Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/12/17 - MINUTES r ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall December 17, 1986 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 10 0 Hugh Curtis X 9 1 Brent Hough X 4 0 Earl Neel X 7 3 Gary Olsen - 7 3 Barbara Whitney X 7 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director 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 - In attendance. Chris Mills Absent: William Johnson Tom Doczi Gary Olsen Barbara Whitney Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 0 CASE 3.960. Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Palm Springs Mall for architectural approval of exterior colors for remodeled shopping center on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planning Director stated that the application had been reviewed several times and continued for further information by the architect and staff, that the approved colored elevations are on the board and colored blue lines represented what was actually painted at the Mall . He stated that the architect also has brought 2 X 2 foot panels of the architectural colors to the meeting. He stated that the colors do not correspond to the original approval , that he took slides of the Mall and the Camelot Theater to depict the colors, and that the Camelot colors have not been approved. He stated that the colors appear bolder in the field than represented on the renderings. Planner (Williams) showed the color board and stated that some of the colors are not as represented, and the placement has shifted. Planning Director presented the slides and stated that there is lack of continuity from section to section with nothing to tie the colors together. Chairman stated that the color scheme of the theater is organized and the use of yellow highlights the scheme and has a more pleasing effect, but that the main building of the Mall has no color organization. He stated that the yellow is better as an accent color than as a mass color. Planning Director stated that it is difficult to relate the color board to the actual painting because of the complexity of the architecture and actual relationships between colors as used. Chairman stated that if the colors had been presented as they actually are, they would not have been approved. David Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Project Architect, stated that color is a subjective issue, and that direction is needed for a solution. He stated that the colors depicted on the blueline are true. Commissioner Curtis stated that the true colors should have been given to the Commission in the beginning. Mr. Christian stated that the relationship of the colors was not pleasing as originally conceived, and were changed in the field and a specific palette developed. He stated that six intense colors are being used. Commissioner Hough and Chairman Lapham stated that there is no resemblance to the actual colors depicted on the board to those painted on the building. Commissioner Curtis stated that the color scheme was approved from the sample board but the elevations were not reviewed in the field which is the problem. He stated that he knew at the time that the colors would not be pleasing and that their placement was not what he envisioned. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 3.960 (Continued) Chairman stated that the Commission is committed to a lively color scheme, but that he does not like the disorganized color scheme, and that the trim color is overpowering. He stated that the other Commissioners did not like the scheme, and that the colors should be better organized and have less contrast. Commissioner Curtis stated that the architecture was well designed and does not need the colors which are much brighter than anticipated. Mr. Christian asked if peach and pink could be used in some of the columns. Chairman explained that the color selection could not be made by the Commissioners and that the architect should reorganize the colors. Mr. Christian replied he was trying to complete the color scheme in a way that would be acceptable, but that there are no correct answers to this subjective issue. Commissioner Hough stated that the yellow and its volume is objection- able. Mr. Christian replied that not all the yellow will be seen because of the angles of the buildings. Mr. Christian also stated that another color could be used if agreed upon by the entire Commission. Commissioner Whitney commented that a direction could be given on acceptable colors and those that should be used less. Chairman stated that an opinion and consensus could be given but that the yellow color does not fit the palette. Commissioner Whitney remarked that the yellow should be lightened but not eliminated. AAC member Buccino asked if the yellow should have less volume, and Chairman explained that it should be used as an accent color, the way it is painted on the Camelot. Discussion continued on possible base and accent colors. Planning Director stated that the number of colors could be less thus lessening the impact, but that there seems to be eagerness to grab attention instead of letting good architecture make a statement. He stated that the base should be simplified with accent colors applied at various places, and that the Council will be scrutinizing the palette, and that the colors may have to be sorted out at the Council level . AAC member Mills stated that he likes the colors exactly the way they are as a solution to the concept begun by the architect, that the Camelot colors are excellent with the architecture delineated by the painting, but that the Mall may not look as well and a more organized approach would be better. He stated that perhaps the columns would be painted the same color for continuity, that the yellow has been used on two other successful projects. He stated that in time the controversy will end and the colors will be acceptable. AAC member Doczi stated that the elevation colors should be reviewed from an overall standpoint, rather than review of individual colors. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 3.960 (Continued) Commissioner Neel stated that the Camelot is well done, but there is too large a mass of yellow on the Mall , and that the color intensity should be lessened. Discussion continued. In reply to Mr. Christian's question, Mr. Curtis stated that the Mall colors were a problem when the colors were placed without Commission approval . Mr. Christian answered that staff was con- tacted about the procedure on painting and was told that a colored sample should be painted on the building for AAC review and that the 3 base colors were approved in the field, but that the accent colors were painted at the developer's risk because the accent colors were to be painted in sAall areas. Discussion continued. Commissioner Curtis reiterated that the architec- ture should speak for itself, and that the yellow should be eliminated. AAC member Kleindienst stated that a palette should be accepted or not. Chairman stated that the colors should be organized like those of the Camelot. Mr. Christian explained that the Camelot is a single separate freestanding building and that is why the colors are effective. He stated that he could paint the Mall peach and trim with the other colors, which would not be a bold combination. Planning Director disagreed stating that peach scheme with accent colors is still a bold statement, and that he was shocked even with the three base colors. He stated that the east side of the Mall was approved with a softer combination, with a primarily peach palette. Mr. Christian stated that there are several panels on the east side that are pink. Planning Director stated that the pink is not approved as a field color. Discussion continued. Mr. Christian stated that some areas have to be yellow, and that it is a real dilemma. Commissioner Hough stated that the dilemma is the intensity. Planning Director stated that the intensity of the colors has not changed and the yellow shown was approved, but that the placement of the yellow on K-mart was not approved. Mr. Christian explained that the color palette matches closely the blue line colors, but even if some of the colors were changed, the palette would still be a strong statement. Chairman stated that the Commission could not act as color consultants. AAC member Kleindienst asked if any of the colors originally submitted were approved. Chairman answered that there was supposed to be a second approval by the Commission, but that the Commission did not take further action. Planning Director stated that the color board was conditionally approved by the Commission. Mr. Christian explained that he was told by staff that three base colors were approved, but that the developer understood that the secondary colors were not. Planning Director repeated that the Planning Commission approved the color palette subject to field review. Commissioner Curtis stated that Commission reviewed the rendering for color, but what was painted was not on the renderings. Mr. Christian repeated that he had been in contact with staff constantly and that he was given approval to proceed. Planning Director stated that the architect had gotten permission for the three field colors, but there was disagreement on which were the field colors and that the normal review was circumvented because of the urgency to open the K-Mart �.., store. Mr. Christian stated that any combination of the colors would have the same effect. December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 3.960 (Continued) Chairman and Commissioner Curtis disagreed with the architect. Mr. Christian stated that once the colors are on the east side, there will be the same impact. Commissioner Curtis suggested that the Camelot colors be used without the punch of the other colors. Discussion continued. Gary Victerson of Benequity, Mall owners, stated that the colors and basic overall theme were approved, and that some color changes were made in the field although not drastic ones, but that the concept was not changed. Regarding the north elevations he stated that he would like to work with the AAC and Commission and staff to make adjustments, but he wanted to maintain the general overall concept and most of the color palette. Regarding the east side, he stated that it was painted with the approval of the City, but that minor elements could be changed. He stated he would not repaint the entire east side. AAC member Doczi suggested action on the north side renderings. Mr. Christian also requested action on the north side, since a definite submittal has been submitted. Commissioner Curtis suggested elimination of yellow as a base color or changing the yellow to coordinate better with the other colors, and restudy of currently existing colors to lessen their impact to meet the intent of the original colored elevations including the reorganization of the colors and architecture. M/S/C (Curtis/Hough; Whitney dissented; Olsen absent) for a restudy recommending the following: That the yellow color be eliminated as a base color or changed to another color which better coordinates with the remainder of the palette; restudy of the placement and organization of the colors to better coordinate with the architecture; and approving the colors of the Camelot Theatre as painted. NB: The above is a summarization by Chairman of the motion by Commissioner Curtis indicating that the intent of the motion is that the colors be restudied to lessen the impact to meet the intent of the original colored elevations so they better coordinate with the entire architecture and color scheme. Commissioner Whitney dissented stating a concern over the elimination of the yellow from the palette which might have the effect of intensifying the impact of the remaining colors. CASE 3.0141. Application by JETWAY SYSTEMS for Skywest for review of revised elevations for an aircraft/hush house facility on Gene Autry Trail between Vista Chino/Ramon Road, A Zone, Section 18. Planner (Evans) stated that Skywest is negotiating a lease with the City on Airport property and needs the full impact of the lease to be known and needs to know