Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1992 *��������***�*���*����*��**�***�***�*�����f��*��******�������������*f���*f� I. CALL TO ORDER: 7h�e meeting was calied to order at ]2:25 p.m. Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date ^�i Present Absent Present Absent Ron Greaorv. Chairman X 4 0 Rick Holden X 4 0 Frank Urru�tia X 2 2 Chris Van Vliet X 4 0 Kirby Warner X 3 1 Wavne Connor X 3 I Staff Present: Steve Smi�th Jeff Winklepleck Steve Buchanan Bob Smith Donna B i t�ter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved bY Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Warner, fio approve the minutes of �the February 11 , 1992 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1 , Cornmissioner Urrutia abstaining. III. It M+as m�ved by Camiissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. A. Final Draaings: l . CASE NO. : TT 25711 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SIERRANOVA c/o PALM DESERT PARTNERS, LTD. , �77-900 Avenue of the Sta�tes, Palm Deser�t, CA 92260; LI�ESCAPES, INC. , 4930 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL S�1GHT: Appr�aval of final working drawinas LOCATION: West of El Dor�ado Drive, 1/2 mile sou�h of Country Club ZONE: PR-5 Steve SmitFr ou�l ined i�he rnernorandum from the �ubl ic works staff not i n�� �the i r cancerns w i tri the amount of mater i a 1 be i nea used and asked �.hai, 1Yr�e a�r�l icant decrease some of the plant material . � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAI REVIEN COMMISSION fEBRUARY 11, 1992 Chairman Greyory noted �hat staff was asking that the piant ma�terial be putled apart fur�ther �to Uive it a more natural desie�n. He added that the bonsa i-dwarf fescue was not recorr�nended i n tt�e ciesert due to �the ex�treme summer cand i t i ons not i ng that the turf wouid require too much water. The apc�licant stated that ttiey were tryiny to make a real stronU statement with the landscaping at the entr�y. Mr. Smitt► noted fi:t�at. tt�e s�aff concerns were along the stree�t. Commissinn ap�raved the final working drawinys subject to meeting the conditions listed in memorandum dated February 25, 1992 from Eric Johnson and Frank Gonzalez. 2. CASE t+�. : PP 90-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DSL SERVICE CO. , 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 5000, North Tower, Newport Beach, CA y2658-6030 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOl1GHT: Approval of final landscape ptans LOCATION: Fred Wariny arive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.G. (3) S.P. Si.eve Smith presented the final plans noting that Eric Johnson had reviewed them and felt the layout was acceptable; however, he was sl�ill concerned wi�:h the tyr�e of irrigation system being used. He noted tha�t the proposed system was used at the new buildiny at �the civic cent�r and discussed �.h�e problems this system is having. Mr. Johnson requested tha�t a different manufacturer be used on �the irrigatibn sysLem. Corr�nission approved the final landscape plans sub�iect �to the irriyation emi�tter system manufacturer be clarified at a later date. Motian carried 5-0- 1 , Chairman Greg<:>ry abstaining. 3. CASE NO. : PP 91-15 APPL[CANT (AND ADDRESS) : HOWARD BREIN CONS7RUCTION CO. , Post Office Box 3237, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PRO.)ECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of finat landscape plan L�ATION: 73-805 St�adow Mountain Drive 2 . � � M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAI REVIEW COMMISSI�1 FESRUARY 11, 1992 ZONE: R-3 13,OOG Commission approved the finai landscape plans as submitted. 4. CASE NO.: TT 26970 APPLICANT (AND ADORESS) : GARY DAUGHERTY/JOHN ERDMANN for MARIPOSA SPRINGS, 462 Gracelanci, Laguna Beach, CA 92691 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final landscape plan LOCATION: North side of Countr-y Club Drive opposii:e Marriott Deser�t Sprinys ZONE: PR-5 Corr�n i ss i an ar�proved �Lhe f i na i 1 andscape p i ans as subm i tted. 5. CASE NO.: PP 91-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DUGGAN AND 5USAN LANRQS c/o GORDON STEIN. 44-858 San Juan Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI SOUGHT: Final approval of architectural and landscapinea plans for six unit apartment complex LOCATION: East of San Pablo between Santa Rosa Way and Catalina Wav Commission continued the case as the applicant was not present with the finai plans. B. Miscellaneous Cases: 1 . CASE NO. : 323 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KIGER L. BARTON, Post Office Box 142, P�lm Deser�t, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGN7: Revised landscape plan to qualify for a certificate of conformance LOCATION: 44-519 5an Anselmo 3 � � M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1992 ZONE: R-2 (5) Commission approved the revised landscape plan as submitted. 