Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/12/10 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall December 10, 1986 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL IF-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 9 0 Hugh Curtis - 8 1 Brent Hough X 3 0 Earl Neel - 6 3 Gary Olsen X 7 2 Barbara Whitney X 6 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - December 8, 1986 William Johnson Chris Mills Gary Olsen Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) approving minutes of November 26, 1986, with the following correction: Page 3, Case 3.960, second paragraph. 18' should be changed to 12' . There were no Tribal Council comments. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT 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 (Hough/Olsen; Neel/Curtis absent) taking the following actions: CASE 5.0391-CUP. Application by C. MILLS for M. Salem for architectural approval of final landscape plans for gas station remodel on Indian Avenue between Saturnino Road/Ramon Road, C-2 Zone, (I.L. ) , Section 14. Approved as submitted. CASE 3.983. Application by ROBERT STEELE for architectural approval of final an scape plans for a tire and brake shop on Oasis Road between Del Sol Road/N. Indian Avenue, M-1 Zone, Section 34. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the shrub plan be modified to include different species, more material , and groupings of plants and boulders. 2. That a colored plan be submitted. CASE 3.0148 (MINOR) . Application by F. HATHAWAY & SONS for architectural approval o revised exterior materials for building at 1500 S. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Application denied. (Recommend that natural stone be used. ) CASE 3.576. Application by HAL LACY for Stan Overton for architectural approval of landscape and irrigation plans for single family residence on Milo Drive between Sanborn Way/Racquet Club Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the following condition: That a substitute species for pittosporum phillyraeoides be included. CASE 3.0053. Application by ED KANAN for architectural approval for final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for an apartment complex on Ramon Road/Grenfall Road, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Restudy noting that accurate site plans and planting plan are to be submitted. CASE 3.0054. Application by COMBS GATES AVIATION for architectural approval of—Tandscape and irrigation plans for airport fixed base operator on E1 Cielo Road, ,south of Aviation Way, "A" Zone, Section 18. Approved subject to the following condition: That palms and canopy trees be added per notes on plans. CASE 3.0146 (MINOR). Application by PHILLIP EMBURY for architectural approval of swimming pool and spa at 530 Tahquitz Way, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following: December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0146 (MINOR) . (Continued) 1. That more detailed plans showing how the proposal relates to the existing landscaping, house, road and grades (topography map) shall be submitted. 2. That landscaping shall be revised to "soften the appearance". 3. That stone veneered walls to match the existing walls are recom- mended. CASE 5.0277-PD-149. Application by JOSEPH DAMERON for St. Theresa's Church or architectural approval of parking lot revisions for church on Ramon Road between Compadre Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 13. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0123. Application by HERITAGE RANCH CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised plans for shopping center on North Palm Canyon Drive between Via Escuela/Zanjero Street, C-1, R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. Planning Director stated that the item was continued at the applicant' s request for minor revisions of the plans. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Neel/Curtis absent) continuing the application to January 14, 1987. CASE 5.0417-CUP. Application by MICHAEL BUCCINO for Cherokee Village Resort or architectural approval of revisions to an approved main sign and revised elevations for resort hotel/restaurant and conference facility on Cherokee Way/Hwy 111, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that detailed plans were not submitted by the applicant and recommended continuance. M/S/C (Whitney/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) continuing the item to January 14, 1987. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE . 3.976 (Continued) . Application by WILLIAM KLEINDIENST for KSS Professional ssociation for reconsideration of denial of revised December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.976 (Continued) elevations for an outpatient,medical center on N. Palm Canyon between Tachevah Drive/Vereda Sur, C-1 Zone, Section 10. Planning Director stated that the item had been continued because of a tie vote in the last meeting, which resulted in denial , and that one of the Commissioners voting against the motion (either Whitney or Neel ) would have to make the motion to reconsider. He stated that since Commissioner Neel was absent Commissioner Whitney would be the motioner. Commissioner Whitney stated that she would be more comfortable to have the full complement of Commissioners present to review the case. Chairman stated that the item would be addressed later in the meeting when Commissioners decided whether or not to have an adjourned meeting on December 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRING of revision to Zoning Ordinance (all sections). (Commission response to written comment on Draft Negative Declaration; final approval . No comments received. