Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/01/22 - MINUTES • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 22, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 13 0 Hugh Curtis X 13 0 Hugh Kaptur X 11 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 12 1 Larry Lapham X 13 0 Curt Ealy X 8 0 Earl Neel X 4 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Richard Patenaude, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Richard McCoy, City Engineer Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Robert Green, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner . Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - January 20, 1986 William Johnson Absent: J. Cioffi, Chairman Chris Mills Sharon Apfelbaum Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving minutes of January 8, 1986 with the following corrections: Page, CASE 6.352, first paragraph, third line, change "Southridge Homeowners Association to "architect" . . Page 6, CASE 6.352, fifth paragraph, second line, change "homeowners letter" to "approval" . January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Curtis/Apfelbaum) taking the following actions: CASE 3.968 MINOR. Application by DESERT WATER AGENCY for architectural approval of addition to existing vehicle maintenance building for storage area at 1200 Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 20. Absention: Ealy. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the mechanical equipment screen be louvered sheet metal painted to match the building. 2. That the fascia match the existing fascia. 3. That the downspout be concealed within the building wall . SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of main identification sign for Cherokee Village Resort Hotel at 2345 Cherokee Way, R-G-A8 Zone, Section 30. (Reference Case 3.505. ) Continued to February 12, 1986 at request of applicant. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for architectural approval of identification sign for Jensen' s Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Sunrise Way, PD-76, Section 13. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the monument is to tie in with the existing two walls and possibly reducing the copy and size porportionally. 2. That landscape materials and plants be coordinated by staff. CASE 3.864. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for Brown, Brosche Financial , Inc. for architectural approval of landscape plans for a hotel on North Palm Canyon Drive between East Vista Chino/Via Escuela, C-1 and R-3 Zones, Section 3. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the Coco Plumosa (Queen Palm) be deleted. (Date Palm is acceptable as a substitute. ) 2. That the sod along the north parking lot planter be deleted with ground cover added and bubbler irrigation. 3. That decorative lighting be added to streetscape trees with details to be submitted to staff. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.864 (Continued) 4. That the wall (from adjacent property to the south) be extended to eliminate berms along the south wall . 5. That the fixture be redesigned or the light eliminated at the entrance along Palm Canyon Drive and that the Indian Avenue parking lot lights be relocated from the east side of the parking area to the west side. CASE 5.0356-PD-168. Application by J. KOCOUREK for the Oasis Water Park for architectural approval of health club and detailed grading plan for waterpark on Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 20. Approved as submitted. Abstention: Ealy. CASE 3.793. Application by J. HARTMAN for P.S. Florist for revised landscape plan for commercial remodel located at 894 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following condition: That the final landscape installation be coordinated with staff. • ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA SIGN APPLICATION. Application by D. BUSCH for Burger King for architectural approval of new main identification sign for restaurant on South Indian Avenue between Ramon Road/Saturmino Road, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 14. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the sign has deteriorated and the applicant has complied with AAC recommendations on the proposed new sign. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that she had been told the sign could be built into a monument, and that a beautiful wood sign is proposed to be removed and a factory-made plastic sign installed which is not attractive. D. Busch, the applicant and owner, stated that he has replaced the wood sign several times because it swells from high temperatures and moisture, that there has been vandalism, and that the new proposed plastic-faced sign is the best choice. Commissioner Kaptur stated that such a sign will be raised to 16" because of the proposed monument and that a material such as a laminated beam be could be used using with a routed design. He stated that the material would withstand the elements. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the sprinkler system design be lowered so that no water is sprayed directly on the sign. He stated . that a two inch wood beam routed sign might not withstand the elements very long. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED CONSENT ACTION AGENDA . SIGN APPLICATION (Continued) . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the City requires special signs, not factory made ones, and that for the especially beautiful building there should be a compatible sign. Mr. Busch stated that it is his intent to have a compatible sign, but that it is difficult to constantly repair the wood sign, that there are businesses near him with plastic-faced signs, which gave him the idea. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested that the Carl ' s Junior wood sign be an example that could be emulated, and that it has been in existence for a long period of time. Discussion followed on relocation of the sprinkler heads. Commissioner Lapham suggested that the sprinklers be moved next to the monument and spray directed one hundred eighty degrees to the north. Commissioner Curtis stated that the proposed sign is not as handsome or of as high quality as the existing one, and that problems are caused by the poor design of the irrigation system. He stated that the sign is similar to those of other Burger Kings but are not in the Palm Springs image. Chairman stated that the wooden sign is better, but that he had no objections to the plastic-face sign. . Mr. Busch stated that the Cathedral City Burger King sign which had been referred to earlier has a good design and is only slightly different in that it has masonry walls wrapping around it. He stated that he understood the Commission's position, but that the plastic sign cannot be broken by vandals. Discussion followed on proposed sign materials. Mr. Busch stated that the material proposed is a polycarbonate which is not affected by the elements or abuse. Commissioner Kaptur suggested other materials such as metal which are made to resemble wood. Mr. Busch asked what elements made the Commissioners like the Cathedral City sign (setting, or materials for example) . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that although the architects had no objections at the AAC to the plastic sign, she felt it was not right in the downtown; that McDonald' s and Carls have special signs; and that it is a poor precedent to set for the City. She stated that if the Commission grants approval of of these types of because of vandalism, many more plastic-faced sign applications will be received for that reason. She stated that the City probably does not want to model signs after those of Cathedral City and that Palm Springs wants to have well- designed signs. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Madsen dissented) for a restudy noting the following: • 1. That the applicant work with staff to research other acceptable softer sign materials and return with a sign other than the one proposed. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED CONSENT ACTION AGENDA . SIGN APPLICATION (Continued). 2. That the buttress support is acceptable. Discussion ensued again on materials. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the applicant investigate other materials which are resistant and can be made to resemble softer materials. He stated that the proposed sign resembles a gas station sign and is not proper for a fast-food restaurant. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0390-GPA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to the Conservation Element of the General Plan for an expanded Historic Resources section to encourage the preservation of historic resources. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; order for filing; final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration; final approval . Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council requested continuance to meet with the Indian Planning Commission to review the General Plan Amendment, and that staff supports the continuance. Assistant City Attorney stated that the item would not have to be renoticed if it were continued to a date certain. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. M/S/C (Ealy/Curtis) continuing the item to March 12. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: This matter was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting on January 21, 1986. In view of the possible impact of future preservation activities on cultural and archaeological sites of particular importance to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Tribal Council deferred comments on this proposed amendment pending further study of text attached to the Planning Staff Report dated January 8, 1986. The Tribal Council respectfully requested that the City Planning Commission continue this case until its first meeting in March of 1986. CASE 6.352 - VARIANCE (Continued) . Application by C. MILLS for Ben Perry for • a variance for reduced sideyard setbacks to allow an extension to a single-family hillside residence at 2441 Southridge Circle, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. (Reference Case 3.935. ) January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) . CASE 6.352 (Continued) . (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve Variance 6.352. Planning Director stated that the case was continued to allow interaction between the applicant and the Southridge homeowners. Planner (Green) explained the variance as an encroachment of 5 feet into the sideyard, and that discussions have taken place between the applicant and the homeowners but that he did not know the outcome. He stated that an AMM would be required for sideyard encroachment for air conditioning equipment (with a plan to be submitted) . Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 221 South Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the ordinance allows a 12 foot encroachment (with the approval of a AMM) , that the addition is not visible and below the height of the existing house, and that the same type of variance has been allowed on other lots in Southridge. He stated that he gave his plans to Mrs. Hope' s architect on Friday but had not met with the Hopes because of the Classic activities. He stated that the Hope architect would describe • the variance to them. S. Zundel , 73399 Hwy 111, Palm Desert, representing the Hopes, stated that the Hopes have not seen the plans, object to the variance, and that the Southridge architectural committee has not approved the project. He stated that three of the architectural board members had not seen the plan and noted that the topography in the area is dangerous, that one house has cracked, and that encroachment on a steep slope should be done cautiously. He stated that the encroachment is close to the Hope' s pool , that any hillside cuts might cause problems, and that one of the findings is required to be "hardship' . He stated that there is nothing in the property that would not allow a house to be built, and the variance will only allow a larger house and a three-car garage. He stated that the granting of a variance causes precedent setting for further encroachments into the hillside, and that a vacant lot to the east and south of the Hope property is of concern to them since the homes might cut further into the hillside and further obstruct their view. He stated that a garage in the setbacks might have some argument and reiterated that there are insufficient grounds for a variance. Chairman stated that a variance does not set a precedent and is reviewed on its own merits. Assistant City Attorney stated that it should not set a precedent. Mr. Zundel noted that one of the findings is that it might not be unique in the area which should be a basis for obtaining a variance. Assistant City Attorney explained that property which has unique features and characteristics which are limits property being utilized to its fullest January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) . CASE 6.352 (Continued). extent because of the unique features is a finding for a variance, and that each property must be judged individually although the topography may vary. Mr. Zundel replied that the anaylsis applies to precommission of building a house not in the style of the area. Assistant City Attorney stated because of the unique topographical features, the applicants have not been able to utilize the property to the fullest extent of the ordinance except through a variance. Commissioner Curtis stated that the representative had not indicated the Hopes' concern. Mr. Zundel explained that it was obstruction of the view, and precedent setting for the development of another adjoining lot which is small and might encroach on the slope. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the small area involved in the variance could be notched, and the Hope' s view not obscured any more than it is. Planning Director stated that the variance meets all grounds for a classic variance although it is discretionary action. He stated that the same grounds must be found for the AMM as are found in the variance. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had no concern about the variance, but the height was of concern. Chairman reminded Commission that the architecture has been approved. Planner explained that except for a small area of screening the roof is flat. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the screen might be less aesthetic than the roof. Chairman again reminded Commission that the issue is the variance. Mr. Zundel stated that he has been on the Hope property and the house is not obscured by the oleanders. He stated that the top two to three feet can be seen. C. Mills (rebuttal ) stated that the alterationsthe Hopes have requested have nothing to do with the variance or the setback because they object to the fireplace stacks which he has altered. He stated that the Hopes have not asked that the building be moved. Commissioner Lapham commented that if the variance is granted changes have been already agreed to between the applicants and the architect. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing . closed. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) • CASE 6.352 (Continued). In response to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the issue of the stacks is not relevant to the variance and could not be a condition. M/S/C (Ealy/Curtis) approving Variance 6.352 based on the following findings: 1. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property, namely steeply sloping terrain, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or under identical zone classification. 2. That the variance is subject to conditions which assure that the approval does not constitute the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the . General Plan for the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS. E. Vilensky, of Cerritos, California, part owner of a condominium in the Palm Springs Townhome (2298 H N. Indian), stated that he wished to reserve time when the application for revised security gates for the Townhomes is addressed. (Case 3.959. ) Mrs. A. Shawaker, 2298 C N. Indian, also requested a reservation of time to speak at the time the Palm Springs Townhomes are addressed. (Case 3.959. ) ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITE14S (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.973 (MINOR) . Application by DELMONICO'S FISH MARKET for architectural approval of an awning for a restaurant in the Desert Fashion Plaza on North Palm Canyon Drive between Tahquitz Way/Arenas Road, PD-147, Section 15. 40 Planner (Green) reviewed the case on the display board, stating that the proposed awning is on the west side of the Fashion Plaza facing the Desert Museum on a long blank wall with the awning supported by brass columns resting in brass planters enclosing an outdoor dining area, that January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) . CASE 3.973 (Continued) . the AAC recommended that the columns attach to the rafters and be sunken into the planters, and the awning skirt be straight rather than scalloped. He stated that the AAC recommended that the single awning be broken into three separate ones, and that signs will be a separate application. He stated that the applicant is unhappy with the condi- tions. In reply to Commission question he stated that the awning is 107 feet long and 4 feet deep, that ficus trees could be used in the breaks of the awnings, and that the canopy of the trees would require trimming so they do not obscure the sculpture garden. He stated that the planter is 3 feet wide. P T. Prenespi , representing Delmonico' s, stated that the wall is 2 feet wide, that the object of the patio is to view people and scenery, and that a 3 foot planter and landscaping would obscure the view. He stated that 2 feet is more appropriate and thanked the Commission for approving the canopy. He stated that a split canopy would allow water to drip onto the patio and destroy the outdoor concept, that the canopy is beautiful , and that the town would not want small umbrellas instead. He stated that he would not erect a split canopy, but would place umbrellas, and that he did not know why trees were suggested. In response to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) has standards for planters, and • that the ABC requirements must be met in wall height although the AAC minutes indicate that 3 feet is recommended by committee. Planner stated that the AAC concern was that the planter would be too narrow at 2 feet. Discussion ensued on the length and appearance of the awning. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the long awning line be broken with a barrel awning at the entrance. Mr. Prenespi stated that 64 feet of awning length was the original recommendation, but that he proposed 107 feet to break the long line of the wall. He requested that trees not be required because of the necessity of restructuring the awning frames, and that Tivoli lights will be placed every ten feet along the canopy. Commissioner Lapham stated that the AAC is concerned about 107 ft. of unbroken line. Mr. Prenespi stated that he suggested to the AAC that a lighted logo be placed in the middle of the awning. Planning Director stated that the applicant is entitled to a design on the frontage, but no sign details have been submitted. • In reply to Commission question, R. Neves, representing the awning company, stated that color could break the long line, but that flat and round awning combinations do not seal well . January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) CASE 3.973 (Continued). Discussion continued. Commissioner Kaptur suggested a half barrel awning. Mr. Prenespi stated it would be very expensive. Planning Director recommended that the awning be submitted to staff for suggestions for breaking the length. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis) approving the awning subject to the following conditions: 1. That the planter be retained at three feet in width. 2. That the columns be attached to the rafters. 3. That the base be relocated within the planter. 4. That the gray awning skirt be straight. 5. That the applicant and staff develop a design solution to breaking the long line of the awning. 6. That all signs be subject to separate approval . 7. That the applicant review the planter length and height with staff. 8. That a landscape and exterior lighting plan be submitted for staff approval . CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Application by R. P. WARMINGTON COMPANY for architectural approval of balcony revisions for 187 unit hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Planner (Williams) stated that the applicants are requesting replacement of some of the balconies with wought iron as exists in other elements of the complex, and that the AAC recommends approval except for those balconies next to the tennis court. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ; Ealy abstained) approving the application subject to the following condition: That building No. 2 remain as originally approved (with an enclosed balcony). CASE 3.959-HOA (MINOR) (Continued). Application by S. SULLIVAN for P.S. Townhome Homeowners Association for architectural approval of revised plans for security gating system for residential condominium complex on North Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Racquet Club Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2. Planning Director explained the project on the display board and stated that it was continued to review the revised pin with the AAC. He stated that the proposal was to provide a perimeter gating system to secure various buildings and to provide appropriate gate entries. He stated that the primary entrance is on Indian Avenue and that the AAC had recommended that the area on Indian Avenue be widened to provide a turn- January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) • CASE 3.959-HOA (Continued) . around, but that after a field review, staff' s recommendation would be that widening should not be done because of its effect on buildings. He stated that widening the drive would help only marginally in the manuevering of cars and that widening would reduce landscaping, remove trees, place the sidewalk at the base of the north building steps. He stated also that there is a possiblity that a retaining wall would be required. He stated that the requirements would increase the cost of the project , diminish the aesthetics, and not solve the problems, therefore, the AAC recommended the approval of the original proposal subject to conditions. He stated that Fire Department conditions require a 14 foot drive on either side of the access points, but the plans show 11 or 12 feet and that the project will have swinging wrought iron gates. He explained that four buildings are not protected at their front doorsand that one building (the north building) could be protected by placing wrought iron in front of it although thecosts would increase. He noted that there has been much interest from the homeowners, and that he had received a call from