Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/04/13 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 13, 1988 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 16 2 Hugh Curtis X 18 0 Martha Edgmon X 16 2 Brent Hough X 17 1 Earl Neel - 16 2 Gary Olsen - 15 3 Barbara Whitney - 13 5 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - April 11, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino Will Kleindienst Barbara Whitney, Alternate Tom Doczi Gary Olsen, Alternate Brent Hough Martha Edgmon, Alternate Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Olsen/Whitney/Neel absent) approving minutes of March 23 and March 29, 1988 as submitted. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: Chairman congratulated Commissioner Earl Neel who was elected to the City Council on April 12, 1988. April 13, 1988 PC 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/Edgmon; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent)) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0346. Application by DENNIS AUSTIN for architectural approval of plans for single family hillside residence on the southwest corner of Vista Drive/Via Livorno, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Restudy noting the following: That the building be redesigned to integrate with the topography of the site. CASE 3.0355. Application by . ANGELO TORCHIA for architectural approval of a general retail building at 343 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following: 1. That sun control for upstairs windows be provided. 2. That roof access to mechanical equipment will be provided. 3. That if the building code does not permit windows in the north wall , resubmit elevation for north all treatment. �.. 4. That the trash enclosure location be verified with Waste Disposal Services. 5. That the soffit in rear of the building be redesigned. 6. That possible relocation and redesign of the stairs be considered. 7. That the chimney stack be redesigned to meet code. Lower end of chimney be cobled. 8. That the sidewalk design of the main canopy be provided. 9. That construction details of the main canopy be provided. 10. That the relationship between roof and parapet be shown. 11. That a sign program be submitted. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.3061. Application by ROBERT NEILL for architectural approval of revised plans for single-family hillside residence on Araby Drive between Palo Verde/Cholla Place, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. (Reference Case 7.690-AMM) Approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . That there be no vigas on the garage. 2. That the roof tile be mortared. 3. That the landscape be restudied noting that an integrated concept is needed and submitted with the final plans (to be reviewed by AAC) . 4. That the grading plan be submitted for AAC. 5. That the chimney flue detail be submitted to the AAC. 6. That the ends of the lower roof be hipped. 7. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0372. Application by NUGENT'S INTERIORS for architectural approval of canvas awnings and sign for business at 391-393 N. Indian Avenue, CBD Zone, Section 15. �-� (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Restudy noting the following: 1 . That the awning maintain the radius design but cover the entire existing overhang by installing top of awning at top of existing parapet. 2. That the sign be submitted separately for review with the drawing to be in scale. CASE 3.0374 (MINOR) . Application by ELDER-JONES, INC. for architectural approval of a new store in the Desert Fashion Plaza, 123 N. Palm Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15. Approved subject to the following condition: That the top of the sill mullion match the height (10") of the sill at the bottom of the doors. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.0463-PD-195. Application by DESERT SUN for architectural approval of revised site plan and detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for a planned development district to allow construction of a news- paper publishing facility including a portion with a 50-foot building height on Gene Autry Trail between Tachevah Drive/Ramon Road, M-1-P Zone, Section 7 . Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the elevations, materials and colors are approved. 2. That the site plan is approved subject to adding additional screening to buffer the delivery service area from the south. 3. That the preliminary landscape plan is approved subject to adding substantial palm tree (or alternate material ) cluster adjacent to the building, adding canopy trees along the street frontage, and adding substantial tree mass adjacent to the building and in the parking areas. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BEST SIGNS for Desert Hospital for architec- tural approval of revised sign program for the Desert Hospital Sunrise Building on the southwest corner of Sunrise Way/Vista Chino, "P" Zone, Section 11 . Continued to April 27 pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.0339 (MINOR) . Application by D & A SHADE COMPANY for architectural approval of revised plans for awning for restaurant (SpeakEasy) at 233 E. Saturnino Road, C-1 Zone (IL) , Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions : 1. That the scallop be removed and the bottom of the awning be straight edged. 2. That a narrow awning be installed. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0326. Application by DESERT CHAPEL for architectural approval of revised plans for a six classroom addition for church at 650. S. Sunrise Way, PD-59 Zone, Section 24. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0326. (Continued) Planner (Vankeeken) presented the plans and stated that new plans were developed after a Commission restudy. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 2. That detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans be submitted. ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0352. Application by RICHARD FISHER for Leslie Pool Mart for archi- tectural approval of a new retail facility at 590 S. Indian Avenue, C-1 Zone, Section 23. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) ., Planner (Williams) presented the application and described the project set- backs and colors. She stated that the parking is on the east property line, that the driveway is off Parocela; that there will be no vehicular access off Indian; and that southbound traffic on Palm Canyon will have a left turn pocket. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the refuse enclosure location be worked out with staff. 2. That a landscape buffer be added to the north parking lot in the vicinity of the drive aisle. 3. That the turquoise color be deleted. 4. That the vertical screed lines below the horizontal band be deleted. 5. That vertical screeds above the horizontal band be added to the north side. 6. That the entrance pavement be extended to the City sidewalk. 7. That additional palms be added in groupings. 8. That the location of street trees be reconsidered. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 6 ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0352. (Continued) 9. That final landscape plans (approved by Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office) be submitted for review. 10. That the signs be submitted for review and approval . 11 . That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0243 (MINOR) . Application by NICK MARTIN for Dee Anna Howard for archi- tectural approval of an as-built roof design for a garage conversion at 2480 Leonard Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the AAC took a field trip to the location; that the applicant wants to raise a portion of his roof two feet; and that the project was started with a permit. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0471-MISC. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT of truck route designations on portions of East Palm Canyon Drive, Indian Avenue, East Vista Chino, Sunrise Way, Gene Autry Trail , and Ramon Road. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Planning Director explained that Senate Bill 2232 requires that cities supply the use of surface streets by certain commercial vehicles; and that the streets in Palm Springs will be primarily major thoroughfares, in and out of town. He stated that staff is concerned that westbound truck traffic will stay on Highway Ill until it reaches the downtown and feels that the traffic should turn at either Gene Autry or Sunrise Way. He stated that regular truck traffic delivering or picking up goods or materials will not be affected and the designation is more of a directional aid. He stated that options are being explored such as designating Indian Avenue as Highway 111 or moving the designation to the Mid-Valley Parkway, and discussions have begun with Caltrans. Chairman stated that Gene Autry Trail should be used because both sides of Sunrise from Palm Canyon through the City are residential and Gene Autry has open space and industrial zoning which is more appropriate. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 7 ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0471-MISC. (Continued) Planning Director stated that the purpose of the designation is to move trucks through town without their going downtown, and that Gene Autry Trail could be used without bringing any truck traffic into the interior; that other streets have residential as well ; and that routing should accomplish the purpose. Chairman stated that there is only one stop between East Palm Canyon and Vista Chino but Sunrise has seven or eight stops, and that it is better for the trucks and the City if trucks use Gene Autry Trail . M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving the following streets and parts and portions of streets as truck routes for the movement of vehicles that exceed a maximum gross weight limit of 5 tons: Name of Street Beginning at Ending at Palm Canyon Drive North City Limits Vista Chino Palm Canyon Drive Gene Autry East City Limits Indian Avenue North City Limits Vista Chino Vista Chino Palm Canyon Drive East City Limits Gene Autry Trail North City Limits Palm Canyon Drive Ramon Road Gene Autry Trail East City Limits PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0466-PD-196 (Continued) . Application by MEL HABER ENTERPRISES, INC. for a planned development district to allow construction of a 104 unit luxury apartment project (including a 44 ft. building height) at the west end of Tahquitz Drive, 0-20/R-2/R-3 Zones, Section 15. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; letters have been received from surrounding property owners; action.) Planning Director stated that the project had been continued from the March 23 meeting and the AAC reviewed the revised plans on April 11 and recom- mended restudy. He stated that there had been calls on the project, both pro and con, that a field trip had been taken to the site, and that the Tribal Council recommendation is for more study on the historical/archeo- logical impacts of the project on the Indian burial grounds nearby. He stated that a number of letters have also been received for additional studies and that staff is recommending a focused EIR on the basis of the public controversy, although the necessity for an EIR is for the Commission to determine since the Commission should decide whether or not the public questions raised during the testimony justifies the time and expense of an EIR. He stated that the applicant has been advised of the EIR and that the AAC felt that the revised architecture was improved, but the Committee's position was crystalized that the project overwhelms the neighborhood because of its mass and scale. He stated that letters received from the neighbors show concern about the lack of setbacks, destruction of scenic April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0466-PD-196. (Continued) vistas, increased traffic and noise, and intrusion of the mass into the neighborhood. He stated that from a traffic standpoint the project would generate less traffic that a right-of-zone project with 160 units. He commented that State law mandates a focused EIR unless the Commission feels strongly that the issues raised by the public are emotional responses to a new project. He recommended