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the item to January 14, 1987. Planning Director stated that staff had met with the Tribal Council con- sultant full Tribal Council , the Tribal Council Attorney and additional members of the Tribal Council and has resolved some of the Indian's concerns. He recommended continuance for further input in reeti.ngswith the Indians and Indian consultant. He stated that the Tribal Council wants the Indian Ordinance sections delineated through the revised ordinance, not in a separate attachment, which was staff's recommenda- tion. Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances the hearing was closed. (Olsen/Whitney; Neel/Curtis absent) continuing the case to January 14, 1987. NOTE: Chairman stated that he was at the meeting with the Tribal Council and there was good dialogue between the two bodies and only two or three items to be clarified. He stated he felt there was hope for future cooperation with the Indians. CASE 5.0421-PD-185-B. Application by DESERT HOSPITAL CORPORATION for concept approval of a parking lot on the east side of Via Miraleste between December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421-PD-185-B. (Continued) Paseo E1 Mirador/Tachevah Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 11. (This proposal may include the closing of Vereda Del Sur at Via Miraleste. ) (Environmental assessment. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny Case 5.0421-PD-185-B. Planner II (Patenaude) stated that the hospital has submitted a Master Plan to be reviewed by the City and has asked for a preliminary review of a parking lot on the east side of Vereda del Sur at the intersection of Via Miraleste. He stated that the hospital has an option on a portion of the property and has requested City review of the proposed lot, but that staff recommends denial because the parking is more suit- able on the main hospital campus. He stated that the parking lot users would have to cross Via Miraleste to access the hospital and that the lot is an intrusion into an established single family neighborhood, is inconsistent with the General Plan, and would cause an undesirable emergency access situation. He stated that if the application is approved, the conditions recommended by staff are delineated in the staff report. Chairman declared the hearing open. M. Fontana, 1150 N. Indian, Desert Hospital Planner, apologized to the neighbors, stating that the hospital had planned to meet with them to review the parking lot plans before the public hearing, but the renderings for the project were not completed in time. He stated that the hospital planners knew that there would be concern about the pro- posed parking lot because of the single family neighborhood and the fact that the hospital had never tried to establish a use eacst of Miraleste. He explained that the parking lot location is important because it is directly across from the main lobby of the hospital and that because of the growth of the hospital , visitors and employees park on the streets around the hospital , which is not a good situation, and would be partially remedied by the proposed parking lot. He stated also that many of the department expansions will be located on the east side of the hospital and also that additional parking during construction is important. He stated that the approach taken is sensitive and eliminates some of the parking problems. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project: Mrs. D. Waldman, 651 Paseo El Mirador D. Haaka, 688 Vereda del Sur (will take action to place a referendum on the November 1987, ballot and will also take legal action to stop the proposal . ) J . Blair, 9903 Santa Monica Blvd. , Beverly Hills R. Bramley, 630 Paseo El Mirador R. Albrehct, 805 Paseo El Mirador B. Marvey, 780 Paseo El Mirador �.. Mrs. L. Hostrop, 700 Vereda del Sur D. Frid, 687 Vereda del Sur J . Von Glahn, 1194 Via Miraleste December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421-PD-185-B. (Continued) A. Ostendorf, 1784 Stardust Place Those in opposition cited the following objections: - Parking lot threatens the safety and welfare of the community. - Proposal will not relieve parking problems. - Parking will be close to the rear yards of the residences. - Parking lot should be on the campus which has adequate room and also should be moved to the west side of the hospital . - Crime will increase with a completed parking lot near residences. - Accessing and ingressing of the lot will create additional traffic hazards to school children at Catherine Finchy school . - Increase in fumes and noise will result from vehicles. - Street design of the cul-de-sac is dangerous and will hinder access for emergency vehicles. - Neighborhood traffic pattern will change and a quiet street will have heavy traffic. - Lot will encroach into a established residential neighborhood and will lower property values. - A private institution should not be allowed to encroach into a neighbor- hood to subsidize its expansion and profitability. - The parking lot use sets a dangerous precedence. - One parking lot is chained closed for helicopter landings which is a dangerous situation. L... - There will be safety concerns because of the proximity of the lot to the residential area. - The terminus of Vereda del Sur should not be paved since the area is lovely and has large lots. - There are other options for the hospital to pursue, such as parking structures for shade. - A wall on the lot will