Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/01/14 - MINUTES 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 & 17, 1986, with the following corrections: indicate 1. December 17 adjourned minutes, pages after front page/"December 10, 1986" (should be December 17). �j January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 2. December 10, Case 3.0141, pg. 6, paragraph one, change wording from "acceptable" to benefic al ". 3. December 10, Case 5.0400-ZTA, pg. 4, paragraph 8: Delete "not in a separate attachment"; He stated that the Tribal Council wants to retain the Indian Ordinance as a separate document, perhaps as an appendix in the Zoning Ordinance." ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Although Chairman was present at the meeting, Vice-Chairman presided. He welcomed new Commissioner Martha Edgmon, businesswoman and long time resident of Palm Springs as a new Planning Commissioner. 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 (Lapham/Neel ) taking the following actions: CASE 5.0417-CUP (Continued). Application by MICHAEL BUCCINO for Cherokee Village Resort for architectural approval of revised main identification sign for resort hotel , restaurant, and conference facility on Cherokee Way/Hwy 111, R-G-A(8) Zone, Section 30. Removed from the agenda. CASE 3.970. Application by CLAUDE SMITHERN for architectural approval of a garage conversion and an additional garage at 2285 Janis Drive, R-1-B Zone, Section 3. Approved subject to the following condition: That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 3.0053. Application by ED KANAN for architectural approval of detailed --landscape plans for apartment complex on Ramon Road/Grenfall Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 23. Removed from the agenda. CASE 3.0006. Application by KAPTUR AND CIOFFI for Casa Verde Associates for architectural approval of revised elevations/working drawings for apart- ment complex on Amado Road between Hermosa Drive/Sunrise Way, R-4 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the trellis be extended beyond end pole. 2. That one (1) foot recess on windows is acceptable. 3. That trellis members be recessed with 6" lag bolt. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0103. Application by HAROLD PALLVINY for architectural approval of andscape plans for hillside residences on Ridge Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. Approved subject to the following condition: That the Mesquite trees at the northwest corner of the site be increased to 24" box. 3.0157 (MINOR) . Application by IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY for Rodeway Inn for architectural approval of main identification sign for hotel at 1893 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Restudy noting the following: That the colors be in earth tones or com- pa Fi e to the rock. CASE 3.0158 (MINOR) . Application by QUIEL BROTHERS SIGN COMPANY for Vick's Texaco for architectural approval of monument identification sign for service station on the northeast corner of Sunrise Way/Vista Chino, C-1 Zone, Section 1. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That a 2" reveal between the sign and monument be red. 2. That the monument be poured concrete, gray in color. TIME EXTENSION-TTM 20435 (Ref. Case 5.0333-CZ) . Request by SANBORN WEBB INC. or Vincent Pirozzi for a twelve-month time extension for a Tentative Tract Map to divide one lot into 6 for single family residences on the west side of Via Miraleste, south of Francis Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 2. Approved subject to all original conditions of approval with the new expiration date to be January 14, 1988. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0077. Application by City of Palm Springs for review of revised roofing material for Frances Stevens School complex, Palm Canyon Drive at Alejo Road, 0 Zone, Section 10. (Note: Building is Class 7 historic site. ) Planning Director stated that the City Council requested that the Commission review the roof materials since the building is an historic one, that when the building was remodeled in 1973, the engineers found that the old roof tile was too heavy for the underlying structure, and that aluminium lightweight the material was placed on the roof, but there have been problems because of its susceptibility to the wind and because it cannot be walked on. He stated that the AAC recommended that concrete "S" the be used with some structural bracing instead of the large sheet tile because the AAC felt the large sheet tile did not give the appropriate shadowed appearance to the building. He stated that no exterior changes will be made to reinforce the structure. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0077. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney stated that because of its historic significance the building should be roofed properly. M/S/C (Neel/Lapham) approving concrete "S" the for the roof (with the large light weight tile sheet denied. ) CASE 3.0097 (MINOR) . Application by DAVID CHRISTIAN for American Diversified Capital Corporation for architectural approval of working drawings for retail complex (Courtyard) at 777 E. Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone, Section 14. Planner (Williams) described the design of the showcases and stated that the AAC approved the design as glass and recommended review together of the glass block and tile paint color samples, and took no action on the attachment of the columns to the structures although the AAC had recom- mended previously that the columns be freestanding. D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, described the columns as freestanding, internally lighted sculptures, that the bank building and theater building are to be the anchors of the design, and that attaching the columns would compromise the design. He stated that the showcases would be freestanding between the columns. In reply to Commission's question, he stated that the face of the theater is in line with the face of the columns, not the face of the retail building and is an architectural element with the columns that the lobby has a strong light element, that the lights will also be in the columns and cases, and that no light source will be seen. He stated that the lighting along the front will bring interest to the facility as a retail center. Planning Director stated that the bank and the theater between the building and the columns. Commissioner Hough stated that when viewed from west to east it seems that the two end columns should be attached to the building, but that the theater is forward on the property far enough to block the view. Planning Director stated that the theater is a dominant element and will create a back drop to the columns, but that space would be seen by persons next to the sunken buildings looking out. Mr. Christian explained that columns are necessary but should not dominant with the overall perception using the columns as links to establish the retail character of the center. He stated that the orange tile bands will be repainted with epoxy paint and that painted tile of the same shape will be on the columns. Planning Director stated that the applicants want a more retail-oriented appearance, and that the freestanding columns could also be placed around the sides at the parking entrance as a unifying element. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ACTION AGENDA CASE 3.0097 (MINOR) . (Continued) In reply to Commission question, he stated that the theater is set back 30 feet and the bank is approximately 25 feet. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Hough dissented) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the display cases are acceptable as all glass. 2. That the tile paint color and glass block samples are to be submitted for review. 3. That the columns are approved as freestanding. 4. That the color of the lights and the light intensity be reviewed by the AAC and Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0400-ZTA (Continued) . Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of revisions to t e oning Ordinance (all sections). (Commission response to written comments on the Draft Negative Declaration. ) Recommendation: That the Commission continue the case to January 28. Planning Director stated that staff and Tribal Council have been working together on the ordinance and are close to an agreement, that the ordinance language has not been completed, that the Indian ordinance is shown in a legislative draft form (with deletions and corrections for clarity), that the Indian ordinance will have much less volume in the final ordinance, that most differences between the Indians and the non- Indian ordinance will be eliminated,the highrise ordinance will still allow 100 ft. height overall on Indian land, that the setback standards will have a moderate effect on the current setbacks, that staff proposes a deletion of the additional density for apartments on Indian land and recommends maintaining additional density for hotels, and that the only land that would be affected would be the land around the convention center. He stated that the Indians request additional language for flexibility of development of small lots in industrial areas, that a new zone could be developed for hotels only in the ordinance, and that staff is recommending continuance of the case to January 28. He stated that the Commission has received a letter from the Board of Realtors to open an old subject--off site signs for real estate, and open houses, and "for sale" properties. He stated that off-site signs have a significant impact on the character of the community and after hours of discussion in the past the Commission prohibited them in the ordinance, and that January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) ram-' off site signs if allowed would weaken the City's posture on off-site billboards and off-site signs of all types. He noted that there are other ways to advertise and that discussion on this subject could be continued to the January 21 Planning Commission study session. Chairman declared the hearing open. S. Remball , P.O. Box 1781, Palm Springs, representing the Board of Realtors, requested discussion with the Commission on off site signing. He stated that he felt that off site signing has nothing to do with billboards. Chairman requested that Mr. Remball submit any information to the Commission at the January 21 study session. Mr. Remball answered that the letter in the form of a petition distri- buted to the Commissioners at the meeting is the submittal and requested Commission input. Planning Director stated that the Zoning Ordinance is open currently, that the sign ordinance is part of the Zoning Ordinance and that there are some amendments to the Sign Ordinance in the draft. He stated that off-site signing was discussed with the real estate and business community during the public hearings 18 months ago, but if the Commission desired, the issue could be placed on the study session agenda, and an invitation extended to the Board of Realtors. Mr. Remball stated that he attended the meeting 3 years previously but the subject was not addressed. Chairman reminded Mr. Remball that the Commission met on the Sign Ordinance at many public hearings including one that lasted to midnight and input was received from the real estate community. He stated that it is not appropriate to reopen the issue, but that further input could be received from the realtors at the study session. S. Hecht, 756 N. Palm Canyon, Chairman of the Board of Realtors' Licensing and Sign Committee, requested review of the petition and stated that the realtors would be present at the study session. There being no further appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman commended staff and stated that staff is developing a single document approved by both the City and the Tribal Council which will resolve a multitude of problems for the City. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon abstained) continuing the case to January 28, 1987. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "A draft of Revised Ordinance No. 779 (Indian Land Ordinance) of the City of Palm Springs dated January 5, 1987, has been received and is being reviewed by the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued) Consultant. The revisions appear to address many of the concerns and regvests heretofore expressed by the Tribal Council that certain ordinances and agreements relating to the use and development of Indian trust lands be incorporated into the Revised Zoning Ordinance. The Tribal Council understands that the City Planning Staff will be sub- mitting additional material relative to proposed revisions to Property Development Standards for the "M-I" and "M-I-P" Zones. Pending receipt and review of the Property Development Standards referred to above, the Tribal Council will submit final comments to the City Planning Commission on the revised Zoning Ordinance, including revised Ordinance No. 779 and the Property Development Standards for the "M-I" and "M-I-P" Zones. The City Planning Commission's and Planning Staff's assistance and cooperation in this matter have been appreciated." CASE 5.0427-CUP. Application by RICHARD FISCHER for S. Bono for a on itional Use Permit for a discotheque on the lower level of an existing restaurant (Bono's) at 1700 N. Indian Avenue between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, R-3 Zone, Section 2. (Environmental assessment; tentative approval . ) Recommendation that the Commission order preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, give tentative approval to the case, and continue it to January 28. Planner (Williams) presented the case and stated that adequate parking exists for both the restaurant and disco, that the tennis club portion has been defunct for a minimum of two years, and that if reactivated additional parking would be required (33 spaces). She stated that some phone calls and letters have been received objecting to the traffic and noise that would be generated, and also to the neglected appearance of the perimeter landscaping of the property. She stated that conditions of approval would include measures to lessen noise and for upgrading of the landscaping. Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Fischer, project architect, stated that he was present to answer questions. W. Evans, 2180 Milburn Street, stated that most of his objections have been addressed but that because of the residential character of the neighborhood, noise measurements should be made, that he was pleased with the condition to upgrade the landscaping on the perimeter, and that the Commission should be aware that there have been drug problems on the site. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0427-CUP. (Continued) Planning Director stated that one condition of approval is that no out- side activities be allowed related to the nightclub use, that regulations require that the nightclub doors be closed, and the Noise Ordinance limits the decibel level at the property line, which should be adequate. He stated that the Commission can review conditions if problems arise, and also a specific condition could be developed to address the noise issue. There being no further appearances, Vice-Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that no exterior walls will be moved. Commissioner Olsen suggested that double- paned glass be used for containment of the noise. Mr. Fischer stated that the disco is subterranean on three sides with a masonry wall on the fourth and that no glass is involved. Planning Director stated that the only glass area is in the dining area on the second floor which now encloses a veranda. M/S/C (Hough/Lapham) ordering the preparation of a Draft Negative Declaration, giving tentative approval to the project, and continuing the case to January 28. Note: In reply to Commission question on the possibility of estab- lishing conditions to control the noise, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission may make any condition that is appropriate, but that Commissioner Lapham seconded the original motion which did not include the condition to abate noise. CASE 6.355-VARIANCE. Application by RICHARD FISCHER for H. Wouk for a variance to allow a reduction in sideyard setbacks for an existing single family hillside residence at 303 Crestview Drive, R-1-C Zone, Section 27. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA. ) Recommendation: That the Commission deny Case 6.355-Variance. Planner (Williams) presented the project and stated the reason for the variance is to build a kosher kitchen which requires a separate pre- paration area, and that it is difficult to achieve because of the rock interior wall , but that the variance findings are linked to physical characteristics of the property and that staff could not make the neces- sary findings for approval and recommends denial . Vice-Chairman declared the hearing open. R. Fischer, Tahquitz-McCallum Way, project architect, stated that because of the hardship created by grading and also the rock material of January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.355-VARIANCE. (Continued) the house there is no way to relocate the kitchen without placing it off the bedroom or living room wing, and that it would be a shame to destroy the beauty of the old house. There being no further appearances, Vice-Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Planning Commission question, Planning Director stated that staff would have to do research to answer a question of whether or not other houses come within six feet of the property line in the area since most of the houses are old and no plans are available, but that there are sixty foot lots in the area which are automatically granted a variance of six feet. Chairman stated that the area is non-conforming because of its natural topography. In reply to Commission question, Planning Director stated that a law for granting variances requires an unusual circumstance such as substandard lot, unusual shape of the property, and topography, but in this case the problem is caused by the development (house) on the lot, he stated that the lot is not substandard, and that granting a variance would be a special privilege. Commissioner Edgmon asked whether of not the next door neighbors were aware of the proposal . Planner stated that notices were sent to all property owners within 400 feet and no comments were received. She stated that the proposed kitchen would be 6 feet off the property line if approved. Vice-Chairman requested that the applicant address the Commission regarding comments of the neighbors. Mrs. H. Wouk, 303 Crestview Drive, the applicant, stated that the closest neighbor is aware of the proposal , that there is a carport on the neighboring property which extends to her property line and that there are also a stone wall and fence, that the exact property line is not known, that although there is wasted space inside the house, there is a stone wall preventing a kitchen renovation, and that the kitchen is small and not as convenient as it should be for an elegant property. Commissioner Olsen stated that it seems that even if Commission were predisposed to grant the variance because of the existing conditions. State law provisions preclude approval . Planning Director stated that staff cannot make findings for approval , but the City Attorney has requested continuance for his office to review I a case that bears on the issue. Chairman stated that he understood staff"s and City Attorney's con- sideration, but that the house violates setbacks from two sides. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.355-VARIANCE. (Continued) � his Vice-Chairman stated that the property is large, but that the house/an unfortunate placement on the lot, and that the ownert desire to increase the size, is a desire, not a need. He stated that the house is already in violation of the setbacks, and that he needed direction on whether or not it would be a violation of State law to consider a variance, although he felt that it would not cause any specific problems. M/S/C (Whitney/Olsen; Hough abstained) for a continuance to January 28, for the City Attorney to review court decisions in similar cases and for staff to review the surrounding area. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. D. Stone, Palm Springs, questioned the necessity for more theaters in town and asked if there would be a different program at the Courtyard theaters that the ones already shown in other theaters. Planning Director stated that the initial direction indicated from Metropolitan Theaters is that there would be some repetition of movies, but that the owner will have other kinds of shows and expansion of offerings, particularly in the smaller theaters which would show movies such as foreign ones and others that have a smaller market. (Ref. Case 3.0097. ) CASE 3.0151 (MINOR) . Application by BEN DOBRIS for architectural approval of enclosure of upper balcony on Los Patos Drive in New Horizons condo- minium complex R-2 Zone, Section 29. (Reference Case 2.807-HOA. ) Planner (Green) described-the proposal which is a enclosure of an upper balcony for a closet in the New Horizon Condominium complex, that it is a minor change, but approval would set a precedent for such design changes in the future for the project. He stated that there are some two-story condos of the same configuration fronting on Golf Club Drive which staff could not approve if proposals were submitted, and that there was a split vote on the AAC because some of the members felt that it would be precedent setting and also alter the design of the second story units throughout the project, and others felt that the proposal is too insignificant to deny. Discussion followed the precedent-setting nature of the proposal . Commissioner Edgmon stated that other similar proposals could be built and possibly go unobserved by staff. Commissioner Olsen agreed with Commissioner Edgmon and stated that he voted against the proposal at the AAC meeting because he felt that if it has been presented as part of the original design, it would not have been approved. Vice Chairman stated that the