2. CASE NO. : 8y5 SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RAY CRITES for REMUS HAS7E RESIDENCE, 81824 Trader S�treet. Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL S(HJGHT: Approval of 16' high single family home LOCATION: 43-730 Buena Circle ZONE: R-I St.aff nat.ed that the plans were changed to a ]5' maximum height and therefore with��rew the case from the ayenda. IV. CASES: A. Final DraKings: 1. CASE NO.: PP 90-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : L. MONDE INTERNATIONAL for 7HE COLONNADE BUII.DING, 73-375 El Paseo. Palm Deser�t, CA 92260 NATURE � PROJECTlAPPROVA� SOUGHT: Approval of second story m��tal awniny on rear of buildiny LOCATION: South�east corner of E1 Paseo and Sage ZOME: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented plans fnr th�e metal awning �o be placed a�t �the rear of the building on the second story. The awning would be wh i�.e underneath w i�h yray on the 1:op s i de. Cha i rman Gregory asked �to see a picture of the actual awning. The applicant, Paul Jansen, F�rovided a picture of the acrylic type awning to be i nsta 1 1 ed w i th 3" x 3" posts no�t i ng �that the awn i ny wou 1 d be 100 fee� in length along the sout.h facinc� windows. Ct�airman Gregory noted his concerns with the type of proposed st.ruci.ure stai:i ng that he f e 1 t i t 1 ooked 1 i ke somei�h i ng that. wou 1 d be placed on a mobile home. He felt. the awning needec� to be 4 ' � � M1Nur�s ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1992 beefed up in som� way. Commissioner Nolden added that a physical drawinca of the buildinea and awning was needed �to see exactly where tt�e awning would starfi and stop. Commissioner Urrutia felt tr�at the awniny needed to conform more with �the existing spanish archii�ecture. He also discussed his concerns with what wouid be seen bv the residential areas across the s�treet. Steve Buchanan noted .that. the building department would also need to see an ac�tual picture of �the proposed awniny. Action: � It was moved by Corrxnissioner Urrutia, secanded by Commissioner Connor. to continue �the request directinU the applicant �to resubmit a �lan witr� aci�ual drawings of the proposed awning and the buildiny as wetl as a roof plan and elevations. Motion carr•i ed 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1 . CASE NO.: PP 90-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DSL SERVICE C0. for CIRCUIT CITY, 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 5000, North Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92658- 6030 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1 ) Approval of revised preliminary architectural plans; 2) Approval of sign program LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. t3) S.P. 1) St.eve Smith presented the revised plans st�owing the added detail to �the �tower element and the connection for Circuit City. Commission felt t.he revised �lans were a vast impr�ovement. Commissioner Urrutia asked about the colors of �the remaininq e 1 eva1:i pns. Ac�t i on: It. was rnoved by Commissianer Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Holden, �to Urant preliminary approval of the archi�tectural plans, inctuding t.he connection, subject to tt�e band under i;he arches beiny burgund_v as shown on the revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-1 , Chairman Greyory absi:aining. 5 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAI REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY I1. 1992 2) T�he applicant, Mike Bank, preseni�ed plans for �he proposeci siyn proyram notinca that the four product siUns are wha�r Circuit Cit.v felt. ta be absolutely necessary. Mr. Bank noted that he had persuaded Circuit City to reduce �the menu siyns to �two, "audio/vid�o and apUliances". This product identification signage would be t8 inch hiyh reverse channel burgundy letters to ma�tch tr�e ceramic tite with the "Circuii� City" signage in white letters. Mr. Smith na�ted that �the City Council had approved yreen, 2 shades of blue and white for the sign program. The applicant will now ask to change the approved yreen color �to the burgundy color for the cen�er. Commissioner Urrutia felt tf�e product identification signs were not necessary as hP feit Circuit City speaks for itself on what ttiey se 1 1 . He �hougtit the menu