Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/11/28 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall November 28, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1984 - 1985 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 9 0 Hugh Curtis X 8 1 Hugh Kaptur X 8 1 Peter Koetting X 6 3 Don Lawrence - 7 2 Paul Madsen X 7 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 7 2 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Robert Green, Planner III Margo Williams, Planner II Allen Smoot, Building and Safety Director Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - November 26, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Absent: William Johnson Earl Neel Michael Buccino Hugh Curtis Chris Mills Sharon Apfel baum Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Lawrence absent) approving minutes of November 14, 1984 with the following correction: Page 11 Case 5.0343-CZ Paragraph 5. Rephrase as follows: "Planning Director stated that neither bans nor free standing restaurants are allowed in R-2 zoning, even under a CUP." There were no Tribal Council comments. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA tr The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC, and staff. No further review is required, and action is taken by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. M/S/C (Curtis/Koetting; Lawrence absent taking the following actions: CASE 3.768 (Minor) (Continued) . Application by THE REGENT HOTEL for architec- tural approval of awnings and revised exterior material for hotel at 960 N. Palm Canyon, C-1/R-3 Zones, Section 10. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the blue color is acceptable. 2. That the awning length be as per plan (shown on the right side). 3. That the awning be boxed or tailored style. 4. That the area above the Indian Avenue awning be stucco. SIGN APPLICATION (Continued). Application by SUN SIGNS for A to Z Rentals for architectural approval pproval of two revised main identification signs at 4545 Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Continued to December 12, 1984. SIGN APPLICATION (Continued). Application by R. LYONS for Ram's Hotel and Restaurant Supply for architectural approval of main identification sign for business at 4775 E. Ramon Road, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Removed from the agenda, pending submission of plans by the applicant. CASE 3.616. Application by J. M. PETERS COMPANY for architectural approval of detailed landscape plans for a 240-unit condominium project on E1 Cielo Road between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 13. Landscape: Approved, subject to restudy of the following species Cupaniopsis Anacardiodes and Eugenia. Streetscape: Restudy, noting the following: 1. That plant materials and shrubs undulate to compliment the mean- dering sidewalk and streetscape. 2. That the slope on the mounds be increased. 3. That interior carports street trees be relocated to the perimeter of planters to provide visual relief in the rows of carports. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.711. Application by M. BUCCINO for M. Hemstreet for architectural approval of landscape plans for 125-unit hotel on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the pool fence plans be submitted to staff. 2. That the tree sizes along the street be upgraded. 3. That larger scale detail of the southwest corner streetscape be submitted and approved by staff. 4. That interior planters wrap around wing walls and screen the air conditioning units. 5. That the architectural detail of the substructures (pool house, gazebo) be reviewed by the AAC. 6. That street palms which are to be relocated be coordinated with the Parks Department. 7. That the interior walk corridor have a focal point (to be reviewed by the AAC). CASE 3.747. Application by H. HARRIS for Combs Gates Aviation for architec- tural approval of landscape plans for aircraft storage hangar on airport property, Camino Bombero, "A" Zone, Section 13. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That 4-foot berms or wall be placed in the street setback area to screen the parking area. 2. That the palm row and ground cover be duplicated on the east side of the driveway behind the 6-foot wall . 3. That undersized pea gravel be used as a ground cover on the Airport Operations side. CASE 3.777 (Minor). Application W. SORRENTINO for Indian Wells Date Shop for architectural approval of new awning (with sign) for business at 364 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 5.0128 - PD-107. Application by H. MAXWELL for architectural approval of final development plans (landscape) for a condominium development on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 25. Approved subject to the following condition: that landscaping on the east side of the building be reviewed by staff after construction, prior to final occupancy of approval . SIGN APPLICATION. Application by UNION OIL COMPANY for architectural approval of gas rate sign for gasoline station at Smoketree Village, the south- east corner of East Palm Canyon Drive/Sunrise Way, C-D-N Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. CASE 7.578-AMM. Application by OSTER-McNEEL CONSTRUCTION CO. for architec- tural approval of entry gate for a single-family residence at 1188 Tamarisk Road, R-1 Zone, Section 11. Approved as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Removed from Consent Agenda) The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the con- ditions as outlined. CASE 3.231 (Continued) . Application by SWR DEVELOPMENT CO. for architectural approval of window details for condominium complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 30. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for field review and additional comments and recommendations; and that the devel- oper will be willing to post a five-year maintenance bond for future maintenance problem of the window detail and will record this fact in the real estate report. C. Reeder, S. W. R. Corporation, stated that more of the window detail has been constructed because of AAC approval on November 12 and that he had seen some of the Commissioners reviewing the details in the field. Planning Director described the method of installation of the window detail and stated that the horizontal wood members do not reach to the plaster element which should be corrected, and also that the plaster around the windows should be repainted the color of the wood. Commissioner Kaptur stated that in his field review, he found that the boards were beginning to warp in one instance and that the correct detail was included in the construction documents. He stated that he could not support the revised ,detail since the element is different from November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.231 (Cont'd.) what was approved and will be a maintenance problem after the five year guarantee has expired. He stated that "plant-ons" do not have inte- grated structural strength. Chairman agreed, stating that he voted against continuance from the November 14 meeting because he felt that although the developer could make the "plant-ons" appear visually correct from the street, the long- term maintenance and appearance would suffer from the "band-aid" type approach. He stated that had the detail been submitted in plan check, it would not have been approved by the Commission, and also that the developer continued working after being "red-tagged" by the Building Division and the developer now states that he has continued construction of the detail on other buildings. He stated that there should be metal clad materials on the windows to prevent maintenance problems. Commissioner Curtis stated that the developer should be willing to cor- rect the mistake and that if an acceptable "band-aid" cannot be found, the developer should construct the detail as it was originally approved. He stated that the Planning Commission should not consent to anything less than a quality project. Mr. C. Reeder suggested several alternatives for the window detail , including painting the outside corner in a darker color giving the effect of wood, which he thought had been discussed at a previous AAC meeting. In response to Chairman's question, he stated that another coat of stucco would be applied and finished to resemble wood. He requested direction on the alternative and stated that another possi- bility would be to apply mini-brick around the balconies which he thought had been discussed at an AAC meeting. M/S/C (Koetting/Curtis; Lawrence absent) denying the approach proposed by the application and directing that the applicant construct the detail as originally approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0333 AND TTM 20435. Application by V. PIROZZI for a Change of Zone from "0" to "R-1-C" or other designation as the Planning Commission deems appropriate on Via Miraleste between Francis Drive/Racquet Club Road, "0" Zone, Section 2. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and final approval .) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve Case 5.0333-CZ and TTM 20435 subject to conditions. Planner II (Williams) gave a brief staff report and stated that there are no mitigative impacts from the proposal . November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 5.0333 AND TTM 20435 (Cont'd.) Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Madsen; Lawrence absent) approving Case 5.0333-CZ and TTM 20435 with the following findings and subject to the following condition: FINDINGS 1. That the proposed change of zone is in conformity with the General Plan. 2. That the site is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zoning district. 3. That the proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time and is not likely. to be detrimental to the adjacent proper- ties or residences. 4. That the proposed map is in compliance with the minimum standards of the R-1-C Zone. 5. That the proposed map is in compliance with the General Plan and its objectives. 6. That the proposed map will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the the City or neighborhood. CONDITION That all Development Committee recommendations be adopted as conditions of approval . CASE 5.0341-PD-163 (Continued). Application by CDS DEVELOPMENT OF CA, INC. for a p an�ned development district to allow construction of a 120 unit motor hotel on N. Palm Canyon Dr. between Zanjero Road/Via Olivera, C-1, and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. A General Plan amendment would be required to facilitate this planned development district. Planning Director stated that the application was continued for discus- sion at the November 21 study session and that if the Commission feels that it is an appropriate application, it can be continued or removed from the agenda for a General Plan study, or the application can be denied without further review or can be denied without prejudice from staff to complete a study of land use and zoning in the area. He stated that there was a consensus at the study session that zoning patterns will inhibit good development of the area; and that there is no definite character either existing or desired, but that moderate cost hotels or strip commercial seemed not to illicit interest, and that hotel and strip commercial uses as well as office uses would have to be explored. He stated that staff had not had time to develop a program for develop- ment of the area, and that some direction on the character of the neigh- borhood should be expressed by the Commission. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0341-PD-163 (Cont'd.) Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the application be continued (possibly to January 9) for a staff report. Chairman stated that the applicant is asking for a 43-unit per acre density; and that the increased density should be reviewed considering the entire area. He suggested that the developer be informed if the Commission feels that 43-units per acre is too dense, or if the Commis- sion wishes to defer the application until a General Plan Amendment is developed. Planning Director, in response to Commission question, stated that there is no sufficient Commission direction for a General Plan hearing, except for consolidation of lots, and that staff had not felt any consensus by the Commission regarding character of the area. He stated that although the area had been a redevelopment survey study, the necessary findings for blight and other problems for it to be included in a redevelopment project area could not be made by the Redevelopment staff since there are other higher priority areas to be addressed in the City. He noted that the Redevelopment Director requested goals and policies from the Commission and Council in order to establish a Redevelopment Project Area. He explained that lot sizes and incentives can be established in the Zoning Ordinance without a redevelopment project area but future development patterns might not be acceptable to the Commission with this kind of criteria. He explained that there are two different characters on the east and west sides of Palm Canyon; and that the General Plan Amendment could be considered for the east side with a future amendment for the west side, and that the Commission could take action on a General Plan Amendment for the east side even though the proposed hotel project is not acceptable and that conditions could be developed for hotels on a limited basis if hotel development is acceptable to the Commission in that area. Commission Kaptur stated that, for the applicant's information, on a project at the entrance of the City 43-units per acre is too dense. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Meyers, owner of adjacent corner property, requested approval , stating that he is going to develop his property possibly as a profes- sional building and integrate the design with the subject proposal . Ms. Rita Waters, representing CDS Development Company, stated she appreciated the time spent on the proposal and that she understood the problem of high density at the entrance of the City, but that the owner hopes to develop at the 43-unit per acre density of C-1 zoning. She stated that she felt that an acceptable project could be developed and that the north end needs to enhance and invite development. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Chairman stated that, if the proposal averages R-G-A(6) and C-1 zoning, R-2 zoning results, (20 units per acre), which is compatible with the neighborhood to the east. Commissioner Curtis suggested that staff develop information on the 4 or 5 sites which can be combined through land assemblage, and that a possi- November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 CASE 5.0341-PD-163 (Cont'd. ) ble solution would be for additional housing which would benefit the community. He stated that the he was in opposition to an increase in density which becomes an eyesore, and that C-1 zoning density is not the solution. Commissioner Kaptur stated that an acceptable program would be the combination of lots for a larger scope of development. Commissioner Madsen agreed that larger types of development with set- backs and buffers would be acceptable and that development should be encouraged, but that 43-units per acre density would probably not be reasonable on all parcels in the area. Planning Director stated that 43 units per acre is hotel density, since apartments and condos on C-1 zoned land take density from the R-3 Zone (21 d.u./acre), and that the only 43 unit per acre project in the City is the apartment project on Sunrise next to Alpha-Beta. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Lawrence absent; Koetting abstained) denying the hotel application, based on the following findings: 1. That a PD application is appropriate for the consideration of this proposal . 2. That the use is not in harmony with the elements, objectives and densities of the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 4. That the site is serviced by North Palm Canyon Drive, a major thoroughfare with adequate capacity, to serve the proposed use. Chairman requested that Commission discuss a staff study of the area. Consensus was that hotel uses, combinations of parcels, sensitivity to the entrance of the City, incentives, inclusion in a redevelopment project area, inclusion of the entire City in a redevelopment project area, and discouragement of small parcels on the west side of the street should be explored. