Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-24 ' ,;�, � PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meetina Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X 5 1 Ronald Gregory X 5 1 Richard Holden X 5 1 Richard O'Donnell X 6 Frank Urrutia X 5 1 Chris Van Vliet X 6 Staff Present Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Steve Buchanan, Senior Plans Examiner Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the minutes of the March 10, 1998 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Commissioner Connor abstaining. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 . �.r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES IV. A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 98-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): D & F DEVELOPMENT, 46-333 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 17'6" high homes LOCATION: 74-525 & 74-515 Day Lily ZONE: PR Mr. Smith reported that the applicant has submitted revised plans which address many of the concerns presented at the last meeting. The developer has changed the gabled roofs to hipped roofs, and has provided a letter indicating that the roof materials and colors will be similar to the rest of the neighborhood, and courtyards will be added to the front yards. Mr. Smith commented that copies of the agenda were mailed last Friday to the residents who attended the previous Commission meeting. Chairman Gregory asked if the homeowners have met with the developer, to which Mark Wiseman responded that the representative of D & F was supposed to have contacted Mr. Shillito, but as of Sunday night, that had not happened, and Mr. Shillito had to go out of town thereafter. Mr. Tirre remarked that he talked to Mr. Shillito at the previous Commission meeting and indicated he was available to meet at any time. Mr. Wiseman stated that it was Mr. Shillito's understanding that Mr. Tirre could call to set up a meeting, but Mr. Shillito was never contacted, to which Mr. Tirre responded that there must have been a misunderstanding, because he did not realize he was to initiate the call. 2 . ;� �` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory noted that the developer has changed the gabled roofs to hipped roofs, has added courtyards to the front yards, and has indicated that the roof materials and colors will match the rest of the neighborhood, and asked if the neighbors had any other aesthetic concerns which could be addressed by the Commission. Mr. Wiseman stated that the neighbors are in the process of filing a homeowners association with CC&Rs, and the neighbors are very strongly opinionated about the square footage issue, and have concerns based on the property they purchased. The 2,600 square feet is a very strong issue with the neighbors, and they are willing to go through whatever process necessary to protect their interests, because they don't want their properties devalued. Chairman Gregory pointed out that the Commission's purview is strictly aesthetics and architecture. Mr. Wiseman suggested postponing action on this case to the next meeting so that the neighbors have an opportunity to meet with the developer. Mr. Tirre stated that there is no market to build bigger homes on these lots; so if that is topic the neighbors want to discuss, there is no point in meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the neighbors present in the audience meet with the developer in the lobby and subsequently return to the meeting so that the Commission may take action. Chairman Gregory indicated that he would prefer that the Commission take action today, and emphasized that the Commission cannot address the issue of property value and square footage. He would suggest that the neighbors and developer discuss issues regarding aesthetics and architecture. Commissioner Holden noted that size has nothing to do with aesthetics, although it does impact economics; however, the Commission has no purview regarding the economics of a project, even though that may be a valid concern of the neighbors. 3 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Following a brief ineeting between the neighbors and the developer, the developer requested that the case be continued to the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to April 14, 1998. The motion carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 98-36 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): QUIEL BROTHERS SIGN COMPANY for TRIMS & MORE, 272 South I Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two non- illuminated three-foot by five-foot signs LOCATION: 45-120 San Pablo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith reported that the business is located on the southeast corner of San Pablo and Highway 111, and Mr. Alvarez added that the neighboring florist will be submitting an application for approval of the signage. Mr. Smith indicated that if the Commission approves the signage for Trims and More, staff will be unable to issue a permit until the florist sign either becomes legal or is removed. Mr. Atvarez stated that the floral shop will resubmit a sign plan that will be more compatible with the building. Mr. Alvarez reported that the proposed signage before the Commission today is for finro non-illuminated one-piece, three-foot by five-foot signs. One sign would be located on the San Pablo elevation, and the other sign would be located on the Highway 111 elevation where the Carpet Empire sign was previously located. Larry Quiel commented that the business operator would like to have two signs to take advantage of the visibility from San Pablo as well as Highway 111, and noted that Burger King has finro signs facing Highway 111, and the neighboring pharmacy has a sign facing San Pablo as well as Highway 111. 4 , '`�rw �.r�: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Mr. Quiel stated that these signs are much smaller than the previous Carpet Empire signs, and the signs will provide an attractive form of business identification, including the business logo. Commissioner Urrutia expressed concern that the two signs would only be a couple of feet apart, and both signs would be visible by those traveling eastbound on Highway 111 and southbound on San Pablo, which would be overkill. Mr. Quiel stated that people traveling north on San Pablo would not see the sign on the Highway 111 elevation, which is why a sign is needed on the San Pablo elevation, to which Commissioner Urrutia responded that people traveling north on San Pablo won't be able to see a sign on the San Pablo elevation until they are right in front of the business; so a sign on that side would not provide any advantage. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are any other signs in the area that are so close together, to which Mr. Quiel responded negatively, but noted that the other signs in the area are larger than the signs being proposed today. Commissioner Holden pointed out that the other buildings in the area are much larger than the subject building. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the business is allowed to have 20 square feet of window signage, which could serve as their signage for the San Pablo side. Chairman Gregory felt that the sign on the Highway 111 e�evation should be placed lower on the building, and asked if the applicant would be willing to work with window signage for the San Pablo side, to which Mr. Quiel replied that the window is relatively low, and the landscaping would possibly block it. Chairman Gregory believed that the landscaping would not be a probtem. Mr. Smith clarified that the proposed signage is non-illuminated, and Mr. Quiel added that it will be much smaller than the previous sign on the building. Chairman Gregory asked about the size of the Carpet Empire sign, to which Mr. Smith replied that it was at least finrice as large as the proposed signage. 5 � '�r� }r.r+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner Urrutia suggested stretching out the lettering on the sign for the Highway 111 elevation into a single line so that it may be placed above the windows, which would provide more visibility on the Highway 111 side, and suggested that the original design be used for the San Pablo side. Donna of Trims and More expressed her preference for maintaining the sign as currently designed because it matches her logo. Commissioner Holden pointed out that the Commission would prefer that the signs be further apart, and suggested that the applicant develop a method to further separate the signs. Chairman Gregory felt that a window sign on the San Pablo side will solve the problem, and the 20 square foot allowed for a window sign is more signage than the proposed 15 square foot sign, and the window sign could even be ifluminated. Donna pointed out that she has a lot of window display that would interfere with a window sign. Chairman Gregory acknowledged that this is a strange building positioned at an awkward angle. Donna asked if it would be possible to have a larger sign angled at the corner, to which Mr. Smith replied that the business could have a 30 square foot sign on the Highway 111 elevation if the Commission approves. Mr. Quiel indicated that he would be interested in having a 30 square foot sign on the Highway 111 elevation and a window sign Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve a window sign for the San Pablo elevation and authorize staff to approve a wall sign on the Highway 111 elevation based on the requirements of the Commission. Motion carried 5-0. 6 , +�r' y✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 98-38 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOYCE SEHI for WELLS FARGO BANK, P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of one 1'7" by 9'11" illuminated wall sign LOCATION: 72-675 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.(3) Mr. Alvarez reported that the proposal is to replace the existing 1/7" by 10' channel letter sign with a can sign, and indicated that the facia is 20 inches, and that there are other can signs in the center, but there are no other can signs on this particular building. Warren Degree spoke on behalf of the applicant and indicated that Vons will not allow the bank to have a sign at any other location than that of the currently existing sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the sign will project out from the building, to which Mr. Degree indicated eight inches. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the illuminated wall sign with a maximum four-inch depth. Motion carried 5-0. 7 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: SA 98-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: DR. SHAH for SOUTHWEST PAIN CONTROL & SPORTS THERAPY, 73-345 Highway 111, Suite 102, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remove sign with 10-inch letters from front elevation and replace with 10-inch reverse channel letters to match existing, and add 20-inch red and white logo LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 (SP) Mr. Alvarez reported that this building currently has the maximum square footage of signage allowed, so any amount of sign removed can be replaced; however, the proposed sign is two times larger than the existing sign. Larry Quiel represented the applicant and indicated that the "Vein Center" sign will be removed from the south elevation, and the applicant would like to add the square footage from that sign to the north elevation, to which Mr. Smith replied that the code is quite clear on that point, and it is not allowed. Chairman Gregory suggested that the sign be designed to conform with the square footage requirements of the code. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the signage, subject to the applicant removing one square foot of sign from the south elevation for each square foot of sign proposed to be installed on the south elevation. Motion carried 5-0. 8 . �.r �nr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA 98-14 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): CHANDLER SIGNS, INC. for CONROY'S 1-800-FLOWERS, 3201 Manor way, Dallas, TX 76235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of business identification sign to add raceway LOCATION: 73-161 Country Club Drive ZONE: P.C. (2) Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next meeting, and added that the applicant installed the sign originally rejected by the Commission, and the applicant also installed a raceway, which was specifically disapproved by the Commission. The applicant is resubmitting its proposal because another business in the Center, Kenny Rogers Roasters, has a raceway. The applicant has indicated that the 1- 800-FLOWERS will be removed from the can sign. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to continue the case to April 14, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. 