HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-12 z
**Moe
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
I. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 12: 15 p.m.
Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date
Present Absent Present Absent
Ron Gregory, Chairman X 19 2
Rick Holden X 19 2
Frank Urrutia X 17 4
Chris Van Vliet X 18 3
Kirby Warner X 4 0
Wayne Connor, Alternate X 14 7
Staff Present: Phil Drell
Jeff Winklepleck
Steve Buchanan
Daisy Garcia
Donna Bitter
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van
Vliet, to approve the minutes of the October 22, 1991 meeting as
submitted. Motion carried 6-0.
III. It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Warner,
to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0.
A. Final Drawings:
1. CASE NO.: 374 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MELANIE PLACE PARTNERS, 73-441
Mariposa, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel portion of existing
building
LOCATION: 42-650 Melanie Place
ZONE: S. I .
Jeff Winklepleck indicated that the three requested satellite
dishes would be located against the tamarisk trees along the rear
of the property. Chairman Gregory asked if there was any
opposition from the neighbors. Mr. Winklepleck noted that there
was no conflict. Commissioner Holden asked if the remodel would
7
take away any of the required parking. Mr. Winklepleck reported
that the building was actually over on the parking space
requirements.
2. CASE NO.: 2071 SA
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHENS, 73-061 El
Paseo, Suite 205, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning and
signage
LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo, Suite 8
ZONE: C-1 S.P.
Commission approved the awning and signage subject to a maximum
4500 amperage on the white neon.
3. CASE NO.: 2070 SA
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DUCHESS HAIR DESIGN, 73-900 El Paseo,
Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage on awning
LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1 S.P.
Commission approved the signage subject to the peach patch being
removed and the awning restored to its original condition.
4. CASE NO.: VAR 91-3
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. , 74-818 Velie
Way, Suite 12, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final landscaping
plan and material board
LOCATION: 73-811 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1
Jeff Winklepleck presented the final landscape plans noting that
the public works landscaping staff had reviewed the plans with the
2
V"001 *Moe
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
developer and had no concerns with the proposed plan.
Commission approved the final landscaping plan and material board
as submitted.
5. CASE NO.: 2072 SA
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MS. DIANE BIGGS for DIANE'S, 125
Manhattan Beach Blvd. , Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Replace existing awning with
new white awning to include signage
LOCATION: 73-800 E1 Paseo
ZONE: C-1
Commission approved awning with signage as submitted.
B. Miscellaneous Cases:
1. CASE NO.:
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JUNE MULLENEAUX for TSING TAO
RESTAURANT, Post Office Box 123, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of blower extending
four inches over parapet
LOCATION: "Super Block" building located at the northeast corner
of Highway III and Portola Avenue
ZONE: C-1 S.P.
Commission approved the location of the blower subject to the
equipment being painted to match existing parapet.
2. CASE NO.:
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): 73-754 Highway III , Palm Desert, CA
92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of building remodel
LOCATION: 73-754 Highway III
ZONE:
3
v.rf
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
Jeff Winklepleck presented the drawing of the proposed building
remodel . Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the building would
now project out onto the sidewalk. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that
the remodel would project the same as the existing building.
Chairman Gregory noted that the commission appreciated what the
applicant was doing with the building. Commission granted
conceptual approval to the remodel plans, by minute motion,
directing the applicant to provide an actual site plan and
elevations showing the side of the building. Commission will need
to see how the columns relate to the sidewalk and the existing
building.
IV. CASES:
A. Final Drawings:
1. CASE NO.: 368 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO FIVE ARCHITECTS AND DESIGN for
LUCKY STORES, 31511-A Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of Condition
No. 3 on approved landscape plan
LOCATION: E1 Paseo and Lupine Avenue
ZONE: C-1 S.P.
Jeff Winklepleck reported that at the last meeting the commission
placed conditions on the approval . The applicant was now
requesting that Condition No. 3 be reviewed as they felt the
additional landscaping to the corner was beyond the scope of the
project and unwarranted. Phil Drell noted that they needed to
look at the proposed project as a remodel to the shopping center
rather than a segment of the center. Commission agreed.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van
Vliet, to deny the request to delete Condition No. 3 from the
approved landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0.
2. CASE NO.: PP 90-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DSL SERVICE CO. , 3501 Jamboree Road,
Suite 5000, North Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92658-6030
4
*r► 1*001,
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1 ) Reconsideration of
Mervyn's sign request; 2) Review of drawings for major tenants
and inline shops
LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive and Highway III
ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P.