conditions of approval . He stated that the item was not added to the December 17 Council agenda and that AAC member Mills who left the meeting left comments on the hush house architecture. He December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CASE 3.0141 (Continued) stated that there was concern on integration of the elements of the building, primarily on the south elevation and also concerns on the roof line. He stated that the AAC recommended a full elevation on all three sides, that Mr. Mills felt the elevations were better, and that the parapet would be acceptable since the design for Skywest is exactly like that of Jimsair (an existing facility). He stated that the original elevations were restudied for a better transition in the roof element from the maintenance facility to the office. AAC member Kleindienst stated that he has seen better designed hangers and that he did not like the multiple building look, and that a large building such as the proposed one needs articulation comparable to its scale. He stated that the Jimsair hanger is also poorly articulated. Planner stated that the location is on Gene Autry Trail next to Jimsair and that the parcel to the north is City owned and will have a large building on it in the future, and will be roughly in the same location. He stated that the Skywest building will face east and open south. In response to Commission question, AAC member Kleindienst stated that the design should be restudied. B. Lueng, project architect, stated that the renderings show the same architecture as the buildings currently at the airport, and that the applicant did not want to establish another type of architecture for a maintenance building which is not a publicly used building. He explained reasons for the building's configuration. Chairman stated that the Commission is only concerned about the Gene Autry Trail elevation. Discussion continued. Commissioner Curtis asked the reasons for the attachment of the office to the main hanger. Mr. Lueng stated that the hush house is a facility for engine run ups and precludes the attachment of the hush house to the main building because of vibration. Planner stated that because of setback requirements from the ramp and runway the buildings are on the setback lines, and that rearranging the buildings would cost landscaping and also that setbacks would be lost. AAC member Kleindienst stated that even though it is a non-public building it is still on a public street. Discussion continued. Mr. Kleindienst recommended restudy of the architecture to show relief in the facade. G. Stinson of Jetway Systems, the applicant, stated that the style was revised to show texture. He stated that the rear of the buildings will be obscured by landscaping, and that palm trees will obscure the pitch side of the roof at the corners (similar to the appearance of Jimsair). He stated that the fact that the building will be obscured in the future by another large building should be considered. He explained that Skywest will be bringing in another plane next month and the building is necessary for maintenance. He stated that bright colors were avoided and colors similar to that of Combs-Gates were chosen. Chairman stated that the AAC probably did not recommend putting parapets on the building (Mr. Kleindienst agreed) , and that the Commission December 10, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 i CASE 3.0141 (Continued) consensus is a restudy of the elevations fronting Gene Autry Trail with resolution of the problems left to the architect. He stated that no approval of the hanger could be given because there are problems with the site plan. AAC member Buccino asked for directions for the Gene Autry elevation. Mr. Lueng stated that he did not want to do an architectural overkill , and that the administration building had to be as tall as the hangar because of the air conditioning equipment. S. Adkins, Vice-President of Skywest, requested approval stating he had tried to comply with the appearance of the present buildings on the airport, that aircraft are being delivered, and that the facility must be open. He stated that because of the restudy the Council review of December 17 had been missed. He requested understanding of the deadlines from the Commission. Chairman stated that whatever is built on the airport will be there 50 years, that Jimsair is a good design and the Commission should not lower standards. He stated that the applicants could design a better building. AAC member Kleindienst stated that he did not like Jimsair because it had no articulation and is a large metal shack, and that the subject proposal has three elements and a chance to have articulation. Discussion ensued at the board on the location of the buildings. Planning Director stated that perhaps the office building could be moved southerly. Mr. Stinson explained that a noise footprint had to be followed and that the building locations are determined by the functions of the buildings. M/S/C (Whitney/Neel ; Olsen absent) for a restudy, directing the application to staff and the AAC to find a solutio that satisfies the AAC, at which point the Planning Commission will consider the project approved, and the applicants can proceed. Discussion ensued. Planning Director stated that staff would work with the architect on colors as well as design r_evision.s. Chairman left the meeting. PLANNING D_r_R R MDR/ml WP/PC MINS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 14, 1987 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1986 - 1987 Present Preseo't Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to pate 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 r Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino William Johnson :' Gary Olsen J" Tom Doczi Barbara Whitney Brent Hough` Will Klein,dienst Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. f 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 &' 17' 1986, with the following corrections: indicate 1. December 17 adjourned minutes, pages after front page /"December 10, 1986" (should be December 17) .