Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1101 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 1976 5 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER tow A specially called meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 5:11 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . The meeting was for the ex- press purpose of reviewing the construction drawings for the KMIR- TV project. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Van de Mark III. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner VAN DE MARK Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner BERKEY Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner IV. CASE NO. 44MF, KMIR-TV (DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION) , APPLICANT A request that the Planning Commission approve the construction drawings for the proposed television studio and office complex which includes floor plans, site plans, elevations, and for the first time, samples of the proposed metal portion of the build- ing for the television studio and office complex for KMIR-TV, which is located on a 3-acre site on the north side of Parkview Drive and westerly of Monterey Avenue. Chairman Wilson stated that because of previously stated conflict of interest problems with the project, he was going to excuse him- self from the proceedings. Since Commissioner Berkey had not ar- rived as yet, the Commission decided to appoint a temporary Chair- man. Commissioner Mills nominated Commissioner Van de Mark for the posi- tion of Temporary Chairman. Commissioner Kelly seconded the nomina- tion. The nomination was carried with a 3-0 vote, with Commissioner Van de Mark abstaining. Commissioner Berkey arrived at 5:15 p.m. and assumed the duties of Vice-Chairman and Chairman Wilson left the room. VAMW Mr. Williams asked that the record show that all the Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Berkey, were in attendance at 5:00 p.m. and that the Commission decided to wait a few minutes for Commissioner Berkey to arrive due to the fact that Chairman Wilson was going to abstain from sitting in on the proceedings. Vice-Chairman Berkey apologized for being late and asked Mr. Wil- liams to present the staff report. November 1, 1976 Page One Mr. Williams stated that at the request of the applicant, staff had persuaded the Chairman to call a special meeting of the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Williams then presented the previous his- tory on this project to the Commission. Mr. Williams then ex- plained the construction drawings to the Commission. Mr. Williams did remind the Commission that at their August 31st meeting, a sample board was shown as Exhibit "C" which showed the materials used in the project; but did not include the treatment to the proposed metal portion of the building because the indica- tion given to staff prior to that point was that the metal would be stuccoed; and at that meeting a substantial portion, according to the applicant, would be metal . The actual appearance of the low metal itself was not described until the Design Review Board meet- ing of October 26, 1976. The Deisgn Review Board did approve the metal . Commissioner Berkey asked when the metal was first submitted. Mr. Williams reiterated that it was first submitted at the Design Review Board meeting of October 26th and that the Design Review Board had approved the metal with a change in the color from white to citation yellow. Mr. Williams then stated that the landscape plan for the proposed project had been approved by the Design Review Board. In that the area did have a wind blow problem and because security was needed on the horse trail , to the north; staff was recommending Common Oleander instead of Japanese Oleander for the north side. Mr. Williams then told the Commission that staff had no objections to the landscape plan or the floor plan; but felt that the proposed metal did not conform to the concept of what the Commission and the Council had envisioned during the preliminary review. He then recom- vended that the metal material be rejected. Mr. Williams also ex- plained that staff had met with the applicant and their architect and that they had stated that the metal materials had already been ordered and were under construction. Therefore, the applicant had asked for a special meeting as early as possible before the con- struction was completed. Mr. Williams then explained that as a result of the meeting with the applicant and his architect, the applicant had submitted two alterna- tive treatments which added additional architectural treatment to the metal portion of the building. The first alternative was to use the same metal panel but with a louvred treatment and additional land- scape treatment. The second alternative was to use a stucco frame plant-on, approximately ten feet wide, placed approximately forty feet on center. These plant-ons would be on all four sides of the metal portion of the building and would compliment the stucco tex- ture of the single story portion of the building. Mr. Williams then explained that at approximately 4:00 p.m. , on November 1st, he had invited some of the Design Review Board mem- bers in to informally discuss the metal portion of the project and of the two alternatives presented by the applicant, they favored Alternative No. 2. Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if there were any special conclusions or recommendations by the Design Review Board. Mr. Williams answered that if the Commission decided to accept the proposed metal siding, the staff was recommending Alternative No. 2. Commissioner Van de Mark asked Mr. Williams how many members of the Design Review Board had been consulted. Mr. Williams answered that two voting members and one non-voting mem- ber were consulted. November 1, 1976 Page Two Vice-Chairman Berkey then stated that it was his understanding that the applicant had called for this meeting because the staff was not happy with the metal materials. Mr. Williams stated that staff had contacted the applicant and in- formed them that the metal material proposed was not what the Com- mission and the Council had envisioned for the project. Mr. Williams then stated that the basic issue was whether or not the Commission accepted the metal material as proposed with either of the two alter- native treatments or not to accept it at all . He further stated that this was not the metal system that the Commission envisioned when they had approved the project. Mr. Williams stated that in interpreting the opinions of both the Planning Commission and the City Council during IMP their preliminary review of the project, they seemed to be favoring a flat metal siding. Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present, and if so, would he care to address the Commission. ROBERT RICCIARDI , A.I.A. , 73-700 Highway 111, Architect for the Pro- ject - Mr. Ricciardi stated that he was a spokesman for the applicant and that from the beginning they had always been honest and sincere about this being a metal building. He further stated that he felt the staff had been unfair to the applicant. Mr. Ricciardi stated that Mr. Williams had told him that he did not approve the metal material because the Planning Commission and the City Fathers were specifically against this type of thing. He stated that they had been caught off guard. Mr. Ricciardi then referred to the City Council meeting when the Council had reviewed this project and Councilman Seidler had asked what safeguard the Council had that this was going to be a "good- looking" building. Councilman Seidler had been told by Mr. Williams that the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission were the safeguards. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the applicant was not trying to hide anything. Mr. Ricciardi then requested that the Commission approve the project as the Design Review Board had done; if not, to" then would the Commission approve one of the two proposed alternative treatments. He then stated that there was nothing in the Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission or the City Fathers about metal panels. He stated they had just talked in generalities. Mr. Ricciardi explained that the metal siding had already been ordered and that it was under construction at this time. There were similar buildings in Palm Desert at this time, specifically some at the College of the Desert. Commissioner Van de Mark asked Mr. Ricciardi if he had had a smaple of the metal siding before it was ordered. Mr. Ricciardi answered no, all they had was brochures. Commissioner Van de Mark then asked if he was planning to use the white metal siding. Mr. Ricciardi answered no, the Design Review Board had suggested the citation yellow color. Commissioner Van de Mark asked Mr. Ricciardi why so much metal siding had been ordered before a definite approval had been given. Mr. Ricciardi answered that there was a unique situation involved that he was not going to discuss at this time. #mow Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Ricciardi if it was necessary for the ridges on the metal siding to be so deep. Mr. Ricciardi answered yes, that he was happy with it as an architect and that it would be a nice addition to the community. November 1, 1976 Page Three Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if anyone else would like to speak to the Commission. MRS. SEIPHURE CONTE, 75-600 Beryl Lane, Indian Wells, spoke to the Commission and stated that she hoped that the Commission would pass the original design that was approved. She further stated that she had been shocked to hear that the white metal had been rejected. She then stated that either of the two alternatives would cost a lot more and that they had already spent a lot of money. She then dis- cussed the landscape plan for the project. After inquiring of the architect as to the possible cost of the additional treatment, to which he responded about $5,000 to $8,000, she suggested that as a compromise, the Planning Commission delete the requirement of the block wall for the additional architectural treatment. la MAX KIRKLAND, 39-141 Karen Street, Cathedral City, (Chief Engineer for KMIR-TV) spoke to the Commission regarding the technicalities of the project and stated that it was necessary for the building to be completed by December 15, 1976. He stated that since the City Council had approved the Conditional Use Permit with a resolu- tion, they were not aware that they had to submit any materials to the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission. He stated that when the Design Review Board had approved the project, they felt there would be no more problems; then they had received the call from Mr. Williams objecting to the metal siding material . Finally, he stated all they wanted was approval on the original submission. Commissioner Van de Mark asked if the Design Review Board had approved the metal siding. Mr. Williams answered yes. Commissioner Van de Mark then asked if the City Council had seen the proposed metal siding. Mr. Williams answered no. Mr. Ricciardi then brought up the subject of the fire hydrants and stated he was willing to work with the City Fire Marshall to reduce the fire flow to 2,000 gallons per minute as opposed to 3,000 gallons per minute. He also stated that the entire building would be sprinkled. Vice-Chairman Berkey asked for any additional comments from either the Commissioners or the staff. Commissioner Van de Mark asked to see the original drawings for the project. Mr. Williams presented the original drawings to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Berkey asked Mr. Williams if he had any additional com- ments to make. Mr. Williams stated that yes, that the only reason that he had called the applicant's architect was to tell him that the metal panel might be of some concern to the Planning Commission as it was not what they had envisioned when they reviewed the original plans; and that the applicant's architect should have some alternatives in mind, in case the Commission decided against the proposed metal siding. He further stated that if it was necessary, this meeting could be continued and he could show the Commission some metal systems that were available that had panels without ridges. He then stated that it was not the staff's perrogative; it was the Commission' s perrogative to approve or deny the metal panel . There was a short discussion pertaining to modification of the Con- ditions of Approval of the Conditional Use Permit regarding the re- quired wall and the required fire flow. Mr. Williams stated that in response to the Chief Engineer's state- ment regarding the submittal of construction drawings for approval ; Condition No. 10 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 175 required the submittal of construction drawings through the Design Review Board Process. He stated that the other issue was the metal treat- ment, because it had not been reviewed anywhere before. November 1. 1976 Page Four Vice-Chairman Berkey asked the Commissioners their feelings on the metal siding. Commissioner Kelly stated that it was a shame that so much time had been lost and that the Commission did not have an opportunity to see the metal panel prior to tonight's meeting. She further stated that she was highly against this metal . She did not feel that the metal buildings at C.O.D. , which Mr. Ricciardi had referred to, were at- tractive at all . She stated that this KMIR project was going to be a permanent building and that she thought of metal buildings as being temporary type structures. She then stated that she would like to go along with Alternative No. 2. She again stated that she felt badly that the time delay had happened and that there should have been a bet- ter way to handle the entire matter which would have resulted if the metal panel had been submitted earlier. Commissioner Van de Mark stated that it was unfortunate to have to make decisions in a hurry and that she hoped the Commission had not opened the way for another metal building in the community. She then stated that if she had to make a choice, she would choose Alternative No. 2. Commissioner Mills stated that he agreed with both Commissioner Kelly and Commissioner Van de Mark and that he would choose Alternative No. 2. Vice-Chairman Berkey stated that he too agreed with the above. He further stated that the Commission had learned a lesson from not seeing the material before approving the project. He stated that the Commis- sion seemed to be in general agreement on selecting Alternative No. 2 as it was far superior and that it does fit in with the rest of the building. Commissioner Mills moved and Commissioner Van de Mark seconded to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 188, with Alternative No. 2. The motion was carried with the following votes: AYES: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Van de Mark NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Wilson Commissioner Mills asked Mr. Williams about the changes in the con- dition regarding the fire flow. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant would not have to file for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and that they were going to have to solve the fire flow problem with the City Fire Marshall . Mr. Ricciardi stated that the fire flow problem would be worked out with the City Fire Marshall . Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other comments. Being none, Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. t � l PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: GEORGE BERKEY, VICE- HAIRMAN November 1, 1976 Page Five