s i gns were not needed i n th i s case, as they are a very well known company and most people are awarE of what t.hey sell . Commissioner Connor dyreed s�ating that. because Circuit City is so well known, he didn't see the purpose of 1:he� menu s i gns. Camm i ss i oner Warner i nd i cated t.t�at i�. was difficult to vision what �the siUnacae would look like withou�t an dctual colored elevation. Mr. Bank indicated that if the burgundy color on �the arches was a key issue, they would relinquish �the burgundy on the arches t.o get. a�praval on the burgundy �roduct sic�ns. Commissioner Van Viiet was not concerned wi�th the siynage, but would rather see the buryundy color� under tP7e arct�es deteted. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Warner, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the siynaeae as shown in burgundy subject to the deletion of i;he burgundy under the arches. Motion failed t.o carry wi�tt� �the followiny vo�te: 2-3-1 , Commissioners Holden, Urru�tia and Connor votiny No, wit.r� Chairman Gr�eyory abstaining. Commissioner Holden noted tha�t he would be in favor of �this mo�tion if i.P�e letters sizes could be reduced. Mr. Bank reported that the typical Circuit City product identification signacte is 24" letters, and t.hat they are now requestiny 18" letters. The 18" size letters is �the smallest size Circuit Ci�ty has ever asked for. Commissioner Holden felt that. �he 12" letters would be much more feasible for these sieans as they would only be seen from the r�ark i ny 1 ot. He noted i:.hat t.he proposed s i ynage wou 1 d make the "audio/visual " sign a to�tal of 18 fee�t lony. 6 . '�r+% `'�' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1992 Act.i on: �^ I�. was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner W�rner, to approve the signacae in 12" letters, proPnrtionallv reduced in length, subject to the deleLion of the burgundy under �the arches. Motion carried 3-2-1 , Commissioners Connor and Urrutia votiny No with Cr�airrnan Greyory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: {'P 92-1 APPI.[CANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES PALMER, Post Office Box 1027. Rancho Miraye, CA y2270; JAMES FETRIDGE� Pos�t Office Box 1963, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary plans for a two story, 8645 syuare foot, office building LOCATION: Wes�: side of Monterey Avenue, 1000 feet south of Fred Warina Drive ZONE: O.P. S�.eve Smith �resented the revised plans noting that Mr. Fetridge had met with �the public works staff prior to �the meetinc�. The t�uilding pad will now be 15" above the curb heiyht, making the maximum heiyht of the buildiny 23' 9". Mr. Fei:ridye outlined the areas of the building that would exfiend above the allowed 25' heiyht. He showed where the drainaye at the back of the bu i 1 d i ny wou 1 d be dra i ned w i th p i pes under� the f 1 aor to the curb face and how the southeast corner would be draining out onto �r�e driveway. Mr. Fetridge also showed how the roof equipmen�t had be�n moved �to the lower end of the building. Cammissioner Holden asked if the city had changed its posit.ion on �the height limit including the screening of �the roof eyuipment. Mr. Smith stated that occasionally f�arapets that are 6" or 1 ' above �the heie�ht limit have been formed acceptalbe, but he did not feel that. this r�roposal should be encouraged to use this type of solution. Commissioner Urrutia no�ted tha�t the ordinance is very clear on t.he 25' heiyht maximum. He added that this woutd be somethiny that would reyuire a variance and therefore would have to get apr�roval from the planniny commission. Commissioner Urrutia did not feel that the architectural comrnission had �the 1 a� i i:ude to approve t.h i s he i ght exl:ens i on. Mr. Smi th agreed, statina that the equipment could not exceed the 25' heiyht limit. 7 � ;�; � M(NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11. 1992 Action: It. was moved by Corixnissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval of the architec�tural plans only subject to the final workiny drawings complying wit.h the heiaht limi�t ( i .e. as it relates to rnof mounted eyuipment) . Mot. ion carried 4- 1-1 , Commissioner Holden voting No with Commissioner Connor Abs�taininy. 