Loading...
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