that the Commission state the direction of the EIR, and also commented that the AAC recommendation was unusual in that it considered the project from an existing neighborhood character viewpoint and also from the viewpoint of a four to five story building being acceptable; but the restudy recommendation was very strong. Planner (Evans) stated that the revised plans changed the entry and parking arrangement to buffer the project from the neighbors; that increased pedes- trian access is provided toward the front; that the front gate and turn- around is now deeper into the project and results in a better, more visible entry; that water elements have been brought to the front toward the street; that the cooling tower and trash locations have been moved to another area more inward on the site; that the building elevations have been stepped from five stories at the center to two stories at the front; and that the model has also been changed. He stated that the AAC recom- mended additional buffering of the unlighted tennis courts and a fire access road either eliminated or refined. He stated in summary that the AAC recommendation was for a restudy although the Committee felt that the plans are moving in a positive direction. In reply to a Commission question, he stated that the height of the Mihata House on West Tahquitz is approximately 30 feet to the top of the roof and the fourth house on the street is 18 feet above grade and therefore higher than 30 feet. Planning Director stated that there was a question that the public hearing noticing was inadequate; but that the hearing notices were sent to the pro- perties shown on the tax rolls except for Rosa Mihata in which the direction "West" was deleted and the letter returned by the Post Office to Planning. He stated that all property owners within 400 feet were noticed per the assessors records and that a 1/8 page ad was published in the Desert Sun regarding the public hearing since a portion of the project touches a portion of the Tennis Club timeshare complex. He stated that the noticing met the intent and letter of the law. Chairman declared the hearing open. Mel Haber, 700 W. Stevens Road, the applicant, stated that the project was conceived because it was needed and wanted in Palm Springs; that he worked with staff and was encouraged; that the project has been well-received except for Mrs. Mihata who opposes it because of personal business dealings with him; that changes were made to address concerns of the AAC and Commission; that the AAC felt that the design was good, but was concerned about the size; that the project will a high class apartment complex and would affect few residents; and that Mrs. Mihata wants him to buy her house. He stated that he did not want to build a project that is not wanted by the City. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0466-PD-196. (Continued) Mrs. William Burgess, 550 Palisades Drive, spoke in favor of the project, stating that she lives above the project and would like to see the property developed; that the Cadillac-Fairview Project originally approved for the site was a good one, but was built; that some of the suggested mitigative measures would downgrade the property; and that the project would be built at the least possible density. She stated that she realizes that density is needed on the valuable property. Chairman stated that only four Commissioners were present and making a decision that an EIR should be done on the height and mass of the project requires more Commissioner's present and it would be four to six months before the project will be reviewed again by the Commission. He stated that the decision is far in the future. The following person spoke in opposition to the project: Frank Tysen, 175 S. Cahuilla Road. Rose Mihata, 468 W. Tahquitz Virginia Moore, 175 S. Cahuilla T.J. Haga, 412 W. Tahquitz Ruth Thompson, 500 Arenas They voiced the following concerns regarding the project: - Inadequate noticing procedures by the City. - Large size and mass of the project. - Poor aesthetic appearance. - Planned development district tool not used properly. - Possible Indian artifacts and archaeological treasure on the site. - Destruction of the historic village setting. - Destruction of the village atmosphere as a tourist attraction. - Destruction of views toward the mountain. - Destruction of the "Carmel of the Coachella Valley" connotation. - Destruction of the low-rise atmosphere of the City by the subject high-rise project (which belongs down valley) . - Destruction of natural climactic conditions. - Increase in noise and traffic. - Addition of rooms to the "empty room" syndrome in Palm Springs in the summer. - Project could become a "White Elephant" and turned into a hotel . - Objections of most of the neighbors. (Very easy to obtain signatures of neighbors opposing the project.) - Unfairness of requiring an expensive EIR of the applicant since the use proposed is insensitive and should not be encouraged. - Other uses should be found for the property such as an open air museum. - Design could be improved with input from neighbors. - The mass looms over the area. - The project is not in keeping with the applicant's sensitive Ingleside Inn property. - The vacant property is preferrable, not an eyesore, and houses wild animal life. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0466-PD-196. (Continued) - Project resembles a Bastille. - Two stories should be considered, not five stories. - The issue is justifiably emotional since the building will replace a mountain view. - Project affects individual properties and also the community. - Destruction of the quietness and uniqueness of the community. - Loss of property values. - High-rises not needed in Palm Springs which has a Spanish/Colonial/Revival style. - Mitigation of traffic issues is of upmost importance because of the project's impact on the area's already impacted street system. Chairman stated that the Commission can only take action on the type of application submitted, which in this case is a Planned Development District. Mel Haber (rebuttal ) requested a continuance to study objections of the neighbors. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Hough commented that the Commission has no alternative except to require an EIR. Chairman stated that the Commission decides on the necessity of an EIR �-- document. Commissioner Hough reiterated that the EIR is necessary, that the neighbors do not want the project, and that the applicant will review it. Commissioner Curtis stated that the area is unique and that some alterna- tives have been addressed by the AAC and reflected in the AAC minutes, and that a right of zone development can have many more units. He stated that the applicant cannot be told he cannot build on the property and that some resolution can be made of the height and massing which are the major issues. Discussion followed with the applicant on Commission action on the application. Planning Director stated that if the project is redesigned to a right-of-zone project, no renoticing will be done since the application would be a major architectural approval application which does not require noticing; and that staff will keep the residents who have inquired informed. He suggested that the application be removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised plans which explore other forms and a right-of- zone project. He stated that if a Planned Development District is resub- mitted it will be renoticed. M/S/C (Curtis/Edgmon; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) removing the application from the agenda pending receipt of revised plans. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0466-PD-196. (Continued) Planner stated that if the application becomes a condominium project, a tentative map will be required which would have a public hearing, and if the application is different from a right-of-zone project, the residents will be renoticed. Mr. Tyson requested that the City keep the residents informed. Chairman replied that the law would be adhered to, but if the applicant meets zoning requirements, it will not be renoticed. Mr. Tysen replied that the neighbors could initiate a referendum since if Mr. Haber had discussed the project with neighbors previously, the problem would have been solved. He reiterated that it is easy to obtain signatures in Palm Springs. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS: This Case was considered by the Tribal Council on March 22, 1988. It was noted that while this proposed project is not located on Indian trust land, the previously and currently identified impacts as well as the potential impacts on archaeological/historical resources of the Cahuilla people are very significant. The Tribal Council questioned the adequacy of the pro- posed mitigation, and requested that this Case be continued pending further research of Tribal records and discussions with elders of the Tribe, and the possible drafting of additional mitigation. Based on the research and discussions referred to above, and after con- sideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council strongly urged that a focused EIR be prepared at this time in order to fully address the identified and potential archaeological/historical impacts as well as other significant impacts identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report and in the course of the City Planning Commission's review and hearings on the Case. In view of the environmental issues related to the design of the project, building size, height, setbacks, etc. , it would not appear prudent to defer the preparation of such a document, if found necessary, to the building permit/construction stage. TPM 23123. Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Peter McKernan for a tentative parcel map to combine three lots into one at Vereda Del Sur/Via Las Palmas, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Commission approve TPM 23123 subject to condi- tions. Planner (Vankeeken) stated that the application is a parcel map to consoli- date lots for a guest house. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TPM 23123. (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. Jay Benoist, husband of the owner of property on the east side of the sub- ject application, stated that there are existing improvements and that a wall built in 1935 is in a state of disrepair and not in compliance with current requirements . He stated that a large eucalyptus tree fell and crushed a 50 foot section of the wall on the property line; that the rest of the wall is on his wife's property; that the wall is not in conformance with the survey line; and that the trash from the fallen tree was removed, but that the wall was not reconstructed and the wall is not being maintained. Paul Gilmore, ASL Engineers, Tahquitz-McCallum Way, stated that there will be a separate architectural review of the building in the future; that the original intent was to renovate the structure, but the applicant is now going to start over; and that the parcels must be combined by law because existing structures straddle the property lines. Mrs. William Stein, 350 W. Vereda Sur, asked the purpose of consolidation of the lots. Planning Director stated that the applicant is redeveloping and improving the property as an estate over existing property lines and the project will be a single building parcel rather than a multiple dwelling one. He stated that the ordinance does not indicate the price of the residences but `.. requires a 1500 square foot minimum and two car covered parking minimally, and the house could be around $500,000. Mrs. Stein stated that she was content with the answer. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving the application based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. That a Parcel Map is the appropriate application for a lot consolida- tion. 2. That the proposed lot consolidation is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and objectives of the General Plan. 3. That the proposed lot consolidation is not detrimental to the surrounding properties or the environment. Conditions That all conditions of the Development Committee met. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 13 MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) CASE 5 .0473-MISC. PLANNING COMMISSION adoption of a resolution approving the boundaries of a new redevelopment project area (#9) (nine small areas scattered throughout the City) . Roy Evans, Redevelopment Consultant, stated that a larger area will be returned to the Commission for review because the Tribal Council has requested continuance for discussion to add Indian parcels to the redevelopment project areas. He stated the project area can be decreased by the Commission and the City Council , but cannot be increased without Council and Commission approval . He stated that no expansion can take place until the recommendation by the Tribal Council has been reviewed. M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) continuing the application to April 27. TIME EXTENSION - CASE 5.0357-PD-167. Request by LASZLO SANDOR for a retroactive 12 month time extension for a planned development district to allow con- struction of a 119 unit apartment building on the northeast corner of San Rafael/McCarthy Road, R-2 Zone, Section 34. Planner (Williams) stated that through an oversight the application expired in May and the applicants are requesting a one-year retroactive time extension to June 1988 and an additional one-year time extension to June 1989 to complete financing. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) approving a retroactive 12- month time extension to June of 1988 and a one-year time extension to June 5, 1989. DISCUSSION. COMMISSION discussion on land use permit requirements for Christmas tree lots. Planning Director stated that in the new ordinance there is an expanded category of uses under a land use permit (LUP) . He stated that the LUP was developed to regulate problem uses or potential problems, or when specific conditions are needed to adapt a use to the site such as outdoor dining areas and fast food restaurants, in which cleanup is needed, and that Christmas tree lots fall under the LUP. He stated that there was no regulation in the past and tree lots are difficult to regulate since they often have illegal signs, illegal electrical cords, and other conditions which must be monitored. He stated that the LUP costs $300 which is the same fee for all land use permits except "incidental " ones such as post card racks, etc. ; and that the Assistant City Manager has had complaints about the costs of the fee and some people felt that the vendors are being forced down valley. He stated that staff feels the fee is fair since the lots require much staff time to monitor, do not return any monies to the City and that the applicants are not charged sign permit fees and often use plywood or similar signs. He stated that the $300 fee is no more than that charged for art sales, car shows, street mimes, or outdoor fashion shows; and that staff did not think the fee was unfair but if the Commission feels the fee is too high the use should be removed from the LUP ordinance or a specific fee charged. r April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 14 MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) DISCUSSION. (Continued) Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that other events controlled . by an LUP often stay only a short time while Christmas tree lots are in existence for weeks and are very difficult to keep free from safety hazards and to regulate. He stated that staff feels strongly that the City should remain in control of the process. Discussion continued. In reply to Commission question, Assistant City Attorney stated that the City is a public entity in this type of situation and that liability falls on the property owner. Commissioner Hough com- mented that opposition to the fee is probably occurring because 1987 was the first year it was required. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) to retain the LUP fee and policy as it is. DISCUSSION. COMMISSION discussion regarding tree trimming policy, city-wide. Planning Director stated that the Zoning Ordinance has a property main- tenance policy stating that "trees and shrubs" shall be left in their natural state and pruned only to maintain the health of the plant" , and in the past there has been much poorly designed tree trimming. He stated that it is an impossibility to make projects comply 100% and that staff feels that an educational direction should be given to homeowner associations and `•-- gardeners if the Commission feels strongly about policy. He stated that in some homeowner associations, someone runs for the homeowners association board to remove a tree (which is violation and a citation can be issued) , but after the tree is butchered, there is nothing that can be done. He stated that if the Commission does not feel strongly about the issue, staff will not pursue it, and that staff would like to continue the discussion subject to review of the landscape architects on the AAC. Chairman stated that there should be a policy on tree trimming formulated by landscape architects and that a strong recommendation is needed from the AAC. M/S/C (Hough/Curtis; Neel/Olsen/Whitney absent) continuing the discussion to April 27 for further discussion with the AAC and landscape architects. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. No report was given. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. Staff to review upgrade of landscaping for Desert Flower and Ehrlich Condominium projects on East Palm Canyon Drive, west of Escoba. X April 13, 1988 PC MINUTES Page 15 MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. PLANNI G D RECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall April 27, 1988 1 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1987 - 1988 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 17 2 Hugh Curtis X 19 0 Martha Edgmon X 17 2 Brent Hough X 18 1 Gary Olsen X 16 3 Barbara Whitney - 13 6 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Margo Williams, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - April 25, 1988 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Barbara Whitney, Alternate Tom Doczi Gary Olsen, Alternate . Martha Edgmon, Alternate Mike Buccino William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney absent) approving minutes of April 13, 1988 as submitted. •