Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-09 PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1999 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 19 2 Ronald Gregory X 17 4 Richard Holden X 18 3 Richard O'Donnell X 19 2 Frank Urrutia X 19 2 Chris Van Vliet X 21 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jason Finley, Code Enforcement Officer Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Enforcement Officer Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Holden,to approve the minutes of the October 26, 1999. Motion carried 5-0-1, with Commissioner Connor abstaining. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 rr e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 1. CASE NO.: SA 99-116 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT STEAK & LOBSTER MARKET, 73-175 Highway 111, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of storefront and directional signage LOCATION: 73-175 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith reported that the subject property is located at 73-175 Highway 111, directly east of Tony Roma's restaurant. The business does not have frontage on Highway 111 and faces a parking lot area. The applicant requests approval of three signs. On the south elevation (facing the parking lot), the applicant proposes one two-foot by 10-foot can sign with black text and white background totaling 20 square feet. The building has 37 feet of frontage and is entitled up to a maximum of 37 square feet. The sign will be mounted in the building fascia, which has a height of 18 inches. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the can sign with a maximum height of 18 inches or not to exceed the height of the fascia, and that the returns be painted to match the building color. On the west elevation (facing Tony Roma's restaurant), the applicant proposes one 2'6" by six-foot can sign with black text and white background totaling 15 square feet. This elevation has 30 feet of frontage and is entitled up to 30 square feet of signage. The sign is to be mounted from the ceiling of the building overhang/breezeway. Staff recommends approval of this sign as presented. On the corner of the frontage road and driveway access to the rear parking lot, the applicant requests approval of a directional sign to consist of a wood background, mounted on a three-inch steel post. The sign is to be non- illuminated and has a maximum height of eight feet. The sign area is two feet wide by six feet high. The City's Sign Ordinance limits directional signs for pedestrian traffic to a maximum of three square feet and freestanding 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES signs to six feet in height. The proposed directional sign totals 12 square feet and has a maximum height of eight feet. Staff recommends approval of a directional sign with a maximum of three square feet in sign area and a maximum height of six feet from ground level. Ed Erkley stated that he understands the concern regarding the height of the directional sign, and pointed out that the Beer Hunter's sign is 5.33 square feet; so he doesn't think the request for an 18-inch by 48-inch sign with a sign foot height is out of line. Chairman Gregory asked if the proposed directional sign conforms with Code requirements, to which Mr. Smith replied that directional signs are limited to three feet in height; however, if this is considered as a freestanding sign rather than a directional sign, and freestanding signs have a six-foot height limit. The concern with this particular sign as a freestanding sign is that it would have to be located within a planter area, and he is not sure that is possible in this case. Commissioner Connor observed that the directional sign would block the adjacent business (golf shop), to which Mr. Erkley responded by clarifying that only a small portion of that building would be blocked by the sign. Chairman Gregory asked if it would be possible to cut out a portion of the concrete in order to create a planter area, to which Mr. Erkley responded affirmatively. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how the sign on the west elevation is to be attached, to which Mr. Smith replied that it will hang from the soffit on the west elevation. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he has a problem with the method of mounting for the building signs. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to 1) approve the two building signs with the condition that the can sign on the south elevation have a maximum height of 18 inches or not to exceed the height of the fascia and that the returns be painted to match the building color; and 2) continue the "directional" signage so that the applicant may have time to revise the plans pursuant to the Commission's suggestions. The motion carried 5-0. 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 99-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS TERRA FIRMA SERVICES, 18252 San Fernando Mission Blvd., Northridge, CA 91326 for SPRINT PCS, 4683 Chabot Drive, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 85-foot high telecommunication tower LOCATION: 77-800 California ZONE: O.S. Mr. Smith reported that the applicant requests approval to install an 85-foot high telecommunication tower within the Palm Desert Homeowners Association property located at 77-800 California. The HOA property is adjacent directly east of the City's future neighborhood park and is surrounded by the Palm Desert Country Club golf course to the north and residential uses to the east and south. The tower is proposed as an 85-foot high artificial palm tree containing the necessary receivers to facilitate wireless communicators. The facility will include two live palm trees adjacent to the artificial palm. The live palm trees will have heights of 30 and 40 feet. Fencing currently exists around the perimeter of the site in the form of six- foot high chain-link fencing. Other mature vegetation exists adjacent to the site, which will provide adequate camouflaging of the tower. An example of an artificial palm tree used as a telecommunication tower can be viewed at the Palm Desert Self Storage facility, located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Merle Drive. In August of 1998, the Commission approved this telecommunication tower with a maximum height of 60 feet. The City's Telecommunication Tower Ordinance allows communication towers in the Open Space zone with approval from the Architectural Review Commission and a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Commission's review shall include the following: 1. Compatibility with adjacent properties; 2. Architectural consistency with adjacent properties; and 3. Visual impacts on adjacent properties, including visual access of adjacent properties to sunlight. 