Iowa stating objections although they seem to be oriented toward the working of the homeowners association, and that the Commission interest is solely in the aesthetics and function of the application as it relates to the community as a whole. Commissioner Lapham inquired whether after the system is installed if anyone can walk in or out. Planning Director stated that there is an undeveloped lot on the north side and that the wall can be scaled. He stated that pedestrians can walk to the front door to 32 of the units, but that all parking is behind the gates. Discussion ensued on the aesthetics. Commissioner Lapham stated that he wondered about the aesthetics of th-- retrofitted system; Planning Director stated that there will be a landscape plan submitted for Commission review. Commissioner Lapham stated that he was concerned about the appearance of installation of so much wrought iron from Indian Avenue. Planning Director stated that wrought iron will not be seen from Indian Avenues, but will be from Via Escuela. S. Konow, Via Escuela, President of the Homeowners Association, stated that the idea for a security system evolved because of abuse of the project by outsiders and an increase in burglaries and vandalism. He stated that there was a feasibility study prepared,that a security guard for the complex is too costly, and that the design was approved by a majority of the homeowners. He stated that he would leave comments on the design to the architect. S. Sullivan, 73700 Hwy 111, Palm Desert, the architect, stated that a retrofitted project requires compromise and unfortunately all buildings cannot be protected. He stated that to try to protect these buildings would be more detrimental to the aesthetics, and the new pedestrian gates are below the Indian Avenue grade. He stated that he has meet with Fire Department representatives and has modified two gates which now allow a thirteen foot width for fire vehicles. He stated that he can submit the revisions to the Planning staff by Friday, and that the main task to integrate the existing and new materials by replacing glass January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) • CASE 3.959-HOA (Continued). panels between walls and buildings with masonry, and adding plantings and wrought iron. E. Velinsky, of Cerritos, California, part owner of a condominium at 2298-H N. Indian, stated that the other owner of the condominium was also in attendance at the meeting and that he was glad that the 4 feet widening was not recommended to betaken from his sidewalk. He complimented the architect for his proposal , but stated that it is not a workable solution for residents of the north building, that making a left turn into the condominiums after proceeding south on Indian Avenue is hazardous at the present time and that cars will be stacked to enter the condos waiting for residents to answer the gate phones. He stated that gates cannot be opened from within the condos and persons waiting at the gate must back up to leave but that the people behind cannot make this maneuver. He stated that he had parked two small cars with difficulty side by side and that it is difficult to move around to open car doors. He noted that he was worried about eaaste disposal and other large trucks turning around if the gates malfunction, and that people trying to leave from the parking areas of buildings 224 and 226 cannot since they will have to break through the line of cars, and that there will be a safety problem with small children and the added traffic. He stated that the homeowners feel that gates are discriminatory since they do not protect everyone. e stated also that in the complex thirty-two of the condominiums are not protected in the front. He said that people can jump fences and walk around them and that his particular condominium will be affected because people will be knocking on his door for entry if they do not have keys or have lost them. He requested that the appli- cation be denied or if not denied, continued 60 days for additional study. He stated that there is no more vandalism in the Townhomes than anywhere else, and that vandalism that does occur is caused by guests and their children and residents. Mrs. A. Shawa„er, 2298 C N. Indian, full-time resident stated that the proposed security system is devastating to her, that it will increase noise and air pollution with no protection or security for her unit. She stated that she will no longer be able to park her car in front of her condominium because of red curbing, and that the shade tree in front of her condo will be removed. She stated that it would be better for her if the condominiums ,,,,ere left as they are. Mrs. D. Hedd, 2166 N. Indian, permanent resident since 1972, stated that she did not vote for the gates and was not in favor of them, and that the gates will not keep persons out of the condominiums. She stated that there are more affluent condominiums that the Townhomes, that she his had one robbery because her home was not secure, but that she has since secured her gate. She stated that the additional cost is prohibi- tive, and that Commissioner Lapham had commented in the January 8 minutes that there would be high maintenance costs to the system. She • stated that four years ago the project costs were supposed to have been $650.00 per home and that the present homeowners association president states that his only concern is the project, but that his home is for sale. (Chairman cautioned Mrs. Hedd to speak on the proposed security system only. ) She stated that she could not afford to maintain the January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) . CASE 3.959-HOA (Continued) . security gates, that the security system will not protect everyone, that there is easy access to climb over the walls, and that the system will be a nuisance. She stated that security keys have to be given to service vehicles which will not afford full security to the residents. Mrs. M. Angle, 750 Via Escuela, a 6-year resident of the condominiums, stated that security does not cover all residents, that it is not convenient to check on gates because of the distance, and that swinging gates are not convenient and conflict with traffic. Mrs. V. Neal , 266 Via Escuela, objected stated that the gates would be below the windows of her condominium and would be noisy. E. Valenski , Cerritos, California, stated that he had forgotten to state that 10 homeowners called to say he could speak for them in opposition. Mary Lawler, 2268 E. N. Indian, condominium homeowner and member of the architectural committee, stated that a retrofit is difficult in an old project, that the design does not provide security equally to all buildings, that the north building is especially vunderable since it is completed excluded from both vehicular and pedestrian protection because of setback requirements which locate the gates at the end of that building, and that three other buildings are afforded only partial • security since the system protects only their parking areas, not their frontages. She stated that an undesirable situation also exists along Via Escuela because none of the three gate locations allow stacking to Via Escuela - a situation that would not have been approved by the former Traffic Engineer. She requested because of the inequity of the design in its protection and effect on the residents that the application be denied. In reply to Commission question, she stated that she believed that guests would have to met at the front gate. S. Sullivan (rebuttal ) stated that the workings of the system are known and that the idea is a single lane use only, that the gates can be opened from within the condominium units via a telephone system, that there are few permanent condominium residents (20-28% of the total number of units) , that the number of cars will be very small , that backing onto Via Escuela will not be a problem since the gates will be signed "For Residents Only" which can be seen from both directions. He stated that maintenance will be a problem, but there will be a mainten- ance company on call and that people can enter by foot, but that all vehicles will be kept out and foot traffic will be kept out from Via Escuela and Indian Avenue. He stated that a retrofit cannot solve all problems, but will control non-residents , and that children who are not residents of the Townhomes use the common facilities as well as vagrants, and that although the system will not protect all of the unit front doors, it will protect storage facilities, cars, and common pool areas and facilities. He stated that the monetary assessment will not change because there is an existing maintenance fee that will cover the • maintenance for the gates, that convenience will decrease which is unfortunate, that there will be some conflicts in getting out of the area (although not major), and that the gates on Via Escuela will slide. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) • CASE 3.959-HOA (Continued) . Planning Director stated that staff would wor!: sW"h an override system, - usually a key system. He stated in an override system proposed peak traffic has to be considered, and that 48 of the units are on the two lesser drives, with 71 units using the main entry and that in calcula- tions there will be 500 to 700 trips per day for the complex at a peak period. He stated that there is a 3/4 to 1/4 division to the driveways on a peak situation using the main driveway, that traffic will be signi- ficant, and that the gates would be operating once a minute on a 12-hour day during peak hours. He stated that the Acting Traffic Engineer feels there is not a problem. Mr. Sullivan stated that the gates would take four to five seconds to open or close. Planning Director stated that it would be around 7 seconds. Chairman commented that the gates would have to be completely closed before they can open. Commissioner Lapham stated that sensorscould be placed in the driveway which interrupt the cycling sequence. In reply to Planning Commission question, Mr. Sullivan stated that there will be verbal communication between the condominiums and the gates. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that generation of 7-10 trips per day rer unit could change with ownership and a population increase. Planning Director stated that the figures are for full occupancy. In reply to Commission question, he stated that approximately 1/3 of the units are not protected at the front door (but that c;ll cars are). Commissioner Apfelbaum stated she could not see much benefit to the gates. Commissioner Lapham stated that the site and driveway are too tight to make the retrofit workable and that there will be a real problem on Indian Avenue with the gates cycling at 10 seconds. He stated that if there are two or three cars turning left off Indian onto the apron, traffic will be blocked. He stated that an adequate security system should encompass the entire project. Commissioner Kaptur stated the system is contrived, and that the only way security can be obtained that would benefit all of the homeowners and would not back up traffic would be a security guard and that could be done without Commission approval . M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ) denying the retrofitted security system. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. . Commissioner Curtis stated that the system does not work for the benefit of all and is of no benefit to some of the people. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) . CASE 3.960. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised plans for existing shopping center (P.S. Mall ) on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, CSC Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) tabling the application till the architect is present. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TPM 18787 - REVISED. Application by MAINIERO SMITH ASSOCIATES representing Golden West Equity Properties, Inc. for approval of grading plan for map for commercial and industrial uses on the north side of Ramon Road from Gene Autry Trail to San Luis Rey in M-1-P Zone, Section 17. Planning Director stated that the application is a rough grading plan for the old dump site, that there are no development plans at this time, and that the City is working with a car dealer who will occupy the site. He explained the grading plan configuration, and stated that staff is concerned that dump material be replaced with clean dirt. He stated that landscaping impacted from watering is also a concern. He stated that the slope face is off Lots 1 and 2 and onto "not a part" property and that it is not a normal condition to request landscaping off the property. He stated that it is an extremely rectangular embankment line which should be softened, that engineering has no concerns, and that the AAC recommended a restudy because of the rectilinear line. He stated that the issue of dump material is being reviewed with the Air Quality Management Board because of the possibility of methane gas on the site and that staff is recommending an overplanting plan to eliminate blow sand after grading. R. Mainiero, Tahquitz Way, project engineer, stated that the intent of grading is to recover a fully developable lot because some of the slope material extends onto lots in the subdivision. He stated that the con- dition for a fully developable lot is part of the sales agreement before ownership changes on the map. Commissioner Lapham stated that the Commission is concerned about grading without development plans. In response to Commission question regarding garbage removal from the site, Mr. Mainiero stated that the material to be removed is sand and perhaps concrete rubble, but no organic matter. He stated that garbage of unknown extent is further north of the proposed grading and that the portion "not a part" is not included in the subdivision. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that grading without the submittal of a development plan is not normally done, but that staff is trying to facilitate the final parcel map. He stated that staff is not recommending approval because of being forced by the agreement, but that approval is being requested by the applicant. He stated that landscaping and seeding will be done as well as contruction of curbs and gutters. • Commissioner Lapham stated that he did not feel that the grading plan should be approved with egress and ingress points until the development plan is submitted. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (CONTINUED) • TPM 18787 (Continued) City Engineer stated that curbs and gutters will not be constructed until the final map is approved, that the submittal is a rough grading plan and excavation to determine whether or not Lots 1 & 2 are develop- able, and that the soils tests have conflicting results because of litigation and withholding of information. He stated that a soils engineer will be present at time of grading, and that any unsuitable materials will be required to be disposed of properly. Mr. Mainiero stated that the extent of the grading plan in 10,000 cubic yards. Commissioner Lapham stated that there will be a dust problem if the site is graded and the grading plan will not be the final one for develop- ment. Mr. Mainiero stated that the site is already grubbed and cleaned and that the only grading proposed is in the shaded strip on the map (depicted on the board) along the rear property line of lots 1 and 2. Planning Director stated that in the area on the back half of Lots 1 and 2 the organic fill will be removed, and that the operation could extend to Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Mainiero stated that some knowledge of the dump will be gained. Commissioner Apfelbaum asked whether the primary pur- pose is to clean off the two lots. City Engineer stated that the grading is exploratory in his opinion and more grading than is being presented, that a substantial amount of dirt will be moved, and that the soils reports conflict. He stated that one indicates methane gas holes should be provided. Commissioner Neel stated that water cannot be added because of methane gas and asked the person having the authority to determine the amount of water. City Engineer stated that he did not know whether or not water would create methane gas, but methane gas exists according to the report, and that any grading is required to conform to both of the soils reports. Commissioner Lapham stated that he had concerns about the results of the crust of the surface being broken and watering. Mr. Mainiero stated that grading will comply with the reports and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Board, and that he did not believe organic matter would be found. In response to Chairman' s question, Planning Director stated that the action would be to approve the design of the grading plan involving 10,000 cubic yards of dirt of not totally known quality and replacing with clean fill . He stated that normal watering to maintain dust con- trol will not create a seepage into the area that will create methane gas in sizable quantities, but that permanent landscape watering may • cause problems and an impervious membrane may be required as a condi- tion of approval before any final development takes place. He stated that the original car center site was overseeded. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (CONTINUED) • TPM 18787 (Continued) Commissioner Lapham stated that the car center site sits downwind from any real problems, but if the crust is broken without development, a future hazard may be created at the intersection. Discussion ensued on the ownership of the property. Mr. Mainiero stated that the property is still owned by Golden West Equity properties and that he was not aware of any legal action that has been filed. He stated that he did not know if the auto center project would be delayed if the grading plan is not approved. Motion was make by Lapham to deny the temporary grading plan until development plans are submitted. The motion died for lack of a second. Discussion ensued on map approval . In response to Mr. Mainiero' s question, City Engineer stated that the map can be recorded even if the grading plan is not approved since the tentative map has been approved. Mr. Mainiero stated that normally some kind of grading plan is associated with a map, or it is not approved. Planning Director explained that there is no condition on the tentative map to grade the site. Discussion ensued on timing. Chairman discussed whether or not denial would be fair to the applicant although there are environmental concerns such as watering. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that if the owner complies with watering to control dust, no problems will arise. He stated that the grading plan isdnengineering requirement of development, and the map and grading plan could be approved with a condition stating that there is no grading plan without development. He stated that this would not cause the map to be delayed. Mr. Mainiero requested that the grading plan be approved. Commissioner Lapham stated that he had concerns about approving a grading plan that does not relate to the development of the site. Mr. Mainiero noted that only a small amount of material will be removed to deliver a developable site because Golden West Equity Properties does not want dump material on site. He stated that in the soils testing, rubble and sand were found. Commissioner Lapham summarized by stating that Golden West is trying to deliver a developable lot to the car dealership (without curbs and gutters) . Mr. Mainiero stated that there would be curbs and gutters and partial approval of the map. He stated that escrow cannot be closed until the subdivision is accepted by the City. Discussion ensued on the possibility of hazardous materials on-site. In response to Commission question City Engineer stated that a problem could be caused in the disposal of hazardous materials although there will be periodic inspections by government agencies. He stated that hazardous materials would have to be completely removed and taken to an authorized dump (Class 4) , and the area replaced with clean dirt. He stated that he did not think that a Class 4 dump exists in the area. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the project is in a redevelopment area and the City has an agreement with a car dealer. He stated that staff could proceed with the grading plan January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (CONTINUED) • TPM 18787 (Continued) (meeting City engineering requirements; ) with any portion grubbed to be reseeded per City standards and a landscape plan submitted for the slope. He stated that on the "not a part" portion the excavation extends back far enough not to cause methane gas, and that although he does not know the urgency of the necessity for approval , staff does not want to delay the car dealership. He stated that staff could develop definitive recommendations for the February 12 meeting. In response to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that in order to approve a pre-development grading plan, a bond could be obtained from the applicant protecting the City if too much material is found on the site (by over-covering and reseeding the disturbed areas) . He stated that curbs, gutters, and bike paths will expose the surface in any event and that the grading plan will be reviewed and issues resolved before any further development proposal . He stated that the material is required to be taken to a Class 1 (Hazardous Waste) dump site according to the Soils Report. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested a two week continuance to develop conditions. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Curtis; Ealy/Kaptur abstained) continuing the application to February 12 for staff to develop definitive conditions for the grading plan. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3. 936 (MINOR) . Application by RUPELT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for architectural approval of revised parking lot plan for a shopping center at the northwest corner of Ramon Road/Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, (I.L. ), Section 14. Planner (VanKeeken) presented the plans on the display board. She stated that the AAC approved the plan with conditions that 10 parking spaces will be added, and that compact spaces can be provided. In response to Commission question, Mr. Rupelt (the applicant) , stated that he had no problems with the conditions to add planters. M/S/C (Kaptur/Lapham; Ealy abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That detailed landscape exterior lighting and irrigation plans be submitted for Planning Commission approval . 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. • 3. That the existing ramp be relaced with a planter. 4. That the driveway be 30 ft. in width. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) • CASE 3. 135 (Continued) 5. That an Oleander be added to the north side of the building. 6. That an existing island with trees remain. 