1 ) The applicant, Ignacio Gomez, presented photos from the Palm
Desert Town Center signage showing stores with letters over 4 feet
in height as well as existing Mervyn's signage. He reported that
Mervyn's was asking for 4 foot high reverse channel letters as
they occupy a relatively large building in the center and the
parking field in front of the store was 400 feet from the front
door. The 4 foot letters are what Mr. Gomez felt was needed to
allow a person to comfortably identify their store.
Commissioner Warner noted that the reason commission was concerned
with 4 foot letters was because of the length of the proposed
Mervyn's sign. Mr. Gomez felt that the proportion of the 4 foot
signage worked very well with the building and the shopping
center. He added that Mervyn's was giving up visibility with the
approved reverse channel letter signs. Commissioner Holden did
not have any concerns with the 4 foot signage, but felt that it
was not the signage that would bring people back to the store. In
order to create a good business it takes a lot more than signage.
It is a good product and service that will bring people back to
the store. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and felt that once the
center was built people will know what stores are in the center.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Van
Vliet, to approve the Mervyn's reverse channel letter sign (no
light through the face) at the requested four feet. Motion
carried 3-2-1 , Commissioners Urrutia and Connor voting No and
Chairman Gregory abstaining.
2) The applicant, Sue Quan, presented revised elevation drawings.
Commissioner Holden noted that the commission would need to see a
preliminary plan showing how the columns and the landscaping would
work with the architecture. Commissioner Urrutia felt that
commission would need to see an updated footprint. Commissioner
Holden asked about the plaza between Building C and Building D.
Ms. Quan explained that Building D did not have a tenant as yet,
and therefore this section of the center had not been designed.
Commissioner Holden noted his concerns with the lack of
landscaping between Building C and Building D.
5
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
Commissioner Warner asked about future signage for the proposed
Bookstore noting that their logo was red letters. The applicant
indicated that the Bookstore would be asking for white signage.
Commissioner Holden felt that it was difficult to review the
architecture as presented, as commission would need to see
building elevations and the elevations as a grouping.
Commissioner Urrutia discussed how he felt that portions of the
elevations fell short of the uniqueness that is required for the
center.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner
Urrutia, to continue the preliminary drawings to allow the
architect to submit a plan to include all elevations. Commission
requested that the applicant show how the satellite buildings fit
together as well as the inline shops. Motion carried 5-0-1 ,
Chairman Gregory abstaining.
3. CASE NO.: PP 89-21
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RODGER A. BROOKS for PIZZA HUT, 200 So.
Rock Road, Suite A, Wichita, Kansas 67207-1160
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of outdoor dining
patio and trellis
LOCATION: 72-311 Highway III
ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner
Warner, to continue the request as the applicant was not present
with proposed plans. Motion carried 6-0.
4. CASE NO. : 1485 SA-1
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC SPA AND BATH, 73-446 Highway
Ill , Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional
signage on awning
LOCATION: 73-446 Highway 111
6
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
ZONE: C-1
Jeff Winklepleck reported that since the awning was installed the
business has expanded and the applicant was now asking that
"Plumbing Fixtures" and "Bath Accessories" be added to the
existing awning and signage. Chairman Gregory felt that the name
of the business itself describes what is being sold. Commissioner
Urrutia felt that the letter size needed to be reduced and the
letter style should match the existing "Spa and Bath".
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner
Warner, to approve the additional signage subject to maximum 4"
letters and the letter style to match existing "Spa and Bath".
Motion carried 6-0.
B. Miscellaneous Plans:
1. CASE NO.: PP 89-19
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GREGORY & ASSOCIATES for "SUPER BLOCK"
BUILDING, 74-020 Alessandro, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Commissions review of
installed landscaping
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway III
ZONE: C-1 S.P.
Commission discussed various procedures needed in approving plans
through commission and how these procedures would need to be
implemented with all projects.
Commissioner Urrutia noted that the list of items prepared by Eric
Johnson and Frank Gonzalez did not say that these items should be
changed. He felt the memorandum merely indicated a checklist of
things that were different from the approved plan. It did not
state that these items were unacceptable.
Commissioner Connor reported that the applicant could not follow
the approved landscaping plans for this project as there were so
many hardscape changes made on the building. He added that he did
not have a problem with the landscaping plan as installed.
7
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
Commissioner Urrutia noted the concerns with the trees planted so
close to Building B. Commissioner Warner's only concern was the
deletion of the saguaros. Mr. Gregory noted that he was asked by
a council member not to plant this material . Commissioner Warner
noted that one council member could not change items on an
approved plan.