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Staff has a concern with the type of fencing used along the base of the equipment, and recommends the use of a six-foot high block wall to screen all ground-mounted equipment. Staff recommends that the Commission review the tower's compatibility with the surrounding properties and that a solid six-foot block wall be used to screen all ground or base equipment. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he visited the proposed site as well as the site of the existing tower at Cook and Merle. The proposed site is surrounded by single-family homes, a couple of apartment buildings and a remembrance park. He observed the vegetation at the subject site and noted that the proposed tower would be twice as high as any of the mature trees in the area, and would also be much greater in girth and height than the existing tower at Cook and Merle. He does not feel the proposed tower will be consistent or compatible with the existing architecture in the neighborhood, and does not find the proposed tower aesthetically pleasing. Chairman Gregory asked if the 85-foot height is absolutely necessary for effective signal transmission, to which Rob Searsy of Terra Firma Services replied that he checked with his engineers, who indicated that the height could be reduced three or four feet at the maximum, but if it were further reduced, an additional tower would be required at another location. Mr. Drell pointed out that the City is required to accommodate utilities as best it can, and the ordinance allows for a maximum height of 85 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the proposed 85-foot tower could be replaced with three, 40-foot towers, to which Mr. Searsy replied that he is not able to answer that question. Commissioner Holden was concerned that the proposed tower is so much higher than the two palm trees to be planted, and noted that if the tops of the palms break off, the trees will no longer grow, to which Mr. Searsy replied that the company is willing to ensure maintenance of healthy trees. Chairman Gregory asked if three, 60-foot poles could be installed in the same area instead of one 85-foot pole, to which Mr. Searsy replied that it wouldn't meet the company's transmission needs. 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Chairman Gregory asked if there are any alternate sites, to which Mr. Drell replied that there would be difficulties associated with every potential site within the City. Mary Safe, Secretary of the HOA, felt that the proposed tower would not be out of line with the existing trees in the area. Chairman Gregory asked how far the tower would be from the nearest public street, to which Mr. Searsy responded by indicating approximately 280 feet. Frank Brewer, a resident of Palm Desert Country Club, noted that the residents have been discussing this matter for the last eight months, and there have been no negative comments. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if co-location would be possible, to which Mr. Searsy replied that there would be a problem with interference of the different frequencies. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the proposed tower is too high and wide. Commissioner Connor had a problem with a tower of this height posing as a palm tree, and preferred that it look like a pole rather than a tree. Ms. Safe preferred that the tower have a palm tree appearance. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the site is inappropriate due to aesthetics and incompatibility, and noted that the tower at Merle and Cook was approved because it is 60 feet in height with palm trees of 40 and 50 feet in height, which makes a nice grouping. Commissioner Holden believed there is no acceptable aesthetic solution for the tower. Action: Commissioner Holden moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the tower with the condition that the height be a maximum of 60 feet with adjacent palm trees similar to the telecommunications site at Cook and Merle. The motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet dissenting. 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 99-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS; ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite 1, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for MELANIE ASSOCIATES, 74-260 Caroline Court, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings for two industrial buildings LOCATION: 42-540 & 42-570 Melanie Place ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith reported that property is located on the east side of Melanie Place within the City's Service Industrial District. The applicant's proposal to construct two industrial buildings each totaling 8,844 square feet received preliminary approval at the Commission's July 24, 1999 meeting. The Commission's only requirement was that the drive aisle width be reduced from 40 feet to 30 feet. The applicant's final working drawings illustrate a 27- foot drive aisle width, and staff believes this width is sufficient to meet the Commission's condition of approval. Although the original set of final working drawings show that the parking lot shade trees in the rear parking lot have been eliminated, the applicant submitted revised plans which illustrate six parking lot shade trees in that area, and staff recommends approval of the revised plans as submitted. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the revised plans as presented. The motion carried 5-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: PP 99-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT SPORTS GROUP, Bob McClendon, 620 Herndon Parkway, Suite 200, Herndon, VA 20170 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscaping for Phase I (sports facility) of 70-acre commercial project LOCATION: 35-250 Monterey ZONE: PCD Mr. Winklepleck reported that the proposed project will be reviewed by the City Council on November 18,1999, and the applicant would like to start grading in December so that the project can be open in the fall of 2000. The Planning Department approved the plans, but was concerned that the Architectural Review Commission had not yet given preliminary approval for the landscape plans. Mr. Drell noted that California Fan Palms cannot be used as the primary parking lot tree. Chairman Gregory commented that some foliage on Evergreen Elms and Southern Live Oaks is too similar, and observed that the Ficus at the Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center in Rancho Mirage have thrived. Mr. Drell suggested using at least three different types of parking lot trees. Ray Lopez, the landscape architect for the project, suggested a thornless variety of Palo Verde, as well as Ficus and Roos Lancias on the outside. Commissioner Connor observed that the proposed end planters would be a problem because of the high maintenance plants indicated on the plans, and suggested that lower maintenance plants be used. Mr. Winklepleck felt that there is too much turf proposed at the entry area, to which Mr. Lopez replied that a desert type of ground cover could be substituted in areas next to curbs. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval. The motion carried 5-0. 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP 99-7 and C/Z 9-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC. , c/o Charlie Sweet, 43-703 Virginia Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for 256 senior residential units and community center on 10 acres LOCATION: West side of Fairhaven between Fred Waring and Parkview ZONE: PR-7 to be rezoned PR-7 SO (Senior Overlay) Mr. Smith reported that the revised landscape plans show that the parking along Fairhaven has been eliminated in order to add more landscape area, including a four-foot bermed section with a four-foot wall and plantings along the top, including trees. The revised plans have deleted the entire parking area along the Parkview entry. This project will be presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999, and the comments of the Architectural Review Commission will be forwarded for consideration. Charlie Sweet noted that the tower elements have been deleted, and the residential buildings have been compacted to 10-foot floors so the highest residential building would be 25 feet above curb, while the height of the community center would be 27 feet. Don Gittelson, a resident of Monterey Sands, which is northeast of the proposed project, noted that the project no longer includes a skilled nursing facility, and has been reduced from 13.04 acres to 10 acres, which was confirmed by Mr. Sweet. Mr. Gittelson indicated that his primary concern is density, because the area is currently zoned for seven dwelling units per acre, not 25 units per acre. He suggested installing a median on Parkview, and suggested that the City vacate all of Fairhaven, which would give adjoining property owners additional land. Mr. Gittelson felt that the buildings should face north rather than east. 9 *410e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Judy Rogers of Fairhaven stated that the project is too massive, too high and too dense, and added that she is glad the height has been reduced somewhat and is also pleased that additional landscaping will be included. Lena Moch spoke on behalf of the Homeowners Association at the Estates at Rancho Mirage and expressed opposition to the density and height. Mr. Sweet liked the idea of a median on Parkview. Chairman Gregory liked the idea of vacating Fairhaven. Commissioner Holden pointed out that if the street were vacated, and the developer chooses not to build the proposed project, single-family homes could be built within 10 feet of the property line, which would impact the neighbors. Commissioner Urrutia liked the idea of vacating Fairhaven, but felt that a landscape easement for the project should be maintained. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the project design has improved, and noted that the massiveness of the buildings is tied to the density. Commissioner Van Vliet noted that the project did not receive preliminary approval at its last presentation due to a lack of detail in the plans and asked what type of veneer would be used, to which Mr. Sweet responded by indicating stone veneer and stucco. Commissioner Urrutia felt that as long as the developer adheres to the detail presented in the artist's rendering, everything should be okay, even though the actual drawings don't show detail. Action: Commissioner Urrutia moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet,to grant preliminary approval on the architecture only, based on the artist's rendering presented. The motion carried 5-0. 