3. CASE NO. : PP 92-2 APPLICANT (ANO ADORESS): D 8 F DEVELOPMENT, 80-899 Indio Blvd. , Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI. SOUGHT: Preliminary appraval of elevations and landscapiny for 23 unit, zero lot line, sinc�le family subdivision LOCATION: Southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa ZONE: R-2 S.O. Steve Smith presented plans for tt�e �roposed 23 unit subdivision. Commissioner IJrrutia felt that the rear setbacks were ver�v minimal . Steve Smith indicated fi.hat the zane atlows for a minimums setback of t0 feet; however, the applican�ts no�ted that they were in the process of increasiny the siZe of the rear yards. Commissioner Urrutia asked about the elevation heiUhts. The applicar�t, Mr. Fronz 7irie, indicated that the single story units with the loft would be l8 feet. The two story units would be 23 feet at the veak. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns on the two story units, especially how �they would relate to �the ad jacent homes. He f e 1 t ttiat tf�e two story un i ts shau 1 d be kept to the interior of the projec�t. Commissioner Urrut.ia i:hought the front elevat.ions were acceptable; however, felt �that tt�ere was 1ittle thought placed on �the remainder of t.he elevations. He asked that the apF�licant address �the sic�e and rear elevations carryinU nut the de�tails from the front elevations. Commissioner Urrutie also discussed his cancerns with the lack of sun �rotection. He noted �that this also needed �to be addressed on the side and rear elevat.ions. Cornmissioner Urrut.ia discussed his concerns on the hames with driveways on Santa Rosa and how the trdff i c prob 1 ems t.hiey cou i d cr�eat.e. 8 . • � �; MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�'IMISSION FEBRUARY 11. 1992 CFiairman Gregory ques�ioned �he sidewalk along Portola noting the existiny meandering sidewatk �iust south of the project. He added that. a landscapiny strip was needed at the west end of the entry drive alony the property walls. Commission suygested working towards a complete duplex approach to allow for more open space. Act i on: ^ Ii: was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Holden. �to e�rant conceptual approvai on the front elevations only continuiny tt�e remainder of �.he �lans allowing the a�plicant to develop a desiyn with changes as discussed wi�th commission. Motian carried 6-0. V. The following case was added to the agenda by a unanimous vote: 1. CASE NO.: 1236 SA-1 APPIICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for R15TORANTE MAMA GINA, Pinyon Pines, Box 6y, Mountain Center. CA 92361 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage on existiny awniny LOCATIOM: 73-705 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. Steve Smith �resented the drawinys shawing the proposed signage to read "Ristorante Mama Gina" "Lunch �nd Oinner". He stated that tt�is was the first season i;he restaurant was open for lunch and had been usinea a temporary banner reading "Open for Lunch". He indicated that the applicani, was before the commission because of the concerns created with code compliance on this banner. The siynage wautd be a lU inch letter M with 8" letters for the rema i n i ng s i eanage. The applicant, Kathy Pierattoni , noted that the "lunch" signage would only be up from Sep�tember through MaY as lunch will only be served during the season. Commissioner Holden stated that P�e wouid rather see some type of �temporary "lunch" siean be used. Mr. 6ob Smith noted that the ordinance does allow a menu board. Commissioner Holden noted �that he would ra�ther see a lunch menu t�oard t.han "Open for Lunch" sewn i nto the awn i na. Comrn i ss i oner Urrui:i a ayreed and fe 1 t tha�t a temporary menu stanci, tha�t cou 1 d be r�emoved when they were not open for lunct�, would be more acceptable. � . � � �► M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY il, 1992 Commi ss i oner Warner fe 1 t t.hat t.he add i t i ona 1 s i gnac�e on tr7e awn i ng would de�tract fr�m �the nice entry. Commissioner Hoicien ayreed, stating that he would like to see something with a little more ambience. Mrs . Pierat�toni ayreed and asked that commission a�F�rove signage on the awning to read "Ristorante Mama Gina" in Uold letters to match �the siynaye over �the en�try door. Commissioner Urrutia did nat feel it was necessary to have the name of the business over the door and ayain on the awning. Aci.i on: It. was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the additional siynage on the awninq to read "Ristorante Mama Gina" with t.he condition that the wording be moved �:o the extreme r i ght end of the awn i nca. The words "Lunch and Dinner" to be deleted. Temporary banner to be remaved. Motion carried 6-0. V1 . ADJ�JRNMENT: It. was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to ad_iourn the meeting at 2:30 p.m. � ST VE SM[TH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SRS/db 10