Commissioner Urrutia noted that the commissioners who inspected
the site did not have a problem with any of the installed changes.
He added that the commissioners merely made comments on items they
felt might have been handled differently.
Commissioner Warner felt that the commission should assume that
there are things that could be changed on the approved landscaping
plan. Mr. Drell felt that the policy of changes should be made
clearer and suggested that the following sentence be added to the
Notice of Action - "Any amendments of this approved plan would
need to be resubmitted to commission for approval". Commissioner
Holden felt that once commission approves a plan, that is how it
should be installed. He noted his concerns with the number of
Items on the checklist that were approved by commission but were
items the public works staff had a problem with. Mr. Drell felt
that Eric Johnson and Frank Gonzales should have the authority to
approve landscape plan changes over the counter if they felt
comfortable with the changes. Chairman Gregory noted that
discretion was needed in these cases as the approval of changes
would vary from one person to another.
Commissioner Urrutia felt that if there was going to be a
procedure followed he would rather see the person be a bit tougher
than not. Chairman Gregory noted that there would always be gray
areas in landscaping where field decisions have to be made.
Commissioner Urrutia suggested that the commission meet with Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Gonzalez to discuss specific guidelines.
Commissioner Holden felt that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gonzalez were
advisory staff and should sit in at the commission meetings in
order to discuss their concerns with commission rather than
through the planning department staff.
Commissioner Warner thanked the commissioners for reviewing the
actual project and suggested implementation of the process to
include Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gonzalez at all future meetings.
Commissioner Holden directed staff to draft a procedure on the
processing of landscape plans stating that the public works
landscaping staff be present at all future meetings. Commissioner
Holden discussed his concerns with Mr. Johnson designing landscape
8
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
plans for architects and the liability involving the city on such
plans.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner
Warner, to approve the landscaping plan as installed. Motion
carried 5-0-1 , Chairman Gregory abstaining.
V. The following items were added to the agenda by a unanimous vote:
1. CASE NO.: 373 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T. ROSS CONSTRUCTION for EL CAFE DE
MEXICO, Post Office Box 4402, Palm Desert, California 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of storefront
remodel
LOCATION: 73-325 Highway III
ZONE:
The applicant, Wendell Veith, presented the proposed remodel
plans. Commissioner Holden asked about the lack of railing at the
front of the building. Commissioner Urrutia suggested that steps
be added here. Commissioner Urrutia discussed the code
requirements for handicap access. Mr. Veith explained how the
gate would be closed at the sidewalk when the business was not
open. Commissioner Connor explained how the proposed potted
plants would not work as a barrier at the proposed gate.
Commissioner Urrutia felt that permanent trees be planted in this
location.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van
V11et, to grant preliminary approval on the remodel plans with the
following conditions:
1) Handicap ramp meet minimum code requirements.
2) Front parapet facade be a minimum of 3 feet thick where
exposed from the side view.
3) Rear mechanical screen wall be returned along the side of the
building a minimum of 3 feet.
4) Street side barrier changed to a planter treatment placed in
the ground.
5) Steps be furnished on the remainder of the upper patio.
9
1400,
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
6) Landscaping plan be provided.
Motion carried 6-0.
2. CASE NO.: 2073 SA
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOWTON SIGNS for EARTH SPIRITS, 68-704
Perez Road, Cathedral City, CA 92234
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with
signage
LOCATION: 73-130 E1 Paseo
Jeff Winklepleck noted that the applicant was requesting a terra
cotta awning with 8 inch buckskin letters on an ivory fascia
insert. Commissioner Van Vliet discussed his concerns with the
open ends of the awning. Commissioner Urrutia was concerned with
the awning stepping out 9 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that
the awning should be set back some as it took away from the
architecture of the building. Chairman Gregory agreed.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner
Urrutia, to approve the awning extending a maximum of 7 feet from
the face of the building. Motion carried 6-0.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Comments on tree light recommendations to city council .
Commission discussed, in detail , the memorandum from Ray Diaz to the
city council regarding tree lights. Commissioner Van Viiet noted he
agreed with the conditions listed. Commissioner Urrutia also felt that
the items listed in Item No. 2 were correct; however, noted that these
types of applications have to be handled on an individual basis.
Commission agreed that the memorandum was accurate and should be
presented to the city council . Chairman Gregory thanked the city
council for their interest in these issues.
10
NOW
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Warner,
to adjourn the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
3.L� —
JEFF WINKLEPLECK
ASSISTANT PLANNER
JW/db
I1