Commission had reviewed the proposals approved by homeowners associations in the past in other January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0151 (MINOR). (Continued) �-' condominiums and has seen poor results and that it is appropriate for the Commission to keep the homeowners associations apprised of its feelings on revisions to the architecture of approved condominium projects. B. Dobris, 2413 Los Patos, the applicant, requested approval stating that it would not be precedent setting and that every individual case should be reviewed on its own merits by the Commission, and that his unit does not face Golf Club Drive, that some units might not be an area where they affect the appearance of a complex, that the finished addi- tion would blend with the exterior of the complex, that his unit is a 150 feet away from a private street and a long distance from Golf Club Drive. Planner reviewed the location of the unit on the display board and explained that future similar proposals would be reviewed at staff level if the subject proposal were approved as a prototype, and that it is likely that these future proposals would not be brought to the Commission because of the administrative burden on the agenda. Mr. Dobris stated that it should not looked at as a burden on the Commission, that every taxpayer has a right to individual review by the Commission. Planning Director explained that staff was not stating that it would be a burden on the Commission to bring cases to the agenda, but that the established precedent was to have the Commission approve a prototype which would serve as an example for future proposals, and that these are approved at staff level to relieve the Commission of hearing the same proposal several times. Commissioner Whitney stated that besides setting a precedent the pro- posal is an attempt to change the architecture as originally approved, and that the AAC and Commission do not look favorably upon these kinds of changes. Commissioner Olsen stated that it would be different if all the units were proposing a similar change so the total effect could be reviewed, and individual changes could result in a loss of the design integrity of the complex. Mr. Dobris asked if the denial were because of the architecture, because if it were he could propose an alternative. Vice-Chairman stated that he had concerns and shared Commissioner Olsen's feelings but that he could see the applicant's viewpoint, that some of the proposed changes to condos are done without permit and that Mr. Dobris had brought his before the Commission. He stated that the Commission has to be careful and should indicate what it is trying to accomplish. �`'� M/S/C (Neel/Olsen; Lapham/Curtis dissented) denying the application. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0151 (MINOR) . (Continued) `-' Discussion followed. Vice-Chairman asked if the Commission intention was for denial or for further review, and if so the motion should be amended to a restudy. Commissioner Neel stated that a restudy would not change the precedent- setting nature of the application. Planning Director stated that if the applicant submitted another design, the application could be amended without further fees. M/S/C (Neel/Olsen) amending the motion to a restudy of the application. CASE 3.0153. Application by W. KLEINDIENST for architectural approval of new covered parking structures for an existing office building on the north- east corner of Farrell Drive/Ramon Road, "P" Zone, Section 13 (Ref. Case 3.263). Vice-Chairman abstained. Commissioner Olsen presided. Planner (Green) explained the proposal on the display board and stated that on-site inspection revealed that trees might be a maintenance problem in the carports, but that the AAC and landscape architects felt that the trees could be trimmed and recommended replacement if they died. He stated that the carports are visible from Farrell Drive. Planning Director stated that the reason staff is requesting review is that the design of the carports causes a saw-toothed edge to come into contact with the trees. He stated that staff recommends a design which lessens the massiness of the carports, and that the "Z" channel is also a concern, although not commented on by the AAC. In reply to Commission question on the cost of covering a double space of carports, Mr. Kleindienst, the architect, stated that because of a tight budget the company only builds covered spaces as they are paid for by the tenants. He asked how the covered parking could be screened, and Planning Director stated that a wall and landscaping could be used as screening. Commissioner Edgmon stated that she felt the parking structure should be completely covered, and that she had concerns that sufficient land- scaping was included on the middle carport. Mr. Kleindienst stated that the number of shrubs and bushes will be increased. Commissioner Hough stated that although he understood the purpose of building carports as space is paid for, he would like to see all the carports covered. Commissioner Whitney stated that she agreed with the AAC. Vice-Chairman asked whether opening car doors would strike the poles in the carport lanes. Mr. Kleindienst stated that the position of the poles would be at the windshield and pose no danger to car doors. He stated also that if more carports were built, the plan would be reversed and match the double loaded carports. He stated that if the January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 3.0153. (Continued) Commission wanted all carports double loaded, the design would be unbalanced because only A and B buildings want the carports. He stated that they could not be built to the property line because of zoning. M/S/C (Lapham/Whitney; Curtis abstained) approving the application sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That the ficus trees shall be trimmed and trained to grow through the holes in the carports. 2. That support columns shall be located between parking spaces. 3. That should any trees die, they shall be immediately replaced with a similar specimen to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division. 4. That a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted. 5. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 6. That 3 double loaded parking bays are approved to be placed wherever the architect decides subject to staff review. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.960 (CONTINUED). Application by CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATES for the Palm Springs Mall for architectural approval of revised exterior colors for remodeled shopping center on the southwest corner of Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Farrell Drive, C-S-C Zone, Section 13. Planner (Williams) gave a brief history of the case and stated that final Commission action was a restudy with the yellow color to be eliminated, a restudy of the placement/organization of the colors, and approval of the Camelot Theater colors as painted. She stated that the architect submitted a colored north elevation, but no new colors were submitted for the east or south sides of the project. She explained that there was lengthy discussion at the AAC with two motions (both the same) accepting the coloration on the board and recommending that the yellow be placed in the insert areas along the north elevation except in front of Thrifty's which will remain orange (0) , and that there was no action on the east or south side by the AAC. She stated that the ' rear of Vons and Walker Scott which were represented in photographs were also approved by the AAC--which: , reviewed color coded elevations in December of 1986 and approved them for the east and south side. Chairman stated that the AAC felt that what was painted should be left and the colors of the other half of the building reorganized. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) D. Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, project architect, stated that he had talked with the Commission at the December 17 adjourned meeting about reorganizing the color palette so that light pink, peach and orange were the field colors and cream/yellow, purple and darker pink were the accent colors. He requested official action to avoid further dis- cussion. Chairman stated that the north side color palette is organized and acceptable, but to leave the east and south side palette as they are is ridiculous, and that if the north elevation scheme is not brought all the way around the center, he would not vote in favor of the color scheme. Vice-Chairman stated that he would not be in favor of approving any current color palette, that the colors are not to his personal taste, that the colors on the color board do not correspond to the original approved colors, and show lack of continuity, that the main building shows no color organization, that if the colors were presented as they were painted they would not have been approved, that the colors need more organization and less contrast, and that yellow should be used as an accent color only. He stated that pink was not approved as a field color on the east and that the colors should be reorganized and the impact lessened to meet the approved original colored elevations presented to the Commission. He stated that he would not approve any colors other than those on the original colored elevations. Mr. Christian stated that three colors had been approved. Vice-Chairman questioned the statement. In reply, Planning Director stated that no formal actions have been taken by the Commission after the field inspection after the January meetings, that the architect was told that there were no problems with the six colors based on the field review comments, but that the color palette did not come back before the Commission for formal action. Mr. Christian indicated that he had always been able to proceed on pro- jects on the kind of recommendation by staff that he was given, that the yellow and peach were approved and the orange (which was not originally intended to be a field color) , and that he thought that the three colors were approved, although the three accent colors had not been. He requested Commission input on whether or not the six color palette was what the Commission was discussing. Vice-Chairman repeated that he did not vote for the elevations, and Mr. Christian requested a vote on the colors. Vice-Chairman repeated that the six colors did not have final approval by the Commission. Mr. Christian stated that the colors went before the Commission months ago. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) Vice-Chairman stated that the issue of the impact of the colors has. not been approached and six colors were approved on a rendering, but that the renderings are not close to the actual colors proposed, and that a color palette cannot be approved by number, which is what the architect is asking the Commission to do. Mr. Christian again repeated that he wanted to know the status of the six colors. Vice-Chairman stated that the Commission wants the proposed subdued. Commissioner Hough stated that six colors were reviewed in an adjourned meeting and the Commission could not agree unanimously to the color palette except that the amount of yellow was to be reduced. He stated that he recalled negative feedback to the six colors. Commissioner Whitney noted that she voted to approve the color scheme on the north elevation, but was not in agreement with the color scheme on the east and south sides as they are presently painted. She stated that she would vote for a color scheme if it reflected the proposed color palette of the north side. Commissioner Olsen agreed, stating that the north color palette is acceptable, but that the east elevation is not and that he would vote for a color palette reflecting the colors on the north side. Chairman requested a review of the color palette. Planner described the color scheme in detail of all four sides of the complex on the display board. In reply to Commission question, Mr. Christian stated that he could not speak for his client on re-painting the entire building. Chairman commented that the painting of the entire building could be a condition. G. Victerson of Benequity Properties, mall owners, requested that the Commission approve the six colors. Vice-Chairman asked if the Commission were comfortable with the colors presented. Commissioner Neel stated that he had never liked pink and thought that the Commission was going to review paint swatches on the buildings. Mr. Christian stated that the swatches were painted. Mr. Victerson stated that some AAC members and some Comm si sioners saw the swatches. Discussion continued. Commissioner Olsen stated that the color palette represented on the board would be acceptable if the trim colors were minimally used, and that he would not have problems with the palette if the brighter colors were used as trim rather than on complete walls. Mr. Christian stated that the last elevation presented showed the intent of the accent colors. Commissioner Olsen objected stating that on the eastern January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) elevation there is a four foot stripe of purple when a one foot stripe would have sufficed. Vice-Chairman asked whether or not the Commission could agree to the six colors presented. Chairman stated that he did not think that the Commission should choose the colors and their placement, but that a complete color scheme such as the one on the north elevation should be approved. Confi ss ioners Whitney and Hough also agreed to the north elevation's palette, Commissioner Hough stated his approval would be contingent upon repainting of the beige elevations on Tahquitz- McCallum. Vice-Chairman stated that three years ago when Vons proposed a red sign it was denied and the company was told to change the color to rust and the same thing happened with the Millers sign. He stated that the six color palette is totally the antithesis of what Palm Springs represents, and the colors of the elevations presented should be the ones painted even if an exact shade cannot be achieved by colored markers. Discussion continued with Mr. Victerson who stated that the renderings presented at the meeting are an effective representation of what will be seen when it is painted. He asked the Commission to indicate the colors they want. Chairman stated that it is not what the Commission wanted, but that it is workable. Mr. Victerson stated that the colors were approved a year ago and have not changed except that now that they are painted on the buildings. He stated that the original submittal was a conceptual rendering of a multi-colored scheme which was approved. Vice-Chairman stated that he did not agree with Mr. Victerson's interpretation and that the Commission should have seen an elevation representative of what was