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a study session to discuss the items to be included in the study. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Koetting abstained; Lawrence absent) directing staff to study the subject area, taking/consideration Commission direc- tions as noted above. into November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.231 (Continued. Application by SWR DEVELOPMENT CO. for architectural approval of indow details for condominium complex on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 30. Chairman requested a motion. if the Commission desired to reconsider the denial of the application for revised window details for discussion with the developers who had just come to the meeting. Motion was made by Madsen to reconsider the action. The motion died for lack of a second. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman stated that the developer could speak for three minutes on his project. S. Reeder of SWR Corporation requested help from the Commission, since he had inherited problems from builders no longer associated with the project. He stated that he would post a bond and place a condition in the CC&R's for the maintenance of the window details for the life of the project. He explained there was a problem with the original design during construction, and revisions were made in the field which did not meet original requirements. He requested direction on alternative solu- tions from the Commission. Chairman stated that a solution for the problems would be left to the developer, but that the revisions made in the field were denied. He stated that the Commission wanted a long-term solution to the problem and that Mr. Reeder had mentioned a longer term solution than what was mentioned earlier. He stated that the' Commission action can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Reeder stated that economics sometimes forces lower standards and that he would appeal to the Council. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the developer contact staff for ideas. Mr. Reeder stated that he had not attended meetings previously because of presentation of alternatives by persons working with him, but that he wanted the project to be acceptable because it is very visible, since it is located at an important intersection, and because it will be his first completed project. Chairman stated that the applicant could obtain direction on timely sub- mittal of an appeal from the Planning staff for review at the December 19 City Council meeting. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 CASE 3.776 Minor Application by R. C. ELLIS for architectural approval of �Fi-Tlsi a grading to allow storage of mobilehomes in conjunction with Safari Trailer Park, R-TP Zone, Section 30. Planning Director stated that the application is for grading of a knoll on the west boundary of Safari Trailer Park for storage of RV's and travel trailers. He stated that some work had been completed because of confusion in what type of grading permit was issued and that the AAC recommended restoration of the area to its original condition and replanting of vegetation, although there is a possibility that the area cannot be fully restored. R. C. Ellis, the applicant, stated he was present to answer questions and that the pad would be for storage of campers, motorhomes and trailers; and has been used in this manner for many years. Planning Director stated that a letter had been received from Horizon Mobilehome Park which has a view of the area, stating that the park residents had no objection. Discussion followed on the site's visibility from other parts of the City. Planning Director stated that some of the homes in Southridge can see the site and that the AAC felt it was not appropriate to grade off the toe of the mountain for storage of travel trailers. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission should be the body to determine the importance and suggested that landscaping could possibly hide the site. Planning Director stated that if the cut were landscaped properly, it would be acceptable, but that he did not know whether or not the appli- cant would do it correctly, and that a landscape architect should submit the plans. Discussion continued on compaction of the site. Commissioner Koetting suggested paving, a retaining wall, and a vegetation plan. Planning Director stated that his original suggestion was for Eucalyptus and Oleander, but possibly the area should be renaturalized. He stated that the permit indicates that a 270 foot wall of undetermined height was to be constructed, but that the permit was issued 4 years ago and the permit center staff does not remember the details. He stated that the grading was red-tagged. Discussion continued on the restoration plan. Commissioner Kaptur directed applicant to provide a restoration or landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect before any further grading occurs. M/S/C (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent) aRprovinq the hillside grad- ing application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a landscape restoration plan be submitted (prepared by land- scape architect) and approved by the Commission. 2. That there be no grading on the site until the landscape restora- tion plan is approved. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ADDED STARTER CASE 3.626. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for the City of Palm Springs for architectural approval of revised exterior color for cogeneration plant on El Cielo Road between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Camino Bombero, GR-5 Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that finishing is taking place on the cogenera- tion plant behind City Hall and several staff people have indicated that a color revision should be considered as a paint color rather than being included in the water seal coat. He stated that he suggested that the Building and Safety Director contact the architect for discussion at the meeting. Building and Safety Director stated that the architect was told to match the City Hall color which is pink, that the building is a distance away, but that pink is not the most acceptable color. Chairman suggested that a paint which is graffiti-proof be used on the building. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Lawrence absent; Service dissented) that staff work with the architect to choose a suitable color for the building. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.741 (Minor) (Continued). Application by J. BUND for Livreri 's Italian Restaurant for architectural approval of final landscape plans and revised elevations for restaurant at 250 to 254 S. Indian Avenue, C-2 Zone (I.L. ), Section 14. Planning Director stated that the AAC had no opinion and suggested Plan- ning Commission review. Planner III (Williams) stated that two parts of the open work of the canopy were not removed as shown on the plan. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Lawrence absent; Service abstained) approving final landscape plans and revised elevations (fascia change) as sub- mitted). Chairman left the meeting at this point. 3.728 (Minor). Application by H. LEWIS for Hamburger Hamlet for architectural approval of outdoor dining and exterior colors for restaurant at 105 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Chairman was absent; Vice Chairman presided. Planning Director stated that the canopy was repainted from green to white, French doors were painted white, and that the applicant (on an interim basis before the DeBartolo hotel project is completed) wishes to November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 3.728 (Minor). (Cont'd.) create a patio for outdoor dining adjacent to the French doors. He stated that a land use permit is required and that the application has been made. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Lawrence and Service absent) approving the appli- cation as submitted. Chairman returned to the meeting. CASE 5.0275 - PD-147. Application by REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for architectural approval of fence for O'Donnell Golf Course as part of remodel of Desert Fashion Plaza Project and 207-room hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz-McCallum Way, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Planner III (Green) presented the project and stated that the AAC recom- mended that the fence be denied. Redevelopment Planner stated that the request to add the fence came from the golf course administration. Discussion followed on the height of the proposed fence and landscaping. Commissioner Kaptur suggested deletion of the Eucalyptus trees and sug- gested that consideration be made of no changes until there is a problem. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Lawrence absent; Curtis dissented) approving the following: 1. That the 26 foot high fence is denied. 2. That the landscaping is approved, except that the Eucalyptus trees are to be deleted. 3. That the six foot high golf course fence on Belardo is approved. NOTE: Commissioner Curtis dissented because he felt that the Eucalyptus trees should not be deleted and should remain as a barrier. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION 10.347. Planning Commission determination that outside display and storage of motor oil falls within the prohibition of outside activi- ties in gasoline service stations, citywide. Planning Director stated that the determination was placed on the agenda relative to the Mobil station at 1708 North Palm Canyon Drive where there are displays of oil on the gasoline islands and that there is a difference of opinion between staff and the City Attorney on Ordinance interpretation. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 DETERMINATION 10.347. (Cont'd. ) In response to Chairman's question, Assistant City Attorney explained his position by stating that he equates the storage container with gas pumps and air and water hoses which are used for routine tasks on the islands and that the container is not an advertising display. Chairman commented that, if the City uses the statement as a test, the entire Ordinance is out of synchronization, and that the purpose of the Ordinance is to prohibit outside display. Assistant City Attorney explained that his statement applies to service routinely performed on the island, and that if the case were in court, I he could not win. Planning Director stated that the particular container is well-designed in a high-tech way, but it allows storage and display of oil and the key is that, if it displays oil, it is prohibited by Ordinance; and if it does not display oil , staff has no problem. City Attorney concurred with Planning Director's statement. Planning Director stated that any operation and storage