Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-08 f � MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 8, 1982 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. after a 60 minute study session. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vern Barton Al Cook Ron Gregory Rick Holden Phyllis Jackson Charlie Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Bernie Leung STAFF PRESENT: Ramon A. Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Patricia Armitage On a motion by Mr. Cook seconded by Mr. Barton, the minutes of the May 25, 1982, meeting were approved with the motion for Case No. 237 MF, Mc Lain Development being corrected to read that "The applicant shall come back with a study showing the elevations and exposures that would be affected and alternative solar shading methods. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). II. Minute motion approving cases found acceptable at the study session. None. III. CASES: A. Final drawings or items not requiring Planning Commission confirmation: I.CASE NO. 234 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OSCAR A. WIGGINS, 1613 E. 18th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, C.M. ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, 225 E. Airport Drive, San Bernardino, CA 92408 and S.E. WISE & ASSOCIATES, 242 N. Camino Arroyo, Anaheim, CA 92807. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a 10 unit apartment complex. LOCATION: West side of San Rafael Avenue, 125 feet south of Catalina. ZONE: R-2 Mr. Smith indicated that the board had reviewed and approved the preliminary plans for this project at its May 11, 1982, meeting at which time a revised landscape plan was requested. A complete landscape plan including irrigation and planting detail had been submitted showing several changes made from the preliminary plan and in addition the site plan had been modified to provide the required 24' wide driveways. The board reviewed the final plans and felt they were acceptable. - 1 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 1982 CASE NO. 234 MF (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook seconded by Mr. Gregory, the final plans for the 10 unit apartment complex were approved. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. 2.CASE NO: 237 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MC LAIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1,470 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building elevations for two unit types. LOCATION: Within Silver Sands Racquet Club (Phase II), southeast corner of Country Club and Portola. ZONE: PR-4 Mr. Smith indicated that this case had been before the Design Review Board at its meeting of May 25, 1982, at which time the board had granted the applicant preliminary approval for the two unit types subject to a submission of a study of solar protection in the critical areas and the actual explanation of where the double glazing would go. A letter from the applicant regarding this matter was distributed at the study session. Provided a satisfactory level of solar protection can be attained, staff would recommend approval. Chairman Martin felt that the engineer's report justifying the dual glazing with bronze tint was not what the board had requested. Mr. Eliante indicated that the set of plans presented to the city do show the exact location of the dual glazing on the floor plan. Mr. Holden felt the dual glazing might stop some of the heat transfer but it would not stop the direct sunlight from getting in, he felt the windows needed a better form of solar protection. It was Mr. Eliante's feeling that the dual glazing and the solar bronze on the outside would give the windows about 80% protection. He added that they were proposing this on all southern exposures. Chairman Martin felt the east and west exposures were also very important. The applicant indicated that the development was prepared to go with all rear elevations. Chairman Martin felt that it should be the developer's responsiblity to find the most efficient and aesthetic way of providing solar protection and that the applicant should look into patio covers as an alternative. Mr. Cook recommended that the architecture be looked into as a means of solar protection instead of only using the double glazing and bronzing on the windows. The applicant said that from a cost standpoint, solar screening would be the cheaper of the three. Mr. Diaz stated that the main concerns were the patio areas with the sliding glass doors. There should be a patio cover to screen them and that the applicant be allowed to use the double coated solar bronze windows in the other glazed areas. - 2 - 'wr DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 1982 CASE NO. 237 MF (CONTINUED) Mr. Smith said the sliding glass doors on the side might be shadowed by the next unit due to its close proximity. It would be important to find out just how long the sun would hit those windows. Ms. Jackson concurred with the board that there be some structural protection over the sliding doors. On a motion by Mr. Barton seconded by Ms. Jackson, the approval of building elevations for the two unit types was held in abeyance subject to the applicant's submission of a design of the structure which would shade the sliding glass doors, said design to be approved by the Design Review Board for all units and that those which the applicant can show to the Design Review Board that the doors will be shaded because of the proximity of the adjacent buildings, would not be required to have the shading. Further, that all other windows shall be installed with the applicant's proposed dual glazed solargray glass. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. 3.CASE NO. 170 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRANK R. GOODMAN AND ASSOCIATES, 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of a modification to approved landscaping plan for industrial tract. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. ZONE: S.I., S.P. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the applicant was requesting a modification to the approved landscaping plan for an industrial tract. The original conditions were: A. Cook Street - Blowsand/windscreen protection consisting of tamarisk trees, oleanders and a wall (30' Setback area), with decorative landscaping carried into the parkway. B. Hovley Lane - Installation of a minimum 5' to 7' wall, installed ten feet back from property line with decorative landscaping installed between the wall and curb line. The requested modifications are as follows: A. On Cook Street, the applicant is asking for a modification to the landscaping plan and permission to construct the walls when the adjacent lots are developed. The approved grading has also been changed so that along Cook Street there will be a 2:1 slope up to lot pads varying from approximately 14 feet at the south end and 4 feet at the north end. B. On Hovley Lane, the requested modification is to set a 6 foot high slumpblock wall on property line, 12 feet back from curb, with landscaping along the frontage. C. The landscaping at the entrance to the tract on Cook Street is also being revised. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 1982 CASE NO. 170 C (CONTINUED) Mr. Gregory reviewed the landscape revisions and recommended the following: 1. That half of the bottle trees be increased to 24 inch box size. 2. That all the trees at the entrance to Cook Street on both sides of the street be upsized with no five gallon trees allowed. 3. That the Osteospermum groundcover be substituted with an alternate. 4. That all trees be double staked. 5. That both street frontages be provided with some canopy type trees to break up the linear appearance, using 24 inch box trees. Mr. Richard Oliphant, general partner of Frank R. Goodman was present and outlined the background relating to the development of the site and the reasons for requesting the modifications. He felt the landscape revisions suggested by Mr. Gregory were acceptable. The modifications result from revisions to the site grading to make it a better development. The intent in the relocation of the wall along Hovley was to make it compatible with that on the north side and to increase the lot sizes. The wall is proposed at 6 feet, similar to that on the north side. The request to have the Cook Street wall constructed as each adjacent lot is developed was granted to the industrial development to the south. The board discussed the requests and accepted them with the exception that a seven foot high wall along Hovley should be required because this is an industrial development while that on the north side is residential. On a motion by Ms. Jackson seconded by Mr. Holden, the board approved the setback as requested, however with the wall being seven feet on the Hovley side and that on the modifications on Cook Street, the setback conform with the property on the south and that the request that the walls be built as the lots develop be granted. Motion carried 5-1. (Mr. Gregory voting against). 4.CASE NO. 166 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARCHITECTS PACIFICA, LTD., 180 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110, Newport Beach, CA 92260 (On behalf of Bullock's Department Stores, Seventh and Hill, Los Angeles, CA 90014). NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building and landscape plans for a 115,000 square foot department store. LOCATION: 72-810 Highway 111., Palm Desert Town Center. ZONE: PC-3 (Regional Commercial) S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that preliminary approval of building and landscape plans was granted on March 24, 1982, and final construction and landscape plans were before the board at this time. Mr. Jim Lenee, architect was present on behalf of the applicant. - 4 - *4W �r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 1982 CASE NO. 166 C (CONTINUED) The board reviewed the plans and felt they were acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Holden seconded by Mr. Barton, the board approved the final building and landscape plans for the 115,000 square foot department store. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. B. Preliminary plans (NOTE: Preliminary plan approval requires Planning Commission confirmation at its meeting of June 15, 1982): 1. CASE NO. 238 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUNRISE COMPANY, 41-500 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for Lakes Country Club. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. ZONE: PR-4 S.P. Mr. Stephen Smith indicated that he wished to change the staff report to show that 946 units were proposed instead of 925. The development plan had originally been approved for 975 units and the difference results in that they are moving some 15 tennis courts from the westerly section of the property (the area west of Cook Street). A condition of the tentative map states that the final map not be recorded until design changes, if required by approval of preliminary plans by the Design Review Board are incorporated. Therefore, the site plan should be reviewed to determine whether or not the Design Review Board feels there are any major revisions needed which would prohibit the recording of the final map. Chairman Martin asked if the condition only dealt with the site plan and not with elevations or architecture. Mr. Stephen Smith replied that this was correct. Mr. Phillip Smith, Executive Vice President of the Sunrise Company was present and indicated they were requesting this approval in order that the final map could be recorded. Additional information and plans will be submitted at a later date. The tentative map creates lots on which blocks of units are to be constructed. The site plan is the final site plan and conforms to the final map. In response to questions from the board, the applicant indicated that all driveways would be a minimum of 20 feet and he was aware of the proposed ordinance to prohibit wood shake roofs. On a motion by Mr. Cook seconded Ms. Jackson, the preliminary site plan was approved. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. - 5 - Nowe DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 1982 2.CASE NO. 129 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GERALD CHAZAN, 431 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 and ROBERT RICCIARDI, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to Sign Program. LOCATION: Palms to Pines West, Phase II. ZONE: PC(3) S.P. The applicant wished to delete the Great Western logo and replace it with a 24 hour deputy teller sign. The existing logo is 6.75 square feet and the proposed sign is 17.3 square feet. The problem is that maximum signage on the frontage is limited to 90 square feet. The existing Great Western Savings sign is 83 square feet and the Medical Center has proposed a 33 square foot sign at the opposite end of the building. A variance application has been submitted for the Medical Center sign. The purpose in bringing this matter to the board was to determine that if a variance were obtained for this sign, would the board grant approval of the sign? Additionally, if the sign were reduced to 6 square feet, would the board consider it a pedestrian sign? It was the concensus of the board that a sign this size was not acceptable. Considering that there is little or no pedestrian traffic, the board would have difficulty considering it a pedestrian sign. On a motion by Mr. Holden seconded by Mr. Barton the proposed sign was denied. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Mr. Cook abstained). IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:35. STEPRE4 R. SMIT Associate Planner /pa - 6 -