7. That the planter along Sunrise have varied and asymetrical planting. CASE 3.942. Application by K. HINSVARK for architectural approval of revised plans for tennis court, offices, and retail complex on Calle Encilia between Saturmino/Ramon Roads, C-1-AA Zone (IL), Section 14. Planner (Green) stated that two alternate plans have been submitted and stated that the AAC again recommended a restudy on the tennis court element, although the Committee felt there had been a major improvement in the elevations. He stated that the Committee had concerns about the aesthetics between the office and tennis court area, and that the Committee had again suggested lowering the tennis court. He stated that the applicant is unhappy with the restudy recommendation. R. Patten, 73435 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, the architect, stated that the AAC recommended leaving the decision to the Commission. He explained the revisions. • Chairman asked whether or not there was a problem in recessing the tennis court. Planning Director explained that the AAC felt that the proportions were a problem; and that the Commission can state as a condition of approval that the court be recessed. Commissioner Curtis stated that he could not support the tennis court concept because of its bulk and incompatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that he was not convinced that mixing uses is compatible with the zone and area. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the design is an improvement, but that recessing the tennis court or redesign of the building is the solution. Mr. Patten stated that he did not try to disguise the court, and that the design is an honest one. He stated that the proposal was discussed with staff. Chairman stated that only Commissioner Curtis has stated that the court should not be built, but that the proportions and functions should be refined between the office and tennis court uses. Motion was made by Apfelbaum to restudy the application per AAC conditions. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Ealy stated that the two uses on this site create problems and are cumbersome, and that the building is pleasing from the front, not perfect from the sides, but not too unpleasing in bulk, and that he . finds that the height is not too significant. He stated that he would support the application. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) • CASE 3.C42 (Continued) Discussion ensued on the bulk of the building. Mr. Patten stated that no one will realize that the building is a tennis court. Commissioner Ealy stated that the reason for the design is because it is a tennis court. Mr. Patten stated that the building details are similar to others in town, including overhangs, and that he did not understand the Commission' s attitude. He stated that the building is not a flat box but has character. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the front is a different structure from the other three elevations, that the court does not have to be sunken and a design concept employed that takes advantage of the proportions. He stated that he agreed with the AAC recommendation M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis/Ealy dissented) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That the building proportions be refined. 2. That a similar architectural form be employed for the tennis court. 3. That the north and south elevations be revised by encroaching into . the side yards with the function between the office/retail and court to be refined. 4. That the tennis court be lowered (recessed) . 5. That the bulk and mass the building be lessened. CASE 3.960. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOC. for architectural approval of revised plans for existing shopping center (P.S. Mall ) on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, CSC Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Curtis/Lapham) removing the item from the table. Planner (Williams) stated that the site plan is the same as shown at the study session January 15 with the building expanded from the front area on Farrell Drive, revisions of the J.C. Penney building a future pad on the west side, and improvements to the west side at the time second major tenant is secured. She stated that elevations had been revised and stucco will be placed over some of the existing surfaces, and that staff and AAC recommended more landscaping around the mall and the theaters, a closure of the south drive by the theaters, and additional landscaping on the north. She stated that a restudy of the parking area west of Walker Scott was also recommended and that there is some conflict between the parking and service areas for which the AAC recommended a review as well as a review of working drawings. She stated that the colors are to be reviewed in the field because of their strong vibrant nature and that a Development Committee Condition would be to soften the hard angles of the parking lot circulation. She stated that parking on the site is not a problem. She stated that there was a stalemate at the AAC meeting regarding designing for pedestrians in the parking lot. Planning Director stated that the AAC felt that people do not walk in the parking lot, that the AAC feels that pedestrians come January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) CASE 3.960 (Continued) from many different- directions, and that designing pedestrian walks at specific points would not accommodate very many people, but staff feels that pr,otect d cadestrian areas could be developed that would be, us=d. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, the architect, requested that the K- Mart area because of cost revert to a simpler design on the Farrell side. He described the west elevation and stated that the aggregate would be stuccoed. He stated that the AAC had no problems with the overall proposal , and that he agreed with AAC comments. Commissioner Apfelbaum suggested a landscape treatment for pedestrians. Mr. Christian stated that there would be a hospitable design for pedestrians except that there would not be designated walkways. He stated in response to Commission question that the mall owner does not have the right to paint the theaters but discussions will be held with theater owners to see if the theater could be painted since there will be improvements including landscaping next to the theaters. Planning Director stated that most of the Development Committee conditions have been addressed except for closure of the south driveway by the theaters and the issue can be addressed separately or made part of the motion. Planner stated that the turf area has been modified. Planning Director explained that staff recommended that a landscaping plan between Walker • Scott and the existing mall be submitted which can be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Mr. Christian stated that the applicant prefers to keep the south side open to improve the access to a future tenant "C" and because Sunline bus has requested to use it as an access point. Planning Director in reply to Chairman' s question, stated that there are four driveways on Baristo presently and there is a circulation and traffic issue around the theaters, and closure would lessen the through access to the front of the theater. Discussion ensued on the proper Commission action. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that approval not be given for the site plan until there are studies on the driveways. Planning Director stated that staff has requested preliminary landscape plans on which issues can be identified. G. Victorson, of Benequity Properties, requested that the site plan be approved with the entrance plans addressed at a further date and that the south driveway remain open. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt the applicant would be more willing to work with staff to design a total plan addressing problems if approvals were withheld to complete driveway studies. Commissioner Apfelbaum called for the question. Motion was made by • Kaptur, seconded by Lapham, for approval with the exception of the J.C. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) CASE .3.969(Continued) Penney building (to be submitted in the future) subject to the following conditions: 1. That Tenant "A" (JC Penney building) elevations be submitted at a future date. 2. That there be a Tandscape area on the south elevation of the theater. 3. That the parking area west of Walker Scott be restudied. 4. That the colors are approved subject to field review after swatches are painted. 5. That working drawings/details be reviewed by the AAC. 6. That final landscape planswith enlarged detail be reviewed by the AAC. 7. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met as amended. CASE 3.932. Application by S. VELTMAN (SUJAN INC. ) for architectural . approval of four unit apartment building at 549 E1 Placer Road between Ramon/Camino Parocela, R-2 Zone, Section 19. and CASE 3.951 (REF. CASE 3.952) . Application by SUJAN INC. for architectural approval of four unit apartment building on 563 El Placer Road between Ramon Road/Camino Parocela, R-2 Zone, Section 19. Planner (Williams) presented the projects on the board, and stated that the AAC recommended restudy for submission of strong street elevations and review of other details. R. Hoover, 676 Williams Road, the applicant, requested explanation of the restudy notes. Planner stated that the overall design is the major concern, and that landscaping is a standard condition (and minor issue) and that the applicant is advised to redesign the overall building concept. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) for restudy noting the following concerns (for both projects) : 1. That the east elevation be made stronger. 2. That there be a stronger sense of entry (move wall; add landscape) . • 3. That the sidewalk adjacent to the parking be removed and replaced with landscaping. 4. That the exterior walls be of the same material (stucco) . 5. That the wood fence on the east elevation be deleted. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (CONTINUED) . CASE 3.951 (Continued) 6. That the pool separation wall be more open (possibly wrought iron) . 7. That final landscaping plans be submitted with azealeas deleted. CASE 3.964. Application by J. SULLIVAN for architectural approval of revised plans for multi-family residential complex on southwest corner of Calle DeCarlos/El Placer Road, R-2 Zone, Section 19. Planner (VanKeeken) presented the project on the display board. J. Sullivan of Carlsbad, the applicant, stated that he would address AAC recommendations. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the applicant review the interior floor plans because there are new handicap regulations for apartments that require bathrooms that can be accessed by handicapped personsto :r. ,e the ability to be converted for a cost of not more than $700. He said that the interior plans do not conform to these regulations. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would review the interiors for compliance. M/S/C (Neel/Ealy) approving the application subject to the following • conditions: 1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That the parking remain as originally proposed. 3. That arches and pilasters be 16" in diameter/girth. 4. That the arch be eliminated in the service area and a solid gate installed. 5. That downspouts be concealed within the building wall . MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0312-U-MISC. Planning Commission review of WECS 69, a proposed 104 turbine wind park south of I-10 near the Tipton Road off-ramp. and CASE 5.0312-H-2. Planning Commission discussion of preparation of a draft am EIR for WECS 70, a proposed 192 turbine wind park northwest of Hwy 62 & I-10. • Planner (Evans) stated that staff recommends EIR with the noise issue to be specially addressed, because the County is concerned about the effect wind turbines have on residents. January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 NISCELLAHEOUS ITE" (Continued) . CASES 5.0'12- U en' 5.0312-H-2 (Continued) Planning Director stated that approval of an EIR or denial of the project could be the Commission's action. He stated that denial would indicate to the developer that an EIR might be a waste of time and money although the Commission could take action on more information if an EIR were prepared. He stated that one of the projects is in the sphere and one is outside, and that by denial the Commission could indicate that an EIR is not likely to change the underlying issues. Commissioner Curtis stated that the turbines will be constructed anyway. M/S/C (Lapham/Kaptur) recommending to the County that Cases 5.0312-U and 5.0312-H-2 be denied and that if the applicants want to continue, an EIR be prepared (but that the EIR will not change the underlying issues) . ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 7.617-AMM. Application by A. COLER for architectural approval of a two- story addition to existing single family residence at 457 Hermosa Place, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. • Planner (Green) stated that the application is the first of the new legislation allowing an older two-story residence to add space, and the AAC recommended a restudy because the plans did not have enough detail . He stated that the applicant has resubmitted plans that address some of the concerns, and that the applicant does not agree with the AAC conditions. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum) for a restudy of the application noting the following: 1. That the chimney/window seat detail be revised. 2. That the octagonal tower form be revised. 3. That the mass of the columns between the windows in the tower be increased. 4 That more detailed architectural plans and elevations be submitted to allow better assessment of the proposal . January 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Director update on City Council actions. - Fashion Plaza Remodel (Case 5.0275-PD-147) . Staff and Council reviewed the project on site. Council expressed concern about the overall lack of quality of the frontage and made comments also regarding lack of quality in detailing. Out of town architects seem not to be able to understand the detailing required in the desert. Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the unscreened lights in the parking structure should be screened since they were approved screened by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lapham stated that the punch list might not be addressed if occupancy of the hotel is allowed. Planning Director explained that the City has retained money on the project until all problems are resolved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman declared the meeting closed at 5:35 p.m. � /Lc,P �D�TOR MVR/ml/wp • t� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES as Council Chamber, City Hall February 12, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1985 - 1986 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Paul Madsen, Chairman X 14 0 Hugh Curtis X 14 0 Hugh Kaptur X 12 2 Sharon Apfelbaum X 13 1 Larry Lapham X 14 0 Curt Ealy X 9 0 Earl Neel X 5 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary • Architectural Advisory Committee - February 11 (Tuesday) , 1986 William Johnson Absent: Curt Ealy hri ��P1 1 1 Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelabaum/Curtis) approving minutes o� January 22, 1986 with the following corrections: Page 8, CASE 3.973, last paragraph, third line, delete "brass" . •