hinder pedestrians access to the hospital . - There should be no expansion east of Via Miraleste. - The hospital does not monitor parking lots presently for trash and litter from vehicles parked on the lots. - Lower cost land is west and north of the hospital and could be used for parking under an urban renewal program and would not disturb homes on the east side of the hospital . - Homeowners bought in the area to be able to walk to the hospital but a wall would block their way. C. Mills, project architect, 121 N. Palm Canyon, (rebuttal ) stated that measures have been taken to make the lot more sensitive to the area, that the use is an interim one before parking is constructed on the north side of the hospital ; that there is not a problem with a daytime use only of the lot; and major setbacks provided and the area heavily landscaped. He stated that the fire department indicated that the cul- de-sac although longer than normal is allowable because of the location of the fire hydrant and that an access for foot traffic from the cul-de- sac to the hospital will be provided. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421-PD-185-B. (Continued) In reply to Commission question, Mr. Fontana stated that the parking lot is chained to provide a liahted safe lot for women employees atnight and to reserve parking for overlapping. shifiCs. He stated that the grassy area west of the hospital is not suitable for parking because of its lack of proximity to the entry and that placing a parking lot west of the hospital would not resolve the problem of parking close to the lobby because of the distance. He stated that a multi-level parking structure would not be completed until Phase 4, which could be 15 years an the future and that future needs must be addressed in the Master Plan. He stated that north and west side parking would be provided with parking structures in Phases 3 and 4 and the influence east of the hospital diminished, and that the hospital owns some property north of the hospital and that there is a need for more than the 99 spaces in the proposed east parking lot. In reply to Commission question, Mrs. Waldman, who spoke in opposition to the project, stated that a finished parking lot would be more inviting to derelicts and as a hangout, and drinking and littering would increase, and that there is no problem with the vacant lot presently because it cannot be seen. She stated that the lot would be difficult to police and the hospital will not provide protection for the neigh- bors. She commented in regard to the movement of school children that a dangerous situation exists presently and will be compounded by heavier traffic and emergency vehicles. Chairman stated that the problem with the parking lot location is that it is inconsistent with the General Plan and approval would establish a dangerous precedence of expansion to the east across Via Miraleste into an established residential neighborhood. He stated that the hospital has the funds and area for the Master Plan to address parking problems and although the land east of the hospital is owned by the hospital , that direction is a poor one in which to expand. Planning Director stated that the staff has not supported the proposal but gave some recommendations in case the Commission approved the use. He stated that the cul-de-sac was a staff recommendation and not pro- posed originally by the hospital . M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) denying CUP application 5.0417 based on the following findings: 1. That the parking allocated to this lot could possibly be located on the Hospital campus itself. 2. That users of this parking lot must cross a secondary thoroughfare (Via Miraleste) to access the Hospital . 3. That this extension of the Hospital represents an unwarranted intrusion into an established single-family residential neighborhood and is not consistent with the General Plan for the area. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0421-PD-185-B. (Continued) 4. That the closing of Vereda del Sur would essentially create a long cul-de-sac which is undesirable from an emergency access standpoint. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attorney Paul Selzer, representing applicants in Case 3.976 (outpatient surgical center) requested reconsideration of postponement of the case. He stated that he thought that reconsideration would be given at the meeting of December 10 and that the applicants would have otherwise sub- mitted a minor revision if they had realized there was a possibility of continuance. Chairman explained that the motion for reconsideration would have to come from a Commissioner who voted against the motion. Commissioner Whitney stated that it would be better to have more Commissioners present to reconsider the case and suggested that the case be on the adjourned meeting agenda of December 17 (if the meeting is held) . Discussion continued on problems of taking action if there is a meeting on December 17. Planning Director stated that there could be another tie vote depending on the makeup of the Commission at the adjourned meeting. Assistant City Attorney stated that if the Commission declined to make a motion the requested revision would be dead. Commissioner Olsen stated that he had visited the site and was not opposed to the revisions. Mr. Selzer asked that the Commission proceed with the action on the case and stated that if there is a tie vote the applicants will return with a revised plan. - Mrs. C. Cadigan, 2223 Park Drive, requested that the exterior mall colors be changed to desert colors, stating that