Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-27 ` `�..�` �.r+r' MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 �*��*******************��*****���****�*�:���*�*************��*****��**��****��� I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meetin� Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 16 2 Frank Urrutia X 15 3 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 Wayne Connor X 17 1 Richard O'Donnell X 17 1 Ronald Gregory X 16 2 Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Steve Buchanan Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner VanVliet, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the minutes of the May 13, 1997 meeting as amended. Motion carried 6-0. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: 4808 SA APPLICANT.�AND ADDRESSI: COUNTRY CLUB AWNING& BLIND for NAPA'S TAPAS, 74-877 Joni Drive, Suite 8, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of conditions of approval of awning with business identification signage LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 � ;;�,,. w�` � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 Mr. Smith reported that this case had been before the commission on a number of occasions and indicated that some of the commission's concerns were the width of the awning,the height of the awning, and how it would effect the adjacent business. He stated that contacting the adjacent business owner was turning out to be difficult for the applicant and he was present to bring the commission up to date. The applicant,Mr.Brian Lanning,informed the commission that the neighbor to the west was closing the business and that Mr. Lanning was still waiting for the business owner to contact him. He indicated that in the meantime the existing umbrellas at Napa's Tapas were stolen off the patio. Mr. Lanning explained that the proposed awning would be approximately 2 feet higher and extend out about 2 feet more. He added that the only place the awning would impact the neighbor is directly underneath the awning itself. Commissioner Gregory asked if the signage for the adjacent business to the west would still be 100%visible. Mr. Lanning indicated that it would. Commissioner Gregory felt that the retractable awning being proposed would be acceptable. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there were any conditions regarding the times that the awning would have to be retracted. Mr. Lanning replied that the awning would be retracted every night because of possible wind damage at night and vandalism. Commissioner Van Vliet indicated that he still was concerned about the impact on the adjacent business. Commissioner Holden asked what would happen if the awning is installed as approved and then the adjacent business owner complains about it. Mr. Smith indicated that the city can not require the applicant to remove the awning once it is approved by the commission and installed. Commissioner Gregory asked if the city should send a letter to the adjacent tenant giving them a two week time frame to respond to the proposal; otherwise, approve the awning as submitted. Commissioner Urrutia felt that if the awning was only two bays wide its potential impact on the adjacent business would be reduced. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the awning over the two easterly bays only. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: 4833 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: DESERT FALLS MASTER ASSOCIATION, Post Office Box 14447, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional free standing monument sign 2 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 LOCATION: Corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street ZONE: P.R. 3.5 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant is asking for approval to install a monument sign at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the free standing sign would be 30" high and 10' long with 12" gator foam gold letters. He added that the monument sign would follow the radius of the wall around the existing fountain. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what type of material would be used. The representative for the applicant, Mr. Steve Manger, indicated that it would be Navajo white stucco. Commissioner Gregory asked if the monument sign would block the lower side of the fountain. Mr. Manger indicated that it would not as the fountain was approximately 10 feet high. Commissioner Urrutia suggested that both ends of the sign be stair-stepped to match the fountain and the color should blend in with the fountain color. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the free standing monument sign subject to stair-stepping both ends to mimic the design feature of the fountain and the background wall color to match the fountain. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: 4838 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: JOHN OHEA SIGNS for BECKER & BECKER REALTY, 71-445 Oasis Trail,Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 44-311 Monterey Avenue ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith reported that this is the recently constructed building, two doors north of the Board of Realtors office. He showed how part of the design element created blisters in the texture. The applicant, Mr. John Ohea, was present to get the commissions input on how to install the signage and indicated that he would prefer to paint the signage directly on the wall but the bumps on the wall creates as much 3 ,� �' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 as a 4" shadow. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Ohea is proposing to mount a flat surface in front of the bumps on the wall but was asking for the commissions suggestions on alternative ways to provide signage on the building. Mr. Ohea showed a sample of a flat surface with a 1" foam border around and behind the sign. He indicated that he was trying to match the signage at Hacienda Plaza, the building directly south of this building. Mr. Ohea added that the owner would like to attach 1" gator foam letters to the flat surface but Mr. Ohea was afraid that no matter how the gator foam letters are attached,that they would not be stable. Commissioner Urrutia asked what Mr. Ohea what his objection was to painting the sign directly on the building. Mr. Ohea stated that he felt it would be unattractive because of the shadows created by the existing bumps. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would prefer to see the signage painted on the building itself and felt that the building should be prepped differently. Commissioners Urrutia and Holden agreed. Commissioner Urrutia suggested to either knock down the stucco or bring up the building more. Mr. Ohea noted that the building was color coated now. He asked the commission if the size was acceptable at 40 square feet. Commissioner Holden thought the size was acceptable if the sign was painted on the building but was too large if placed on a flat surface type sign. Action• It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the signage painted on the building in the colors submitted subject to removing some of the bumps on the building, building the plaster out, or a combination of both to eliminate the shadow effect. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CA5E NO.: 4840 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ARCHITECTURAL NEON & SIGN CO. for WARNER ENGINEERING, 74-990 Joni Drive, Suite 3-C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-185 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez presented photographs of the existing sign that the applicant wants to relocate at their new location on Highway 111 just east of Tony Romas. He indicated 4 � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 that the sign reads black during the day and white at night with 12" individual channel letters. Mr.Alvarez added that there would be an exposed raceway to match the 18" stucco fascia. The representative for the applicant, Mr. Gary Wright, indicated that there was no access into the eave; and therefore, needed the exposed raceway. Commissioner Holden asked what the hours of operation were. Mr. Wright indicated that they were open during normal daytime business hours. Commissioner Connor questioned the need for the lighting. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the signage without the raceway. Motion carried 5-0-1, Commissioner Urrutia Abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: PP 86-28 Amendment No. 2 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESSI: DAVID GEISER c/o MCG ARCHITECTS far BEST BLTY,4180 La Jolla Village, Suite 330,La Jolla, CA 92037;ERIC G. DAMS c/o BEST BiIY COMPANY,INC.,Post Office Box 9312,Minneapolis,MN 55440- 9312 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of free standing sign LOCATION: 111 Town Center ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Mr. Smith stated that the request from the applicant was to continue this item as they are going to submit plans for the meeting of June l Oth. He added,however,that they would like some direction from the commission. Mr. Smith indicated that there are existing free standing signs on Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. He added that the commission approved the black and yellow in the ticket sign on the building and showed pictures of how it looked. Mr. Smith noted that when the commission discussed the matter of the black and yellow ticket sign they never discussed the free standing signs. A few weeks back the applicant came in and received a signature from staff stating that the monument sign was approved subject to it being consistent with the November `96 City Council approval. The monument sign, however, was never presented to council. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is seeking a temporary Certificate of Occupancy now in order to stock the merchandise and asked 5 °� �'` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 the commission what direction should be taken with the free standing sign. Commissioner Connor felt that the Best Buy monument signage should be consistent with the existing tile insets. The representative for the applicant,Mr. Terry Wheeler, asked if the brightness was the problem. He indicated that he spoke to the corporate office and they suggested placing some black plexi-glass on the back of the sign. Commissioner Holden stated that they want the monument sign to be a design feature, not a directory sign for the center, and did not see the need for the yellow and black. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the monument sign should remain consistent with just the cut-outs being lit. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant look at the monument signs at Desert Crossing, Waring Plaza, the Columbia Center, and the new Luckys on Highway 111 and Deep Canyon as these were good examples of what they are looking for in free standing monument signs. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to the June l Oth meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The commission allowed the applicant to keep the monument sign as is there now provided that under no circumstances it is there beyond June 25, 1997. The monument sign must be taken down by that date whether or not a new sign has been approved. Commissioner Urrutia added that the direction from the commission was to propose something other than the illuminated background. 6. CASE NO.: C 97-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARMAC for PAGENET, 15621 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92680 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to install a pager system facility and an equipment cabinet LOCATION: 74-675 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith presented pictures of the pager system and equipment cabinet indicating that it was located on the south end of the roof of the Holiday Inn Express. He explained that the reason the issue was before the commission was because the ordinance specifies that roof mounted antennas be reviewed and approved by this 6 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 commission. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were any residents on the back side of building that would see this. Mr. Smith indicated that the closest residents were the Mountain Villas to the south. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the installation of the pager system facility and equipment cabinet as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 96-12 APPLICANT ,�AND ADDRESSI: MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP, 11820 Northrup Way, #E-300, Bellevue, WA 98005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final architectural and landscaping plans for fully automated fueling facility LOCATION: 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C. (2) Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Commission had approved the site planning as submitted. After reviewing the plans,the commission took the following actions. Action• It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the architectural plans only. Motion carried 6-0. It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to refer the landscaping plan back to the applicant directing them to increase the landscaping on the slope on the south side, adjacent to Dinah Shore Drive; place additional trees in the north and south planter areas along Dinah Shore Drive; and increase the landscaping on the slope on the east side down from Monterey Avenue. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CASE NO.: TT 23940-3 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESSI: FOXX DEVELOPMENT for SUNTERRACE, 73-111 El Paseo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 7 _ � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of elevations, site planning, and new color scheme for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 13 LOCATION: Sunterrace (Northwest corner of Hovley Lane East and Eldorado Drive) ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bob Wolf of Foxx Development informed the commission that the request was for approval of additional colors to the already approved color scheme. The other request is for approval of elevations and site planning for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 13. Mr. Smith indicated that staff had already approved homes on Lots 3,4 and 9. Lots 3 and 4 are on a corner situation and were not a problem; however, the home on Lot 9 became a problem in that it has architectural features which project out 4 feet into the required 20' setback. When this became an issue with the neighbors Mr. Foxx, in an accommodation to the city, revised the plan so that the projections were only 2 feet,which apparently was acceptable to the neighbors. Part of the request before the commission today was to allow the homes on the remaining lots with the 4 foot proj ections. Mr. Patrick Leahy, homeowner at Suntenace, stated that one issue of concern was that the street scape on Lot 11 was different from and not in keeping with the community. He indicated that the building frontage is 54'on the street with the other homes at 89'. Mr. Smith quoted two different sections of the ordinance relating to types of projections ancl setbacks. Commissioner Holden asked if there were C.C.