painted on the buildings. Mr. Christian stated that because of the differences in shade between the colors and the markers a color board was presented. Planning Director stated that the Commission is not accustomed to bright color palettes, and that the City has always stressed a limited desert color range without needing absolutely accurate colored elevations but that the trend is toward stronger, lively colors. He recommended that the Commission give direction to the staff, AAC, and the design community on what is acceptable, such as literal color renderings, more information, color schemes for all elevations at the beginning of a presentation. He stated that with the Mall , Commission has a full scale colored model , and that the colored elevations were presented before colors where specifically chosen for the Mall . He commented that the Commission could take action to approve the proposed color scheme of the north side with the entire complex to be similarly painted, and that the Commission needs to know how a color palette is to be used since the bright colors are a totally new area. He reiterated that if the Commission wants a specific presentation or material , it should ask for it. Vice-Chairman asked for staff's recommendation. Planning Director stated that the architecture of the buildings is excellent and relates January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.960. (Continued) to the desert, but that there aspects of the architecture that do not allow a field color with a similarly colored trim, that the colors should be as sophisticated and organized as possible, and that he would not have chosen the colors, but that the AAC supported the palette. He stated that staff's recommendation would be to have Planning Commission approval of a scheme unifying all four elevations and that if the north elevation palette is acceptable, staff can work to bring the colors of the other elevations into conformity with the north side. Chairman stated that the AAC should approve the revised exterior colors. Mr. Christian stated that the elevations were submitted, samples painted for field review, that staff was called for review and indicated that the three base colors were approved by the AAC and Commission and the three accent colors were not and that after that painting was begun he discussed the substitution of one color (orange) which was a risk since that field color was not approved. He stated that he also realized that the accent colors were not approved but he felt that they were compatible. He stated that he wished the Commission had reviewed the colors originally and denied them. Commissioner Olsen stated that Mr. Christian could visualize the color scheme from the beginning, that Mr. Christian has been in the develop- ment community a long time, that he had made a error in the color selection, and that the City was in error for not realizing that the ` colors painted were not close to the previously approved colored elevations. He stated that it was incumbent on both the City and the architect to develop a presentation and explain-. the effect of the colors (especially on a project the magnitude of the Mall ) when colors move outside of previous color palettes in the city. He stated that an artist should have been employed to create the exact colors, thus avoiding problems. Mr. Victerson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Olsen and Mr. Christian that a more effective process should have taken place, but that he had a problem since he had spent 30 to 40 thousand dollars on paint, and is in a situation in which he should not have been placed. He stated that everyone has worked in good faith, which is the reason the orange is proposed on the north side. He stated that if the colors are approved on the north side palette, the Commission should allow Benequity leave east side colors since all colors were selected in good faith. M/S/C (Lapham/Olsen; Edgmon abstained; Curtis/Neel dissented) approving the color scheme on the north side of the mall , which is to be the basis for the paint scheme for all four sides including a repaint of the east and south sides, with the color scheme to be resubmitted to the Commission for a prova . Discussion followed. Chairman reiterated that the north scheme is to be followed (orange, pink, and peach) for all four sides. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0123 (Continued). Application by HERITAGE 'RANCH CORPORATION for architectural approval of revised plans for shopping center on North Palm Canyon Drive between Vis Escuela/Zanjero Street, C-1 and R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon abstained) continuing the application to January 28, 1987 pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 5.0424-CUP. Application by MARRIOTT CORPORATION for preliminary archi- tectural review of 149 unit hotel on the east side of Hermosa Drive between Tahquitz Way/Andreas Drive, R-4-VP and C-1-AA Zones (I.L. ), Section 14. (Final review will be concurrent with Conditional Use Permit public hearing. ) Planning Director stated that the item was placed on the agenda for architectural review only, and that it will be noticed for public hearing on January 28 as a conditional use permit because of the height which is over 35 feet (46 feet). Planner (Green) presented the project, noting AAC recommendations for restudy as follows: Repetitious elements, busy roof lines, orientation which obscures mountains and sun in the courtyards, lack of building stepping on the 3-story elements, and stereo-typed appearance along Tahquitz Way. J. Bloodworth, Santa Ana, representing the Marriott Corporation, stated that the courtyard is an important element of the design and that it has landscaping and lawn furniture and is a focal point for the dining rooms which overlook it. He stated that there is a stepped transition between the one, two, and three story elements, that undulation is not as pronounced as the renderings indicate, and that most of the rooms have a mountain view from the balconies. Vice-Chairman stated that he could only reiterate the comments of the AAC and feels that the project is too massive for the site, and that the Commission has to consider impacts of the project. He stated that quality of construction is meaningful to the most important street in the City and recommended that the architects consider all recommendations of the AAC. He stated that he did not believe that 149 units could be massed on this property in an acceptable manner. Commissioner Olsen also directed the applicants to review the other buildings on Tahquitz for inspiration. Commissioner Edgmon stated that the Tahquitz elevation is lovely, but that she did not feel that the sides coordinated with the front. Commissioner Hough agreed that the sides are repetitious, that lines become too vertical , and breaks in the base accentuate the horizontal appearance. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0424-CUP. (Continued) Mr. Bloodworth stated that the elevation is one dimensional and diffi- cult to present in concept, but that there is some recessing and advancement in the building to avoid a grid appearance. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Neel abstained) for a restudy noting the following: 1. That the three story elevators shall be less repetitious. 