Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 � ' ' �' ,�,�;: ( MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 ***************************************************************** 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 12 0 Frank Urrutia X 11 1 Chris Van Vliet X 12 0 Wayne Connor X 12 0 Richard 0'Donnell X 11 1 Ronald Gregory X 10 2 Staff Present: Steve Smith Phil Drell Steve Buchanan Pat Bedrosian Donna Bitter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1995 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 . III . It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0 . � A. Final Drawings : 1 . CASE NO. : 4457 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, INC. for APACHE CORRAL BILLIARD CLUB, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 72-990 E1 Paseo, Suite 2 ZONE• C-1 Mr. Smith presented the drawings for the proposed signage noting that the business was located in the center at the southwest corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 74 . The planning commission approved the billiard hall in this � . , � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 location. They are asking for 33 square feet of signage using green plex faces with dark green returns. Commission approved the signaqe subject to the stucco texture raceway matching the texture of the building. 2 . CASE NO. : PP 92-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES for CIRCUIT CITY, 1160 Pioneer Way, Suite M, E1 Cajon, CA 92020; LOWE ENTERPRISES, INC. , 11777 San Vicente Blvd. , Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90049 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SIGN: Request for exception to approved sign program for Desert Crossing LOCATION: Desert Crossing - Southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. (2) Phil Drell presented the drawings for the proposed signage noting that it complies with the center' s approved sign program with the exception of the brushed aluminum colored letters . He noted that the commission would be making a recommendation to the city council since it did not comply with the approved program. Mr. Drell indicated that he would be speaking to the city attorney regarding the law on trademarks and signage. Chairman Gregory felt that the request should be denied as it is not fair to everyone else who has complied to the center' s approved program. Commission recommended denial to the city council as the signage did not conform to the center' s existing sign program. 3 . 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: Approval of landscape plan for restaurant pad 2 , � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 LOCATION: Desert Crossing - Southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. (2) Chairman Greqory reported that his office did an in-house study on the proposed landscape plan and asked if the commission wanted a copy faxed to them to review for this meeting. Commission asked that the fax be sent. After reviewing the items on the fax, Commissioner Connor indicated that the plant pallet needed to tie-in more with the proposed center, and felt that the comments made by Gregory and Associates should apply. Commission denied the request directing the applicant to re-design the plant pallet to include the conditions listed by Gregory and Associates to tie-in better with the rest of the center. 4. CASE NO. : 4461 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PARAGON SIGN5 for MANDARIN PALACE/LA BAMBA, 77-670 Springfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-155 Hiqhway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell presented the drawings for the proposed plans noting that the business will be located in the old Straw Hat Pizza building. They are proposing to use the existing raceway on the front of the building with a can sign that fits in the existing space on the back of the building. Mr. Drell added that the letter size would be smaller than the existing pizza signage and match the red color at Tony Roma' s . Commission approved the signage as submitted. 3 . , , �'' �,r,� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 IV. CASES: A. Final Drawings : 1. CASE NO. : 4438 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, INC. for ELEGANTE JEWELRY, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signage LOCATION: 73-330 E1 Paseo, Suite A ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented the drawings showing the additional channel letters requested along with the installed awning with signage. He indicated that the additional area of signage would continue to comply with the limits of the ordinance. The additional signage would read "Fine Jewelry and Repair" , while the existing awning reads "Elegante Jewelry" . Commissioner Urrutia asked for the actual name of the business . The applicant, Mr. Jim Engle, replied that the name of the business was Elegante Jewelry. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that the additional signage would be considered menu items . He explained to the applicant how the commission typically did not approve signs for menu items that appears to be larger in size as the name of the business . He felt that the "Fine Jewelry and Repair" was more dominant than the name of the business, and it should be the opposite. Mr. Engle reported that the letters for "Fine Jewelry and Repair" are an inch smaller than the signage on the awning for "Elegante Jewelry" . Commissioner Urrutia felt that "Fine Jewelry and Repair" looked larger because it is stacked and would be lit. He suggested placing the name of the business in this location on the building. Mr. Engle expressed the concern of duplication as the awning is already installed as shown. Commissioner Urrutia felt the additional proposed signage really looked like an afterthought. Chairman Gregory felt the proposed signage looked clumsy and suggested that the signage be smaller and more elegant. He added that the type style could look a lot 4 � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 better. Commissioner Connor asked about placing the proposed signage above the awning. Mr. Engle felt that it would not be seen at that location. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to continue the request to allow the applicant to re-design the signage. Motion carried 5-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : TT 25711 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DESERT AGGREGATES, INC. for TIERRAVISTA, Post Office Box 11478, Palm Desert, CA 92255-1478 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised exterior elevations for three (3) new floor plans for Tierravista (formerly Sierra Nova) LOCATION: Eldorado Drive and Appian Way ZONE: PR-5 S.O. Steve Smith reported that in 1992 a 100 lot tract was approved for this development of which there are now three or four existing homes . There were three plans approved in 1992 with the typical lot being 90 ' x 130 ' . The homes approved in 1992 were 70 ' wide on 90 ' lots allowing for 20 foot setbacks . Plan 1 consisted of 3190 square feet with a 619 square foot garage, 70 ' wide, 17-1/2 ' high and a blend of hip and gable roofs . Plan 2 was 3431 square feet with a 620 square foot garage, 70 ' wide, 16-1/2 ' high with hip roofs . Plan 3 was 3717 square feet with a 677 square foot garage, 72 ' wide, 16-1/2 ' high with hip roofs . Three years later the proposal shows Plan 1 at 2400 square feet, 70 ' wide, 17 ' 8" high with hip roofs . Plan 2 shows 2634 square feet, 70 ' wide, 18 ' high with hip roofs . Plan 3 shows a 2912 square foot unit, 70 ' wide, 17 ' 10" high with hip roofs . Mr. Smith indicated that he did not know if the proposed figures include garages . The applicant, Mr. Bruce Maize, noted that the recent figures do not include the three car garage or the detached optional guest unit. Mr. Maize explained to the commission that they are trying to come up with a home 5 � ,� � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 that is compatible to the original Sierra Nova plan while trying to recapture their investment. He presented the original elevations as well as a colored street scape showing the new proposed units outlining the changes in the elevations as well as the side garages . He also showed the addition of covered patios in the rear yards on all the plans to provide attractive exterior treatments on all sides . Mr. Maize expressed how important it is to communicate with the existing homeowners to make sure they are appraised of his progress . He indicated that he has also met with the representatives from The Lakes and their support of his proposal . Mr. Norman Aron, first resident at Sierra Nova, spoke on behalf of the homeowners association complimenting Mr. Maize on keeping the existing homeowners informed. He stated that the homeowners want to make sure that the developers comply with the same height and number of existing units, as well as keeping with the existing architecture. Mr. Maize indicated that the C.C.