she found the idea for the $15,000 study objectionable. " September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Chairman stated that since there was no one in the audience who was present specifically for review of Case 5.0272-ZTA, discussion would be postponed to later in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0275-PO-147. Application by E. J. DeBARTOLO CORP. & DESERT FASHION PLAZA for review of the final EIR and preliminary plans for a planned development district to allow remodeling and expansion of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza on Tahquitz-McCallum Way/North Palm Canyon Drive and redevelopment in a block north of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza to include the closure of Andreas Road, the development of additional retail space, parking facilities and a 207-room hotel , Section 15. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission certify that the EIR is complete and transmit it to the City Council for certification. Chairman stated that interested persons coul dspeak on the adequacy of the EIR and that discussion of the project itself would be held at the October 12 meeting. Planning Director reviewed the history of the project and stated that • comments to the addendum to the draft EIR would be incorporated as an appendix in the report; that a list of mitigative measures extracted from the EIR will be given to the Commission prior to the October 12 meeting along with a statement of overriding concerns in some areas of the project; that the most significant impact is during the construction period; and that Tamara Smith, from BCL (EIR Consulting firm) was present to answer questions. Ms. Smith, BCL Consultants of Long Beach, stated that the City prepared the initial study which determined the scope; that the EIR is focused on items City determined may have environmental impacts; that the parking might not be in conformance with the CBD Zone, but that the City can approve the project under planned development (PD) guidelines which allow flexibility; that setback requirements are not met along Amado Road particularly; that the aesthetics of the downtown would be altered since the hotel is six stories high and the height will cause shadows, particularly on Amado Road; that there are buildings which could be of historical significance which will be lost with construction of the project; that there may be archaeological resources beneath the site with which the Tribal Council is concerned; and that BCL has recommended that an archaeologist be on site during excavation for the subterranean parking since it is doubtful that much information could be obtained prior to excavation because the site is developed. She noted the following: • Closure of Andreas Road: Two traffic engineerinq firms have studied the closure and have determined that there will be no ill effects from the closure. The volume diverted will not be significant. The 6,700 (or 8,000 under the alternate proposal) additional vehicle trips per day generated by the project can be accommodated on Palm Canyon Drive with signal modification. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont' d.) • Construction Disruption: Utility lines will have to be relocated, roads may have to be closed and there will be temporary dust and noise generated, and the site will not be visually pleasing but could be miti- gated by construction of solid fencing around the construction site. In reply to question by Commission, Ms. Smith stated that the buildings which could be historically significant are Zaddie Bunker' s Garage (present MDX Drugstore) ; Nate' s Deli , and the Village Theatre; that mitigative measures to aid circulation during construction would be on an operational plan prepared and approved by the City Engineer; that parking would be a problem for employees during construction because of the excavation of the site; that construction trucks will require an off site parking location; and that the grading contractor normally prepares the operations plans. Planning Director stated that in addition, normal retail parking will be disrupted. Commissioner Koetting stated that employee and general public access to the Museum should be considered. In response to Commission question, Ms. Smith stated that the disposi- tion of the dirt from the excavation will be determined by whomever is buying it at the time the dirt is available; and that trucks will be required to be covered with tarpaulin; that the applicants will be • required to keep the road in a clean, safe condition during excavation and construction; and that the City Traffic Engineer will determine the truck routes. Planning Director stated that the dirt would belong to the applicant with City control of its transport. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Smith stated that the Desert Museum identity has been addressed more thoroughly after construction by preserving the views and by development of a scu pture garden in the grassy area between the Museum and the project; that preserving the identity and activities of the Museum during construction should be addressed in the operations plan; and that parking is a major issue of the plan. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Crocker, 330 W. Andreas, stated that the executive suite concept is a new idea; that occupancy factors should be determined; and questioned whether or not the project would be sold as time shares (questions were asked of the developers' representative) . Chairman stated that marketing questions are not in the Commission' s purview. • Planning Director stated that time sharing had not been proposed but would require a public hearing if they were. Mr. Crocker stated that he had requested information previously from the developers' representative, but no one was in attendance at the Septem- ber 14 meeting. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont'd. ) • Chairman stated that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over marketing occupancy of the hotel . Mr. Crocker noted that if the project were economically unfeasible, the City should be protected against the possibility. J. Fadem, attorney representing the Bunker Trust, stated that he was sure he did not need to remind the Commission that the purpose of an EIR is to provide full disclosure in a way that the public can understand; that it was his view that the EIR failed to achieve that purpose; that disclosures of the consequences of the project are totally absent; that the consequences of increased traffic, inadequate parking, flood and fire impacts, impacts (grid lock) to the entryway to the City, impacts on existing businesses because of customers not being able to gain access to Palm Canyon Drive, loss of retail sales to shopping centers outside of Palm Springs during construction, disruption of the currently heavy load of through traffic, signalization stops and starts, and con- sequences of accidents and the predictable effect on human beings is undisclosed; that the experiment of closing Andreas Road seems of "zero" value when 6,000 to 8,000 cars a day are added; that without the project in existence, the experiment is not viable; that the effect on the Museum is based on "shifting sand"; that the City, under a PD, can say that the developer does not have to live up to the laws even though the existing standards are on the books as minimums; that the proposal asked • that the City accept without disclosures of the consequences the crea- tion of a major project in which the consequences of mitigated parking measures are not told; that there is a failure to address in the EIR the grading contractor' s preparation of the development plan; that the con- sequences of disposal of many cubic yards of dirt has not been addressed; that impact on the air quality by idling cars on Palm Canyon was not disclosed nor the consequences of the lowered air quality on the elderly of the City; that the median age of the residents is not dis- closed in the EIR; that flood provisions for only a ten year storm and not those of more intensity are ludicrous since weather patterns are changing and the area has been struck with several 1000 ,year storms recently; that consequences of more severe storms were not addressed in the EIR; that the EIR is not a full disclosure document; that although fire department facilities are in close proximity, fire personnel will have difficulty responding because of the inadequate streets. Mr. Fadem summarized by stating that there will be a vast number of low and middle income employees for construction of the project and there will be a problem of housing them (caused by the City's unresolved low cost housing problem) ; that the consequences of housing low income workers has not been addressed. He concluded by stating that the EIR is supposed to be a full disclosure document, understandable by the public, and that the subject EIR is not. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. • In response to question by Chairman, Ms. Smith stated that the document is "readable" and understandable by the public; and noted the following responses to Mr. Fadem's comments: September 28, 1963 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont' d. ) . Traffic: EIR addressed the consequences of the traffic. Level of service was determined at the intersection and the number would not fall below the "C" level which is continuous flow of traffic. This flow of traffic would be dependent upon modification of traffic signals. There are two drop-off areas for passengers and the potential for accidents to occur is a possibility although the number of accidents cannot be pro- jected. Closure of Andreas/Failure of Thanksgiving Experiment: Object was to observe traffic increase with the closure of Andreas Road since it would be possible to predict traffic flows after implementation of the project. Parking Inadequacy: BCL engineers feel parking is adequate. The problem is that the City codes do not provide for this type of develop- ment. Parking was calculated on each use in the Mall (leasable and unleasable space) . Adequacy is undetermined but numerous mitigative measures have addressed the issue such as in-lieu fees for a parking structure located elsewhere. A major problem is that there is currently inadequate parking downtown and it is possible that people would use Mall parking when their destination is downtown. City is considering a parking structure, and this is addressed in the EIR. Grading Contractor Preparation of Operations Plan: This should be • approved by the City but plan cannot be determined at the present time. Will depend on final plans for the project and the City Engineer' s expectations. There are many items still to be determined and the des- tination of the dirt removed from the excavation cannot be determined at the present time. If there is a problem, an additional EIR may be done. Air Quality: Information on air quality is developed using Air Quality Control Board charts. Idling emissions are included in the chart as built-in factors. Flood Provisions: EIR states there is a master plan which the City intends to implement. It is designed for a 100-year flood. Without the master plan, the project cannot accommodate a 100-year flood. Employment Issues: Addressed in the EIR. In discussion with the EDD (State Employment Office) it was learned that there is fairly high unemployment in the area, and people travel from other cities to work in Palm Springs. In response to question by Commission, Planning Director stated that a 100-year storm referred to by Mr. Fadem can be accommodated in the streets and the underground conduit system; that 500-.year storm levels are indicated in the Federal Insurance Management Agency but are not the levels the Master Plan will contain and that there have been no 1000- year storms in the history of the City. In response to Mr. Fadem' s • comments he stated that many of those comments were not full disclo- sures; that staff has not had specific discussions with the Bunker Trust; that full backup material was prepared and the EIR does address the type of mitigative measures necessary and staff feels comfortable with the numbers and the mitigative measures addressing the project as it is to this point; that there will be unavoidable impacts which are September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont' d. ) • included in the report; that the EIR discloses the problems with no attempt to hide them; that if comments had been received previously, perhaps some of the responses could have been expanded; that when the Commission takes action, that the City still has the issue of how the mitigative measures address the project as it becomes refined; that unavoidable impacts will be synthesized and specific comments made at the time the project is specifically considered; that loss of business is difficult to address; that comments of many downtown merchants indi- cate that they feel that without the project there will be no business although there are comments on the opposite side as well; and that opinions on loss of business are guesses since there are no facts avail- able. Chairman stated that the Commission action is to recommend to the City Council that the EIR is complete, that Commission concerns and impacts have been addressed, and that the Commission is not addressing whether or not it likes or approves the project or the mitigative measures. In reply to concerns by Mr. Fadem of loss of retail business, Commissioner Koetting stated that many merchants feel the project will bring retail business back to the City and that the project has been reviewed many times by the public, staff, the Commission and Council ; that he has never seen an EIR that gave answers to every question but the Commission will address future concerns and issues and try to mitigate problems. • M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence) recommending to the City Council that the EIR is complete and recommending that it be certified. Tribal Council commentsfrom September 13 : "The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project has been received by the Tribal Office. In discussions with Planning Staff, it was noted that this item is recommended for a two-week continuance to permit public notification. The following preliminary comments are submitted regarding this project. a. The EIR notes that this project may result in the exposure of archaeological and historical resources. The Tribal Council strongly recommends that the development of this property be subject to the mitigating measure on page 44 of the EIR; that is, that a qualified archaeologist be present during the excavation work. If any potentially significant resources are uncovered during excavation, work will be halted in that area of the site, and make appropriate mitigation recommendations. The Agua Caliente Tribal Council or its appointed representative should be consulted regarding all such finds. Further, the Tribal Council should approve the selection of the individual archaeologist employed to perform this task. The Tribal Council can provide a list of those archaeologists it considers qualified to do this work. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont'd.) b. The Tribal Council remains concerned about the circulation impacts caused by the proposed closure of Andreas Road in view of the present traffic congestion and parking deficiencies in the downtown area. All possible alternatives to the closing of Andreas Road should have been addressed in the EIR. C. The quantity of parking spaces provided in the proposed develop- ment appears to be deficient. On page 59 of the EIR it is noted that City Ordinance requires 1,443 spaces whereas the plan shows only 1,315 spaces. This is a deficiency of 128 spaces. The EIR also indicates a shortage of parking spaces for exclusive use by the proposed hotel . Given the present parking difficulties in the downtown area, some mitigation should be imposed to correct this shortage. Memorandum from John W. Adams, Consultant, to the City Council and Planning Commission of Palm Springs, updated. Responses to Comments Comment 1b: On July 13, 1981, a local land planner, Howard Lapham, submitted to the Planning Commission an alternative design which retained a through street between Museum Road and Palm Canyon Drive. Mr. Lapham' s drawing was reviewed by Edward J. De Bartolo and Assoc. and was determined to be economically infeasible. There is no evidence to support a concern about increased traffic congestion due to the closure of Andreas Road, which currently has an ADT of only 1,600. The extension of Belardo Road to Museum Road will accommodate many of these trips. Furthermore, a test closure of Andreas Road during Thanksgiving weekend, 1982, created no noticeable increase in traffic congestion. Mr. Lapham's drawing has been included in Appendix G of the final EIR. In addition, the Final EIR should note that one alternative for decreasing project intensity would be to concentrate all redevelopment efforts on the existing mall south of Andreas Road and allow the existing uses north of Andreas Road to remain as they are or to be redeveloped separately. Comment lc: The EIR notes that there are fewer parking spaces proposed than would normally be allowed under the CBD Zone. However, the City does have the option of approving the proposed project even if the parking is in nonconformance under the CBD Zone, because the project is being proposed as a Planned Development District, which allows some flexibility. Several alternatives for increasing available parking or reduction parking demand are addressed in Sections 4.2-C and 7.3 of the Draft EIR. Tribal Council comments from September 27: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of September 13, 1983. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0275-PD-147 (Cont' d. ) After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its comments of September 13, which are as follows: a. The EIR notes that this project may result in the exposure of archaeological and historical resources. The Tribal Council strongly recommends that the development of this property be subject to the mitigating measure on page 44 of the EIR; that is, that a qualified archaeologist be present during the excavation work. If any potentially significant resources are uncoveredduring excavation, work will be halted in that area of the site, and make appropriate mitigation recommendations. The Agua Caliente Tribal Council or its appointed representative should be consulted regarding all such finds. Further, the Tribal Council should approve the selection of the individual archaeologist employed to perform this task. The Tribal Council can provide a list of those archaeologists it considers qualified to do this work. b. The Tribal Council remains concerned about the circulation impacts caused by the proposed closure of Andreas Road in • view of the present traffic congestion and parking deficiencies in the downtown area. All possible alternatives to the closing of Andreas Road should have been addressed in the EIR. C. The quantity of parking spaces provided in the proposed development appears to be deficient. On page 59 of the EIR it is noted that City Ordinance requires 1,443 spaces whereas the plan shows only 1,315 spaces. This is a deficiency of 128 spaces. The EIR also indicates a shortage of parking spaces for exclusive use by the proposed hotel . Given the present parking difficulties in the downtown area, some mitigation should be imposed to correct this shortage. 2. Requested that the Final EIR include the comments outlined above together with the appropriate responses, including mitigation measures, by City Staff and/or its consultant. 3. Requested that the preliminary plans for this planned development district, scheduled for pubic hearing on October 12, 1983, address those comments referred to above which relate to the closure of Andreas Road and to parking deficiencies. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE. Application by R. FRAGEN for a variance from sideyard • setbacks to allow an existing carport at 1208 Calle de Maria, R-1-C Zone, Section 23. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA Guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny the variance application. Planning Director stated that the case was continued for review at a study session on carports and setbacks on September 21, which was attended by only four Commissioners; that two members of the public voiced their concerns and requested that persons who have legally enclosed their carports be given some relief in setback requirements for vehicle shade structures; that staff does not find that there are appropriate grounds for a variance nor for an ordinance to allow structures in setbacks; that any ordinance contemplated should be done on a citywide performance standard basis; that staff finding number 3. in the staff report should be deleted but that staff would still recommend denial; that if the Commission wishes to change the ordinance, it would be violating a long-standing City policy in the urban design elements that the setback part of the Zoning Ordinance constitutes; that if the Commission approves the subject variance, it would be necessary for the Commission to make findings of special circumstances since staff cannot do so; and that if the Commission wishes further staff study, an additional motion can be made. He then discussed property boundaries on • the display board with the Commission. Chairman stated that discussions were held with the applicant at the study session and strong points have been made by the applicant who feels that persons with permits who enclosed garages should be in a special class and allowed to shelter cars in side front yards, but that staff feels that these are not a special class and that shade structures, if allowed, should be citywide. Commissioner Koetting stated that sideyards could be considered perhaps on a percentage of open space basis. Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Fragen, applicant, stated that the subject structure is in a sideyard; that the roof line is on the same plane as the house; that he had requested the variance for his own sake and for those in similar situations in the older areas of the City; that these persons are being discriminated against because of lack of ability to provide shade for their vehicles; that what was being discussed was a temporary structure with strict guidelines so there are no problems; that the next door neighbor, who had originally opposed the structure (Bill Graetkin, 1221 Paseo de Marcia) has sent a letter stating that the structure is acceptable; that a temporary shade structure is a viable solution for yearround residents; that the structure could be removed if street improvements were ever required; that a transformer burned a stand of . shade trees near his residence and that was when the shade structure was erected. He requested relief from setback requirements for the shade structure. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • Mrs. P. McMahan, 1111 E. Ramon Road, stated that it was acceptable to have cars parked at the side of the house instead of in the street; and that her car had been ruined by the sun. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that awnings for covered parking on apartments are not necessarily a violation since they may have been approved that way; that there are two or three in the City; that the condominium complex north of the hospital has carports out of the setbacks on the Mel Avenue side; that violators of the setback requirements are reviewed as time permits by staff; that there would be a steady flow if variances were approved; that in 1982, the Commission denied a variance for carports in setbacks on the public street for a particular condominium complex but allowed carports on a private street; that if an ordinance were passed for shade structures in setbacks, people could ask for temporary structures; and that the point of having an ordinance is to have an equitable distribution for anyone who wants to do it, and that the City Attorney agrees. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the shade structure should have been addressed when the ordinance was first written; and that shaded parking adds value to a home. • Chairman stated that setbacks give Palm Springs character, encroachments upon them would detract from the openness, and that he would not support the variance. Commissioner Koetting stated that Palm Springs has a unique climate; that the auto is an extension of the family and is a factor of the urban element; that a lightweight shade structure that provides shade for the community is a valid element of the urban fabric and should be dealt with individually; and that the urban design issue could be worked into the scheme; and that his major concern was cars parking everywhere. Commissioner Kaptur stated that it was the person' s free will to enclose a garage for additional space; that cars should be covered by structures but that the structure should not be in the setbacks; and that he could not support the variance. Commissioner Curtis stated that there is a need for shade and an ordinance should be passed with controls with proper designing and restrictions. Chairman stated that there are three actions to be considered: denial , postponement, and approval . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the issue is bulding in the setbacks; that the aesthetics of the City would not be helped by structures in the setbacks; that the variance does not have the necessary findings; that • temporary structures are not beneficial to the people of the City; that the structures in existence are in the setbacks; and requested another study session. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • M/Lawrence approving the variance subject to an ordinance being adopted with the next year under which the applicant would be required to comply with the new ordinance. Chairman stated that the motion for a variance could not be taken since a variance has to stand on its own merits. Commissioner Lawrence withdrew his motion. Planning Director stated that the variance application could be continued to a date certain or removed from the agenda and renoticed at a future date. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting) to continue the item to the January 11, 1984 meeting. The vote was as follows: AYES: Koetting, Lawrence NOES: Curtis, Apfelbaum, Kaptur, Madsen, Service The motion failed. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he would like the matter to be reviewed to be fair to the applicant since to deny or approve it would present other problems. • Further discussion followed on the proper Commission action. Chairman stated that he felt that action should be taken since the Commission would not be doing the applicant a favor to continue it to a meeting in January. M/S/C (Madsen/Apfelbaum; Curtis, Koetting, Lawrence dissenting) denying Variance application 6.335 based on the following findings: 1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which determines that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classification. 2. That conditions cannot be applied to the proposal which would assure that the adjustment would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the granting of a variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 4. That the existing carport on the side attached to the dwelling has been legally converted to a bedroom. Conversion occurred in 1971 prior to regulations which required two spaces for each dwelling attached to the main building being adopted by the City. 5. That no consent has been given by the City for the structure in the required yard. 6. That the lot has width, depth, and area that conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 6.335-VARIANCE (Cont'd. ) • Commissioner Madsen requested that the subject of carports and setbacks be placed on the October 19 study session agenda for further review. (All Commissioners indicated that they would attend) . CASE 5.0252-B-F-MISCELLANEOUS. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for public and Planning Commission comment on the draft EIR prepared for S. Palm Canyon, Ramon/Bogie, N. Palm Canyon, and Highland/Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and proposed redevelopment plans for the S. Palm Canyon and Ramon/Bogie Redevelopment Project areas. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission find that the redevelop- ment plans are in conformance with the City's General Plan and trans- mitting the resolutions for the Ramon/Bogie and S. Palm Canyon Redevelopment Plans to the City Council. Housing & Redevelopment Specialist reviewed the three documents (EIR for the remaining five redevelopment project areas and the two redevelopment plans for Ramon/Bogie and S. Palm Canyon) with the Commission. In response to questions by Commission, he stated that the fiscal impact on the Indian property owners is not in the EIR and was brought up as a point of discussion with the Tribal Council ; that this discussion will be held on October 19; that the impact on Indian property owners could • not be addressed in the EIR without their specific concerns; that the impact is insignificant and a fiscal rather than an EIR impact; that there is a fiscal review process through the County and a meeting will be held on October 20 with taxing agencies individually being informed of the projected revenue impact; that the Redevelopment Agency will negotiate separately with each taxing agency which will provide infor- mation on the impacts; and that tax increments will be separated as has been done on the Tahquitz/Andreas project. Chairman stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive input on the adequacy of the documentation in accessing impacts and to adopt the resolutions if the Commission chooses to transmit the document to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Housing & Redevelopment Specialist stated that the Commission should find that the plans are in conformance with the City' s General Plan and adopt the resolutions. M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen) adopting Resolution #3568 (Ramon-Bogie Redevelopment Plan) and Resolution #3569 (S. Palm Canyon Redevelopment Plan) and transmitting them to the City Council with Commission findings that the Redevelopment plans are in conformance with the City's General Plan. • Tribal Council comments: September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0252 (Cont'd. ) • "A significant portion of the South Palm Canyon Redevelopment Project Area and a major portion of the Ramon-Bogie Redevelopment Project Area are comprised of Indian trust lands. The Tribal Council , at its meeting of June 21, 1983, considered the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for these proposed projects and disapproved any further action to proceed with the redevelopment program until those issues related to benefits to the allottees and to the community as a whole, were addressed. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the five proposed project areas was received at the Tribal Council Office on September 17, 1983. The Proposed Redevelopment Plans for the South Palm Canyon and the Ramon-Bogie Redevelopment Project Areas were received on September 26. The Tribal Council will be reviewing these documents and submitting its comments thereon prior to the end of the review period (November 2, 1983) for the Draft EIR." PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Director read a letter from landscape architect, David Hamilton, regarding the Landsdale residence (Case 3.487) in which Mr. Hamilton stated he was no longer associated with the project and noted his concerns that the . Commission felt that his involvement would achieve a high quality of landscaping which may no longer be achieved. Commission consensus was that the approved plans should be implemented and the landscape installation monitored. Planning Director stated that staff was aware of the situtation and was in contact with the architect, who is aware of staff scrutiny of the construction. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Com- mission discussed and took action on the following tract and parcel maps 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 sig- nificant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. TTM 19441. Application by HACKER ENGINEERING for Ronson Investments, Inc. for condominium conversion of existing apartment complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive/Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. (This action categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA . guidelines. ) Chairman stated that the map was continued for a City engineering report regarding flooding on East Palm Canyon and also addressing Commission' s concern regarding isolation of the condominium project in a heavy rain storm. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 TTM 19441 (Cont'd. ) • City Engineer stated that the residents are isolated in a heavy storm and must go to Bogie Road and come back on Waverly because there is a drainage problem. He stated that the proposed Master Drainage Plan proposes facilities which will solve the problem and that the developers have been told that they must conform to the requirements and pay drainage fees if they are adopted before recordation of the map. Planning Director stated that the City has passed an amendment that exempts previously constructed facilities where the map was only to change the ownership. He stated that the fees were preempted by the Council action . City Engineer stated that if the property were in Zone 6, drainage fees would be imposed under Prop. F and the map could be exempted under that. Planner III stated that the new drainage conditions have been discussed with the applicant. C. Mills, 2332 Starr Road, representing the applicant, stated that the statement on drainage was a standard one, and that the applicant had no objections to it. D. Hacker, Engineer, 490 S. Farrell , stated that the original condition was that the developer provides adequate flood control and the City waives fees. • Chairman stated that a lake forms in the area in heavy rains and before the map proceeds and multiple ownerships begins, the City must be satisfied that no long term problems will be inherited. Commissioner Lawrence stated that unless the condition were placed in the white papers, the buyer would not know of the flooding problem. Mr. Mills stated that a 40 ft. easement for flood control purposes is shown in the white papers. Commissioner Lawrence stated that easements would mean nothing to a buyer, and that he was concerned about the situation and reiterated that a condition should be placed in the white paper. Mr. Mills replied that, if it is the condition of the white paper, it will be there and that problems begin to the east of the property. He stated that the attempt by Gemco for flood control is the first attempt ever made, and the situation will improve since Cathedral City is a City and that there is cooperation between the cities. City Engineer stated that the buyers will be receiving reports in individual buyers packages and that part of the problem is poor maintenance of the channel which has now been cleaned. He stated that there will be an agreement for maintenance in the C.C.& R. ' s, and that this severe drainage problem will be rectified in the long run, but in the short term there is protection only against a 10 year storm. Discussion followed on the origin point of the water. City Engineer • described the water flow and retention and stated that Cathedral City will agree to the Palm Springs Master Plan of Drainage being prepared by Riverside County Flood Control District. M/S/C Lawrence, Madsen approving TTM 19441 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 TTM 16759. Request by P. TYNBERG for reconsideration of requiring archi- tectural approval of lots within TTM 16759, a subdivision of 34 single family residential lots on Bogert Trail , east of S. Palm Canyon Dr. , W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35. Planning Director stated that the applicant had requested reconsideration of the condition requiring architectural approval of single-family homes on lots within Tract 16759 and read the letter of request (on file in the Department of Community Development) . He stated that all new tracts within the last three years have had the requirement for design review including maps in proximity to the subject tract. He stated that the basis of Commission authority requiring architectural review of the homes lies within the Municipal Code and is a logical requirement since the area is of high quality and quality projects should result. He knows that although it is flat land, hillside lots overlook the property, that nearby streets in the County do not require architectural approval , that the tennis court lots require this approval and the appropriate time to discuss the architectural review would have been at the time of map approval . He stated that staff does not have a recommendation other than consistency and that the AAC recommended that the architectural review remain. He noted that eight lots face Bogert Trail and the remaining lots are internal . P. Tynberg, the applicant, stated that at the time the initial conditions were required, the Commission did not know about the internal control by professional designers, who had been hired to review the • architecture. He explained requirements for tracts in the area and stated that custom homes within Tract 16759 have controls. He distributed a copy of the architectural approval section of the Ordinance. Chairman explained that the requirement for tracts to have architectural approval is throughout the City and stated that the Commission has reviewed tracts in the northern part of the City, that C.C. & R's cannot prevent placing a modular house on a single-family lot, and that architectural approval of new houses and tracts are to help control the aesthetics. He stated that the reason the City adopted the policy three years ago was because people did not want mobilehomes in proximity to their homes. He stated that he could not support removing the condition. Planning Director explained that modulars can be placed on single-family lots, but that mobilehomes require a CUP. Discussion followed on possible City approval of all single-family homes. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the applicant was undertaking a great deal of responsibility. Dr. Tynberg stated that C.C. & R. ' s state that the applicant must comply with conditions of the architectural approval committee. • September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 TTM 16759 (Cont'd. ) • Discussion continued on the visibility of the lot and whether or not internal control of the architecture would be sufficient. Dr. Tynberg stated that the main reason for internal approval was to avoid the delay required by the City approval process. He stated that his architectural committee will do a good job. Discussion continued. Chairman suggested three possible actions: allowing the requirement to remain; reversing the original actions; or requiring only those lots fronting on Bogert Trail to have architectural approval . Commissioner Kaptur stated that he doubted that the City staff would want architectural approval of every single-family lot and Chairman stated that the requirement is for lots in subdivisions only. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence, Apfelbaum/Madsen dissented; Curtis/Koetting abstained) approving revision of conditions for Tract 16759 as follows: That houses on major roadways (later amended to "Bogert Trail") and the tennis courts for Tract 16759 shall require architectural approval, but internal lots within the map do not require architectural approval . ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on • the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. CASE 3.568 (Ref. Case 3.421) . Application by L. SANDOR for R. Floyd for architectural approval of revised elevations for hillside residence at 555 N. Patencio Rd. , R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Planning Director explained revisions to the approved plan on the display board and stated that the revised elevations were recommended for approval by the AAC, but that the lighting plans were recommended for restudy because the AAC felt there was too much lighting indicated on the plan. L. Sandor, the architect, stated that the current construction activity on the site is for remodeling of the interior and for construction of the plans for the extension of the dining room which were approved by the Commission. He stated that there was a bridge on the west with a cavity under it. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the Council be informed that there is a change in the plans. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Service dissented) approving the house revisions with a restudy of the lighting (noting that the number of light fixtures should be reduced, that the drive area of the house and the mountain side are overlit, and that the existing lighting is unsatisfactory and • should be refined to comply with the preceeding comments) . Discussion followed on the extraordinary amount of light proposed by the applicant. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 CASE 3.568 (Cont'd. ) M/S/C (Koetting/Lawrence) that the Council be notified that there has been a change in the original plans for the house. CASE 3.603 & TTM 19603. Application by HALLMARK ENGINEERING/KAPTUR/CIOFFI for M. Sabath for architectural approval and map approval for 60-unit condominium project on S. Palm Canyon Dr. between Ave. Granada/Sierra Madre, R-2 Zone, Section 35. Planner III presented the project on the board and described concerns such as the circulation pattern, building height (26 feet at the highest point), and sewers. He stated that the zone allows only 24 feet of building height, but that the AAC felt that there should be some flexibility in the Ordinance in R-2 Zones and recommended approval noting that if the Ordinance were not amended prior to submission of construction documents, the documents would have to be redesigned. He noted that the applicant feels that the sewer conditions are unfair since the Development Committee recommendations are for the applicant to build a parallel line 1-1/2 miles off-site. Discussion followed on the clerestory windows. Chairman stated that the issue of building height is not in the AAC' s • purview. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the building could be approved only if the building height were lowered two feet or staff were directed to revise the Ordinance. He stated that to revise the building height in R-2 Zones would affect every R-2 property in the City. He stated that the application could be approved with the provision it meets code or denied on the grounds that it does not. Commissioner Koetting expressed concern about the long wall on the end elevation of the two-story building, and stated that he felt that it could be made more interesting. Discussion followed. H. Kaptur, the architect, stated that after discussion with his staff, it was decided to not design windows not related to the floor plan and screen the wall with landscaping. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that awnings had been discussed with the architect and staff felt that theygave life and color to the project but did not know what vehicle could be used to have them all replaced at the same time (when they faded) with the same color and material . He stated that the language for replacement of the awnings should be specific. Commissioner Lawrence stated that even though the requirement were in the C.C. & R.s, the document could be • changed. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CASE 3.603 & TTM 19603 (Cont'd. ) M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Koetting; Kaptur abstained) approving Case 3.603 and Tentative Tract Map 19603 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the roof height meet the R-2 Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. That the C.C. & R.s for the project include maintenance and replacement provisions for the awning, providing that the awnings are uniformly replaced with the same material and in the color originally approved. 3. That awning replacement material and color be submitted to the AAC and Planning Commission for approval . 4. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 5. That the condition regarding maintenance and replacement of the awnings be placed as a condition of the tract C.C. & R. 's with a provision that that particular C.C. & R. not be changed without approval of the City. Chairman left the meeting; Vice-Chairman presided. • CASE 5.0032-PD-78. Application by TKD for Canyon Heights for architectural approval of final landscape plans for recreation area for 93-unit condominium project on S. Palm Canyon Dr. , W-R-2 Zone (I .L. ), Section 34. Planning Director stated that although the tennis courts are approved for lighting, two will not be lighted, and that the AAC recommends approval of the landscaping as submitted. M/S/S (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Service absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: that all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. * * * * * Chairman returned to the meeting, but abstained on Case 5.0106 -CUP and Case 3.336; Vice-Chairman presided. CASE 5.0106-CUP & 3.336. Application by M. STARKMAN ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised site plan, parking layout,and architectural elevations and a request for a subterranean tunnel under Calle Encilia; & D. JUNG for architectural approval of preliminary landscape plans for hotel and condominium complex on N. Indian Ave. between Tahquitz- McCallum Way/Arenas Rd. , C-2, C-1-AA Zones, & R-4VP (I .L. ) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that staff had worked with applicant in a special study session prior to the meeting since there are several • changes to the approved plans. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 CASE 5.0106-CUP & 3.336 (Cont'd. ) Planner III stated that floor plans and parking plans are the primary issues since the applicant is proposing two additional hotel rooms, a 3,900 sq. ft. ballroom, much more meeting room area and restaurant seating. He stated that the applicant is requesting parking based on the largest meeting room use (9300 sq. ft. ) and not provide parking on- site for the 3900 sq. ft. of meeting rooms. He explained the parking program including use of the connecting tunnel to the condominium. He noted that emergency vehicle provisions will be difficult with valet parking as planned, but that the building is fully sprinklered. He noted that the model of the project had not been shown to the AAC and addressed openness better than the renderings, and that AAC members Mills, Cioffi and Buccino and planning staff met with the applicant who agrees to the AAC recommendations and wishes approval with the AAC conditions incorporated as conditions of that approval . He explained that the connecting tunnel is to provide full hotel services to the condomiums, and that staff is requesting a delineation of the use agreement between the two properties to bind them together legally. L. Slaten, 10787 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles, the applicant, explained financing arrangements for the condominiums and hotel and stated that the tunnel will be used for services provided for guests. He noted that the original Holiday Inn concept has changed to a Marquis Hotel with additional services provided, such as a ballroom and more restaurant space. He stated that the revisions are considered minor modifications • to the site plan, that the model indicates depth of the frontage more precisely than the renderings, and that City requirements will be met. Discussion followed on the exterior materials of the hotel . Commissioner Kaptur suggested more substantial material , and Mr. Slaten stated that the suggestion will be considered. R. Haley, the architect, also explained the types of materials to be used. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the building should be of "Type 1" construction. Further discussion followed on the revisions. Vice-Chairman stated that the changes are substantial, and that he was surprised that the applicant had not presented the revisions previously to the Commission since plans are required to be built as approved unless there are problems. He stated that there are changes on the elevations that he could not support and they should be reviewed by the Commission. Discussion followed. The architect indicated colors on the material board. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a joint meeting with the AAC to review the changes. Vice-Chairman stated that the AAC recommendation was for restudy. Planning Director explained the AAC voting on the restudy recommendation and reminded the Commission that two AAC architects and a landscape architect reviewed the project with staff and the applicant at a special study session. • September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 CASE 5.0106-CUP & 3.336 (Cont'd. ) • Further discussion followed on the appropriate Commission action since the project had been recommended for a restudy by the AAC. Planner III reminded Commission that the applicant accepts the restudy conditions as conditions of approval since the applicant wishes to proceed as quickly as possible. Vice-Chairman stated that there is less open space, that the project has more intensity, and that the Indian Avenue elevations are not acceptable. He stated that the changes makes it a lesser project. Mr. Slaten stated that the architect has worked with staff on the changes, and that the Indian Avenue revision is similar to what was originally approved. Mr. Haley stated that the hotel has been upgraded from the Holiday Inn to a four- or five-star hotel and that interior elevations would show its quality. Vice-Chairman reiterated that he felt that the revisions should be resubmitted. Further discussion followed Mr. Slaten stated that he did not want to be delayed. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the applicant be allowed to proceed. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur) that the revisions be approved subject to AAC recommendations and Planning Commission review of the revisions at a study session. Vice-Chairman requested clarification of the motion. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the approval was for the parking design, subterranean tunnel , and preliminary landscape plans as revised, noting that the AAC had recommended a restudy of certain elements, and that the applicant has accepted the suggestions made in the special study session with staff and the three AAC members. At the request of Vice-Chairman, Assistant City Attorney stated that approval should be of the "footprint" of the project with the remainder of the project scheduled for a restudy. Commissioner Lawrence withdrew his motion with consent of second. M/S/C (Lawrence/Kaptur; Service abstained; Koetting dissented) approving the revised "footprint" of the hotel (Case 5.0106-CUP) project subject to the following conditions of restudy per AAC recommendations: 1. That the Indian Avenue elevation include increased planting to add visual interest to the blank elevation shown on the revised plans. 2. The elements of the original porte cochere design be retained (i .e. elements which reflect the open design of the original) . • September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 CASE 5.0106-CUP & 3.336 (Cont'd. ) 3. That the building form, massing and landscape concepts of the interior court be retained as in the originally approved plans (AAC considered that the original court design was more attractive and had more visual interest than the revised) . 4. That the first floor perimeter roof planter be retained. 5. AAC recommended that rooftop (i .e. third story) planters be eliminated. Note: All other planters (including balcony and low level roof planters) shall be retained on both condo and hotel projects. 6. That details of planters including depth, drainage and specifications for soil shall be provided with detailed landscaping plans. Note: Developer was reminded that an original condition of approval required retention of existing mature palm trees on site. Discussion followed on the parking requirements for the hotel and condominiums. Planning Director stated that staff had not reviewed the major architectural revisions until recently, and that the applicant has had many problems with the project including financing. • Discussion continued on the long, linear south elevation of the hotel . Planner III stated that the applicant felt certain that the problems could be resolved. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a pedestrian bridge as a viable solution to tie the two disparate projects together and aid in the function of the project. Planning Director stated that a bridge would not be functional . Commissioner Curtis left the meeting at this point. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum; Curtis. absent; Service abstained) approving the "footprint" of the condominiums (Case 3.336) , subject to the following restudy recommendations of the AAC: 1. That the visual break shown in the original south and east elevations be retained. 2. That increased sun control be explored in the service core on the east elevation. 3. Courtyard designs consistent with original approval . Chairman and Commissioner Apfelbaum left the meeting; Vice-Chairman pre- sided. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for architectural approval • of revised sign program for Sunrise Square shopping center on the NW corner of Sunrise Way/Vista Chino, R-1-C Zone, Section 2 (Ref. Case 5.938-CUP) . Zoning Enforcement Officer explained the proposed revision to the sign program stating that Best Pharmacy desired separate identification and that the shopping center owner, W. Carver, has indicated that the signs will all be changed within two years to the "Best Pharmacy" prototype. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis/Apfelbaum/Service absent) approving the revised sign program for the Sunrise Square Shopping Center, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sign program revisions be completed within two years. 2. That letters be raised a minimum of 1" from the base of the raceway. MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ACTIONS M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis/Apfelbaum/Service absent) taking the following ac- tions per staff recommendations. SIGN APPLICATION (Cont'd. ) . Application by YOUNG ELECTRIC CO. for archi- tectural approval of main identification monument sign for Shari ' s Restaurant in shopping center on the SE corner of Palm Canyon • Dr./Racquet Club Rd. , PD-113, Section 3. (Ref. Case 5.0127-PD-113) Approved as submitted. Koetting abstained. CASE 3.403 (Cont'd. ). Application by POMONA FIRST FEDERAL for architectural approval of as-built landscape plans for savings & loan on Tahquitz- McCallum Way beween Ave. Caballeros/Hermosa Dr. , C-1-AA & R-4-VP Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Eucalyptus be extended approximately one-third of the width elevation of the building. 2. That a group of palms be included on the west elevation. 3. That desert landscaping be merged into the western edge of the front setback area. CASE 3.592. Application by R. RICCIO for architectural approval of revised elevations for a single family residence on W. Dogwood Dr. , off Golden Rod Lane, R-1-B Zone, Section 23. Restudy. • CASE 3.586 (Minor) . Application by T. SKORMAN for architectural approval of revised details for awning on the front elevation of business at 310 N. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Continued to October 12, 1983, at the applicant's request. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) • CASE 3.452. Application by W. KLEINDEINST for J. Zarowitz for architectural approval of revised elevations, colors, and landscaping at 563 Fern Canyon Rd. , R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Restudy, noting the following: That the landscape and wall materials are satisfactory but that the garden wall height should be increased to screen the front elevation or the front elevations of the house refined. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0237-PD-142. Application by M. BUCCINO for 1st. Nationwide Savings for architectural approval of revised landscape development plans for savings & loan facility located at E. Palm Canyon Dr./Sunrise Way, Section 26. In reply to Vice-Chairman's question, landscape architect, M. Buccino, stated that the landscaping had been revised to unify the project with the existing projects and the massing of the planters increased. M/S (Kaptur/Madsen) approving the application as submitted. The vote was as follows: • AYES: Kaptur/Madsen NOES: Koetting/Lawrence ABSENT: Service/Curtis/Apfelbaum There was a tie vote. No action was taken. Discussion followed on moving the palm trees from their straight alignment. C. Hellman, the applicant, stated that the palm tree alignment could be kept. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Service/Curtis/Apfelbaum absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the palm trees be moved to a location behind the sidewalk, to maintain continuity with the established streetscape. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0272-ZTA (Cont'd. ) . Initiation by the City of Palm Springs for amend- ments to the C-B-D Zone, Section 15. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and final approval . ) • Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue the item to October 12. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 CASE 5.0272-ZTA (Cont'd.) • Planning Director stated that staff was requesting continuance for further staff review. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Service/Curtis/Apfelbaum absent) continuing the case to October 12. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS (Continued) TTM 17430 (Cont'd. ) . Application by HALLMARK ENGINEERING for Investors Real Estate for revised map and phasing plan for private club and condominium development on the northeast corner of Ave. Caballeros/Amado Rd. , R- G-A(8) Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. (Ref. Cases 3.101 & 5.0259-CUP) (Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with Case 3.101. ) Planner II stated in response to Commission concerns that prospective buyers will be apprised of the private club in the Development Committee conditions, and that an ongoing issue is that the Engineering Division • recommends that all street improvements be constructed with Phase I of the project although street improvements usually are constructed adjacent to phases of a project. Planning Director stated that Commission recommended in the CUP for the project that the remaining improvements be constructed upon demand by the commission if a convention center is approved. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis/Apfelbaum/Service absent) approving TTM 17430 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee, with the exception that street improvements be constructed adjacent to phases as previously stated in the commission' s actions concerning this project. Tribal Council comments: "This case was considered by the Tribal Council On September 13, 1983 and subsequently continued by the City Planning Commission to September 28 in order to receive written Development Committee comments and recommendations. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its action of September 13 to approve the revised map and phasing plan for 77M 17430. 2. Took exception with the Development Committee's recommendation that the developer construct all off-site improvements adjacent to all phases of 77M 17430 with the approval fo Phase I. September 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 TTM 17430 (Cont'd. ) 3. Concurred with an earlier action by the City Planning Commission (May 11, 1983-CASE 5.0259-CUP) which provided "that the applicant be given six months notice by the Planning Commission to complete street improvements in Amado Road if the Commission and Staff determine that improvements are necessary". ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) TPM 18352 (Cont'd. ) . Application by WEBB ENGINEERING for R. Ellis for approval of C.C. & R. ' s for landscape maintenance guidelines for a subdivision on Crossley Rd. , M-1 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 20. Planning Director stated that no vehicle had been developed for maintenance of the landscaping. M/S/C (Lawrence/Madsen; Service/Curtis/Apfelbaum absent) approving TPM 18352 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That a vehicle be submitted for landscape maintenance. • CASE 3.205. Application by R. BARNETT for S. Appel for architectural approval of revised elevations for a condominium project on Escoba Dr. between Beverly Dr./E. Palm Canyon Dr., R-3 Zone, Section 24. Planning Director stated that working drawings showed deletion of the originally approved diagonal siding. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis/Apfelbaum/Service absent) approving the revised elevations subject to the following conditions: 1. That a sample of the roof tile be submitted for Planning Commission approval . 2. That the cedar siding be included as originally approved. 3. That one stucco color be used (either of the first two colors submitted). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. A)KAvuW� PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/m WP/PC MIN