Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/08/13 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall August 13, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 3 0 Hugh Curtis X 3 0 Hugh Kaptur X 3 0 Curt Ealy - 2 1 Earl Neel - 1 2 Gary Olsen X 2 0 Barbara Whitney - 0 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Tom Lynch, Economic Development/Housing Director Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - August 11, 1986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: Chris Mills William Johnson Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney, Olsen absent) approving minutes of July 23, 1986 as submitted. Commissioner Olsen entered the meeting. August 13, 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/Neel ; Whitney absent) taking the following actions: CASE 3.231. Request by SOMERSET SPRINGS for architectural approval of revised perimeter wall color for condominium project on E. Palm Canyon Drive between Gene Autry Trail/Broadmoor Drive, R-3 Zone, Sections 29 & 30. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.947 (Continued) . Application by METROPOLITAN THEATERS for architec- tural approval of final landscape plans for 6-plex motion picture theater at 789 E. Tahquitz Way between Calle Alvarado/Calle E1 Segundo, C-1-AA and R-4VP Zone, Section 14. (Ref. Case 3.309.) Approved, subject to the following conditions : 1. That the palms be increased in height. (16' -18' -20' ) . 2. That the Rosemary be the "prostata" variety. 3. That the Wheeler's Dwarf be substituted with Natal Plum or Boxwood. 4. That a portion of the Crepe Myrtle be substituted with Brazilian Pepper. 5. That the Mahonia be substituted with Stoke's Holly and that Chamerops be added to the planter below the sign (as an accent) . 6. Increase size of Melaluca to 24" box and substitute Fern Pine with 36" box Melaluca. CASE 3.0074 (MINOR) . Application by PALM CANYON VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for architectural approval of additional covered parking for condominium project on the north side of Palm Canyon between Broadmoore Drive/Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. Approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Matching the existing carports , with the exception of the end planter and column surrounds. 2. The the existing parking lot (which contains areas where striping has faded) shall be restriped in accordance with Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to issuance of occupancy permits . August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS CASE 3.888 (Continued) . Application by W. HOWLETT for the Vineyard Ltd. Partnership for architectural approval of revised plans for awning for existing shopping center on South Palm Canyon Drive, south of Tahquitz Way, CBD Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the AAC felt that the awning should be of a singular type in the complex, but approved the awning on the entryway of the French restaurant in the rear to expedite the restaurant opening. He stated that the second story awnings in a darker green were approved by the AAC whose members felt that the complex is in need of redesign of paint, materials , and perhaps roof materials. He stated that the AAC discussed the colors but did not resolve the issue and gave no alternatives. The discussion ensued on the "band-aid" approach to resolving the visual problems of the center. Commissioner Olsen remarked that the project is not being addressed as a whole. Chairman questioned the green color combination. Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the AAC could not decide on the colors after reviewing color samples submitted by the applicant. W. Howlett of Palm Springs, designer, stated that the proposal is an attempt to integrate the center, that the AAC recommended a busier pro- posal to upgrade the project and suggested an overall study of the land- scaping forms and materials for a stronger village concept. He stated that the restaurant needs concept approval , that the AAC selected one green , that there was at one time was another color palette of terra cottas to warm beiges, that a variety of colors would be chosen if a different approach were taken, that the entry awning to the restaurant should be chosen carefully and that the applicant would accept any practical color to expedite the process. He stated that he chose the awning company because it has a durable awning in several shades of green. Discussion on colors continued. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Commission feels that there should be a more conservative and elegant approach to the downtown and that the chartreuse is proposed in order to attract attention. Mr. Howlett stated that the darkest shades of green were acceptable to the AAC and could be implemented. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the colors be muted. Mr. Howlett explained that the AAC recommended a study of the project using bold bright colors . He requested direction from the Commission since the direction of the two bodies conflict. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the Planning Commission direction should be taken since the Commission gives final approval . He suggested that the color concept be discussed at a study session. Chairman suggested that the Commission approve the one dark green awning for the restaurant, and stated that there should be one color although the AAC recommended a festive approach to the complex. He requested a poll of the Commission. The consensus was that there should be one or two colors only. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent, Olsen dissented) approving (1) the French restaurant awning in the dark green color #1142; and (2) restudy of the remaining awning concept for the Vineyard. August 1.3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 3.0048 (MINOR) . Application by WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT for architectural approval of wood screen fencing for restaurant located at Cedar Creek Inn, 1555 S. Palm Canyon Drive, PD-131, Section 22. Planner (Vankeeken) stated that the fence was erected without a permit to stop headlights which penetrate into the dining areas and that the applicant intended that vines grow on the fence. She stated that the fence is not set back enough from the curb, and that the AAC recommended denial . D. Keedy, 41 Pacifica, Palm Desert, the applicant, stated that he had felt that the fence was an extension of the existing fence which had received a permit, and that after notification by the city fees were paid, and the fence was denied after that. He stated that the fence was erected for aesthetics in the rear area and to keep headlights from flashing into the restaurant. Commissioner Curtis asked if something other than a fence would serve this purpose. Mr. Keedy stated that plantings had been placed on the inside. Commissioner Curtis stated that the restaurant is well designed but that the fence is not in keeping with the architecture and should be covered with plants to hide it. Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended denial and removal of the fence because the Committee felt that it was not in keeping with the architecture, and that the goals could be achieved with landscaping and other features. He stated that the fence is an unnecessary structure and could be struck by vehicles and would be very difficult to remove after vines were intertwined. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ; Ealy/Kaptur abstained; Whitney absent) denying the fence proposal and directing that it be replaced by landscaping. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0393-PD-178 (Continued) . Application by the MAYER GROUP LTD. for a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone to R-4 (high density hotel and apartments) to construct a two-story 80 unit apartment complex on Avenida Caballeros between Baristo Road/Ramon Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, (Garden Apts. ) , Section 14. (Environmental assessment; tentative approval . ) Recommendation: That the Commission order preparation of a draft Negative Declaration, give tenative approval ; and continue the item to August 27 for written response to the draft Negative Declaration. Planning Director stated that the application was continued from July 23 for a full complement of Commissioners to be present. He explained the history of the area stating that surrounding zoning had been changed to R-4 in an agreement with the Indians in 1981, including the Rose Garden Condominiums which were built to R-G-A(8) density prior to 1981. He `.. described the architecture, configuration, and density of the project. He explained that it is consistent with the General Plan, and that the staff recommends that any density increase granted include 25% low- and August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0393-PD-178 (Continued) moderate-income housing per guidelines of the Economic Development and Housing Division. He stated that staff has received a number of letters in opposition to the proposal with many of the letters emanating from the Rose Garden complex, whose homeowners object to the density and the low- and moderate-cost housing, which they feel will adversely affect their properties. Planner (Vankeeken) presented the project and explained the configur- ation, architecture, amenities , and surrounding zoning. She stated that the AAC recommended approval , subject to conditions. Chairman declared the hearing open. D. Ring, 10960 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles , stated that the attempt of the proposal is to build a project that conforms to the General Plan and is consistent with the neighborhood, that he sympathizes with the Rose Garden homeowners concern regarding low- and moderate-cost housing, that staff has suggested that this type of housing would clarify the Zoning Ordinance regarding Indian zoning of the land, that the applicant would like to withdraw the low- and moderate-cost housing provision which was not originally included in the application, that the plans call for a six- foot sound wall next tothe Rose Garden to eliminate noise impacts , that the Rose Garden units have no. visual line of sight to the proposed pro- ject and questioned the validity of the Planning Director' s statement that an 80-unit development generates an increase of 500 autos a day, unless it is an aggregate from the proposed development and others in the future (downstream) . Planning Director stated that the Institute of Traffic Engineers has a formula for calculating traffic which indicates 7 to 10 cars a day, (including service vehicles) for an apartment unit which would be 800 cars (ten cars X 80 units) as a high figure, and that staff has found that apartments in Palm Springs generate traffic on the high side of the scale. Mr. Ring stated that he would defer to the expertise of the Planning Director and was just requesting clarification. Chairman requested that those persons in the audience in opposition raise hands. (Several people raised their hands. ) Mrs . M. Teitelbaum, 1121 Tiffany Circle South, objected to the project stating that there is a nearby low-cost apartment building which generates crime and makes the Rose Garden residents nervous , that 10 to 12 Rose Garden tenants have bedrooms which adjoin the proposal (separated only by a wall ) , that with perimeter parking cars being started in the morning will awaken the residents, that most of the condominiums are second homes for weekenders, that the proposed two- story structure will be visible, and that the density is too high. She stated that traffic will be heavy and the signal light proposed as a safety factor at the intersection would be more appropriate in a com- mercial area, that more landscaping is not needed, since the Rose Garden August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0393-PD-178 (Continued) is heavily landscaped and some trees have been removed because of the density, that as a broker for many years , she knows what happens with apartment complexes, and that the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding area. T. Slate, 1285 Tiffany Circle South, stated that apartment complexes cause the deterioration of the area such as has happened on Caballeros , that many Rose Garden homeowners are absent during the summer and cannot comment, questioned the need for a Commission if a developer can build anyway he wishes, that density is a factor, that projects in the area have not sold because of their high density, and that two beautiful hotels have not been full . He stated that the Convention Center will be surrounded by this type of development, which will not be an attraction to bring people into the City; and that successful complexes are low density ones such as the Rose Garden, the Greenhouse and the Regency which have much open space. He requested a reasonable development which will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. R. Haig, 1120 Tiffany Circle North, requested the same consideration of her area as is given to Palm Canyon Drive, that she owns a lot next to Caballeros Estates which can be seen 30 paces from the edge of the property, that the density is too high, and that she will hear noise from the project. She stated that her property value will depreciate. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Chairman's question, Planning Director stated that Caballeros Estates is three-story and that a long-standing City policy is that no density increase be granted, unless 25 percent of the units are set aside as low- to moderate-cost housing, and that the Commission could make the finding that there is a unique circumstance relative to the General Plan designation of the property which allows an increase in units . He stated that staff would pursue the density increase to allow progress to be made in the overall housing needs of the City and that the units would not be marked as such and would be integrated throughout the project. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the low/modeate inclusion requirement could be deleted, if the proper findings were made although the applicant is requesting 80 units with no conditions on rental rates. Discussion followed on rental rates . Economic Development and Housing Director stated that one-bedroom moderate income rental rates would be $350 to $360 a month. Chairman stated that he thought that two-bedroom units for moderate income would be $460 a month. Mr. Ring stated that two-bedroom would be nearer $750 a month. Economic Development and Housing Director stated that guidelines are provided by HUD and assist people up to 80% of the median income and that the City has the ability to help persons up to 120% of the median income with the figures being identified for the community by a federal August 1.3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0393-PD-178 (Continued) agency; and that rental rates in the $400/month range would be moderate cost housing and under that would be low. Planning Director explained various zoning densities (R-2, R-3, R-4) . Commissioner Curtis stated that the Rose Garden residents and the Commission have a legitimate concern because of the high density pro- jects in the area which have not done well ; and that the Commission would feel more comfortable with R-2 or R-3 zoning (which was suggested previously by the Commission and not addressed by the applicant) , and would be more appropriate because of the size of the property and the proximity to single-family neighbors. Chairman stated that the problem is a Catch-22 because of the change in the zoning in 1981 which now indicates R-4, although the Rose Garden is built to R-G-A(8) standards and that R-2. or R-3 is more appropriate as a buffer for heavily traffic Avenida Caballeros and the almost single- family use of the Rose Garden. Discussion continued. Commissioner Ealy stated that the zoning is R-4. Chairman suggested that the density be re-studied on the project and that the AAC recommended approval of the architecture, but the group does not consider zoning. Commissioner Curtis stated that one of the elevations is similar to that of a church or school and could have a better design. Discussion followed on whether the issue of the density bonus should be addressed in the motion. Planning Director stated that he had received correct figures and they indicate that for moderate income a studio apartment would rent for $317 a month; for a two-bedroom the rate would be $434 a month. Commissioner Curtis asked about a density bonus if the number of units were reduced. Planning Director stated that it is within the prerogative of the Commission to delete the low-/moderate cost housing provision with a finding that the dens ityisconsistent with the current General Plan. M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen; Kaptur abstained; Whitney absent) taking the following actions: 1. That there be a restudy of the site plan, architecture and land use (with a consideration of R-2 or R-3 Zoning) . 2. That the density bonus provision be eliminated. CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (all sections) . (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. No comments received. ) August 13, 1.986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) Planning Director explained that although unexpected, Tribal Council comments have just been received and indicate concern over some aspects of the new ordinance, including retention of Ordinance No. 779 (Joint Planning Procedures Ordinance) , incorporation of the Indian Appeal Ordinance and procedures for processing Indian land use matters . He stated that the Indians are also concerned about upgrading development standards in M-1 and M-1-P Zones . He recommended continuance for staff to review the Indian recommendations and the items questioned by realtor Jim Hicks in a letter received by staff. He stated that the City has an industrial zoning supply for 300 years and . staff is discouraging small lot industrial subdivision because the M-1 and M-1-P are holding zones and the City needs to be careful about premature subdivision of the large parcels. He recommended a continuance to September 10. Mrs. S. Carmichael , 15919 Snow Creek Road (in the County) , stated she was a spokesman for the Pass Association and requested that the Zoning Ordinance prohibit off-road vehicles in Sections 22 and 23 which adjoins Snow Creek Village. She stated, if banned by the City, the County might follow suit and preserve the vistas. There being no further appearances , Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy; Whitney absent) continuing the item to September 10. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Since the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are City-wide in nature and will affect both developed and undeveloped Indian trust land, the Tribal Council has previously indicated its intent to consider the final draft of these revisions and submit comments and recommendations thereon to the City Planning Commission. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission with respect to draft revisions dated 3/6/86, 5/8/86 and 6/12/86, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Reiterated its action of June 10, 1986, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration. 2. Commended the City Planning Commission and the Planning staff for their efforts to "streamline the contents, correct errors and to bring the Ordinance into conformance with current operational policies and procedures." 3. In view of the relatively large acreage of undeveloped Indian trust land within the City of Palm Springs; and in keeping with the intent to include procedures, rules and regulations related to zonings, use and development of these lands in the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance as expressed in existing agreements between the Tribal Council and City Council (Agreement No. 1324 dated July 26, 1977, and Supplemental Agreement No. 1 thereto, dated March 28, 1978) , the Tribal Council requested that the following Ordinances August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) and Agreements relating to the use and development of Indian trust lands be incorporated into the Revised Zoning Ordinance as a separate section. This action would be consistent with the agree- ments referred to above. a. Ordinance No. 779 of the City of Palm Springs adopted March 13, 1967, and known as "The Joint Planning Procedure Ordinance." b. Ordinance No. 5 of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians adopted December 12, 1978, and known as the "The Tribal Land Use Appeal Ordinance." C. Agreement No. 1324 between the Tribal Council and City Council dated July 26, 1977. This agreement established the current procedures , rules and regulations for processing land use matters involving Indian trust land. 4. Concurred in general with the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Property Development Standards for the "M-1" and "M-1-P Zones. Large acreage of undeveloped trust lands are included within these zones. The Tribal Council strongly disagreed with the standards being proposed for lot areas, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc. These standards appear to be very restrictive when compared with other communities , are not attuned to the current market for industrial properties with respect to space requirements , and become a deterrent to attracting the types of industries which contribute significantly to job opportunities and economic stabilization within the community. The Tribal Council urged that input be solicited from the business community, including the City' s Economic Development Commission, Riverside County Department of Community and Economic Development, etc. , with the respect to the issues note above. CASE 5.0403-CUP. Application by the FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION to amend a on itional Use Permit to alter conditions regarding parking require- ments for a condominium project located on Crossley Road, north of Avenue 34, 0-5 Zone, Section 20. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve the application, subject to conditions. /established in the project CUP Planner (Vankeeken) stated that the homeowners association presented the application to change parking requirements/because many people have con- verted their garages into living space and eliminated one parking space August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0403-CUP (Continued) from their units , although the original CUP required two parking spaces per unit. She stated that 1.5 units are bachelor quarters, but that 171 units have garages and of these, since 1973, there have been 18 con- versions, of which six do not have the required parking. She stated that if all units were to convert, there would be a deficiency of 95 parking spaces , but that 28 spaces of common area parking would be available and 159 additional spaces could be made available if curb parking were utilized, which would result in a surplus of 107 parking spaces. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that curb parking has been counted in other "multi" type projects , and the project parking in this instance would be internal with no access to Rush or 34th Street. Chairman declared the hearing open. E. Matzner, 6141 St. Andrews Place, of the Fairways Homeowners Association requested approval of the application and stated that many people are in favor of the proposal . L. Grossman, 6156 St. Andrews Place, property owner and member of the homeowners association, requested that the application not be considered since, although submitted under the Fairways Homeowners Association, it was never discussed with the general membership who were not aware of `�- the proposal until the public hearing notices were received. He stated that he did not know if the money for the application fee was generated by those who benefited by the proposal , but that the application should not be considered until duly authorized; that some of the conversions are illegal with compliance now being undertaken by the City's Building Division, and that the application does not reflect the desires of the homeowners or due process . Planning Director read the names of the homeowners association board members from the application form. At the request of Chairman, Assistant City Attorney stated that it would not be in the Planning Division or Planning Commission purview to verify authorized signatures and the document is valid. He stated that any other problems are internal and without City involvement. Mr. Matzner stated that he was on the Board of Directors , that the minutes of previous meetings indicate that the topic was discussed, and that the persons paying the fee were the 18 persons who had garage conversions . Mrs. T. Ward, 1707 Sunnydale Plaza, stated that she had no idea of the proposal until she received a public hearing notice and that only 18 units have converted of which hers is one. She stated that the streets are narrow and parking would clutter them and that she would re-convert her unit, if necessary, to keep parking off the internal streets. Planning Director stated that a letter had also been received from Sarah Robbins of St. Andrews Place protesting curb parking which she feels will be an inconvenience and making it easier for those who illegally converted garages , and that street parking is prohibited in the CC&Rs. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0403-CUP (Continued) Planning Director stated that he had received several phone calls asking questions about the proposal . Commissioner Ealy stated that the only opposition relates to the home- owner' s association internal problems. M/S/C (Ealy/Neel ; Whitney absent; Kaptur dissented) approving CUP 5.0403 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS 1. That the use applied for is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the use is desirable within the Community and is in harmony with the various elements of the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate for the intended use, however the design does not further the high standards established for residential development within the community. 4. That Fairway Circle is wide enough to accommodate curb parking on either side of the road and that all cul-de-sacs are wide enough to handle curb parking on one side of the road. 5. That the conditions imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 6. That all homeowners with units that have garage conversions with- out Planning Department approval and without building permits shall obtain Planning Department approval and building permits within 90 days of final approval of Case 5.0403 C.U.P. CONDITIONS 1. That all homeowners proposing garage conversions shall obtain approval from the City of Palm Springs. 2. That written Homeowners Association approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Planning Department approval . 3. That all garage conversions shall comply with current building codes and shall be subject to current Health and Fire Department regulations. 4. That all illegal units obtain building permits and Planning Division approval . CASE 5.0406-PD-183. Application by JOHN WESSMAN for a Planned Development District to allow construction of a mixed use of commercial/retail , August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0406-PD-183 (Continued) office, and carwash on Sunrise Way between Ramon Road/Sunny Dunes Road, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 23. (Ref. Case 5.0371-PD-173. ) (This case was previously given an Environmental Assessment in conjunc- tion with PD-173; a Negative Declaration was ordered filed by the Commission.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the preparation of a focused EIR (Traffic Study) . Planning Director stated that the application is unchanged from the pre- vious one which failed to gain approval from the Council in 1985 by a split vote. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that although the application is unchanged, it was denied by the Council originally and the application brought to an end; so it is necessary to re-submit it for processing as though it were a new application. Planner (Green) presented the staff report and described the configuration of the site plan, access, and architecture. He stated that the storm channel separates the project from the mobilehome park off Ramon Road and that the issue of noise has arisen. He stated that the submitted study indicates that 43 decibels will be generated by the car wash and will affect a small portion of the mobilehome park, but `•—' that General Plan traffic noise studies indicate that traffic noise emanating from traffic Sunrise Way reach a 70 decibel CNEL level at the source point. The noise from the traffic on adjoining street therefore exceeds the noise levels to be generated by the carwash. He stated that traffic statistics indicate that trips will increase, since the previous zoning of the site was R-G-A(8) , however Planned Development District has been submitted and proposed uses can be analyzed so that they do not adversely impact the street. He stated that according to staff analysis the carwash use will adversely impact the streets and possibly the intersection of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way in the future, and that staff is recommending that although a preliminary traffic study is com- pleted, a focused EIR (Traffic Study) should be done to decide whether or not the use is suitable or whether revisions should be made to the project; and that changes may be necessary to the project as a result of the traffic study. The applicant has indicated that he will modify the project after preliminary approval if the study indicates it is neces- sary. He stated that several comments have been received from the Sun- flower Condominium homeowners (38 signatures on a petition and two individual letters) that objections were that some homes will face the car wash, that traffic will be increased, that noise will become a problem, and that a commercial area should not be in such close proximity to residential condominiums. He explained that the AAC recom- mended approval of the architecture, but felt that egress for the car wash should be restudied, and that the car wash could be re-located within the site with circulation contained onsite to eliminate confusion and direct access from the street. Chairman declared the hearing open. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0406-PD-183 (Continued) J. Wessman, 72200 Clancy Lane, applicant and developer, stated that he has owned the site since 1976 and has several applications for the use of the property, that the car wash would be aesthetically integrated with the one-story building on the corner with another one-story building at the end and a two-story building between. He explained the current configuration stating that access points have been changed away from the intersection, that a drying area for cars has been provided in the lease agreement with Classic Car Wash (the carwash operators) , that customers can leave cars to be washed while they shop, and that a focused EIR is not appropriate at this time, since the streets are ade- quate for traffic generated by the build-out of Ramon Road. He stated that the same people will come to the carwash that would use the streets anyway, that the use is allowed in neighborhood shopping centers in other cities, and that the use will serve the surrounding neighborhood primarily, not persons outside the City, because there are other car- washs to serve customers in other areas. He stated that the traffic generation figures are not close to the actual numbers , that the project is a good one, that the City Council denied the use originally because some of the members felt it was not a good use for the City, based on experience with two existing carwashes which are antiquated and not aesthetically pleasing. He stated that the proposed project is a well designed one. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Wessman stated that there is more parking available than required, and that Classic Car Wash operators �... feel that there is no problem because spaces are reserved for them and that they do not anticipate more than 10 to 12 cars sitting in the drying area. He stated that there is access between the center and the carwash without traveling on the streets; and that modifications could be made to the site, but that placing the carwash in the center of the project would destroy the 32 acre site. Discussion ensued on the entrance to the site. Mr. Wessman stated that it is south of the church and is across from the Sunflower condo project which is 200 feet away from the project and has a frontage road. He stated that there is no shade grid for drying cars , but that there is shade in areas where the cars are parked (on all three lanes), and that there is landscaping between the project and the highway. He described the drainage system and stated that the building could be moved five feet north to allow more driveway and more space to the channel for landscaping. F. Scott, Sunflower Condominiums, stated that the windows of his con- dominium face on the carwash and warned that the proposed use can happen to anyone. He stated that the noise of the carwash will disrupt Saturday services at the nearby church, and that the proposal is the only carwash in an area where there are dwellings. Mrs. F. Amadur, 1752 Camino Parocela, Sunflower Condominiums , stated that her husband is president of the homeowners association and wrote the letter in opposition which has 38 of 44 owners' signatures. She stated that the applicant indicates the carwash, not the remainder of the development, and that the residents would not object to a good August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0406-PD-183 (Continued) restaurant, office building, or retail , but object to the carwash. She stated that a neighborhood carwash would not be economically feasible, that the applicant' s reasoning is not understandable, that Camino Parocela is a short street which has access to Mesquite Country Club, that many persons did not receive notices because it is the middle of summer, and that the City Council originally denied the project. Chairman stated that the Planning Commission approved the application, but that the Council denied it on a split vote. R. Hanna, 410 Rio Vista, Sunflower Condominiums, stated that the appli- cant is indicating 125 cars a day, but that a modern carwash strives for economical viability for 400 to 600 cars a day which would result in one car a minute "in" and one car a minute "out" of the facility. He stated that what is being proposed is less than what will eventually happen. J. Wessman (rebuttal ) stated that Classic Car Wash has thirteen units in operation and averages 125 cars a day, and that he did not know about the economic viability of the proposal . He stated that there are carwashes in a three to four mile radius to serve other residents and those using the carwash would be using the highway anyway. Discussion continued. Commissioner Curtis stated that the Commission approved the first proposal and should approve this because there are no changes. Commissioner Olsen remarked that he had concerns about traffic �... and that the proposal requires a traffic study. Chairman explained to the Sunflower Condominium residents that noise studies have been done that indicate 43 decibels and that there is a large setback to the condos . He stated that the highway is noisier than the carwash. Planning Director recommended a traffic study prior to approval . Chairman stated that the same conditions prevail as previously existed, and to impose the cost of a traffic study on the developer without Council approval of the project is not viable. Planning Director stated that on the basis of a future document a quality traffic study could indicate that no problems would be created or the project should be totally redesigned. Commissioner Olsen stated that north-south traffic is not a problem, but that east-west traffic is and that the proposal needs a traffic study. Planning Director stated that, if approved, the project could be sent to Council , since an environmental assessment was done originally on the project. Chairman stated that the project will be reviewed several more times by the Council and Commission and will have public input. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0406-PD-183 (Continued) M/S/C (Curtis/Olsen; Ealy, Kaptur abstained; Whitney absent) approving PD 183, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the overall use applied for is properly one for which a Planned Development District application is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the use is in harmony with the General Plan. 3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, including yards , setbacks, walls, landscaping and other features required to adjust the use to existing and permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. 4. That traffic to be generated by the use may adversely affect the adjoining streets and the intersection of Ramon and Sunrise Way. CONDITIONS 1. That all conditions of the Development Committee dated July 18, 1985, shall be complied with. 2. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened. 3. That the exit to the carwash shall be revised to accommodate parked cars adjoining the exit and ancillary driveways. 