&R. ' s were amended by Granite Construction and now state the right to build a home as small as 2200 square feet. Right now the smallest home is in the range of 2400 square feet. Mr. Aron added that one of the features on the existing homes are front courtyards . The proposed plans do not call for courtyards . He felt that this was a major change. He indicated that the proposed plans show homes that are 25� smaller than their smallest home and that much difference in the square footage would have a very negative impact on the value of their homes . He would like to see something more in the range of 10� smaller homes than what is existing. Mr. Aron also read a letter from the attorney of Mr. David Jacobs, an existing homeowner, which states that any changes would be objected by his client. The letter also stated that any changes in the plans from the original plans be forwarded to the attorney for review. Commissioner Urrutia felt it was important that the applicant, as well as the homeowners, understand that the architectural commission is not the planning commission, and any concerns they may have with the size change does not come through this board as they are concerned with 6 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 aesthetics only. Mr. Smith reported that a letter from Mr. Bob Varner was received and distributed by staff and is on file for the record. Mr. Varner then asked about a landscaping plan. Mr. Maize indicated that it has not been submitted as yet. Mr. Varner expressed his concern in trying to keep the neighborhood more of an upscale plan. He noted that the original homes sold for $495, 000 and now the new revised homes will be sold for less than half of that. Mr. Drell informed Mr. Varner that the city could not mandate the price of homes . Commissioner Urrutia reiterated that all the commission can do is look at the architecture and landscaping to make sure that it complies with the existing homes . Mr. Smith asked how many units would be started now if approval is received. Mr. Maize indicated that they would start with three models and then six homes . He added that a developer does not make his money on the small homes, so the skew of their mix will be the larger homes . Mr. Smith asked what their intentions are on the roof tiles and fascia details . Mr. Maize indicated that they will be incorporating the same type tile on the roof. Fascia details would be the wood form details with stucco soffits . The garage doors will be consistent with the use of inetal doors that will look the same on the exterior as the existing doors . Commissioner Urrutia felt that conceptually, what is being proposed is very compatible. He would, however, like to see more developed drawings showing how they plan to execute the details, such as overhangs, type of materials, corbelling, and material and color samples . Commissioner Urrutia added that the site plan is important because the commission needs to see what is there now, where the model complex will be and what is proposed in the first phase. Commissioner Holden felt that the proposed plans were compatible with the existing homes with the exception that it appears there are no front courtyards or some type of walls . Commissioner Urrutia felt that the two units that have side entry garages enhances the street scape. He also encouraged the developer to try to wrap the details from the front of the buildings more around the sides than just 6" to keep from the look of a stage front. The front elevation details should continue along the side elevations . 7 • � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the request to allow the applicant to provide more details as outlined in the discussions above. Motion carried 5-0 . B. Preliminary Plans : 1. CASE NO. : TT 28158 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : KAUFMANN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. , 180 No. Riverview Drive, Suite 300, Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary architectural plans and conceptual landscape plans for 439 unit subdivision LOCATION: Northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue ZONE• PR-5 Phil Drell presented the plans noting that landscaping plans were not being presented as yet. He reported that the proposed homes are priced between $115,000 and $150,000 and would range between 1,000 square feet and 1,400 square feet. Mr. Drell indicated that the lot sizes are 5500 and 6500 square feet. The developer feels that in order to achieve the market, they will need this density. He added that the planning commission wanted the A.R.C. to review the building elevations before they looked at them. The homes are all one story. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the setbacks between the buildings . Mr. Drell noted that this information was not noted, but indicated that it looked like 15 ' to 20 ' side yard setbacks . Commissioner Holden discussed his concerns with the gable roofs . Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the site grade. Mr. Drell indicated that the site varies but noted that he had not seen a grading plan as yet. 8 • � � MINUTES ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant conceptual approval to the elevations only with the understanding that color material boards and preliminary landscaping plans be submitted for preliminary approval . Motion carried 5-0 . Mr. Drell noted that the landscaping plan should address the sand control on the west side. 2 . CASE NO. : PP 94-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES5) : F & M ASSOCIATES for DEEP CANYON PLAZA, 2041 San Remo Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architectural plans for an 81, 747 square foot retail shopping center LOCATION: Northeast corner of Deep Canyon Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: Proposed P.C. (2 ) Steve 5mith reminded the commission that the plans were before them at their last meeting and noted their concerns with the tower height elements and the west elevation roof line. He noted that the plans were presented to the planning commission last week and indicated their concerns with the height of the tower elements . The developer is now looking at reducing the height of the towers . Mr. Smith pointed out that there is a 59 ' tower next door at The Embassy 5uites . Steve 5mith outlined the change in the roof line. He noted that the residents from Hidden Palms were present at the planning commission and are now meeting with the applicant. Mr. Smith added that they are to provide better details on the west and north elevation. The representative for the developer, Tim Bartlett, outlined the changes made in the west elevation. He indicated that the tower elements were reduced to 43 ' for the center tower, 36 ' for the next towers, and the end tower taken down to 32 ' . This will have some impact in reducing some of the massiveness . 9 . � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 Mr. Smith indicated that the planning commission had some concerns with the landscaping detail and the plans these are what have been addressed in the proposed landscape plan. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the projection of the parapets . Mr. Bartlett did not have the exact information on this detail . Commissioner Van Vliet noted that the commission had asked that they break up the long horizontal roof line and he did not see how this has been done. Commissioner Urrutia asked why the tile roof had changed. Mr. Bartlett indicated that it looked as if the tile had been eliminated. Commissioner Holden explained how the commission would need to know exactly how far back the parapet steps . He felt that 6" to 8" reveals should be sufficient. Chairman Gregory noted that there will be a 46 ' wide berm which goes up 13 feet planted with a native shrub mix to satisfy the adjacent home owners . This will hide the buildings and delivery trucks very well . He added that oleanders will also be added on the side of the walls . Chairman Gregory indicated that the future pads will have sufficient landscaping where allowed or a block wall to screen the buildings . Commissioner Holden felt that the shed roofs on the west elevations should be reinstated. Commissioner Connor felt that a lot of the detail had been taken away from the original plan. Commissioner Holden noted the concerns to break down the massive scale and break down the long line of the continuous parapet. Commissioner Connor felt that the stepping back that was done on the building was not enough. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the revised plans were not a proper solution. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the plans to allow the applicant to provide detailed, revised drawings based on the comments discussed above. Motion carried 4-0-1, Chairman Gregory Abstaining. V. MISCELLANEOUS: Chairman Gregory reported to the commission that Dr. Farley of the Seventh Day Adventist Church located at the northeast corner of Portolla Avenue and Country Club Drive is asking for approval to add a wood fence, with oleanders, to screen the temporary buildings from Silver 10 • �r � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1995 Sands Racquet Club. Mr. Drell noted that the temporary buildings were placed through a temporary use permit which will have to be renewed before a permanent structure will be built. Commissioner Urrutia did not see the purpose for a fence. Commissioner Connor agreed, and felt that the fence would look worse than what is there now. Commissioner Urrutia felt that time should be given to allow the landscaping to mature before more extensive screening is added. VI . ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2 : 15 p.m. � S E SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 11 MAR-13-1995 17�41 FRDhI VAR��ER WARD LEASING TG 3417�98 F.O� . . �,� � ;�;,, ;,� :�;�,�L�w/�- c: �;� ����<-� � 1=�;-t ��"C '�_a ��11�P1"'t'"dt�E' _ _ ___-----�-- ���--.�-� March 13, '#9 9 5 � City a� PaZm besert Axchiteaural k��riew Cpmmxttee Dear Siss: I� is my understianding �hat� on T�zesday, March 14, 1995 at 12:34 O�c1oCk there is qoing to hc a mppting r.�gard3ng a xequest for the "DOWN STZING" of thc� previously ��proved �� ar�d be�utiful� desiqned"Sierrnav� F�ta1-��." As I re�all th.�s d�v�l��me�nt w.�� ap�rnv�� "witY�out" �.�y i protests from any surrQund�ng property cwners. This was du� tc, .