&R.'s for the development. Mr. Smith indicated that there were. Commissioner Holden explained that the Sunterrace Homeowners Association would have to approve the plans before the commission would be able to review them. He asked if the H.O.A. had reviewed the site plan that was presented today. Mr. Wolf indicated that the association did not see the site plan as he was not aware that it had to be reviewed by the association. Mr. Leahy indicated that there has never been an approval for Lots 7 and 11 and that the issue that arose between the homeowners association and Foxx Development was the massiveness on some of the exteriors such as on Lot 12. Ms. Ellen Kauti,homeowner at Sunterrace, stated that the homeowners had not seen any of the plans except for the first three approved on Lots 3, 4 and 9. Mr. A1 Varcalti, homeowner at Sunterrace, stated that he understood that all of the 8 . � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 plans would have to be a minimum of 2500 square feet of living space. Mr. Wolf explained that their floor plans go from 2100 square feet for Lots 7 and 11 up to 2900 square feet. Commissioner Gregory explained that the commission has requested in the past that all issues are worked out between the homeowners association and the builders. He stated that it was very time consuming for them to respond to plans when they have not been reviewed by all bodies involved prior to the commission meetings. Mr. Leahy asked if there were any modifications to the home built on Lot 9. Mr. Wolf explained that changes were made on Lot 9 addressing the homeowners concerns. Mr.Leahy wanted the commission to understand that there were changes made to the home on Lot 9 after their approval. He asked Mr. Wolf if they plan to continue to change the columns as they did on Lot 9. Mr. Wolf indicated that they would not continue to make these changes on the other lots, and would go back to the original plan. Mr. Leahy objected to going back to the original plans with the four foot (4') deep columns. Commissioner Gregory reiterated that the developer will have to meet with the homeowners association and return to the commission with what was agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Wolf asked if the additional colors presented today were acceptable. Commissioner Gregory asked if the homeowners had seen the new color schemes. Mr. Wolf indicated that they had not. Commissioner Gregory indicated that the homeowners association would have to approve the colors first. Mr. Foxx indicated that the homeowners association had approved the original color board and that the colors presented today were in addition to the approved colors to provide more variations. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the added color schemes presented today contingent on written approval of same from the current Sunterrace Homeowners Association. Motion carried 6-0. Mr.Foxx asked the commission for approval, separate and apart from the Sunterrace Homeowners Association approval, of the elevations for Lots 5, 6, 8 and 13. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission would not get involved until written approval was received from the homeowners association. Commissioner Urrutia explained that if this were a new project from scratch the developer would not have to present the site plan to the commission for approval, but because there is an existing homeowners association that has some objections, the developer will 9 , � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 need to work these issues out with the association before bringing the plan to the commission for approval. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to continue the elevations and site planning for two weeks directing the developer to meet with the current Sunterrace Homeowners Association and obtain, in writing, a statement that changes or modifications have been made to their satisfaction. Motion carried 6-0. 9. CASE NO.: PP 97-7 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESSI: GARY LOHMAN/TAD SMITH, 75-570 Mary Lane, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Landscape plan review for conversion of single family residence to office professional LOCATION: 44-835 Deep Canyon ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith reported that tl�is was north of the Goedecke complex,directly across from the new Lucky's. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the request was before the commission for their review and approval of a renovation from a single family residence to office professional. Mr. Lohman also presented the proposed sample color board. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to approve the plan and color board subject to the revisions noted by Commissioner Connor. Motion carried 5-0-1, Commissioner Gregory Abstaining. 10 , ;�, � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: C 97-8 APPLICANT,�AND ADDRESSI: BRINKER INTERNATIONAL c/o TRG INC. for ROMANO'S MACAROl�II GRILL, 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 105, Orange, CA 92867 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of changes to building elevations,patio addition, and signage LOCATION: 72-920 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. Action• It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0. IV. MISCELLANEOUS: Hi�hway 111/El Paseo Marketnlace: Mr. David Smith of Lowe Development was present with proposed plans for development of a commercial center at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Mr. Steve Smith noted that the commission was able to make comments andlor suggestions today but could not take any action as it was not posted on the agenda. Mr. David Smith explained that they have been working with staff and the surrounding homeowners to rezone the site to P.C. (2). He briefly outlined the lay-out and aesthetics of the center noting that they did not want it to be a continuance of Desert Crossing. Commissioner Gregory noted that the landscaping was a different scheme than Desert Crossing with a more Italian theme. Commissioner Urrutia felt that the architecture did not fit the desert and noted his concerns with the `movie set' design. He also questioned some of the Italian vegetation. 11 , • � �� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 The Gardens On El Paseo: The commission discussed their concerns with not having the opportunity to review the revised parking structure for the Gardens on El Paseo. Mr. Buchanan indicated that he had completed the first plan check on a set of plans that were very vague and expected a corrected set of plans by the end of the week. The commission directed staff to relay their concerns to Mr. Drell and explain that they feel the proj ect has already gone too far without the commission reviewing the parking lot structure. V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. I- e�:s`_`� ST VE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER S S/db 12