she lives in the neighborhood and the neighborhood joke is that the neighbors are going to a circus. She requested that pink not be painted against the red tile roof and suggested that the appearance of the center of town is just as important as that of downtown. (Case 3.960). - H. Ostendorf, resident of Fairways Condominiums, requested clarification of the time extension of in the Conditional Use Permit for the Fairways since the homeowners association has requested only enough time to allow persons not living permanently in the condos to comply with the garage conversion condition of the CUP. Planning Director stated that the CUP has a provision for the garage conversion permits to be obtained within 90 days and is impractical for those who are not permanent residents. He recommended a time extension to April 15, 1987. (Case 5.0403-CUP) CASE 3.976 (Continued) . Application by WILLIAM KLEINDIENST for KSS ro essiona ssod ation for reconsideration of denial of revised eleva- tions for an outpatient medical center on N. Palm Canyon between Tachevah Drive/Vereda Sur, C-1 Zone, Section 10. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE 3.976 (Continued) Discussion ensued on action Xhat could be taken on the project. In reply to Commission question Assistant City Attorney stated that one of the Commissioners who voted for the action taken by the Commission would have to make the motion for reconsideration. He stated also that the Commission can decline to reconsider or can reconsider and deny the application, and that the effect would be the same in that the applicant would be required to submit a new application. Chairman stated that only Commissioners Neel and Whitney could make the motion for reconsideration and since Commissioner Neel was not present Commissioner Whitney would be required to do so, and the project could be approved, denied, or modified. Commissioner Whitney stated that she felt that the project should be restudied not denied. M/S/C (Whitney/Olsen; Neel/Curtis absent) to reconsider the action for denial . Planner (Williams) stated that revision are simple and include the beam being moved almost flush with the building and exterior color changes. Commissioner Olsen stated that his concerns were alleviated after a site visit. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Whitney dissented; Neel/Curtis absent) approving the application as submitted. CASE 3.960. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Palm Springs Mall for architectural approval of exterior colors for a remodeled shopping center on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planning Director presented the history of the project revisions. He stated that in January of 1986 the colors, elevation, and site plan and some aspects of the project were approved with the colors to be reviewed in the field that there was a review of actual swatches in the field by the AAC including some Planning Commissioners, and on that basis the applicants painted three base colors. He stated that the reality of this situation is that the color pattern painted is not the pattern shown on the elevations either in intensity or in placement, parti- cularly on the east elevation on Farrell and there is no approval of the colors as applied. He explained that the Camelot theater painting has not been approved. He stated that there was a field trip on December 8 with the AAC and Planning Commission and long discussion between the two bodies. Chairman stated that the colors were approved in the field by the AAC, but not by the Planning Commission. Planning Director agreed. Planner (Williams) stated that several items were discussed at the AAC, including paint application, pattern, and color selection, and that several motions were taken because ofconcerns of the AAC members, for example, the K-mart columns are too strong in color and should probably be peach. She showed color-coded blueprints on the board which depicted December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC C0Mr1ENTS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) the colors of the buildings, as painted, and described the different votes taken on the colors she stated that yellow is the main issue, but that some members feel the yellow should be retained as it is others feel it should be a different shade of yellow. Planning Director stated that one of the comments of the AAC was not suggest specific minor revisions since the impact will probably be the same and changing small areas could lessen the quality of the concept. Commissioner Whitney stated that she agreed with the AAC and did not want to approve placement of color. She stated that the color palette should be approved with the applicant deciding on its application, and that the basic problem is the color represented as cream which is really yellow. She commented that the other colors are palatable and that the yellow color should be discussed and a decision reached. Commissioner Olsen stated that he remembered that the applicants indicated that the mall colors would resemble the north face, and they do not, and that if the elevations had been painted like the rendering he would have been satisfied. He stated that he had a problem with the intensity, and that maybe the City is faced with having to choose alter- natives now that the colors are painted on the building. He stated that he does not like the colors. Commissioner Hough stated that he would like to see all four sides pre- sented and a different shade of yellow might be acceptable. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, Project Architect, stated that it is impossible to depict colors accurately on a rendering, that specific colors from the manufacturer were shown, that it seemed that five of the six colors are acceptable and that he was surprised at the Commissions adversion to the yellow, since four members of the AAC voted to retain it. He stated that he had been review any another color for the remainder of the buildings, or perhaps minimizing the use of the yellow color, but it seems that the AAC voted 7-0 to retain the basic palette. Chairman questioned Commission on the yellow color. Planning Director stated that the four design members of the AAC felt that yellow should be retained as it is. Mr. Christian stated that the issue seems to be split among the AAC members. Chairman asked whether or not the colors as painted were approved. Planning Director stated that they were not approved, although the applicant was told that the three base colors were accept- able and that several people have stated they do not care about the pattern, just the overall palette. He stated that the interpretation of the colors is vital and that there could be a sophisticated look that would be supported at the City Council . Chairman stated that staff recommends a continuance to an adjourned meeting on December 17 with the AAC and that during the interim the architect can meet with staff to reorganize the colors. He suggested that the architect present a painting scheme around the building because December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) if not done, the Council will make a decision on the palette, and it will be beige. Mr. Christian stated that he felt that the distribution of colors except for the base colors would not change the character of the building and that discussion of placement of the colors could be endless. He stated that the AAC indicated that once the palette is selected the application should be at the discretion of the developer, and that there is a lot of yellow shown in the elevations on the board. He asked if a presentation should be made to the Commission at the December 17 adjourned meeting, but stated that he doubted if such a presentation would be of great assistance to the Commission. He requested that the color situation be resolved at the December 10 meeting. Commissioner Olsen stated that it would be a mistake to grant approval without more details and that if the actual colors had been shown, the project would not have been approved. He stated that the AAC is able to visualize the colors on the buildings, but he cannot and renderings need to be presented. Commissioner Hough agreed. He stated that the sides of the mall differ and affect the colors. Mr. Christian stated again that is difficult to indicate colors precisely. Commissioner Whitney suggested that the actual colors be brought to the Wednesday meeting. She also suggested that alternative colors be pre- sented using the five colors other than yellow. She recommended using the lighter peach and lighter yellow portions of the palette. Chairman suggested that the yellow be eliminated. Mr. Christian stated that he was considering eliminating it, but that the AAC wants to retain it. Commissioner Whitney questioned whether or not the Commission should become involved in individual colors, or should choose a palette. Discussion continued. Chairman suggested that the colors be painted on a board for review. Mr. Christian stated that it would be difficult, and that tonality is represented on the buildings even if the colors are shocking. Chairman recommended no further painting until the issue is resolved. Mr. Christian requested that the purple stripe be allowed to be painted on the fascia of the buildings because it has an interaction with the yellow. Commissioner Whitney stated that further painting would compound the problem. M/S/C (Whitney/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) continuing the application to the adjourned meeting of December 17. CASE 5.0426-MISC (Continued). Planning Commission review of proposed specific plan for Landau Blvd. , Cathedral City. Planning Director stated that the case was continued by Cathedral City for further review by Palm Springs and is a proposal for alignment of Landau Blvd. which affects Palm Springs in a small triangular parcel December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE 5.0426-MISC (Continued) west of the bowling alley on, Ramon, and north of the Ramon Road bridge and is an alignment of Landau which connects with Dinah Shore and runs northerly to Vista Chino and beyond. He stated that the alignment would affect City limits at the Whitewater Wash and 50 feet of the "N" zonal City parcel would be removed by right of way dedication. He stated that Cathedral City is recommending that the parcel be annexed into Cathedral City. He stated that Palms Springs Planning staff feels that there are inconsistencies in the proposal in as much as the right-of-way at the south end is 60 feet and the north end is 100 feet, and that there is a bike path on the west side which would affect the dike. He stated that part of the cost of signalization of Landau and Ramon would be borne by the parcel with little benefit to the City, and that staff recommends that the cost would have to be borne by Cathedral City since it will not be developed in the near future. He recommended that the roadway width be reduced as much as possible including bike paths and sidewalk area and that traffic engineering be reviewed further along Ramon with the possibility of closure of the major entrance of the bowling alley, and the entry moved further east away from the intersection. He recommended that the Commission support the concept with specific recommendations on right-of-way width being developed by staff and transmitted to Cathedral City. He stated that the parcel is Indian-owned. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) supporting staff's recommenda- tions as indicated above. L.� CASE 3.0097 (Ref. Case 3.309). Request by D. CHRISTIAN, for the Courtyard, or clarification of conditions of requirement to attach columns to the building for revisions to the Courtyard shopping complex on Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone, Section 14. Planning Director stated that project architect David Christian requested clarification of the Commission condition that the columns tie back into the buildings. He stated that the architect feels that the condition does not work architecturally. Discussion ensued on attachment of the columns, D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that the AAC recommended that the columns be freestanding. Planner (Williams) stated that two members of the AAC voted against freestanding columns. Mr. Christian stated that connection to the building is awkward and that the freestanding columns define space with- out being attached. Planner (Williams) stated that the AAC upheld its previous action for the columns to be freestanding. Planning Director stated that the AAC recommended freestanding, but that the Commission approved attached columns• Commissioner Olsen stated that the end columns were the ones recommended to be attached. �-' Discussion ensued on the location of the columns. Mr. Christian stated that he felt the offset freestanding columns and connection to the ends would not have strength, and would be awkward with two of the columns December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE 3.0097 (Ref. Case 3.309) . (Continued) connected and four freestanding. Commissioner Hough stated that the columns are only noticeable as freestanding at the east and west ends. Discussion continued. Planning Director stated that pedestrians can pass between the columns and the building at the courtyard level but not at street 1 evel , and that the col umns wi 11 ri se to the top of the roof element of the center building. Chairman stated that the Commission action was to tie the columns to the building. Mr. Christian stated that he was designing the columns as decorative elements, like sculpture, and that they would resemble the freestanding columns at Wally's Desert Turtle Restaurant. Discussion continued on the symmetry of the columns. Planning Director stated that the canopies on the buildings tie into the buildings. Mr. Christian stated that the columns' appearance above the fascia line is not a problem, but that attached the design will not work because there is a problem in retaining the column space. Commissioner Whitney stated that she felt that the free standing columns added interest to the building. M/S (Olsen/Whitney; Neel/Curtis absent) for approval of freestanding columns. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Olsen, Whitney Noes: Lapham, Hough Absent: Neel , Curtis There was a tie vote resulting in denial . Discussion continued. Chairman stated that there are several design options for attached columns open to the architect and suggested that the long flat fascia have some relief. Mr. Christian stated that attaching the columns could be a weak relationship. Planning Director stated that he would not be in favor of making the building heavier in appearance to the street. Mr. Christian stated that he would appeal the denial of the freestanding columns to the Council . CASE 3.0141 (Continued) . Application by JETWAY SYSTEMS for Skywest for nvironmenta ssessment/Initial Study of an aircraft/hush house facility on Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 18. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. One letter received. Planner (Evans) stated that the AAC restudied the architecture and that staff recommends filing of a Draft Negative Declaration. He stated that one letter had been received from Cathedral City stating that noise from December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE 3.0097 (Ref. Case 3.309). (Continued) the project would not affect Cathedral City, but recommend establishment of a noise monitoring system. ' M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Neel/Curtis absent) ordering the filing of' a Draft Negative Declaration and restudy of the architecture. NOTE: Planning Director later in the meeting stated that the applicant wanted to finalize the site plan in order to finalize his lease, which will be sent to Council on December 17 and that conditions of approval will need to be established and the site plan fixed. Planner (Evans) stated that the architecture will be restudied and that the AAC had no major concerns with the site plan but did not vote and suggested moving the driveway away from the site line to the ramp although staff feels that the lineal site line is necessary because of the activity on the site. He stated that the committee was also con- cerned about that only the street elevation did not resemble a standard hangar. He noted that the AAC recommended that the roof line be restudied. He stated that the facility is designed to conduct noise from the hangar to Ramon Road. Planning Director stated that the facility would be subject to AAC and Development Committee conditions. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) approving the site plan and land use as proposed, and restudy of the architecture subject to staff, AAC, and Development Committee Conditions. CASE 5.0403-CUP. Request by FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for a time extension for conditions of a conditional use permit to change the original CUP regarding parking requirements for a condominium project located on Crossley Road, NWO-5 Zone, Section 20. Planner (Vankeeken) stated that this application was approved in August to allow parking on the street and conversion of garages, and that some of the residents have applied for building permits, but the majority of the homeowners are seasonal and have not returned to the desert, so staff is recommending an extension of the deadline for applying for building permits to April 15. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Neel/Curtis absent) extending the deadline for the conditional use permit to April 15, in order to allow seasonal residents to comply with the garage conversion condition. CASE 3.0150 (MINOR) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for architectural approval of landscape plans for Crossley Road as extension of driving range, "0" Zone, Section 20. Planner (Patenaude) stated that the City is extending the driving range 300 feet along Crossley Road, which would affect property across the street from the Fairways Condominiums so landscaping will be added for screening, as well as for screening from the water park and settling ponds proposed by the DWA. He stated that berming is proposed along December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) CASE CASE 3.0150 (MINOR) . (Continued) Crossley and oleanders and olives as well as Sumachs. He stated that clusters of palms will be at the entrance at the end of the berms and at the entrance of the condominium complex, and that the AAC recommended approval of the landscape concept. He explained further that the golf course wants a driving range screen along the existing length of the driving range, which would be 20 feet high on either end with a 40 foot section in the center, but that AAC recommends denial and suggested that the golf course reorient the driving range to the northwest so balls will be diverted from Crossley Road. Commissioner Olsen questioned whether or not the landscaping was planned for all the way down to the edge of Crossley, and planner responded that it is on Crossley Road at that point and the turf would be extended along the edge of Crossley Road. He stated, in reply to Commission question, that if orientation of the course were rotated, there would still be landscaping provided. Chairman commented that the AAC approved the landscape, but denied the screen. Planner stated that rotation was recommended by staff, but that staff is not forcing the golf course to change of orientation. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Neel/Curtis absent) approving the landscape application and denying the driving range screen. CASE 5.0418-CUP. Application by CHRIS MILLS for Mark Hastings for a conditional use permit to allow a preschool day care center for 48 children on Racquet Club Road between Farrell Drive/Cerritos Road, R-1-C Zone, Section. Planning Director stated that the application was denied by the Commission in October, but appealed to the Council who overrode the Planning Commission denial , with a condition that the case be returned to the Commission to establish of Development Committee and staff conditions. He stated that the AAC recommended a restudy of the colors which are proposed to be bright pink, orange, and a odd green. He recommended conditions as set forth and preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration. He stated also that the Commission should order the preparation of a draft negative declaration. Chairman explained that in voting on the case the Commission would not be approving or disapproving, but setting conditions of the Conditional Use Permit since the case has been approved by Council . M/S/C (Whitney/Olsen; Neel/Curtis absent) approving the conditions as recommended by staff; ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration; and continuing the item to January 14, 1987 for Commission response to written comments on the preparation of the draft. December 109 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. No report was given by staff. ADJOURNMENT Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. to December 17, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room, City Hall . (The adjourned meeting will be held in conjunction with the regularly scheduled Planning Commission study session.) MDR/ml WP/PC MINS f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 14, 1987 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 11 0 Hugh Curtis, Vice Chairman X 10 1 Martha Edgmon X 5 0 Brent Hough X 5 0 Earl Neel X 8 3 Gary Olsen X 8 3 Barbara Whitney X 8 1 Martha Edgmon X 1 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Carol Vankeeken, Planner Richard Patenaude, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - January 12, 1987 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino William Johnson Gary Olsen Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Report of Posting of Agenda. Agenda available for public access at City Hall Lobby counter, Planning Division counter, and Library Reference Room, by 1:30 p.m. , Friday, January 9, 1987. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney) approving minutes of December 10 &TT1111986, with the following corrections: indicate • 1. December 17 adjourned minutes, pages after front page /"December 10, 1986" (should be December 17).