Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-10 MINUTES CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 1091996 I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 5 2 Frank Urrutia X 7 0 Chris Van Vliet X 6 1 Wayne Connor X 6 1 Richard O'Donnell X 7 0 Ronald Gregory X 6 1 Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Steve Buchanan Martin Alvarez Daisy Garcia Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the minutes of the November 26, 1996 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1, Commissioner Gregory Abstaining. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: TT 23940-3 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): FOXX DEVELOPMENT for SUNTERRACE, 73-111 El Paseo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of elevations for two additional units for Plan 1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 LOCATION: Sunterrace (Northwest corner of Hovley Lane East and Eldorado Drive) ZONE: PR-5 The representative for the applicant, Mr. Bob Wolf,presented the plans for the two additional units in Phase I. Commissioner Gregory asked if the plans presented to the commission today were shown to the existing homeowners. Mr. Wolf indicated that they were. Mr. Patrick Leahy of the Sunterrace Homeowners Architectural Committee noted that a number of homeowners saw the plans after the last A.R.C. meeting as well as an additional five or six homeowners and Bob Varner. He felt that out of the people who did see these plans that there would be a unanimous approval of the architecture only as they have not seen the landscaping, colors or lighting. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that staff and the commission were prepared to discuss these issues at the last A.R.C. meeting which Mr. Foxx did not attend. He was very concerned because of the non-favorable comments made by the homeowners at that meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell wanted to make it clear to Mr. Foxx that he was very disappointed that Mr. Foxx chose not to attend the last meeting on time to discuss the plans with the homeowners and the commission. Commissioner Urrutia noted that the first design approved at the last meeting was for a model home on a specific lot, but that the two plans presented today do not indicate specific lots. Commissioner Holden indicated that the lots would have to be identified as the homeowners should be aware of what lots would be used for these two models. Mr. Wolf indicated that he would identify the specific lots. Commissioner Urrutia stated that the commission needs to be assured that there will be better communication between the contractor and the existing homeowners. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the architectural plans only for the two remaining model units for Plan 1 subject to receiving approval from the Sunterrace Homeowners Architectural Committee. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Leahy stated that he wanted to see what the neighborhood is going to look like and therefore was interested in which elevations would be placed on which lots. 2 4%0&* NNW MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 2. CASE NO.: 4745 SA APPLICANT AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for EMMETT GOLF CARTS, 69 Pinyon Pines,Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised awning LOCATION: 42-480 Ritter Circle ZONE: S.I. This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant. 3. CASE NO.: PP 94-7 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS): THE NADEL PARTNERSHIP, INC. for LUCKY STORES, 1990 So. Bundy Drive,Fourth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of new landscaping/screen wall concept for north parking area LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon ZONE: P.C. (4) Steve Smith indicated that at the last meeting the commission discussed the problems with the landscaping at the north end of the site adjacent to Deep Canyon where there are nine parking spaces. He noted that he met with the property owners across the street, one of which was present today. Mr. Smith added that staff was expecting to receive a plan today with the changes as conditioned by the commission at their last meeting; however, at 11:00 this morning staff was told by the applicant that they were going to appeal the action taken by this commission, and therefore would not be attending today's meeting with revised plans. Mr. Pettingill, a property owner who lives across the street, addressed the commission. He indicated that he was not in favor of the wall and suggested taking out the nine parking spaces along Deep Canyon Drive to allow for additional landscaping. Mr. Smith noted that if the appeal is filed it puts everything in the 3 1*400; MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 hands of the city council and if they want to eliminate parking spaces, the city council can do this. Mr. Pettingill indicated that what was installed at the site is not what was approved. Commissioner Holden discussed removing some of the parking in the middle of the lot to allow for additional landscaping to help screen the view of the loading dock area. He felt that the commission should be in favor of eliminating some of the parking spaces to screen the tunnel as something has to be done with some massive landscaping now to hide this loading area better. He added that additional landscaping would also help filter the noise. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and stated that the noise will be even worse at night. Commissioner Holden felt that a wall is not nearly enough. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the wall might take care of the concerns at the street but not further back. Commissioner Connor asked about a bermed up wall. Commissioner Holden felt that the trees used to screen the opening would be better at the back instead of at the street. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what type of trees are being planted. Commissioner Connor indicated that it was very minimal and mostly pines which he indicated did not meet the city's shade tree requirements and were not drought tolerant. Commissioner Holden asked if there was a way to close up the tunnel area when it is not being used for deliveries because they wouldn't get deliveries 24 hours a day. Steve Smith presented a copy of the approved plan,which he indicated still was not accurate to what was done in the field. Commissioner Urrutia showed on the plan the area inside the parking lot where he suggested some of the parking be eliminated to allow for additional landscaping. He felt that approximately nine parking spaces should be eliminated to help screen this opening much more effectively. Commissioner Urrutia added that there is also something needed west of the tunnel opening along Deep Canyon (i.e. wall or landscaping). Commissioner Gregory suggested a planter area closer to Deep Canyon. Commissioner Urrutia suggested moving the nine parking spaces along Deep Canyon back and add the needed landscaping along Deep Canyon. Action: No action was taken as the applicant was not present with the revised plans as directed by the commission at their meeting of November 26, 1996. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 4. CASE NO.: PP 94-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DR. HARRIS for SUNLIFE MEDICAL BUILDING, 14 Park Mirage,Rancho Mirage,CA 92270;ROBERT A.RICCIARDI, A.I.A., 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscaping plans LOCATION: Southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue ZONE: O.P. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscaping plan lacks what the city is looking for in a landscape design for a commercial project. He suggested that the applicant retain the services of a landscape architect to assist in re-designing the plan. Commissioner Gregory noted that there is a lot of material on the proposed plan that does not reflect water efficient landscaping and that the ground cover indicated would not survive. Action. It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise the landscaping plans to conform more to the city's standards. The commission indicated that the proposed plan showed an inappropriate selection of plant material. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 86-28, Amendment No. 2 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): DAVID GEISER c/o MCG ARCHITECTS for 111 TOWN CENTER, 4180 La Jolla Village, Suite 330, La Jolla, CA 92037 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised column/trellis elevation LOCATION: Best Buy in 111 Town Center 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 ZONE. P.C. (3) S.P. Steve Smith presented the drawing for the proposed trellis/column elevation for Best Buy noting that the applicant is asking if they were heading in the right direction on the trellis structure. Commissioner Urrutia questioned where the trellis would be placed as the plans showed it at 2'to 3' on center and that is not going to accomplish what the trellis is to do, which is to provide shade. Commissioner Gregory stated that the location of the trellis structure should stay the same as shown on the plans from their last presentation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the revised column/trellis elevation at 12" on center using 2 x 8's. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 96-28, TT 28450 and TT 28451 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): INTRAWEST RESORT OWNERSHIP CORPORATION,The Landing, Suite 326, 375 Water Street, Vancouver,B.C. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for a 311-unit residential vacation ownership complex LOCATION: Frank Sinatra Drive south to Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 Steve Smith reported that Commissioners Holden and Van Vliet attended the meeting last week for a detailed presentation on the project. The plans from that meeting were presented to the remainder of the commissioners as well as the model. Mr. Chuck Shepardson stated that the character of the north golf course is a true desert course that will look as if it were carved out of the desert terrain, allowing the landscaping to grow naturally. The south course will consist more of materials that will be maintained a little neater keeping the resort flavor. Mr. Shepardson briefly outlined the site plan again. Commissioner Gregory asked if they will be planting materials that are indigenous to this area only. Mr. Shepardson replied that there will 6 *.✓ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 be a mix of both native and newly introduced materials to try to bring in a lot of color and character to the project. Commissioner Gregory asked what the elevation difference was from Country Club Drive to the top of the project. Mr. Shepardson indicated that there was about a 8% grade. Mr. Alan Hart explained the modified desert experience they are trying to accomplish. He noted that this is not a timeshare project but a resort ownership where you buy ownership in the club and can choose from a variety of destinations based on a point system. Mr. Hart explained how this flexibility shows up in the design. He noted that the sales building is a marketing center with a ten year life, after which time it will be converted into living space. Mr. Hart presented the material and color pallet noting that each individual neighborhood would have a separate color pallet. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the roof materials are metal. Mr. Hart noted that there are copper roofs on the sales building and tower structures with a painted roofing material on the units to match the copper. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the flagstone material was carried through to any of the units. Mr. Chris McFadden replied that the flagstone was not on the units themselves. Commissioner Gregory asked what would be done with the large areas of desert landscaping to control the local desert blow sand. Mr. Shepardson indicated that they will be using a decomposed granite material which is what is being used on the north course now. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the parking concerns noted at the last meeting were addressed. Mr. Smith indicated that staff met with the applicants earlier that day and the plans would be revised to provide additional parking in the areas of the haciendas, or at least show the ability to add parking. He added that in the area of the resort center they will be adding a temporary employee parking facility across the main street from the general parking area. Mr. Smith noted that this was designated as Phase III and staff was reasonably comfortable with it. Mr. Marvin Roos indicated that they will work with staff to satisfy the parking requirements and could consider underground parking if necessary. Mr. Hart explained that Intrawest contracts out the housekeeping and maintenance where employees are dropped off so their cars are not brought onto the property. Commissioner Holden emphasized the importance of making sure that the employees do not park on the city streets outside the project. Mr.Hart stated that they will allow for sufficient parking. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the color schemes as he liked the idea of creating different individualized neighborhoods but felt that this could be 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 done better with landscaping. He did not see how this could be achieved with the building colors because basically all the units look alike. Commissioner Urrutia asked if there was any way to create more colors in the color pallet. He felt the colors were nice but would like to see a little more color variations making it more vibrant and memorable. Mr. Hart agreed with Commissioner Urrutia's suggestion. Commissioner Urrutia also suggested that the stone material used on the amenity and sales buildings be carried out into the project to help achieve the experience they are trying to create. He stated that it did not have to be much, but maybe sprinkle it throughout the units on the chimneys to pull all the buildings together. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the neighborhoods should have a little more texture and identity. Mr.Hart noted that the trellis structures will be a heavy timber material and he wants this to be one of the most prominent areas. He did not want to add the stone material to all the chimneys throughout the project. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and stated that the stone did not have to be placed on every chimney on every building but just enough to create more interest. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the building heights were. Mr. Hart indicated that the roofs were very low pitched at a maximum height of 24' to 25'. He added that the idea was not to emphasize the peaks but to compliment the vertical elements. Commissioner O'Donnell questioned the roof projections. Mr.McFadden indicated that the average projection was 4 feet. Mr. Shepardson stated that they are currently working on a design guideline that outlines the plant pallet. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned if the request was for architecture only or if it included a request for approval of landscaping. Commissioner Gregory indicated that he was comfortable with the landscaping because of the architect involved but was more concerned with the lay-out plan. Mr. Shepardson indicated that he had been working very closely with Eric Johnson on the landscaping plans. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the preliminary architectural plans only. Motion carried 6-0. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to grant conceptual approval to the landscaping plans directing the applicant to provide a more detailed plan for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0. 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 3. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 96-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRICE COSTCO, INC., 999 Lake Drive, Issaquash,WA 98027;MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP, 11820 Northup Way#E-300, Bellevue,WA 98005 NATURE OF PROJECT/ APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary plans for development of a fully automated fueling facility as an accessory use to the existing Price Club ZONE: 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive Steve Smith presented the drawings for the proposed fueling facility to be placed at the vacant corner property at Dinah Shore Drive and the re-alignment of Monterey Avenue noting that this would eventually be a public hearing before the planning commission. He indicated that the request today is for preliminary approval of the fuel station on this site. Ms. Kathy Nishihira,Real Estate Project Manager for Price Costco, addressed the commission stating that they want to add a fuel station for members only. It is activated by membership cards only and would only be operated while employees are on site. She indicated that there would be assistance provided