must be inside a perma- nent structure. Commissioner Kaptur stated that storage of a day's supply of oil for efficiency should be allowed. M/S/C (Curti s/Apfelbaum; Lawrence absent; Service dissented) determining `-' that outside storage of motor oil is an allowable use in gasoline service stations citywide, provided that the oil is not displayed for advertising purposes. Planning Director requested clarification. Commissioner Koetting stated that the motion is that the oil be locked in a cabinet. Chairman stated that the Commission has set a precedent which will be difficult to enforce and that the City has been trying to regulate service stations since the 60's to make them good neighbors. He stated that he felt that a company would not go to court over a display cabi- net. Assistant City Attorney stated that, if the company went to court, his office would not be successful in defending the City. Discussion followed on the necessity for oil can storage. Planning Director agreed that enforcement would be very difficult, since staff will have to determine what is appropriate and what is not in the service islands. Discussion continued. Chairman stated that the cabinets will prolifer- ate. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the determination is sensible. Assistant City Attorney stated that in cities without the Ordinance, the devices are usually not abused and that most of the containers are simi- lar to those being discussed. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the newest design is "A" frame oil racks for outside display. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 DETERMINATION 10.347. (Cont'd.) Discussion continued. Chairman suggested that there be an approved design as a prototype. Commissioner Kaptur stated that oil racks for display or sale of oil are not allowed (Assistant City Attorney stated that he understood). ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.754. Application by M. SIPA for architectural approval of a 4-unit apartment building at 200 Saturmino Drive between Calle Lileta/Brewster Road, R-2 Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Madsen/Koetting; Lawrence absent) for a restudy, noting the fol- lowing: 1. That the structure have a residential scale. 2. That the entry be enhanced. 3. That the pool area be revised. (It was suggested that a jacuzzi may be more appropriate, given space available.) 4. That the parapet detail be examined to ensure that it can be con- structed. 5. That the landscaping relate to the building. CASE 3.761. Application by C D & E BUILDERS for architectural approval of single-family residence at 538 West Stevens Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Discussion ensued at the display board. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the tennis courts be changed to an east/west configuration. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Lawrence absent) for the following: 1. A restudy of the site plan to turn the tennis court to an east west configuration to allow the residents to move further north and provide more space around the pool area and to create a more interesting wall facing the street. 2. A restudy of the the arch to integrate its design into the archi- tecture of the residence. TTM 19544. Revised application by LAND CONCERN, LTD. for Penn Phillips Prop. for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for auto park on the southwest corner of Ramon Road, M-1- P Zone (I.L.) , Section 20. Planning Director stated that the project is at a standstill and that the Economic Development Division is working with the developer to obtain a saleable package for auto dealers, and that some grading has been approved on the site. He stated that site is leased (not fee land). he Planner III (Evans) stated that the developer has requested down-sizing of the trees, but staff felt that it was not a legitimate request because of the high winds in the area and that multi-trunk trees were suggested by the AAC, although not included in its motion. November 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 TTM 19544. (Cont'd. ) Chairman stated that Crossley will be an important road and the project landscape will set the theme on the street. He stated that the main street tree on Crossley should not be deciduous. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the landscape design submitted had no feel for the desert. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Lawrence absent) for a restudy of the landscape I plan, noting the following: 1. That 80 percent of the street trees be 24-inch box size or greater and provided with an automatic drip irrigation system. i 2. That the shrub plan include hearty wind-resistent shrubs. 3. That the California Pepper Tree or alternate tree be substituted for the Camphor tree. 4. That one- to three-foot mounds be constructed along Crossley Road. 5. That all onsite palms be Washingtonia Filifera (sizes to be sub- mitted). 6. That landscape plans reflect the desert environment. 7. That no deciduous tree be used on Crossley Road. COMMISSION, REPORT AND DISCUSSION Convention Steering Committee Meeting. Planning Director reminded Chairman and Commissioner Apfe baum, who are representatives to the Con- vention Center Steering Committee, that there would be a Committee meet- ing (after the Commission meeting) from 5 - 7 p.m. in the Large Con- ference Room. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. P1 Dir ctor MDR/ml nn ng WP/PC MIN 5