2. That the visual qualities of the Tahquitz elevation shall be introduced into the north-south three story elevations. (It was noted that the horizontal character of the Tahquitz elevation visually conflicted with the vertical character of the proposed three story elevations. ) 3. That the roof of the three story structures shall be revised to incorporate similar elements to the roof of the single story Tahquitz elevation (flat roof elements intermixed with pitched roofs would be acceptable). It was noted that the roofline should have a "cleaner" profile and be less "busy". AAC noted that the vernacular of the roofs on the single story element and the three story element were not consistent. 4. It was noted that the orientation and height of the building would V... preclude views of the mountains from many of the rooms and pool area, and the building would shade the pool area except for mid- summer, AAC noted that, because of the above, the design under- estimates the potential use of the courtyard. 5. Stepping of the three story buildings should be explored (as opposed to the proposed vertical three story wall ). 6. AAC noted that the building should be consistent with the high quality of the newer structures along Tahquitz and that the building should have a "quality custom" appearance. 7. Details of exterior light fixtures shall be submitted. 8. Gutter and downspouts shall be deleted. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "In keeping with its normal practice of not considering architectural review matter, the Tribal Council withheld comments on the Case pending receipt and review of the City Planning Staff Report and supplemental material related to the Conditional Use Permit." .L Chairman left the meeting. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0258-PD-145. Discussion of Draft EIR being processed by Riverside County for Andreas Cove Country Club, a Planned Development District for construction of a residential and hotel development, including golf course, on South Palm Canyon Drive (portion I.L. ) south of City limits, Section 2, Riverside County. Planner (Evans) stated that he had reviewed the site plan as presented to Riverside County as well as last plan officially reviewed by the Commission and Council , and that staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to document the previous recommendations of the Commission, review and comment on the draft, Specific Plan/EIR, and prepare a resolution which documents the concerns of the City, specifically the lack of adequate urban services and need for a more detailed analysis of the Palm Canyon area. He stated that the plan has changed only slightly from the original submission and showed the changes on the board. He explained that the project is now a 250 room hotel with approximately 295 residences located throughout the canyon areas, and that the nature of the residential area is single family lots with golf course frontage or access, and that some of the lots are 80 feet wide and are 8,000 sq. ft. He overviewed that the circulation and access impacts on the site, that there will be similiar overall site disruption, and that the EIR and Specific Plan did not address all development issues. He stated that Andreas Canyon development should be pulled away from the canyon mouth and that the golf course extends to the hillside. He explained that the golf facility should be relocated away from the hillside mouth of Murray Canyon and that the City Council and Commission recommended that residential development should not encroach into the canyons. He noted that the cart path, which the Commission recommended be placed out of the stream bedsi`sproposed to be in the stream bed. In response to Commission he stated that Palm Canyon has the largest desert palm oasis, with Andreas Canyon second and Murray Canyon third, and that no other projects in the valley are this close to a palm oasis. In relation to the hillside he stated that every community has a Country Club developed into a canyon or a hillside. He stated that the City is concerned about improvements being placed in sensitive areas, but the developer stated that he cannot economically lose developable property. He stated that the concerns of the Council were the canyons, hillsides, and overall site disruption (75% would be graded), and that although the developer has reduced the units their location and impact has not changed, and that the Council wants better accessto Palm and Andreas Canyons, but it is difficult to adjust the Indian Canyon access. He stated also that the site plan disrupts the same amount of ground as it did previously. He explained that there are substantial differences between the requirements of the County and the City regarding fire and emergency services, and this is a cause for concern. He recommended that a full report be prepared for the Council . Planning Director stated that the processing with the County is on a fairly tight time frame, and that the EIR is lengthy and that there has been much turnover on the Commission. He recommended that a subcommittee composed of new members be established to review with staff the EIR draft. Vice-chairman agreed that new members would benefit from working on a subcommittee to review the project. January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0258-PD-145. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney stated that she had abstained when the project was formerly on the agenda because she was a new member and did not have sufficient information. Planning Director stated that abstaining would not be necessary in the future, and that there would be two meetings, one of which would be on orientation and major areas of concern and the other for a review of the final draft. He stated that the project will be returned to the Commission, but that the EIR will not since the final comments are being sent to Council for the February 4 Council meeting. Planner stated that a field trip to the site might be beneficial . Vice-Chairman appointed Commissioners Edgmon, Hough and Olsen to the subcommittee. M. Peroni, representing Smith, Peroni and Fox, 980 Tahquitz, stated that his firm prepared the original EIR which received certification, and that they are developing the Riverside County report. He stated that he wanted to understand any concerns of the City and would like to attend field trips and meetings so that he can address written concerns. He stated that if there are any questions, Riverside County should be contacted. Planning Director noted that the recommendation as presented would need wording added to reflect that a subcommittee had been appointed. M/S/C (Neel/Hough; Lapham absent) directing staff with a Planning Commission subcommittee to fully document o the k previous recommendations of the Commission; review and comment on the Draft Specific Plan/EIR and prepare a resolution which documents the concerns of the City, specifically the lack of adequate urban services and need for a more detailed anaylsis of the Palm Canyon area. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "The Tribal Council and Indian Planning Commission have received copies of the Specific Plan/Draft EIR for the Andreas Cove Country Club Project, and will be submitting comments thereon to the Riverside County Planning Department. " MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CASE 5.0418-CUP. Application by CHRIS MILLS for Mark Hastings for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pre-school day care center for 48 children on Racquet Club Road between Farrell Drive/Cerritos Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1. (Commission response to written comments on Draft Negative Declaration. No comments received. ) i January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5.0418-CUP. (Continued) M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Lapham absent) ordering the filing or a Negative Declaration and giving final approval of the application subject to con- ditions indicated in the staff report dated October 22, 1986 as follows: 1. That all loading and unloading of children occur on site. 2. That all county and state licensing procedures be implemented. 3. That all mechanical equipment be screened from view. 4. That staff parking be in designated parking spaces only. 5. That detailed landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 6. That the circular driveway be designated as "one way". 7. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. CASE 5.0290-CUP. Planning Commission review of operation of Angel View Thrift op as mandated by original conditions of approval ) at 462 N. Indian Avenue, C-21 and C-1-AA Zones, Section 14. Chairman abstained. Commissioner Olsen presided. Planner (Green) explained the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit and stated that the conditions called for Commission review at the end of three years when the CUP expired. He stated that some of the conditions of approval have been addressed regarding physical appearance of the site, but some have not, and that the applicants are making an effort to comply with the conditions. He recommended that the Commission give directions to staff regarding extension of the Conditional Use Permit if the Commission so desires, and stated that staff recommends a 90-day continuance for the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval . He stated that the Commission might want to inspect the site and indicate concerns to staff. M/S/C (Neel/Whitney; Curtis abstained; Lapham absent) continuing the case to April 8, 1987 for further staff and Commission review. CASE 5.0432-MISC. Planning Commission review of State law requiring 72-hour noticing oi: Commission agendas. and ADDED STARTERS (Determination of eligibility for, consideration. ) Planning Director stated that the Brown Act has been revised and the revisions came into effect on January 1, 1987. He stated that these revisions are a result of another City Council voting themselves a pay raise (which was not listed as an agenda item) at the end of a meeting, when most of the audience had gone home. He stated that there are now definitive requirements for establishing an agenda 72-hours in advance January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CASE 5,0342-MISC. & ADDED STARTERS (Continued) of a meeting and that items can only be added to the agenda that have a need for action after establishment of the agenda. He stated that agendas for study sessions are also included in these requirements, and that a report of the posting of the agenda will become a part of the agenda format, and that staff has made the agenda available for public access at the Library reference room, the Planning Commission counter, and the City Hall Lobby counter. He stated that the Planning Division will have a supplemental agenda (if one is necessary) after the posting of the first agenda, and that this supplemental agenda would be in effect until 1:30 on Friday. He stated that if necessary an added starter agenda would be prepared after that, which would require a two- thirds vote of the Commission for action and that a resolution adopting the changes described and agenda locations for public access will be on the January 28 agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 3.0121 (MINOR) . Application by JACK JESSE for Casa Cody for ar tectural approval of final landscape, exterior lighting, and irrigation plans for hotel at 175 Cahuilla Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Neel/Whitney; Lapham absent) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the revised blue trim color be accepted. 2. That the landscape plan be modified to include: a. A minimum of three (3) 24" box trees (Cal Pepper or Jacaranda) strategically placed. b. Tree forms along the north boundary if there is room. C. Additional foundation plantings and espalier plantings throughout. d. A minimum of 5O% of the shrubs to be five (5) gallon in size. e. Details to be reviewed and approved by staff. CASE 3.0148 (MINOR). Application by FRED HATHAWAY & SONS for architectural approva o revised exterior materials for commercial building at the southeast corner of Avenida Palmera/S. Palm Canyon Dr. , C-1 Zone, Section 23. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney; Hough abstained; Lapham absent) approving the application as submitted. ., CASE 3.0019. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of architectural approval oT-elevations and detailed final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for a fire training facility on the east end of Alejo s January 14, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.0019. (Continued) Road, adjacent to Palm Springs Municipal Airport, "A" Zone, Section 12. Planning Director stated that the item had been removed from the agenda pending environmental analysis. CASE 3.0156 (MINOR) . Application by HENRY BOOKSPAN for architectural approval of addition to office for hotel (Estrella Inn) at 415 S. Belardo Road, R-3 Zone, Section 15. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Lapham absent) for a restudy noting the following: Addition to tie in with building to the south and to match the existing architecture including pitched tile roof, end wall , fascia etc. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Commission update of City Council actions. No report given. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS OR REQUESTS. Planning Director stated that "Planning Commission Reports or Requests" will be added to the agenda, and that the Commissioners can ask for information and for an item to be placed on the agenda, but that no discussion can take place. DEFINITIVE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR COLOR PRESENTATION, (REF --CASE 3.960). Commissioner Olsen requested guidelines for presentation of colors for all projects in order that the color problems that arose at the Mall are not repeated. Commissioner Edgmon requested review of the sign at the Mall in con- junction with the color scheme. Planning Director stated that another review of the Mall colors will be on the January 28 agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting a 6:00 p.m. i annin i ector `��,, MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 28, 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 12 0 Hugh Curtis X 11 0 Martha Edgmon X 2 0 Brent Hough X 6 0 Earl Neel X 9 3 Gary Olsen X 9 3 Barbara Whitney X 9 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Douglas Evans, Planner Robert Green, Planner Margo Williams, Planner Carol Vankeeken, Planner Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - January 26, 1987 Chris Mills, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi William Johnson Gary Olsen Barbara Whitney Brent Hough Will Kleindienst Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Neel ) approving minutes of January 14, 1987 as submitted. 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 23, 1987.