#:hP �xr�uisitw arch�tecure af this priva�e cammtini�.y �.o� �o mention the marvelous dep�ction captured by tne �orte-cachcr�' s and lavisk� courtyoards �atc, , . T ��ol it is in�nmbarit upox� xnye�lf '�o �xpr��E a grav� cox�cerr� ta an� ch�.nges that create a reduction c�f mvre than t�n parcenti di the original efacd int�rid�d and a�pprovad �vr Sierranova: P1an I 3150 Square feet L'lan II 343'E Squ�re �eet plan TTI 3717 square feet As xau know my dev�lopment "SUNTERRACE" has b�come kaown th�:oughvut Cvachelta V"all��r c�� L.h� �i�anac:l� c�L qua,lit.y, whi`h �e��ects not c�nly on mys�lf but the City of Palm Desert as wel�l. It woulc� ��vG k�� beneficial tv either of us should any- thing 7eopardx�e this hard ta a�hieve r�putatian. Becau�e this �3i�GiYlc:tinrx also overflows to this enti.x'e paxt of t,h� city it wau�d behoove us both �Q assur� the conti.r�uance �f i�iy�� quality house� that ennance our city ar�d not attract a�y �itua�ion that n�ay harm t,hat which has been so hard to acha,eve. �n �ac:t� its vur civic duty to do so. A public committ�ment and �onfidence has been estab�ished aad it fs the fastidous duty that this tr�nd be continueQ and ��unted on. Please be rair in youar judgements and understanding, and I trust you will. Sirxc�r�1X'r r �i�ber� H. VaL-ci�r 75•195 AitMOtJA VVnY •f�1Lt✓13CSL•ttT,CA?2260•I`,4.BOX 4534-tAi.?A 6L•S�ttY",Cl�9ZE61 • f�19)341�52op•FnX(�19F 773 3�87 TOTAL P.�c MpR— 1 4-95 TUE 1 2 : 27 Rt�N GREGiORY s^� ASSQC I FiTEB P _ 01 � . .,... .. . . � , g'�'� '� PROJEC7 RECORD March 1�, 19�6 LANDSCAP� ARCHlTECTURE D8t8: , . � Sl7C P � ANNING Pro e�t� Desert Crossing Pra ect No: 925�-1 Su t: Review of Planting, Irrigation Plans for Islands Restaurant �r�� Rob P�rker Distributfon: Mikd T�nde Rod Chen Wailace Wong, MCG Phi! Drell Ron Gregory Biil Kortsch Jim Shrop� On March 13, 1995 we received planti�g and irrig�tion plans for the Isl�nds Rest�ur�nt from M�G. Foliawing is our revi�w af those plens� q, gheet L,-2 tree and roundoover lantin ian� �, pI_ac�: Th� piant legends lists several varieti�s of gro�andcover which do not perfarm wefi under dese�#� thase used throughout t e Irest ofa e ar�S, Or1d arg riot COnsiSt�n Center, these ��e; a_ !�e pl�nt �, Carp�t Buglo 2. Trees; The legend indicates us���d �� c���� t� d ffe ent $pvci�es with the rest �f the Genfier and such as Mexicen ��n Palms. B. Sheet L-3 shru� lantin lan: 1. The plant 1eg�nd .indicates se�eral �� tha rest o��the Cener� he e a e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a s e u s e d t h r a u g h a u t . PAGE 1 OF 3 7nri,�c�ni�•�.:,,iru�ru,:.l�.�na�F - f'd�nll��;r-Et. ���1'i�':�{:�f1 . fil'7•:�lifj•:di''�1 • F'AX•f1151. ',�13•:7Fi1','i ki',��;�S nurtlt AY�rnUrr,t�wtl��•�r.+ . t)yfn I f���y�o,i.'.h:��'1','1111 • G1ti)•!'o:lt .(:1f,tl,ld . S'�Il?C.Fi9;}•r:�i�' 7;3[i1 CA1..�G A'.LiJ� � !�i L��,. L1s!/�]4 . NVtiC 1�!I� � Nft711�i<': q'i?1:,� MAR- 1 4- �� 'T�JE 1 2 - 2S RON GREGORY � ASSOC I ATES P _ 02 ' � �y �. Asparagus �ern, while not used i� other �reas ofi th� C�nter, it may bo u�ed at tha entrance ta the Islands Restaur�nt ta diffgrentiate this area. b. 6ougainvillea '�arbara Karst' s�ould be changed to Bougainvillea "Giabra'. c, Nibiscus is not consistent with the rest�f th�Center and shauld be ch�nged to ar� appropriat� plant, �, The majority of plants used on the shrub legend do not �ertorm wel! urxl�r desart condit�ons, or have specifie culturAl needs, such 8s tc�t�! shade, to perform well in the desert. a. Thes� plants do nat perform weli in the desert: , (1) Dipladenia (2� Ruarum F�ax (3} Tiny Tim �lax b. Th,�se pjants perfarm well aniy in h��vily shaded canditions: ��) Giant Bird of Par$dise t2) phiiodendron 3, ' Pigmy Rete Palms must k�e obt�ir�ed �rtd grown ln the Coa�hefia Vallay in �onformanc�.with the A�rir.ultura{ Cammissioners regulatiorts. 4. Fbller plants. Forty 5 gallon plants ars indicated to be field lo�at�d by the landsc�pe architect. These plants shauld be specified in the plant legend prior to apRrovaL C, lrri ation; 1, We find th$t th� spray irrigation indicatedr�st of ht��Center andsmusWb� ' � the existing irrigation designed far th , m�dified in accordanco with th� drip syst�m as laid out in the ex�stir1g common are�s. � �. The water us�ge requirements wiil have ta be D �aul�ati nsr season , � �ccording ta Caache11a Valley Water Distr�ct (CVW ) 9 PAGE 2 OF 3 , MAR- 14-95 TUE 12 - 28 ROM GREG�RY � ASS�CI �TES P _ @3 . � ��, . 3. Both the planting and irrig�tion plans need to be �tamped and signad by CVWD #or conformance ta their re9ule�tic�ns, as weli as th� County of Riverside Agricultural Commissioners affice. It is our racommendation th�t the landscape designer �e given copies of thg existing plar�t material �nd irrig�tion plans and legends to make sure that the planting arvund the lslanrls Rflstaur�nt blends with the rest vf the C�ntar. RP/st �P�to2a�-�.RPo� PA�� 3 OF 3