Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-11 • � � ` MINUTES CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 ����*�������*�����������������������������*���������������*�� I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meetin� Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 9 2 Frank Urrutia X 10 1 Chris VanVliet X 10 1 Wayne Connar X 10 1 Richard O'Donnell X 11 0 Ronald Gregory X 10 1 Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Steve Buchanan Pat Bedrosian Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 1997 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: 4780 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: AMERICAN AWNING CO. for CAFFE' VALENTINO, 44489 Town Center Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning LOCATION: 73-375 El Paseo, Suites P, Q and R ZONE: G1 . �r `�..� ' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Mr.Alvarez presented the drawings and color sample noting that the applicant wants to replace the three existing awnings with one piece that would jog in and out in mauve. It would extend out approximately 6'3" from the farthest wall. Signage would be 4" letters with the existing signage remaining. Commissioner Holden noted his concerns with the proposed awning creating all different types of awnings on one building. He felt the concept was acceptable but that there should be some conformity. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the applicant should take another look on how to support the awning and suggested the use of columns. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to direct the applicant to bring the awning to some type of uniformity(not a mixture of scalloped, round and square awnings) and return to staff for final approval. Commission questioned the necessity of the "draw-bridge" look with the support member connecting to the roof above the awning. Motion carried 6-0. 2, CASE NO.: PP 86-28, Amendment No. 2 APPLICANT�,AND ADDRESSI: DAVID GEISER c/o MCG ARCHITECTS for 111 TOWN CENTER,4180 La Jolla Village, Suite 330, La Jolla, CA 92037; ERIC G. DAMS c/o BEST BLTY COMPANY,INC., Post Office Box 9312, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9312 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for Best Buy and Pad 3 LOCATION: 1 ll Town Center ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Mr. Smith reported that in November 1996 the commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture with the following conditions: i) The main tower element be a minimum 12" x 12" blue tile (No. 180) as shown; ii) Revise the support design wedge where it meets the ground to eliminate one of the openings and continue the tile all the way down to the ground; 2 . +�.r '�••� ' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 iii) Raise the grade on the driveway to eliminate the curb at the entrance and add paving (i.e. colored concrete); iv) Sign color background to be in the Plexi-Glass No. 2465 range in metal. Mr. Smith indicated that the wedge has been re-designed in that it only has one opening but that the tile does not go all the way to the ground. He added that the grade on the driveway had not been changed (condition No. 3) and that the signs were not included in this approval. Mr. Smith added that the request included approval of the working drawings for Pad No. 3 which is on Highway 111 next to Home Savings. Commissioner Urrutia asked if the parking lot is still being re-designed. Mr. Smith indicated that it was. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the elevations for Pad 3 and the final working drawings for Best Buy subject to incorporating Condition No. 3 from the November 12, 1996 A.R.C.meeting which is providing a level walkway from the main entry with some type of treatment instead of asphalt in addition to the landscape and parking lot conditions noted in the minutes of the September 24, 1996 A.R.C. meeting prior to rough framing inspection. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 94-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE NADEL PARTNERSHIP for LUCKY STORES, 1990 So. Bundy Drive, Fourth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised landscaping plan at the northwest corner LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon ZONE: P.G (4) Mr. Smith presented photographs taken the week prior of the northwest corner of the site. He indicated that the plan has been revised, expanding the landscape area by two parking spaces to the south where they propose to plant trees. Mr. Smith informed the commission that Mr. Goudsworthy was present. The representative for the applicant, Mr. Sean Robert, indicated that their goal was to establish an 8 foot 3 . � � ' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 high hedge along Deep Canyon from the retention basin and extended all the way down. He added that it will take a couple of seasons of growth for the hedge to get 8 feet high. Mr. Robert indicated that they included two of the mondale pines to screen the view of the loading area. Commissioner Gregory felt that this was not a way to solve the problem for the residents across the street on Deep Canyon as he did not want to rely on plant material to screen this area. Commissioner Holden still felt there should be some type of door added to the loading dock. Mr. Robert indicated that this would be difficult and they are not prepared to put up a door. Mr. Goudsworthy asked why they couldn't install mature landscaping along Deep Canyon. Mr. Robert felt that this was not possible because there was not enough room along the street area. Mr. Goudsworthy indicated that the residents are not interested in a door,but want mature landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked what the status was on the existing approved plan and if everything was followed per that plan. Mr. Smith explained that we have a landscape plan that was approved by the commission which is in conflict with the approved grading plan. He added that in order to implement the approved landscape plan they would have to remove the sidewalk north of the driveway to the retention basin and move it to the curb. Mr. Smith noted that this would not address the concerns. Commissioner Gregory added that the applicant has an obligation to make the plan correct with the originally approved plan and has an opportunity to be a good neighbor and provide adequate screening. Commissioner Connor expressed his concerns with the mondale pines as they are not reliable here in the desert and wanted to see something that will last. Mr. Robert indicated that they will be using 72" box trees. Cominissioner Connor felt that the best solution is that the closer they get to the area, the better screening they can provide. Mr. Goudsworthy felt that heavy landscaping was the only answer. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the revised landscaping plan for the area located at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Deep Canyon Road subject to the following conditions: 1) The landscaping plan is amended to be consistent with the approved grading plan(i.e. the sidewalk setback 3'+ from Deep Canyon Road curb). Areas to be landscaped will be the 3' ± area between the sidewalk and the curb,plus the 9' area between the sidewalk and the parking lot,plus the two northerly parking spaces from the row of nine parking spaces adjacent to Deep Canyon Road; 4 . `�.r+ `�r.r+ ` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 2) That the materials presented to the commission this date are not acceptable (i.e. hopseed bush and mondale pines); 3) That the four existing California fan palms, which have recently been installed,be removed; " 4) That the approved revised landscape plan will include a mix of large mature spreading canopy trees (i.e. 72"box material)with spacing to be determined by the actual species selected and a fast growing hedge (shrub)type material which will obscure the low level view of the loading dock/tunnel. Said material to be minimum 15 gallon installed material; 5) This landscape material to extend southerly to the northerly limit of the designated Pad"C"property line as it would project to Deep Canyon Road; 6) Applicant's landscape architect to prepare a revised landscape plan consistent with the above items to be submitted to Commissioners Gregory and Connor via fax(applicant's landscape architect may contact Commissioners Gregory and Connor to discuss acceptable plant material). When plan is acceptable to Commissioners Gregory and Connor, each will so advise staff; 7) That the applicant shall make appropriate arrangements with it's landscape maintenance firm to assure that this portion of the site is maintained in a manner consistent with the objectives of this plan revision (i.e. to provide maximum screening of the tunnel/loading area). Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Urrutia Absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 23940-3 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESSI: FOXX DEVELOPMENT for SLINTERRACE, 73-111 El Paseo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior color scheme for Plan 1 at Sunterrace LOCATION: Sunterrace (Northwest corner of Hovley Lane East and Eldorado Drive) ZONE: PR-5 The representative for the applicant,Bob Wolf,presented the proposed color schemes and indicated that he had verbal approval of same from Pat Leahy and Bob Varner. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about roof tile samples. Mr. Wolf explained that 5 . � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 they will have flat roofs. Action• It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the exterior color scheme for Plan 1 as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: TT 24254 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESSI: ERIC MILLER, ARCHITECT, A.I.A. for SONATA II,901 Rio Grande Blvd.,N.W., Suite D-220A,Albuquerque,N.M. 871-4 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Further consideration of revised elevations and additional model units LOCATION: North of Hovley Lane, 1900 feet west of Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith presented pictures of the existing one and two story homes and indicated that the commission was looking at a re-designed elevation with a hip roof. The applicant,Mr. Kilpatrick, asked the commission to approve the gable roofs with the condition that he guarantee that there will be a certain number of homes with the hip roof re-design as shown today. Mr. Smith reported that there were two conditions on the original tract map that will be on the next planning commission agenda. He indicated that staff will be asking to eliminate these two conditions and recommend that they adhere to the city's basic R-1 standards. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant would like to proceed with the model complex with the commitment that at some time in the future that a minimun of 15% of the 68 homes have hip roofs as shown today. Commissioner Urrutia expressed his concerns with the possibility of two gable ends used where there are minimum setbacks. He suggested that whenever the distance between two homes is less than 14 feet they must have at least one hip roof. If they meet or exceed the 14 feet of separation,then they can use two gable ends. 6 �,r v�` � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Action• It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the three(3) 18 foot high gable roofed plans, the color scheme, and the hip roofed house plans as submitted subject to there being a minimum of 14 feet of separation between homes with gable ends; otherwise, there has to be a hip roof on at least one end. Motion carried 6-0. C. Miscellaneous: 1. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: GREG POE, 74-470 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of height and material exception for backyard wall facing along Fred Waring Drive LOCATION: 74-470 Goleta Avenue ZONE: R-1 S.P. Mr. Alvarez presented photographs of the home stating that the applicant is requesting a exception to the height limit and material indicating that Mr. Poe wants to install precision block at eight feet high. After a lengthy discussion with Mr. Poe, the following action was taken. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the fencing at a maximum height of seven feet to match the color and material of the adjacent slump stone wall to the east. Wall to extend around the corner a minimum of two blocks. Motion carried 5-0,Commissioner Urrutia Absent. 7 . � v.r. � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1997 2. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ROBERT TAYLOR COMPANY, 42-200 Beacon Hill, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to exception to front yard setback requirement for 6 foot high wall LOCATION: 43-380 Texas Avenue and 76-710 California Avenue ZONE: R-19,000 Mr. Alvarez reported that the required setback is 15 feet from the face of the curb and that the applicant is requesting a setback of 11'2" because there are pools in the front yard of both homes that will not allow a 15 foot setback. Commissioner Connor suggested the use of landscaping to 6 feet high. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant,the following action was taken. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to deny the requests and suggested that the applicant provide a detailed landscape plan for outside the wall and return to the commission for reconsideration of the exception. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Urrutia Absent. V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. n � .j� ',l } S VE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS/db 8