Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-24 VOW MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - JUNE 24, 1986 1:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. The meeting was called to order at 1 :00 pm after a one hour study session. Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 12 0 Al Cook X 10 2 Mary Drury X 9 3 Charlie Martin X 12 0 Russell McCrea X 10 2 Rick Holden, Alternate X 9 3 Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Steve Smith Phil Drell Phil Joy Catherine Sass Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the minutes of June 10, 1986 as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Holden abstaining) . 11. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the following cases by minute motion. Carried 5-0 (Commissioner Holden abstaining from Case No. 306 MF. 1. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SORRENTINO'S, 73-725 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of scalloped valance. LOCATION: 73-725 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 rrr MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL CONNIISSION JUNE 24, 1986 2. CASE NO: 302 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RAY-AL ENTERPRISES, 73-660 Boca Chica Trail , Thousand Palms, CA 92276. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a six unit apartment project. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Catalina Way and San Pablo. 1 : R-3 Approval subject to evergreen trees being added to landscape plan. 3. CASE : 298 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARDSON & SONS, 74-320 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 12,000 square foot industrial building. LOCATION: St. Charles Place, Palm Desert Business Center S. I . Approval subject to revised landscape plan showing bronze fountain grass to replace fountain grass. 4. CAS NO: 306 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN TURNER c/o SUNCASTLE REAL ESTATE, 73-241 Highway 111, 3E, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 60 unit two story apartment project. LOCATION: North side of Magnesia Falls Drive at Rutledge. ZONE: Requesting AHDPR-10 Approval is subject to enhancement of landscape plan and addition of one pool . 2 MINUTES MCNITECTUIVL CONNISSION DUNE 24, 1996 III. CAMS: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE"Q: 285 C APPLICANT (MV ADDRESS): FRANK GOODMAN & DOUG GRIFFITHS, 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plans. LOCATION: Southeast corner of San Pablo and Alessandro. ZONE: C-1 Chairman Gregory felt that the plan was inadequate as submitted. Commissioner Cook noted that the parking area needed some planting and trees. Mr. Goodman indicated that the project me t code require- ments and that he has put as much landscaping as possible. Chairman Gregory was concerned with the freestanding curb at the end parking stall and the landscape plan. He felt it was dangerous and should be removed and possibly replaced with additional landscaping. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant has already received a parking adjustment. Commission recommended moving the handicap parking space to the rear parking area and putting two spaces at the east parking area with additional landscaping in the rear area to replace the freestanding curb. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Holden to return this case to the applicant for restudy of the following. 1 . Revised landscape plan to be submitted. 2. Remove freestanding curb and replace with additional planting with the handicap parking space to be located at the rear area. Carried 5-0 3 *#Age MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1906 2. CAN NDt 265 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL ALEXANDER, 483 E. Via Escuela, Palm Springs, CA 92262. NATURE OF PRt KCT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: F i na 1 approval of plans for 48,000 square foot two story office warehouse. LOCATION: West side of Corporate Way. 2WE: S. I . Applicant requested continuance of this case. Therefore, it was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue this case. Carried 5-0 3. CA 1193 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, for B.B. O'Brien's, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SO GIff: Approval of awning with s i gnage for new business. LOCATION: West side of Painters Path opposite Rusty Pelican. C-1 Commission had some concerns with the placement and the strength of the proposed awning. Mr. Ernie Brooks, applicant, explained the characteristics of the awning and noted that it was to be placed at the entrance which was off of the street frontage. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the awning as submitted. Carried 5-0 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. SASE NO: 306 C 4 1*4W MINUTES ARCHITECTUML COMMISSION JUKE 24, 1996 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)s AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, 1001 Commerce Drive, Building E-2, Irwindale, CA 91706. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGIM Preliminary approval of plans for 149,600 square foot retail commercial development. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Town Center Way and Highway 111 . ZONE: PC (3) Mr. Rick Gaylord, architect, addressed the commissions concerns expressed in study session regarding landscaping, height limits, architectural treatment at the rear of the building, entrance from Fred Waring Drive and truck radius. Commissioner Cook questioned the type of uses that would be utilized In the center. He felt that the appearance of the complete building needed some variety. He thought that the occupants of the major buildings might like to have some input on the design of the buildings. Mr. Gaylord explained that all the occupants will comply with their building design. Commissioner Holden had the same concerns as Commissioner Cook and indicated that the rear elevation of the majors should be nice since it will be visible from the street and is near the "gateway" to the city. He suggested that the front design be carried around to the rear elevation. Commissioner Martin agreed. Commissioner Drury agreed and indicated that she would like to see the traffic study done on Fred Waring Drive. Commissioner Holden felt that the landscaping should provide adequate screening and/or berming for the parking area. Mr. Diaz recommended that it be a condition of approval be that a three foot high berm be provided from street grade. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That the rear western elevation of the major 1 building provide for continuation of architectural accent to be attractive from Highway 111. 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1996 2. Parking lot to be effectively screened by a minimum three foot berm or wall as measured from the street or parking lot grade. 3. A 30 foot minimum depth of landscaping around street perimeter. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstaining) . 2. CAS, NO: 310 C APPLICANT (AND ADORESS)s LIVING DESERT RESERVE, 47-900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260; JOHN OUTCAULT, 74-133 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 6500 square foot educational facility. LOCATION: Within the site on the east side of Portola. M: Public Institution Commission agreed to continue this case until the applicant was present to discuss the concerns. 3. CASE 11 ,s 307 C APPLICANT (AND AQQRESS) : FRANK GOODMAN, 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJEC JAPPP0VAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 7,000 square foot office building. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Alessandro and San Carlos. E: C-1 Mr. Joy explained that Frank Urrutia was concerned with the roof mounted equipment being visible from his building across the street. Commissioner Cook had concerns with the parking and landscaping and felt that the building was too large for the site. He indicated that the plan showed no entrances to the building and was deceiving in showing landscaping to be provided. 6 MINUTES Ail"I TEC7URAL. OOM I SS I ON AM 24, 1996 Commissioner Martin felt that the building was tight on the site and agreed that additional landscaping was needed. Chairman Gregory thought that the first building like this is too crowded to the street and felt that this building should be required to have a larger setback and additional landscaping on Alessandro and San Carlos. He recommended that Mr. Goodman go to a professional to have his landscape plan prepared. Mr. Frank Goodman explained that the air conditioning units would be placed at the very lowest end of the building where they would be least visible. He stated that the reason for the doors not showing on the plan was because he was discussing with the tenants where they wished the doors to be placed. He noted that there would be a maximum of three doors and that the landscaping would be as shown except for the three entrances. Mr. Diaz explained that sometimes two story buildings are more appropriate in a situation like this. Commissioner Martin agreed and indicated that with a two story building additional landscaping could be provided. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Chairman Gregory to refer this case back to the applicant for restudy of the site plan and landscaping. Vote 2-2-1 . Motion died. Mr. Goodman questioned the concerns of the commission. Commissioner Cook explained that he was objected to the doors and planters that are incorrectly shown on the plans. Also the two separate buildings that are being called one project that do not relate in any way except for the architecture. He was looking for a more valuable landscape plan. Commissioner Martin suggested taking five feet of landscaping from the parking lot area separating the two buildings and moving the proposed building five feet away from San Carlos and providing an additional five feet of landscaping at the street. He felt this would provide some relief to the corner. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to return to the applicant for restudy of the additional five foot building setback at San Carlos which may delete five feet of landscaping in the parking area. Parking lot should also be restudied to attempt to correlate with the adjacent building and 7 ewe MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1986 landscaping should be further studied. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cook abstaining). 4. CASE NO: 308 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC EQUIPMENT, 6171 Wimbledon Drive, Riverside, CA 92506; HOLDEN & JOHNSON, 73-330 El Paseo B, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 8500 square foot landscape equipment warehouse/showroom. LOCATION: Northeast corner of 42nd Avenue and Corporate Way. ZONE: S. I . Mr. Joy gave an outline of the proposed project and indicated that he was requesting additional landscaping. Moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Martin to grant preliminary approval subject to the usual preliminary conditions, landscaping conditions set by staff and adequate screening of roof mounted equipment. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Holden abstaining). 5. CASE NO: 312 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. & MRS. J. WAMBAUGH, 74-660 Anojo Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210; ROBERT RICCIARDI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for 7900 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: North side of Highway III east of Cabrillo. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell indicated that the proposed building was compatible and similar to adjacent buildings. Commissioner Martin felt that the Highway III elevation should be restudied. 8 '*401 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL. COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1996 It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commission Martin to return to the applicant for restudy. Carried 5-0 6. CASE NO: 302 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, c/o FRANK WELLS, 4337 Fairlawn Drive, La Canada, 91011 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of gas station and convenience store plans. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Portola and Highway 111 . C-I Mr. Drell outlined the project indicating that staff was concerned with the size of the lot being too small to accommodate the proposed buildings and to provide adequate stacking for cars. Commissioner Drury felt there would be circulation problems that would be more complicated than the existing problem at the station. Commissioner Cook questioned if President's Plaza could be used as an access point for the site. Mr. Drell indicated that it was possible to utilize President's Plaza for access. Commissioner McCrea stated that the building appeared as a corporate structure which he was against. He felt the colors were too bright and should be more subdued. Mr. Dallas Holmes, attorney, explained that Arco was upgrading the station and wished to add a convenience store. Mr. Frank Wells indicated that Arco was willing to invest $400,000 to improve the facility and that the size of the convenience store could be reduced if necessary. He stated that he was unaware that President's Plaza was available for their use. Commissioner Drury noted that the proposed layout would not be adequate to handle the season traffic and that this could be a major problem at Portola. She recommended the applicant make use of the President's Plaza access. Mr. Diaz had concern with a convenience store being located on this site. He indicated that a CUP is required for the gas station and 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUTE 24, 1986 convenience store. For the granting of a CUP there must be a general public need of the service requested. Mr. Diaz indicated that there was a Circle K store just across Portola. Commissioner Martin stated that the design as submitted would not be acceptable because of the problems with access at Portola. Commissioner Cook suggested that the project architect come to Palm Desert and look at some previously constructed projects. Mr. Holmes requested that they return to architectural commission before going on to planning commission hearing. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue to the meeting of July 22, 1986. Carried 5-0 7. CASE ND: 308 MF APPLICANT (AI0 ADDRESS): CHARTER COMMUNITIES, 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite 200 A, San Diego, CA 92110. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for senior citizen housing development. LOCATION: East side of Monterey Avenue north of San Gorgonio Way. R-I S.O. Mr. Drell outlined the project and indicated that it was compatible with the single family homes adjacent to the project. Mr. Bob Barton explained the type of project and services they offer. He indicated that there is a need for this type of facility in this area which would be convenient for the residents ( i .e. close to shopping). Commissioner Martin questioned the need for parking in this type of project. Mr. Pete Juarez, architect, noted that they have shown one to one parking to be adequate with at least half of parking to be covered. Commissioner Drury questioned if they owned and operated the facility themselves. Mr. Barton stated that they do own and operate the facilities. 10 MINUTES ARM I TECTUOL COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1996 Commissioner Holden asked about the access to the court yards for maintenance purposes. Mr. Juarez indicated that they would have to work on entrances to the courtyards for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Martin suggested that after a year if the applicant finds more carports are needed, that 75% of the parking spaces be covered at that time. Mr. Barton agreed. Commissioner Drury questioned the cost of these units. Mr. Barton noted that a one bedroom would run about $1000 a month which includes utilities, maid service and meals. Commissioner Cook felt that the line of site and the two story height limits were well mitigated and approve the concept. Mr. Drell indicated that the perimeter walls must be masonry and not wood fences. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Final landscape plan review. 2. More detailed architectural plans showing carports, masonry walls and any other architectural features not shown on prelim- inary plans. Carried 5-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1 . Case No. 213 C, Robert Ricciardi , architect. Mr. Ricciardi explained that he would like this case to be brought up so that he may address commission's concerns. He indicated that the building frontage would be all nine foot glass which gives the building a crisp and clean appearance. He explained the architec- tural features of the building which were not apparent in the plans. Commissioner Cook questioned where the signage would be placed on this building. Mr. Ricciardi replied that there would be hanging wood signs placed above the glass windows. Commissioner Martin indicated that he would not bring the case up for a re-vote at this time. I1 14W MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUTE 24, 1986 Commissioner Cook felt that the verbal description of the building was very informative and thought the case should be brought up for discussion. Mr. Diaz recommended that a sign program be submitted for approval and also and landscape plan. Commissioner Martin felt that the plans should show the items explained by Mr. Ricciardi . It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to request a resubmittal of the plans showing architectural features as explained by Mr. Ricciardi . Carried 4-0 2. Case No. 304 MF, Harry Schmitz. Mr. Cook explained that planning commission felt that the use of trees to shade the parking area was not adequate and was requesting approval of three carports. Moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the car structure as approved by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Cook abstaining). V. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. STEVE SMITH, Associate Planner /dlg 12