6. CASE NO.: C 98-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COX COMMUNICATIONS PCS, LP, 18200 Von Karman, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an unmanned telecommunication antenna on top of an existing building LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 (SP) 9 . `�r `„ur ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Debbie Melvin of Cox Communications submitted photographs depicting the proposed location of the antennae from several different perspectives, including the second floor balcony of the building next door. Commissioner Connor asked about the diameter of the antennae, to which Andy Johnson of Cox Communications responded that they are six inches, and they can be painted to match the stucco color of the building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the revised submission. Motion carried 5-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 97-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� HOWARD HAIT HEARING FACILITY, 42-215 Washington Street, Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscaping plans for 1,200 square foot office building LOCATION: 44-650 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR Mr. Alvarez reported that the Commission granted preliminary approval for the architecture of the office/professional building, and now the landscaping is before the Commission for approval. Eric Johnson, the City's landscape consultant, has listed his comments on the plans. Chairman Gregory asked what type of ground cover is proposed, to which Sharon Howard responded that living ground cover will not be used, and crushed rock such as Palm Springs Gold would be used. 10 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory asked about the boulder sizes, to which Mr. Alvarez responded that the large boulders will be two to three feet in size, while the small boulders will be one to two feet in size. Commissioner Connor asked if the property is surrounded by the wall, to which Commissioner Holden responded that it may just be a wood fence that would be taken down to allow for a shared driveway when the adjacent lot is developed. Chairman Gregory noted Mr. Johnson's concerns regarding frost sensitivity for the Ficus, as well as the suggestion to move the boulders four to six feet from the parking spaces to avoid potential damage to automobiles., and the 24-inch box Acacia should be Salsinia instead of Saligna. Commissioner Connor was concerned that all the plants are very low, to which Ms. Howard replied that the planters are too narrow to accommodate much. Commissioner Connor felt that larger plants should be used, and that the entire plan is under planted and needs more substance. The front needs more landscaping, and vines on the fence would help if there is no room for shrubs. Chairman Gregory suggested larger shrubs and/or the introduction of live ground cover which would look better from the street. Ms. Howard indicated that she prepared these plans based on the sizes and plants listed in the brochure provided to her by Mr. Johnson. Chairman Gregory suggested the use of larger boulders, and expressed concern that only one 24-inch tree is planned for the front, to which Ms. Howard replied that there is not enough room to accommodate two mature trees. Rod Murphy indicated that three to four foot boulders could be used, and finro 24-inch and two 36-inch Mediterranean Fan Palms could also be included. 11 • :;�, � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner Connor suggested increasing the tree in the front from a 24- inch tree to a 36-inch tree, and Chairman Gregory recommended moving it more toward the center, and moving the Mediterranean Fan Palms closer to the street to allow for more foundation planting. Commissioner Connor felt that the design is too hodge podge and should have more massing of plants and a softer look. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to continue the case to April 14, 1998. The motion carried 4-0-1, with Commissioner Holden abstaining. V. MISCELLANEOUS 1. CASE NO.: CUP 98-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH ASSOCIATES, LLC/MARRIOTT COURTYARD/RESIDENCE INN, 55-550 Riviera Drive, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for comments on hotel project LOCATION: Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant has submitted a site plan and elevations for the proposed development to be located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook Street. The proposed development involves a three-story Marriott Courtyard hotel and a finro-story Residence Inn hotel on an 11.4-acre site, and the applicant seeks conceptual approval. Bill Swank stated that this is the prototype for the Courtyard. 12 - � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner Urrutia asked if this will be the same type of product and scale as the Courtyard hotel in Palm Springs, to which Mr. Swank responded affirmatively. Mr. Swank stated that he is purchasing the site from the Redevelopment Agency, and needs a Conditional Use permit and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Holden felt that the architecture looks fine, but expressed concern regarding the proposed landscaping and the site plan. The three- story building should have more than five to six feet of landscaping. The adjacent golf course has natural desert landscaping; so this project should have a transition area that ties in with the golf course so that lush grass isn't located right next to the desert. Mr. Swank stated that there will be a transition area, but the landscaping for the resort will be oasis style rather than desert. Commissioner Urrutia stated that the site plan for the Residence Inn looks good and has enough open area. He would agree with Commissioner Holden's comments regarding the landscaping around Courtyard hotel, and indicated that he would like to see architecture similar to the Courtyard hotel in Palm Springs. Commissioner Urrutia suggested that the office building and spa building tie in better with the larger buildings. Mr. Swank noted that the project is over parked, so some spaces could be used for additional landscaping, to which Chairman Gregory responded that he would like a lot more than five feet of landscaping around the Courtyard hotel and would suggest converting an entire row of parking to landscaping. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant conceptual approval, subject to applicant revising the landscape plan in the transition area between the project and the golf course and adding more landscaping around the three-story building. Motion carried 5-0. 13 ' '� '�;` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: HD PP 98-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM ADLER, 4290 Randolph Street, San Diego, CA 92103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of hillside development of single-family residence LOCATION: Edgehill Road west of the channel (APN 628-020-017) ZONE: HPR Mr. Smith reported that the request is for a new single-family residence in the defined hillside area. The subject property is currently vacant. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan and a colored rendering of the home, which will be on the south side of the property fronting onto the access road. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the building, to which Mr. Adler responded that it will be 13 feet high. Action: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the dwelling and landscaping as proposed. Motion carried 5-0. 14 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1998 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. G � �-t�' S EVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 15