Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-23 `*Mor MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1991 ########################################################################### I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commission Members Current Meeting Year To Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 13 1 Rick Holden X 12 2 Frank Urrutia X 11 3 Chris Van Vliet X 12 2 Wayne Connor X 8 6 Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Steve Buchanan Pat Bedrosian Catherine Sass Brent Conley Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1, Commissioner Urrutia abstaining. IV. It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: PP 90-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NELCON, INC. , 78-060 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised final landscape plans LOCATION: Northeast corner of Abronia Trail and Sunset Lane ZONE: R-3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 Final landscape plans approved by minute motion with the following conditions: 1) Entry planters expanded to the point where the driveway becomes 24 feet wide. 2) Four front entry planters changed to lysiloma in place of proposed cats claw. 2. CASE NO.: TT 24287 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T.R.A. ARCHITECTS, 1900 E. Tahquitz Canyon, Palm Springs, CA 92263 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised final landscape plans LOCATION: Deep Canyon Road, north to Fred Waring Drive ZONE: PR-5 Final landscape plans approved by minute motion with the following conditions: 1) Filifira palms used in place of proposed robusta palms. 2) Use of palm springs sand top dressing where dirt is indicated. 3. CASE NO.: TT 24603 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): UP DEVELOPMENT CORP. , 1925 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 203, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of slump stone wall color LOCATION: South side of Hoviey Lane, 330 feet east of Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Commission approved applicants color choice of X48 Meadowbrook. 4. CASE NO.: TT 24539 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORP, for BELMONTE, 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 135, Palm Desert, CA 92260 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final architectural plans LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane ZONE: PR-9 Commission approved the revised color palette as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1, Commissioner Connor abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: 1990 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY for THE GATHERING PLACE, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-405 Highway III ZONE: Business identification signage approved by minute motion with the following conditions: 1) The words "bibles" and "music" be reduced in size to fit properly on signage. 2) Staff to grant final approval on red color to be used. 6. CASE NO.: 1993 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, 17877 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new business identification signage LOCATION: 72-625 Highway III ZONE: 3 wr `w✓ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RON GREGORY for BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION- JOINT VENTURE BUILDING, 73-960 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendments to landscape plan LOCATION: 73-710 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: P The applicant, Mr. Bob Bonnet, requested that the stairway from the parking lot to the park be deleted. He objected because he felt that the parking lot was to be used by the tenants of the building, not for the park visitors. He also felt that the stair way would be used by people drinking and loitering. Commissioner Urrutia noted that the issue of the stairway was brought up twice at the Art-In-Public-Places Committee meetings, and the committee is asking for some type of access from this area to the park area where there would be a major art piece placed. Commissioner Urrutia was under the impression that there was a six foot retaining wall at the end of the parking area. The A. I .P.P. committee had asked that this retaining wall be reduced, and according to Mr. Bonnet, it had been reduced to three feet. Commissioner Urrutia noted that at the previous A. I .P.P. meeting, it was discussed that Mr. Bonnet wanted to delete this stairway, and Mr. Bonnet informed the committee that the cost of this stairway was approximately $15,000.00. Commissioner Urrutia felt that with reducing the retaining wall to three feet, the cost of the stairway would be reduced. Commissioner Urrutia noted that this building was never approved by the commission, but was simply given a courteous look. Chairman Gregory asked if the developer had been told that he would be required to install this stairway. Ms. Sass reported that the public works department had concerns with the six foot retaining wall , and had asked the A. I .P.P. committee to look at the landscaping plan (specifically the courtyards) . It was at that point the committee noticed the lack of access from the building to the park. It was then suggested to the developer that a better transition be made between the park and the building 4 'airw �✓" MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 parking lot. It was left up to the landscape architect to come up with a plan, and this revised plan, with the added stairway, is what was approved. Commissioner Urrutia noted that the A. I .P.P. committee d i d not specify a stairway, simply some type of access to the park. Ms. Sass indicated that the last action taken on this from the A. I .P.P. committee was to recommend to commission that they deny the request from the applicant to remove the approved stairway. Commissioner Urrutia felt that if the commission was to deal with this as a civic center, than every building in the center should have access to the park. The A. I .P.P. committee felt that the stairway would enhance the situation. Ms. Sass added that it was the intent to provide access for the tenants to the park. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the stairway should remain, but he questioned the cost of it be placed on the contractor, as it was not on the original plans. Ms. Sass added that she did bring the landscape plans to commission, and they were approved with the stairway. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to deny the request for deletion of the stairway. Motion carried 3-0-1 , Chairman Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: 1966 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO. for "SUPER BLOCK", 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE Of PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program for "Super Block" LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway III and Portola Avenue ZONE: C-1 (S.P.) Phil Drell reported that the proposed signage would be channel letters on the front of the building with sand blasted redwood signs on the back and second story. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the concept was good with the use of individual letters. Commission discussed the reasons on why the signs were being hung from the upper balconies rather than on the actual fascia. Commissioner Connor was concerned with the Highway III side of the building where the cabinets are almost virtually touching the edges of the fascia. The applicant noted that dimensions on the 5 i *4wrr MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 proposed plans were incorrect. The fascia is actually 32" instead of 24" as presented on the plans. The applicant noted that he would bring corrected signage plans in to show staff for final approval . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the sign program with the following conditions: 1) Colors approved are blue, green, rust, ivory and black. Of these five colors, a maximum of three colors can be used for any given sign. 2) Maximum copy space allowed per sign is 119" x 5'4". Motion carried 4-0. 3. CASE NO. : 1994 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGNS BY MEL for HACIENDA de MONTEREY, 945 Boardwalk, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of free standing monument sign LOCATION: 74-600 Monterey Avenue ZONE: Phil Drell presented the materials to be used on the proposed signage showing the use of flood lighting. Commissioner Urrutia felt the sign would be nicer if it were internally lit, and thought there would be too much reflection on the signage with the materials used if it were flood lit. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to approve the free standing monument sign with the condition that it be internally lit. Motion carried 4-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: CUP 91-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAPLE LEAF PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. , Post Office Box 3643, Palm Desert, CA 92261 6 f MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architectural plans LOCATION: 72-795 Highway III , Suite G ZONE: PC-3 (S.P.) Commission continued the request as applicant was not present with revised plans. 2. CASE NO.: PP 91-8 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL J. BUCCINO, 74-133 El Paseo, Suite 9, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscape plans LOCATION: Approximately 450 feet east of the southeast corner of San Pablo and Fred Waring Drive ZONE: R-3 Phil Drell reported that the maximum height in an O.P. zone was 25 feet and the proposed building was presented at 28 feet. He noted that the applicant would have to apply for a variance from the planning commission for the height approval on this building. Chairman Gregory questioned the number of parking spaces noted on the plans. Mr. Buccino noted that John Wohlmuth, Environmental Conservation Manager for the City of Palm Desert, had required a recycling bin. In exchange for locating the recycling bin with the trash bin near the building, Mr. Wohlmuth was asking that the commission allow for the removal of one of the required parking spaces. Commissioner Urrutia noted that Mr. Buccino would be occupying 2240 square feet of the second floor of the building. Mr. Drell noted that the recycle bin was not an option, it is required. Chairman Gregory asked Mr. Buccino his reasons for exceeding the height limit by three feet. Commissioner Urrutia reported that Mr. Buccino was trying to maintain a ten foot clearance under the building for emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Connor felt that the case should be continued allowing the architect to look at what can be done to reduce the height limit. 7 1` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant conceptual approval subject to clarification from the appropriate bodies on the height exception. Motion carried 3-0-1 , Commissioner Urrutia abstaining. VI. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA: 1. CASE NO.: 1997 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELEPHANT BAR, 1160 Pioneer Way, Suite M, E1 Cajon, CA 92020 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of newly designed business identification sign LOCATION: 73-833 Highway III ZONE: C-1 (S.P. ) The applicant, Mr. Scott Baker, was present requesting to place a new face on the existing can sign. The sign background would be opaque, painted the same color of the building. He added that the sign would be hand painted and internally lit. Mr. Smith noted that the maximum milliamps allowed would be 430. Commissioner Urrutia would like to see the signage placed directly on the building. Mr. Baker replied that this could not be done because of the cost involved. Chairman Gregory felt that the elephant and palm trees were considered as the logo for the restaurant, with the actual signage being "Elephant Bar and Grill". Commission felt that the sign was an attractive design; however, could not approve a sign with more than the allowed three colors. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to deny the sign request as presented, as it comprises of more than the allowable three colors. Commission indicated that they would recommend approval of pictorial and logo signs with more than three colors, if it is an attractive design. Motion carried 4-0. 2. CASE NO.: 892 SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID MANOOKIAN for VISTA PASEO II , Post Office 2846, Palm Desert, CA 92261 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOOGHT:a Approval of two single family homes over 15 foot height limit LOCATION: Lot 8 & 9, Vista Paseo Phase II ZONE: R-1 The applicant, David Manookian, went before commission with elevations on two homes, for the lots listed above, which exceed the 15 foot height limit. Chairman Gregory asked for the heights on nearby existing homes. Mr. Manookian replied that there were not many homes built in the area as yet. Mr. Drell indicated that the applicant was before commission asking for approval on the homes for Lot 8 and 9 of the subdivision, and once more homes are planned, Mr. Manookian would have to come before commission again if the homes exceed 15 feet. Mr. Manookian informed commission that he will be coming back to the board on August 13th for landscape approval . Chairman Gregory discussed his concerns on the elevations with the applicant. Commissioner Urrutia noted his concerns with the massiveness of the walls. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Viiet, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to continue the request to allow the applicant to restudy the elevations, addressing the commissions concerns on the massiveness of the walls at the sides of the buildings and the lack of overhangs and/or trellis work. Commission also felt there were too many different styles of roof designs on one elevation. Commission will need to see elevations for both houses. Motion carried 4-0. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Urrutia reported that at the last Art-In-Public- Places Committee meeting there were some concerns as to the process on how applicants are notified of the terms on the city's requirements for A. I .P.P. in addressing artwork in lieu of the art fee. Mr. Drell indicated that this fee is conditioned on the resolution. Mr. Smith noted that he and Ms. Sass discussed this issue and he suggested that a standard condition be placed on precise plans that states the applicant is required to pay the A. I .P.P. fee or get approval from the A. I .P.P. committee for placement of art on the site. 9 s MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 Commissioner Urrutia noted that the A. I .P.P. committee was trying to integrate any major art work into projects as they are being designed. The committee wants the applicant to know that they have a choice to pay the fee or present a proposal for art placement at the beginning stages of their process. He felt that if the city could make this process easier for applicants to be aware of what their requirements are at the initial stage, than they can make that decision at the appropriate time. Commissioner Urrutia also felt that projects brought to the Architectural Commission should address the art requirements at the time of their proposal . Steve Smith discussed the items that were added to the agenda because of the three week period between meetings. He noted that the submittals were incomplete, and asked the commission if this was how they wanted late submittals handled, or if they wanted staff to strictly adhere to Monday deadline. Commission directed staff to adhere to the Monday deadline (8 days prior to the meeting date) with no exceptions, and that all information is submitted in the packets for commission's review prior to the meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 10