Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-13 , < ;� ;�: MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ******�********************************************************** 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 10 0 Frank Urrutia (excused absence) X 8 2 Chris Van Vliet X 9 1 Wayne Connor X 9 1 Richard O'Donnell X 10 0 Ronald Gregory X 9 1 Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Daisy Garcia Donna Bitter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to approve the minutes of the January 23, 1996 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1, Commissioner Van Vliet Abstaining. III . CASES: A. Final Drawinqs: 1 . CASE NO. : 4580 SA � APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : LITECO SIGNS for SCREENS/BLINDS, ETC. , 27-300 Hopper Road, Desert Hot � Springs, CA 92240 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised awning with signage LOCATION: 74-115 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented pictures of the existing awning indicating that the applicant is asking for approval to add 12" block letters reading "Screens/Blinds, Etc. " The . �,; � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ordinance limits letters to 8" . As well, the existing letters on the west part of the same awning are 8 inches . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the revised signage subject to maximum 8" letters . Motion carried 5-0. 2 . CA5E NO. : 4599 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for ALLEGRO CAFE, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1) Approval of awning with signage, and 2) Approval of front railing LOCATION: 73-655 E1 Paseo ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented pictures of the building showing the existing foam brass letters that are consistent with other signage on the building and approved by staff. He added that the applicant is asking for approval of an awning as well as railing around the front. Mr. Smith noted that they are allowed a maximum of 16 square feet of signage and would be over signed with the addition of the proposed signage. Mr. Ernie Brooks, representative for the applicant, indicated that the front railing would be 1" sguare railing, 133" long, 57" back, 3 ' high and painted purple. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that it was difficult to see what was going on without a site plan. Commissioner Connor moved to continue the request to allow the applicant time to provide a site plan showing how the railing relates to the planter and awning. Motion died due to a lack of second. Mr. Fletcher asked if he could go to his office and return to the meeting with the site plan. Commission agreed that this was acceptable. 2 . � � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ' 3. CASE NO. : 4600 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : NITE-LITE SIGNS for LESLIE' S POOL SUPPLIES, 21001 Superior Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of logo colors for business identification signage LOCATION: 72-333 Highway 111, Suite D ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck reported that the applicant was asking for approval of their small logo in pink and light blue noting that the business was located in the Desert Crossing shopping center. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the logo colors on the business identification signage as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 . 4. CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RAYMOND & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS for PATCHINGTON' S, 917 llth Street, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior elevation changes with awning LOCATION: Northwest corner of E1 Paseo and Sage Lane ZONE: C-1 The representative for the applicant, David Fletcher, indicated that the applicant is reguesting approval to recover the existing blue awnings to forest green with a white logo. Mr. Fletcher noted that the other change they have requested was to change the brown wood trim around the building to a color that would match the new forest green awnings . They also want to change out the wood trim windows to a metal trim in the same green. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if they met the size 3 , � � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 requirements for signage. Mr. Smith reported that the proposed signage on the awning was under what is allowed for that location. Commissioner Connor asked if the wood trim is a continuous detail . Commissioner Holden indicated that it was a continuous element and did not want to see it change to a number of different colors for each tenant. Action: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the plans for the exterior elevation changes with the exception of the structural elements, posts and headers being painted. Motion carried 5-0 . 5. CASE NO. : 4598 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : AMERICAN SIGN & SERVICE for REPP LTD. BIG & TALL, 1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 106, Corona, CA 91719 LOCATION: 44-425 Town Center Way, Suite F ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck reported that the business was located in the 111 Town Center in the previous Eagleson' s store. He indicated that the sign program previously approved was in red, white and blue with gold added later. Mr. Winklepleck presented the proposal for individual channel letters with a red face noting that the commission needed to look at this request as an exception to the sign program. Commissioner Connor felt that the signs should be centered more between the columns, not centered over the door and presented. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to approve the business identification signage as submitted. Motion carried 4-1-0, Commissioner Connor - voting No. 4 , �wr� '�r�' AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 B. Preliminary Plans : l. CASE NO. : CUP 96-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : CHALRES L. MARTIN, ARCHITECT, for MONTEREY LAW CENTER, 73-333 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVRL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary building elevations for conversion of single family dwelling to office professional LOCATION: 44-712 Monterey Avenue ZONE: R-2 Steve Smith presented the plans showing a maximum height of 16 feet indicating that the case was before the planning commission the week before and that the property owner to the rear were present and noted their concerns with the elimination of the carport structure. They requested a 7 ' high masonry wall along the rear property because they were afraid that the elimination of the carport would add to the noise and lighting from the mall across Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the planning commission assured her that a 4 ' planter area would be added between the rear property line wall and the driveway to further try and block the lights coming from the mall parking lot. The applicant, Charles Martin, outlined the landscaping plan. Chairman Gregory discussed his concerns with the urban style architecture and landscaping noting that the commission is looking for more of a resort style look in this area. Mr. Martin replied that the applicant does not want to get into a lot of maintenance in the front. Commissioner Holden felt that the proposal would not work as it is in an area that still has residential property as well as houses that have been converted into offices . Chairman Gregory asked if a 4 ' minimum landscaping band is required along the property line. Mr. Smith indicated that technically there is no ordinance that states this . Chairman Gregory stated that the lack of landscaping is something that you would see along E1 Paseo, however this is in an area that needs more softening material . Mr. Martin suggested the addition of turf from the edge of the sidewalk right up to the building, continuing around the side. 5 ' �rr' � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant final approval to the revised elevations subject to the landscaping being restudied pursuant to the direction given by the commission, i.e. addition of turf from the edge of the front sidewalk up to the building up to the building, and continuing around the side elevation. Applicant to provide letter from property owner to the rear stating her approval of a masonry wall of certain specific height along the rear property line. Motion carried 5-0 . 2. CASE NO. : PP 96-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HOLLY MANAGEMENT, INC. for CASA CATALINA, 47-800 Madison Street, Suite 4, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary plans for 8-unit senior condominium complex LOCATION: Southeast corner of Catalina Way and San Carlos ZONE: R-2 S.O. Mr. Smith reported that the proposal was for an 8-unit senior complex that the commission saw at their last meeting. He noted that he did pass on the commission' s comments to the planning commission. Mr. Smith asked that the commission take formal action and grant preliminary approval. Action: It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner 0'Donnell, to approve the preliminary plans subject to changing the gravel in the R.V. parking area to asphalt and eliminating the division wall that extends out between the garages . Motion carried 4-0-1, Commissioner Van Vliet Abstaining. 6 . ��r+► � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 3. CASE NO. : PP 94-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : GEORGE BUONO/DR. HARRIS for SUNLIFE MEDICAL BUILDING, 42-005 Cook Street, Suite 300, Palm Desert, California 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary elevations and roof plan LOCATION: Southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue ZONE• O.P. Steve Smith presented the revised elevations on the medical office building located directly across the street from the new library. He also displayed the previously approved site plan and elevations . Mr. Smith indicated that the site plan was essentially the same with a couple exceptions of popping the building out in some areas . The height on the revised plan has been reduced to approximately 23-1/2 feet where it originally had a height of 25 feet. The set back in front has also been altered somewhat. The representative for the applicant, Bob Ricciardi, noted that the air conditioning equipment room was revised as well as the windows along the back. Commissioner O'Donnell indicated that he liked what was done on the south elevation and suggested that the strong horizontal lines be broken up somehow on the remaining three elevations . Commissioner Holden agreed that there was a lot more happening on the back and it should be carried out more in the front of the building. Commissioner Connor added that the previous plans had a lot more movement. Mr. Ricciardi disagreed and felt that the revised plans had more interest with the 6 ' overhangs . Commissioner Holden indicated that the revised plans would be much more acceptable if some of the features from the south side of the building were carried out along the north elevation. Chairman Gregory indicated that he needed to be assured that the fins walls would extend out 18" . Mr. Ricciardi assured him that they did. Commissioner Holden felt that the revised plans would be acceptable in the industrial area, not on Fred Waring. He noted that the commission was asking for more interest and felt that if there were ways to get 7 , � ,�. AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 more undulation, the revised plans would be acceptable. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that he could not change the front elevations because it was all office space that could not be reduced. He felt that the fin walls and the architectural elements added enough interest to the building. Commissioner Holden felt that the building was monumental in size and height and did not think the street was designed for monumental buildings . Chairman Gregory moved to approve the revised preliminary plans with the understanding that the fin walls on the north end be extended out 18" and that other efforts be made to reduce the monumental size of the building. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Mr. Smith outlined the options available to Mr. Ricciardi. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to deny the revised plans as submitted due to its monumental nature. Commission suggested that the applicant provide more undulation in plan and design. Commission felt that the three sides of the building were acceptable indicating that the front elevation was too plain for a building of this size and length. Motion carried 4-0-1, Chairman Gregory Voting No. 4. CASE NO. : TT 28258 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : KAUFMANN & BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. , 180 No. Riverview Drive, Suite 300, Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary plans of perimeter wall landscaping LOCATION: North side of Frank Sinatra Drive, approximately 1325 feet west of Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Jeff Winklepleck reported that Eric Johnson had looked at the revised plans and noted his comments . He added that the applicant had also received comments from the 8 � � AGENDA ARCIiITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Coachella Valley Water District on the landscaping plans . Chairman Gregory suggested that the applicant revise the plans with the noted corrections and resubmit the plan as he did not think there was a single item on the plan that had not been changed. Mr. Smith indicated that the comments from Eric Johnson stated that about one-third of the planting material be used. Commissioner Connor thought that the commission needed to see a corrected plan. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the perimeter wall was broken up some with columns and pilasters . He indicated that the pilasters were not on center and range from 150 ' to 220 ' apart. Chairman Gregory suggested that the pilasters be placed on intersecting property lines (approximately 80 ' on center) and reduced in size to 16" . He added that the pilasters only needed to be on the outside. Commission also reviewed the final working drawings . Mr. Winklepleck indicated that Steve Buchanan advised him that the plans were identical to the previously approved preliminary plans . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to continue the landscape plan directing the applicant to address the concerns noted on the plan by Eric Johnson; approved the perimeter wall with 16" pilasters to be centered on the intersecting property lines (approximately 80 ' on center) ; and approved the final architectural working drawings for the model units as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 . C. Miscellaneous Cases : 1 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MIKE SUKO, 72-760 Bel Air Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of plans for roof change to height of 18 ' LOCATION: 72-760 Bel Air Road 9 � �.: AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ZONE: R-1 10,000 Steve Smith reported that the applicant was requesting approval on the roof height. He added that also involved on this proposal is a remodel at the northwest and south- west corners of the home. Mr. Smith indicated that with the exception of the home to the east, the neighborhood has low, flat roofs. He had letters that Mr. Suko received from neighbors approving the remodel and roof height. Mr. Smith indicated that two homeowners have not approved the plan. He presented photographs of the neighborhood homes . Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Jones, the property owner to the north, was present and wished to address the commission. Mr. Suko also presented photographs of the adjacent homes showing their roof heights . Commissioner Holden reminded the applicant that anything above 15 feet requires a special approval . Mr. Jeff Jones addressed the commission. He stated that when he reviewed the plans he saw that the roof height was 18 ' high. Mr. Michael Mehas also addressed the commission stating that his parents are the adjacent neighbors to Mr. Suko. He indicated that his parents called him right after they realized that they signed a document that they should not have signed as they did not realize the height of Mr. Suko' s home after the remodel . Mr. Mehas indicated that his parents ' health has gotten worse because of this situation with Mr. Suko. They are older and don't leave their home much and the view from their home is all they have. The addition of the this roof would eliminate the only view they have left. Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Suko explore the possibility of doing a hip roof. He was in Mr. Suko' s, Mr. Jones ' , and Mr. Mehas ' back yard earlier that day and noted that the pictures show clearly what the impact of the roof would be. Commissioner Holden felt that the reason the ordinance was designed was to protect existing homes and in looking at compatibility, he did not see any reason why Mr. Suko' s roof needed to be 18 ' high. Commissioner Connor agreed. Commissioner O'Donnell thought the idea of using the trusses was the cleanest and easiest way to re-roof the home, but structurally there are other ways to re-roof keeping the total height at 15 feet. Commissioner Holden felt that a roof height of 15 ' 6" 10 � � AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 might be acceptable. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that he could not approve anything over 15 feet high. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the request directing the applicant to work with the property owners that spoke before the commission to work out a plan with a maximum height of 15 feet or something that all parties agree on. Motion carried 5-0 . Note: Commissioners Holden and Connar left meeting at 2 : 15 p.m. 2 . Mr. Smith outlined the letter from Arthur Swajian noting that Mr. Swajian did file a timely appeal on a wall under construction on Bel Air Road. Chairman Gregory asked if the commission could respond to the city council regarding the commission' s decision. The following was their response: "The Architectural Review Commission did receive the letter from Mr. Swajian dated January 31, 1996 . The commission respects Mr. Swajian' s opinion; however, feel that commission made the right decision after reviewing the matter again. Commission felt that it was a well articulated wall and that there were a number of mitigating efforts made to make it an asset to the neighborhood. " D. Final Drawings (Continued) : 1 . CA5E NO. 4599 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PALMS TO PINE5 CANVAS for ALLEGRO CAFE, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1) Approval of awning with signage; and 2) Approval of storefront railing for outdoor seating LOCATION: 73-655 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 11 . �rMw` `w+ AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Mr. Fletcher returned to the meeting and commission discussed different ideas to reduce the requested signage. Mr. Fletcher indicated that if they take the signage reading "Allegro Cafe" off the barrel awning you would not see any signage because the foam letters on the building would be blocked by the awning. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to approve the awning subject to reducing the letter size to 6" , eliminating "Cafe" from the barrel awning, and adding the "Allegro" logo on the arch of the awning. Total business signage not to exceed 16 square feet. Commission approved the railing and posts to match the existing tile color on the front of the building subject to it being on private property only. Motion carried 3-0, Commissioners Holden and Connor Absent. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2 : 30 p.m. � � E SMI ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 12