after opening the facility to teach people how to use it and make sure that they are comfortable with the system. All payments will be through a computer network so eventually they will not need employees to work at the facility itself. Ms. Nishihira indicated that they would maintain the existing landscaping. She asked that she be allowed to make the necessary corrections on the landscaping plan and resubmit it. Commissioner Holden asked if the monument sign was on the same piece of property. Ms. Nishihira indicated that it was Home Depot's sign but that it was on the same piece of property. Commissioner Urrutia noted that his initial reaction was that it was too close to the corner. Ms.Nishihira asked about setting it back 40 feet from where it is proposed now. She added that they do not need the extra parking spaces there now so the parking at the corner could be eliminated to increase the setback to 80 feet. Commissioner Urrutia added that there should be no access from the main driveway but from the north side of the site. Mr. Smith noted his concerns with people driving in off Dinah Shore Drive who are moving pretty fast. Commissioner Connor 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 indicated that he had a real concern with that. Mr. Smith indicated that the commission's comments would be passed on to the planning commission as well as comments from the public works department. Commissioner Gregory noted that since the plan was not accurate they are always concerned with landscaping setbacks especially because the site is at the entrance to the city. Commissioner Holden agreed and stated that the commission needed a lot more information with an emphasis towards screening. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and felt that the new ramping should be incorporated on the corrected plans. Commissioner Gregory asked if they needed to have major signage for the public's view since they will only be selling to their members. Ms. Nishihira replied that there will not be prices on the signage,but she did want the members to know that it is a product of Price Costco. Commissioner Holden felt that it would be better if the sign read"Price Costco" only as he felt it was not necessary to state that it is a fuel station. Commissioner Gregory indicated that the canopy structure and the signage are two concerns that he has. Mr. Smith noted that the plans also indicate a moveable price sign. Ms. Nishihira replied that this would be deleted on the revised plans. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he realized that they are trying to match the materials of the existing building,but that he would like to see a little more detail and architecture in the building. Commissioner Urrutia felt that a horizontal element tieing the pumps together would help. Ms.Nishihira asked about a horizontal element between the columns with their name on it instead of on the canopy. Mr. Smith added that the revised plans should show where the sign is on the site. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the request directing the applicant to address the following concerns: 1) Resubmit landscaping plans with corrections noted by applicant and placing more emphasis towards screening. Plan to incorporate new ramping and existing material and signs; 2) Increase setback from corner and from Dinah Shore Drive; 3) Access from north side of site only, not from the main access driveway into the center; 4) Decrease signage to read"Price Costco"only,deleting"fuel station"; 5) Delete movable price sign; 10 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 6) Suggest more detail and architecture in the building,possibly adding a horizontal element between the columns with the name on it instead of on the canopy. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: 433 C APPLICANT SAND ADDRESSI: PRICE COSTCO, INC., 999 Lake Drive, Issaquash,WA 98027;MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP, 11820 Northup Way#E-300, Bellevue, WA 98005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of remodel plans for addition to the existing tire center and main warehouse building LOCATION: 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C. (2) Steve Smith presented the plans for a remodel and addition to the existing tire center noting that they are expanding the building by 24,000 square feet. He indicated that it was staff's intention that this matter not have to go to the planning commission. The A.R.C. review of the remodel and addition will be all that is required. Ms. Nishihira indicated that the concept was to duplicate what is there now. She added that the entry doors would be relocated and there would be a pop out for the tire center. Mr. Smith indicated that the parking is in excess of what the city requires. He added that signage would be handled separately and that a detailed landscaping plan would also need to be submitted. Action It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the preliminary plans for the remodel subject to the applicant submitting the signage and landscaping plan to the commission prior to final approval. Motion carried 6-0. 11 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1996 C. Miscellaneous: Mr. Smith noted that the next regular scheduled A.R.C. meeting is Tuesday, December 24th and city hall will close at 12:00 noon that day. He asked the commission to discuss changing the meeting to either Tuesday morning or Monday afternoon, December 23rd. Commissioner Urrutia noted that he would be out of town the entire week. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. to Monday, December 23, 1996 at 12:30 p.m. T E SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS/db 12