Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-08 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 ***************************************************************** I . CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12 : 15 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 5 0 Frank Urrutia X 5 0 Chris Van Vliet X 5 0 Wayne Connor X 5 0 Richard O'Donnell X 5 0 Ronald Gregory X 5 0 Staff Present: Steve Smith Steve Buchanan Jeff Winklepleck Donna Bitter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approved the minutes of the October 25, 1994 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 6-0 . III . It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. A. Final Drawings : 1. CASE NO. : 4391 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SUN SPLASH, 44-830 San Pablo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 - NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 44-830 San Pablo Avenue ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith reported that this was a new business going in on San Pablo just north of Allesandro. He presented pictures of the front of the building and a business card showing the shape and color of the proposed sign in green and orange letters . Mr. Smith indicated that the sign would extend above the parapet. He added that the owners MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 of the business adjacent to this store added a piece of plywood and painted it the same color of the fascia in order to get the larger sign. Commissioner Urrutia felt that it was not necessary to use the plywood but felt that the sign should be the same height as the adjacent business plywood sign. Commission approved the signage subject to a maximum sign height of 24" and height not to exceed sign to the north. 2 . CASE NO. : 4009 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : CHURCHILL MANAGEMENT for ST. JOHNS, 73-061 E1 Paseo, Suite 205, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning as installed LOCATION: 73-061 E1 Paseo, Suite 8 ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith reported that back in September 1992 the commission had approved an awning for this business and what was eventually installed last week was shown in pictures . The applicant, David Fletcher, showed how the color and the design was changed slightly. Commission approved the awnings as installed. 3. CASE NO. : TT 27882 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : S.H. SANBERG & PARTNERS, INC. for COUNTRY CLUB FALLS, 9701 Cholla Drive, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of model elevations and color/material samples LOCATION: Northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-7 Steve Smith noted that the color board had been simplified to provide a little more contrast. 2 "14"W MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Commission approved the color/material samples as submitted. Staff noted that the model elevations were approved at the October 12, 1994 meeting. 4 . CASE NO. : TT 24539 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DENNIS CUNNINGHAM c/o CENTURY HOMES for BELMONTE ESTATES, 1535 So. "D" Street, Suite 200, San Bernardino, CA 92408 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of entry monument sign LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street ZONE: PR-9 S.P. Steve Smith presented drawings of the proposed monument sign. He noted that there were two islands in the front of the project. One contained three palm trees and the other has a flagpole. The proposed monument sign would be placed in the island with the flagpole. The request is for a 36" high monument sign with green letters reading "Belmonte Estates" on an oatmeal colored background. Mr. Smith noted that the sign would not be a traffic concern by keeping it this low. He ran it by the public works department and checked the street plan and indicated that this front pocket was just outside the public right-of-way. Mr. Smith added that public works did want to review the sign. Commissioner Urrutia asked about the existing signage. The applicant, Dennis Cunningham, noted that the concept was to take the existing sign off the wall and use the letters on the proposed monument sign which would be ground lit. Commissioner Holden asked if there would be room for landscaping. Mr. Cunningham indicated that they would install the landscaping around the monument sign as indicated on the approved plans . Commissioner Urrutia felt that the monument should be raised about 6" so that the added landscaping did not block the lettering. 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Commission approved the signage subject to removal of the existing wall signs . IV. CASES: A. Final Drawings : 1 . CASE NO. : 4249 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : ROADRUNNER CAR RENTALS, INC. , 74-830 Velie Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signage LOCATION: 74-830 Velie Way ZONE: S. I . Jeff Winklepleck presented the proposed signage noting that signs B and C would not be lit. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the lack of consistency and the number of different signs . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve signs on the lower level only. Sign "C" to read "U-Haul" only. Sign "B" approved with "Roadrunner Car-Truck Rentals" in larger letters than "Cars - Vans" . Motion carried 6-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : 4393 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for A LITTLE SOMETHING SPECIAL, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage LOCATION: 73-575 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 S.P. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Steve Smith presented the colored renderings noting that the store was in the Jensen' s Center. He indicated that all other signs in the center were illuminated can signs . The applicant, Ernie Brooks, indicated that the proposed awning would be victorian green, projected 10" out from the building, and is the same height as the adjacent can sign. Mr. Smith noted that the commission should not be comparing this awning with the adjacent can sign as it was installed without approval . Chairman Gregory indicated that he liked the proposed awning if the scallops were deleted. Commissioner Holden noted that there already was an overhang on this building so therefore it was not being installed for shade. Commissioner Connor thought that the awning did not fit in this location with the remainder of the center being all can signs . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to deny the awning as it did not fit in with the architecture of the building or provide sun protection. Motion carried 6-0 . 3 . CASE NO. : 406 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : GEORGE NICHOLAS for PUCCI ' S, Post Office Box 13510, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Storefront upgrade to include awning with signage LOCATION: 73-710 E1 Paseo ZONE• C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented the colored rendering on the proposed facelift and awning. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the awning looked top heavy the way it was attached to the building. Mr. Ernie Brooks indicated that the awning would project out about two feet and would be four feet in height. There will be posts in the back to hold up the awning. Commissioner Holden asked about an overhang on the awning. Mr. Nicholas indicated that the overhang would stay the same as it exists now, but the glass would be 5 ,%Mr *00 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 brought out 18" . Commissioner Urrutia suggested rolling back the extended portion of the awning. Mr. Nicholas added that he wanted interlocking pavers in the front sidewalk, however the public works department preferred stamped concrete. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that he would rather see the pavers . Commissioner Connor agreed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the awning subject to the following conditions : 1) Maximum awning height to be 4 feet; 2) Center portion of awning to be barrel shaped; 3) Awning to be mauve in color with 8" white letters; 4) Extend sides of awning by 1 foot; 5) Interlocking pavers recommended instead of stamped concrete. Motion carried 6-0 . B. Preliminary Plans : 1. CASE NO. : TT 24539 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DENNIS CUNNINGHAM c/o CENTURY HOMES for BELMONTE ESTATES, 1535 So. "D" Street, Suite 200, San Bernardino, CA 92804 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street ZONE: PR-9 S.P. Steve Smith presented preliminary plans of the proposed elevations for the production units . Mr. Cunningham indicated that the front elevations had been revised to show what will be used around the doors and windows . Commissioner Urrutia asked why the hip roof was eliminated on Unit A. Mr. Cunningham indicated that it was done to match existing elements . Commissioner Urrutia indicated that the commission wanted to see revised plans showing exactly what was discussed at the 6 • Nve MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 previous meeting, but these plans had some deviations . He added that he did not see where the side elevations were changed as discussed. Mr. Cunningham felt there were no side elevations on the existing homes and therefore felt that by returning 2 feet on the sides, it would create a column look. He added that the garage doors would be roll-up metal with windows . Commissioner Urrutia asked why all the garages showed blank doors with no windows . Commissioner Holden indicated that there were a lot of items discussed at the last meeting that were not on the plans presented today. One of the existing homeowners asked about the required 3-car garages. Mr. Cunningham indicated that there would be 3-car garages and 2-car garages with a bonus area. Mr. Cunningham indicated that elevation "B" would be all hip roofs with the clip roofs on the other two elevations . Commissioner O'Donnell did not like the clip roofs as shown on Unit B. Commissioner Urrutia did not have a problem with changing to vents on the garages, but did not see the need to change the overhangs . He felt the existing plan showed a little more interest in this regard. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the 2 windows on Unit B, Plan 2, as the new plans show only one window. Mr. Cunningham noted that he would change the plans back to the 2 windows . Commissioner Urrutia asked about the fascia on Plan 4B as it looked like it had been thinned out some. He indicated that it looked deeper on the previous plans . Commissioner Van Vliet was not comfortable with approving any of the plans presented without actual details . Commissioner Urrutia noted that generally the applicant needed to address the fascia treatments, the vent issue versus the windows, the side elevations, Plan 1 hip roofs, details around the windows and doors on all elevations, and the garage doors to insure the placement of windows . He added that he asked for some continuity around the sides of the buildings and was not sure that returning the detail a couple of feet on the sides is going to be enough. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that quite a bit more could be done on the side elevations . 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Mr. Cunningham asked if there was any resistance to the vents . Commissioner O'Donnell felt that there was because they look like they were just planted on. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that he would like to see every elevation treated the same as the front. Chairman Gregory agreed and wanted to see more attention paid to the side elevations . Mr. Cunningham questioned the minutes from the October llth meeting regarding all models showing flat roof tiles to conform with the existing homes . Commissioner Urrutia replied that the motion stated in these minutes was correct and all model units were to show the flat tile roofs . Mr. Cunningham asked if two of the four models could show the front courtyard. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that all the models would have to show the front courtyards and 3-car garages with windows . Ms . June Wilde, homeowner on Lot 36 , felt that the design compatibility was a major concern. She discussed her concerns and felt that the developer should be able to create a cost effective plan to be more compatible to the existing homes . Ms . Margaret Glegling, homeowner, felt that Century Homes kept changing things back to their original plan, and asked that the commission make sure that Mr. Cunningham presents very precise details on submitted plans . She asked about the size of the existing letters and how it would fit on the proposed monument sign. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that what was presented to the commission was proportioned correctly. Mr. Rick Farber, homeowner, asked why the developer was not providing a complete presentation. He felt that floor plans and a plot plan should be provided with the submittal . Mr. Farber would like to see precisely the make-up of the entire tract. He was also concerned with the 2 x 8 plant ons . The existing homes have actual plaster architectural features and if wood plant-ons are placed, they would not conform to what is existing. Mr. Farber added that it was indicated that the garden walls were part of the landscaping but he has not seen any landscaping plans as yet. He felt that the architect should be present at the meetings to explain why some of 8 N%W-1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 these things were changed or deleted. Commissioner Urrutia assured Mr. Farber that once the landscaping plans are submitted to the commission they will look at the wall situation, the siting, etc. Until the plans are submitted, the commission could not comment on this issue. Commissioner Urrutia added that the issue of the wood versus the stucco was a good idea since everything out there now showed stucco trim. Ms . Wilde asked if the homeowners association needed to approve the monument sign. Mr. Smith indicated that it was approved by the commission based on the removal of the existing signs . He felt that Mr. Cunningham would have to obtain the approval of the homeowners association in order to remove the existing signage. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the request directing the applicant to update the preliminary plans with changes as discussed from the previous meetings . Motion carried 6-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : 405 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SCHEER TANAKA DENNEHY ARCHITECTS, INC. for ISLANDS RESTAURANT, 18201 McDurmott West, Suite A, Irvine, CA 92714 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for restaurant LOCATION: Desert Crossing - Southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. ( 3) Steve Smith presented the renderings for the restaurant indicating that it was located at the west main entry to the center on Pad B. Material samples were also provided. Dave Hutchinson, Director of Development for The Chart House, outlined the concept of the restaurant. He stated that he did recognize that Lowe Development had an architectural theme, and thought that they could work within the parameters . Mr. Dennehy outlined how they 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 took an Islands Restaurant prototype and attempted to make a four sided building. He showed how they placed a replica of the entrance at the Highway ill side of the building and increased the height of the service yard walls . He noted that the material and colors were keeping with what was being used throughout the center. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the applicant had done a very good job in doing all the things they wanted to accomplish and thought there was a lot of nice detail . He thought, architecturally, it was a very nice design but did not fit in with the design of the center. Mr. Dennehy felt that while trying to be as compatible as possible, he was still trying to give Islands their identity. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that there needed to be a major effort made to conform more with the architecture of the center. He added that the metal roof was totally out of concept for the center. Commissioner Holden stated that his major concern on this building was because of its location at the entry to the center. Mr. Mike Tande of Lowe Development asked that the commission suggest some ideas that would be a compromise on what would fit in the center. Commissioner Holden noted that the building needed to be more compatible with the center at the entry, but could show some of the polynesian elements at the restaurant' s entrance. He added that the commission was looking for a little overhang or colonnades to fit in with the center' s desert architecture. Mr. Hutchinson asked if the commission wanted the changes to reflect a flat roof, deep overhangs, etc . Commissioner Urrutia suggested straightening out the roof some and try to make it a little more abstract. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the plans as they did not fit in with the architecture of the center. Commission felt that the metal roof was totally out of concept for the center. Motion carried 6-0 . 10 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 3. CASE NO. : PP 92-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : LOWE ENTERPRISES, INC. for DESERT CROSSING, 11777 San Vicente Blvd. , Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90049 ; MCG & ASSOCIATES, 200 So. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 300, Pasadena, CA 91101-8461 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual approval of additional building elevations LOCATION: Southeast corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive ZONE: P.C. (3) Steve Smith presented the proposed elevations for Retail E through Major 7, Pad A, and Major 8 through Retail J showing the dome on Major 7 and the pyramid on Major 6 . Commissioner Urrutia felt that ideally the dome on Major 7 should be pulled out six feet, making the dome element larger. The applicant, Kent McKently, noted that they were trying to create a more open look and look more like the front elevations along the side of the buildings facing Highway 111 . Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the lack of landscaping around the service area. He also suggested adding some type of window treatments along the south side of Majors G, H and J as he was concerned with the blank walls along here. Commissioner Holden would rather see this area along the back of the buildings screened instead of the placement of signage. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and felt that trees should be placed along the south elevation instead of signage. Commissioner Connor felt that the back of this building needed more architectural features and less landscaping if it were to have signage. Chairman Gregory suggested the placement of eucalyptus where there would be no signage and carob trees where there was signage along this wall . Commissioner Urrutia suggested adding some type of horizontal elements with a colonnade on the side of Pad A, adjacent to Highway 111 . 11 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant conceptual approval of the elevations subject to the following conditions : 1) South elevations for Majors, G, H and J to include signage and to be designed so that it does not look like the back of a building (commission suggested the addition of spandrel glass) ; 2 ) Add some type of horizontal elements with a colonnade on the side adjacent to Highway 111 for Pad A. Motion carried 6-0 . 4. CASE NO. : PP 94-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JAMES R. FETRIDGE for G. MENDOZA, Post Office Box 1963, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations and landscaping for 10,220 square foot industrial building LOCATION: Northeast corner of Ritter Circle and Merle Drive ZONE: S. I . Steve Smith presented the preliminary elevations and landscaping for the industrial building noting that this was two lots that were being consolidated. Commissioner Urrutia questioned the amount of handicap parking spaces . Mr. Buchanan indicated that if there were less than 40 spaces than there only needs to be one handicap space. Commissioner Urrutia asked if in lieu of the tile overhangs would it be possible to come up with something that would be a little more lineal and more contemporary looking. He added that the trash enclosure would have to be relocated away from the front of the project and that it would also have to meet the city' s recycling criteria. Commissioner Urrutia added that the landscaping would have to include the parkway. Chairman Gregory indicated that the landscaping was very difficult to understand because it was not called out to scale. He wanted to see a very low maintenance landscape plan in this instance and preferred a drip system. Commissioner Connor added that the planting did not address the parking lot shade 12 *4001 'woo MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1994 tree requirements . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the architectural plans directing the applicant to address the following: 1) Replace tile roof structure over the entrances with some type of overhang to create a more lineal and contemporary look; 2 ) Obtain a licensed landscape architect to create something much more low maintenance and drought tolerant; 3) Relocate trash enclosure away from the front of the project. It also must comply with the city' s ordinance on recycling enclosures; 4) Meet city' s parking lot shade tree requirements . Motion carried 6-0 . V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3 : 30 p.m. S EVE SMITH ' ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 13