4. That the Final Planned Development District application shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9407.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That a traffic study which analyzes the impact of the proposal on the adjoining roads and intersection shall be submitted prior to submission of the Final Planned Development District application with the type of study (focused or total ) to be resolved with the applicant by staff. The Planning Commission reserves the right to impose conditions as necessary as a result of the traffic study. Note: Such condi- tions may affect the layout of the site the configuration of adjoining streets. 6. That signs shall be subject to a separate application. 7. That the uses approved shall comply with the requirements of the C-D-N Zone. 8. That the architecture is acceptable, except that the entry exit of the car wash should be re-designed with details to be reviewed by staff. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0406-PD-183 (Continued) 9. That the carwash should be built with the remaining portion of Phase 1 and not be begun without the entire phase. TPM 21270. Application by C. DUNHAM for a subdivision of land to divide property pursuant to an approved Planned Development District at South Palm Canyon Drive/Murray Canyon Drive, R-2 and 0-20 Zones (portion I .L. ) , Section 34. (Ref. Cases 5.0185-PD-132, 5.0308-PD-155 and TTM 16495. ) (EIR was prepared in conjunction with the original planned development District. ) Recommendation: That the Commission approve TPM 21270, subject to con- ditions . Planner (Williams) stated that the map application is to facilitate conditions of approval to provide access to a dedicated road on a pre- viously approved map (TTM 16495) . She described conditions of approval and stated that the 11-lot subdivision will be reviewed architecturally by the Planning Commission as the lots are developed. Chairman declared the hearing open. �... Mrs . D. Lawenda, 2850 Andalucia Court, stated that the proposed access road would abut the Vista Canyon subdivision, that the homeowners association has not had time to review the proposal , that the road may cause security problems which would require an additional security guard. She stated that a notice had been received regarding the development from Mr. Platt, the developer. J. Acquefreda, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, Control Security Services , stated that the main concern is the security of the property if an access road is constructed and the homeowners have no idea of the location. He stated that the property would be difficult to secure because of the road and that there is a problem with off-road vehicles on the rear of the property at the present time. Planning Director stated that there is no final road design from the Platt development district, although the map does show the relationship of the private road to the existing condominium project (Vista Canyon) . Mr. Acquefreda stated that he had just been apprised that Mr. Platt will give him plans and take him to the site and that the plans would then be reviewed by the homeowners association. Mrs . A. Weinrich, 2912 Cervantes Court, Canyon Heights, stated that she had been unaware of the proposal and would like information on it since the road abuts the Canyon Heights property. H. Weinberg, 2644 La Condesa, Vista Canyons, stated that he was con- cerned about construction blasting, debris, and the possibility of a August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 21270 (Continued) change in the water drainage system in the area. He stated that the road will destroy the beauty of the mountain backdrop west of the City. Chairman stated that the project will be continued until the developer gives a specific plan to the homeowners association for their review. Ms. D. Frumeni of Lomita, California, requested information for her employer (Mr. Chan) who owns property adjacent to the proposal . Planner stated that the road will not be through Mr. Chan' s property, but access will go through the Platt property. There being no further appearances , Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Whitney absent) continuing the application to August 27 for review by the adjoining homeowners association (Vista Canyon) . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Although it was not noted in the agenda, this case includes Indian trust lands. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: L,. 1. Concurred with the findings listed in Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 13, 1986. 2. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 21270. 3. Planning Staff Reprot indicates that TPM No. 21270 overlays TTM No. 16495 which was conditionally approved in 1984. The report also indicated that TPM No. 21270 has been filed for the purpose of facilitating the development of TTM No. 16495 by the exchange of Parcel 1 of TPM No. 21270 for access right sfor TTM No. 16495 to South Palm Canyon Drive. under the circumstances, Development Committee conditions for TPM No. 21270 dated July 20, 1986, would appear to be inappropriate. The Tribal Council recommended that this matter be clarified prior to Planning Commission action on TPM No. 21270. 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 3.0022 (Continued) . Application by R. GENGLER for architectural approval of revised elevations for a five unit apartment complex on Saturmino Road/Calle Lileta, R-2 Zone, Section 13. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0022 (Continued) Planner (Green) described the revised plan and stated that changes include a trellis supported by two columns at the entry. M/S/C (Kaptur/Olsen; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That the preliminary landscape plans be restudied. CASE 3.0078 (MINOR) Continued. Application by PORTALS for Arthur Friedman for architectural approval. of revised awning program for Tackett Center at 120 North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Zoning Enforcement Officer described the proposed revision to the center in the 100 block of North Palm Canyon, which is under new ownership. He stated that the owner wants to upgrade the center, that the revisions have been reviewed previously, and the Commission felt that there were too many colors, but that they have been reduced to a two color family and the AAC has reviewed and recommended approval subject to conditions. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the problem is the same as that of the Vineyard and that a casually elegant environment should be created for the downtown rather than a "casino" appearance to attract attention which is not necessary in the first block on Palm Canyon Drive. He suggested that a tri-color scheme - one color for the buildings, one for the awnings, and an accent color be used. Commissioner Ealy agreed. Chairman stated that the graphic "art deco" approach is trendy and will become dated, and the building' s appearance will be difficult to change in the future. He stated that a subdued, elegant paint scheme is more appropriate. Commissioner Kaptur remarked that the applicant is trying to improve the center with minimal cost and that unless much money is to be spent, the center should remain as it is with subdued colors and simple rejuvenation. Zoning Enforcement Officer requested clear direction on Planning Commission direction and asked about the use of two colors and the whether or not the configuration of the awning is a problem. Chairman stated that color is the main issue. A. Friedman, applicant and manager of the center, stated that the building is "art deco" which is attractive and that he had thought that the Commission would favor an elegant but casual approach. He requested Commission direction and stated that the average tourist would find the center appealing. He stated that he had brought some subdued color samples to the meeting if the Commission wished to review them. Discussion ensued on an appealing color combination. Commissioner Kaptur suggested as an elegant color scheme: a light gray building, maroon awnings, and a pink or white accent color. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0078 (Continued) Mr. Friedman stated that the AAC has different opinions. Commissioner Kaptur that the building needs to be beautified with color. Mr. Friedman remarked that one color will not identify individual merchants. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the identity is in the windows . M . Beatty, Portals, Palm Desert, requested that subdued color samples be placed on the elevations on the display board and discussed the colors with the Commission. Mr. Friedman stated that he preferred a series of graduated grays on the front elevation. Mr. Beatty explained that new colors shown on the board are a pallet ranging from beige to mauve. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the front be painted first and again suggested gray, maroon (not mauve) , and pink or white as accents. He stated that the applicant can return to the Commission if the colors do not satisfy him after the front is finished. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Restudy of entry canopy. 2. Restudy interior awnings on radius . 3. Restudy oriental awning on Indian and design it as a more sub- stantial element. 4. Submit sign detail for stores (Alexia and Cena' s) . 5. Submit new lighting fixtures for Palm Canyon frontage. 6. Submit complete landscape plan, including both parking lots . 7. Submit colored elevation of north side of building, same scale as Palm Canyon submittal . 8. Restudy alleyways . 9. Submit lighting plan for interior courtyard. 10. That the color scheme (for continuity) be as follows: building - gray; awnings (including interior and Indian Avenue frontage) all one color - maroon; accent color - pink or white. CASE 3.0049. Application by RITA COTY for architectural approval of a 4-plex complex at 600 Cabrillo Way between Junipero/Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 3. Chairman left briefly. Vice-Chairman presided. Planner (Williams) presented the project, including colors, and stated that it meets zoning requirements and is recommended for approval by the AAC. She stated that a condition has been placed on the parking that no August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0049 (Continued) building permits be issued until the Zoning Ordinance is approved, and if the bay parking portion of the ordinance is not approved, the site plan must be revised. J. Stanford, architect, stated that the AAC had discussed colors at the meeting, that the color pallet is found in nature and in the desert subt -ety (not as depicted by the Magic Marker colors) , that the site is difficult, that the interior space is being maximized, and that the complex will be built as economically as possible. He stated that design of the exterior evolved out of concern for shading of the glass , and most of the elements are integrated with the overhang. He stated that the three colors were picked from different color families but integrate well . M/S/C (Kaptur/Ealy; Whitney/Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans be submitted. 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. Chairman returned. CASE 3.0059. Application by MIKE ARCARO for architectural approval of auto shop building on Del Sol Road, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Planner (Vankeeken) presented the case and stated that it is a simple building with adequate parking. M/S/C (Neel/Kaptur; Ealy abstained; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That all block be the same (either slump or precision) and all the bonding be the same. 2. Fascia to extend just beyond the doorways on the end elevations and that the fascia be vertical . 3. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0082 (MINOR) . Application by ESTRELLA INN for architectural approval of roof changes and window replacement at 415 S. Belardo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. Planner (Vankeeken) described the revisions and stated that the owner � -� wants to stucco and repaint the building and modernize the cottages for aesthetic and security reasons. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0082 (Continued) D. Bean, the architect, stated that the flat roof portions will not be tiled. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That clay barrel tile be used. 2. That the colors are approved; and that the main building color is to match the townhouse and cottages. CASE 5.0360-PD-170. Request by R. P. WARMINGTON COMPANY for reconsideration of landscape plans for 195 unit hotel on E. Palm Canyon between R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 26. Planner (Williams) stated that staff recommended that a berm and wall be constructed to screen the parking from the street in addition to the retaining wall on the Twin Palms frontage where parking is below grade but that the applicant desires to add, for safety reasons, a wrought iron fence on top of the retaining wall with plantings in front and bottle trees on the reverse side. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Ealy abstained; Whitney absent) approving the applic- ation as submitted. CASE 5.0414-CUP. Request by R. LANLEY/WILLIAM GARNER for architectural approval of revisions for a restaurant at 500 E. Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 23. Planner (Vankeeken) presented the project and stated that the applicant wants the restaurant to open by the first of the year. Discussion followed on the rock work proposed. J. Stanford, architect, explained that the applicants want a French country appearance using rock and wish to change the window spacing for hanging of artwork on the interior. He described minor revisions and stated that the bar will be halved and moved downstairs with an entertainment platform upstairs. Chairman stated that the existing building is well designed and has good coloration. M/S/C (Kaptur/Curtis; Whitney absent) continuing the application to August 27 for a Planning Commission/AAC field trip on August 25 at 8 a.m. CASE 3.0058 (MINOR) . Application by GOLDEN STATE SIGNS for architectural approval of revised main identification sign for Cafe Mahvalous in the Desert Fashion Plaza, North Palm Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Whitney absent) continuing the application to `''' August 27 pending receipt of plans. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0075 (MINOR) . Application by the PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT for architectural approval of a temporary trailer for classroom use at the Palm Springs Youth Center, WRIC Zone, Section 19. (Ref. 5.0025- CUP/Case 10.354-Determination. ) M/S/C (Kaptur/Olsen; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the trailer be oriented in a north-south direction. 