The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-11-26 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 f��*.*�*��**��*+��.�*��►�**.��.��*��*�*.�.*��f�*�.«�..*��:mot:**�*�..�� I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:20 p.m. Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman (arrived 1 :55) X 20 2 Rick Holden X 20 2 Frank Urrutia X 18 4 Chris Van Vliet X 19 3 Kirby Warner X 5 0 Wayne Connor, Alternate X 15 7 Staff Present: Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Steve Buchanan Bob Smith Frank Gonzalez Eric Johnson Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Warner, to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1991 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. III. It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: 2076 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGNS BY MEL for STUDIO "10", 945 Boardwalk, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Additional signage on existing sign LOCATION: 72-380 E1 Paseo ZONE: C-1 Commission approved the additional signage at a maximum size of 4 inch letters subject to the deletion of the existing window signage. NW `%001 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 2. CASE NO.: 2078 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AMERICAN AWNING CO. for SWENSEN'S TOWN CENTER, 44-489 Town Center Way #D-194, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signage LOCATION: 72-840 Highway III , Unit #156 ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Commission approved the proposed awning with 10" capital first letters and remaining letters at 8 inch subject to the removal of the existing red signage. 3. CASE NO.: 2038 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : URRUTIA ARCHITECTS for AMERICAN SAVINGS, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of remodel and landscaping LOCATION: 72-625 Highway III ZONE: PC-3 Commission approved the final plans as submitted. Commissioners Connor and Urrutia abstained from vote. B. Miscellaneous Cases: 1. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JEFFREY & RIETA EBBERTS, 74-285 Primrose Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of installed chain link fence 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 LOCATION: 74-285 Primrose Drive Mrs. Ebberts noted that she had received signatures from all the residents who could see the fence stating their approval of the installed fence. She indicated that the fence was temporary as she was planning of remodeling the home and removing the fence. Commission approved the existing chain link fence subject to the fence being significantly landscaped or replaced within 18 months. IV. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: PP 89-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RODGER A. BROOKS for PIZZA HUT, 200 So. Rock Road, Suite A, Wichita, Kansas 67202-1160 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of patio trellis LOCATION: 72-311 Highway Ill ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Steve Smith presented the plans for the proposed patio addition on the west side of the building. Patio addition would seat 28 people at 7 tables. Commissioner Connor felt that the proposed landscaping plan was marginal . He added that the remainder of the landscaping at the restaurant needed improvement. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the design of the structure as he felt it was too flimsy. He added that the structure needed to be more proportionally designed to fit in with the existing fascia. Commissioner Urrutia suggested the use of stucco rather than wood and beef up the columns to make the structure look more like an extension of the building. Commissioner Connor felt that the proposed landscaping was very minimal and needed to be upgraded. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the request to allow the applicant to address the following concerns: 1) Design of the structure appears flimsy. Commission suggested stuccoing over the wood and increasing the size of the trellis material . Patio trellis to be proportional to the 3 *%.► MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 existing fascia. 2) Existing landscaping is minimal . Upgraded landscaping required in area of new patio enclosure. Motion carried 5-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 90-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DSL SERVICE CO. , 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 5000, North Tower, , Newport BEach, CA 92658-6030 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary elevation plans LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive and Highway III ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. The applicant, Sue Quan, presented model groupings showing the buildings on the various pads as requested by commission. She also presented site plans showing the canopys, column structures and actual trellis work. Commission was concerned with the lack of detail on the Highway III side of the buildings. Commissioner Holden noted that commission wanted to avoid the buildings along Highway III looking like the back of the buildings. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the original idea in the elevations had been lost as it seemed that more of the buildings have become free standing. Commissioner Holden discussed his concerns with the location of pads E, F and G being three separately oriented pads. Commission felt that the applicant could create more interest through the use of stepping the building footprints, changes in the roof lines, extension of the columns and creation of spandrel window areas. Commission discussed the various ways of turning the building pads to take advantage of the public art plaza area. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the center had lost its cohesiveness noting that everything needed to be tied together more. He noted how the center now seemed to jump from one building to another. Commissioner Urrutia discussed how buildings E and F were now being shown as two buildings. He felt that more articulation could be added by combining buildings E and F. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 Commissioner Urrutia discussed how more courtyard space could be created by combining these two buildings. If the buildings are left detached as presented, more side spaces would need to be created for the public. He noted that the same could occur on buildings I and J. If these buildings are not joined together, they would need more indentations. Commissioner Holden discussed how the commission had requested that the applicant create some type of combined villages for the center. Commissioner Urrutia did not object to the restaurant having separate identity; however, the pads need to be tied in more. Steve Buchanan noted that a common canopy or pedestrian walkway could be placed between the two buildings if the property was all one parcel . Ms. Quan indicated that they are all separate parcels. Mr. Buchanan noted that he would have to determine the actual parcels before this type of walkway could be approved. Commissioner Warner agreed that the project no longer looked like quaint villages throughout the center. Commissioner Holden felt that the visibility of building E was lost from the art piece center. Commissioner Connor discussed his concerns with the flatness of the long buildings. He felt that in reality the buildings would not look as they do on paper. Commissioner Urrutia felt that there was not much shadow line, whereas if the buildings did jog in and out with more courtyards the architecture would relate better and create more interest. Commissioner Urrutia discussed how there did not appear to be much of an elevation change in the skyline and profile of buildings E, F and I . Architecturally, he would like to see more than what is being shown. Commissioner Warner discussed his concerns with the lack of building treatment along the Highway III side of the center. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the request to allow the applicant to address the following concerns: I) Lack of undulation in both plans and elevations. In particular, buildings E and F could be joined into one building to allow for more courtyard areas for pedestrian use. If buildings are not joined, commission would need to see this type of concept integrated. 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 2) Create more undulation in the footprint rather than rely on the arcades and frontages ( i .e. buildings E, F, I , J and K) . 3) Additional interesting spaces need to be created in the courtyard of buildings I , J and K for pedestrian use. 4) There does not appear to be much of an elevation change in the skyline and profile of buildings E, F and I . 5) Architect needs to take full advantage of all sides of the buildings. Additional building treatment needed on buildings along Highway III , Parkview and Fred Waring Drive. Motion carried 5-0. C. Miscellaneous Cases: 1. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. JOE WEIL, 45-978 Toro Peak Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of placement of satellite dish LOCATION: 45-978 Toro Peak Road ZONE: R-1 Steve Smith reported that Mr. Weil was asking to install a satellite dish on a 15 foot pole at the back of his garage. Mr. Smith noted that he had not seen any correspondence or heard responses from the neighbors and therefore was not sure if they were aware of this request. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant showed how both his landscaping and the adjacent neighbor's landscaping would block the reception of the dish if it were to be placed in his rear yard. Commission discussed the placement of some type of facade that would tie in with the architecture of the house. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Warner, to continue the request to allow the applicant to restudy the location of the dish or provide detailed plans on the proposed parapet. Motion carried 5-0. 6 ,%W01' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL. REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 2. Reschedule of December 24, 1991 meeting: Steve Smith noted that the scheduled meetings for December would be December 10 and December 24. He suggested that commission reschedule the December meetings to one meeting only on December 17, 1991 . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to have one meeting in December. The meeting was scheduled for December 17, 1991 at 12:00 noon. Motion carried 6- 0. V1. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Commissioner Warner, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to adjourn the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. STEVE SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 7