2. That details be reviewed by staff. CASE 5.0144-PD-166 (Continued). Discussion of windbreak plant material for performance to date and possible alterations to plant list for the AFCOM/Presley Homes project of mobilehomes and residences (low and moderate cost housing) on the northwest corner of Sunrise Way/San Rafael , 0-5 Zone, Section 35. Planning Director stated that a maintenance and monitoring program has been established after a field trip with two landscapers from the AAC to the site. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent) establishing the following windbreak maintenance program: 1. Oleanders. a. Clean out watering basins at base of plant. b. Apply 1 cup fertilizer (11-8-4) around each plant now and again in a month and then every two months. C. Rake fertilizer in lightly. d. Maintain irrigation system to provide adequate daily watering. e. Allow height to increase to 14 feet before trimming. f. Include entire line of oleanders (including plants north of existing development. 2. Palm Trees . a. Clean out watering basins at base of tree (approximately 12" around tree) . b. Apply 1 cup fertilizer (11-8-4) around each tree now, again in a month and then every two months. C. Maintain irrigation system to provide adequate daily watering. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0144-PD-166 `-f d. Leave all fronds on tree to encourage development of broad canopy effect. e. In addition to fertilizer add 1 cup of blood meal to each tree. CASE 3.758 (Error in case number and description on the Agenda) . Application by RATTNER INVESTMENTS NO. III for architectural approval for a one and two story apartment complex of 129 units located on Farrell drive between Hwy 111 on the south and Sonora Road on the north in an R-3 Zone, Section 24. Planner (Green) stated that parking is to be provided under carports in the complex and explained the open space on the project. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ; Kaptur abstained; Whitney absent; Curtis dissented) approving the application as submitted. NOTE: Commissioner Curtis dissented because of lack of open space in the project. CASE 3.856. Application by LUCINDA D. ROMANO for architectural approval of a 4-plex complex on Cottonwood Road between Vista Chino/Chuckwalla Road, R-2 Zone, Section 11. Planner (Green) stated that the applicant accepts the restudy recommend- ation. M/S/C (Kaptur/Olsen; Whitney absent) for a restudy of the architecture as follows: 1. That more usable open space be added (private patios suggested) . 2. That the room orientation/site plan be revised/simplified. CASE 3.960. Application by BENEQUITY PROPERTIES for architectural approval of revised site plan and garden center for K-Mart for community shopping center on Farrell Drive between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Baristo Road, CSC Zone, Section 13. Planner (Williams) explained the revised site plan and the proposed garden center for K-Mart. She stated that the working drawings of the garden center show a trellis with unappealing light fixtures above the wall and that the AAC recommended a restudy of the trellis and lighting. M/S/C (Kaptur/Olsen, Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the revised site plan is approved. 2. That the garden center be restudied (trellis and lighting to be integrated with the building design) . August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960 (Continued) 3. That the metal flashing (at the garden center) be deleted. CASE 3.0092 (MINOR) . Application by FAIRMONT SIGNS for K-Mart for architectural approval of main identification sign for business in existing shopping center on the southwest corner of Farrell Drive/Tahquitz-McCallum Way, CSC Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Ealy/Kaptur; Whitney absent) continuing the application to August 27 for receipt of accurate plans. CASE 3.0089 (MINOR). Application by KEITH MCCORMICK for architectural approval of outside dining addition to an existing restaurant for resort at 2601. Golf Club Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 29. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ; Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That final awning color and material to be approved by staff. 2. That replacement details of existing awnings to be reviewed by staff. 3. That all recommendations of the the Development Committee be met. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0410-MISC. (CONTINUED). Planning Commission review of DESERT WATER AGENCY capital improvement program (CIP) . M/S/C (Curtis/Kaptur; Ealy abstained; Whitney absent) finding that the DWA CIP is in conformity with the General Plan . CASE 5.0411-MISC. (CONTINUED). Planning Commission review of a draft EIR for the Riverside County Redevelopment Agency for projects within the City's Sphere of Influence. Planning Director stated that staff had recommended that all areas in the City be deleted from the redevelopment plan, but that the City' s Redevelopment Director has requested that a meeting be held between staff and the County Redevelopment Director. M/S/C (Kaptur/Neel ; Whitney absent) continuing the item to August 27. CASE 5.0412-MISC. (CONTINUED). Planning Commission review of revision to South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1307 (a) affecting air quality. Planning Director stated that the item is being removed from the agenda, because of prior Council action which opposes the particular revision. August 13, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0412 (Continued) He stated that the proposed revision makes it easier to locate polluting industries on the eastern side of the County with a minimal effect on air quality, but that any lessening of air quality standards is opposed by the Council . CASE 10.362 - DETERMINATION. Planning Commission determination that an out patient veterianarian clinic is an allowable use in the CDN Zone city- wide. Planning Director explained that the use would be placed in the Zoning Ordinance but was not in effect presently and that the veterinarian is anxious to establish the clinic. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Whitney absent; Ealy dissented) determining that an out patient veterinarian clinic is an allowable use in the CDN Zone. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Planning Commission Update on City Council actions. CASE 5.0258-PD-145. Council did not choose to process the revised plan. AAC PROCESS. To be reviewed at September 17 Planning Commission Study Session. Also newly appointed Commissioner Barbara Whitney will replace Commissioner Neel on the AAC. AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION. Study session will not be held. Next regularly scheduled study session will be September 17 at 3 p.m. in the Large Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. PLANNING PIRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall August 27, 1986 1:30 P.M. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 4 0 Hugh Curtis X 4 0 Hugh Kaptur - 3 1 Curt Ealy X 3 1 Earl Neel X 2 2 Gary Olsen X 3 0 Barbara Whitney X 1 1 Staff Present Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams , Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - August 25, 1,986 J. Cioffi , Chairman Absent: William Johnson William Johnson Chris Mills Earl Neel Tom Doczi Curt Ealy Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Neel ; Kaptur absent) ) approving minutes of August 13, 1986 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES: There were no Tribal Council comments . Chairman welcomed new commissioner Barbara Whitney, local realtor and long time resident, stating that she will contribute a great deal to Commission deliberations.