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: RV 99-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: LOUIS & EVA CONCONI, 73-500 Feather Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of front yard storage of a recreational vehicle (RV) LOCATION: 73-500 Feather Trail ZONE: R-1 (10,000) Ms. Chafin reported that at the September 14, 1999 meeting, the Commission denied the applicant's request to park his RV in the front yard of his residence. The Commission determined that the proposed ficus shrub screening was inadequate and insufficient to screen the nine-foot high RV. This decision was appealed to the City Council on October 28,1999. The City Council voted 5-0 to refer this matter back to the Commission to determine if any other solutions, including architectural solutions, are viable to screen the RV. Council suggested that the A.R.C. visit the site and examine other solutions to screen the RV. Council suggested giving the applicant direction as to the best possible solution. Minutes from the October 28, 1999 City Council meeting are attached. Staff recommends that the Commission determine if other solutions are viable to screen the RV. Ms. Chafin noted that the applicant was not present. Chairman Gregory stated that he visited the site, and the vehicle is so large it dwarfs the house, and the rest of the houses in the area are low profile; so this RV should not be parked in the front yard. Commissioner O'Donnell indicated that he visited the site, and the RV is parked next to the garage, but the RV is higher than the roof of the garage; so he doesn't see any screening solution that would be aesthetically acceptable. 11 wwwmmmlb ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Commssioner Connor stated that he visited the site and noted that the way the vehicle is parked, the neighbor has to look right into it, and felt that there is no viable solution, especially since the proposed landscaping treatment would look out of place in the neighborhood. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he visited the site and does not believe there is a viable solution. Gail Orner, who lives across the street from the subject property, noted that the RV is 12 feet high and 25 feet long. Lee Ann Blystone, President of the Homeowners Association, noted that the Commission originally denied the applicant's request, so the applicant appealed the Commission's decision, and the Council then referred the issue back to the Commission; so it is apparent the City Council is not getting the message regarding this issue. Commissioner Holden noted that the Commission did try to work with the applicant, but there simply is no viable solution in this case. Commissioner Urrutia agreed that there is no viable solution for this case. Action: Commissioner Urrutia moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to re- affirm its previous denial with the comment that the Commission has had considerable discussions regarding possible solutions and visited the site, but could find no viable solution that would be compatible with the residence and the neighborhood. The motion carried 5-0. 12 NOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: SA 99-114 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AMERICAN STRUCTURES & DESIGN, 20133 Southeast 353rd Street, Auburn, WA 98092 for HOOTERS, 73-030 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Clarification of conditions of approval for business identification signage LOCATION: 73-030 El Paseo ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith reported that at its October 26, 1999 meeting, the Commission reviewed a signage request for Hooters Restaurant and approved "Request B," with a condition that a less intense orange color be used on the building. Both staff and the applicant would like clarification as to whether the condition regarding the color of the building trim and parapet (i.e., burnt orange) applied to orange on the signs themselves. Staffs review of the tape did not clearly indicate whether the Commission's request to condition the color of the building also applied to the color of the signs. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that his reference to toning down the orange color referred to the signage colors as well as the building trim color. Commissioner Urrutia noted that the orange color on the building trim should match the orange color already in use in the shopping center. Hank Hampton of Hooters stated that Hooters wants to be a good neighbor in the community. Mr. Alvarez gave the go ahead to paint the building trim. He would like to point out that the Union 76 station uses a very bright orange color. Mr. Hampton submitted evidence of the company registered trademark logo and color. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission is trying to find a middle ground, especially since this is a very high profile site, but the proposed orange color is not acceptable, and the orange trim used should be the same shade as the orange color used elsewhere in the shopping center. 13 v*r Vftw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Mr. Hampton noted that the registered trademark orange color is PMS172, and noted that Hooters has national recognition. Commissioner Urrutia pointed out that he made the motion at the last meeting which was ultimately approved, and his motion did not address sign color, but pertained solely to the trim color on the building. The minutes adequately reflect his motion, and his intent was that the signs be approved with the orange color requested by the applicant. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that his understanding of the motion was that the burnt orange color applied to the signs as well as the building trim. Commissioner Urrutia clarified that the orange color for the building trim should match the orange shade already in use in the shopping center. 8. CASE NO.: SA 99-119 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARCHITECTURAL NEON & SIGN CO, 74- 990 Joni Drive #3C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for JOVANNA'S, 74-063 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of replacement awning with signage LOCATION: 74-063 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant requests approval for a replacement awning. The existing awning measures approximately two feet in height and 19 feet in length. This awning is located under the eave of the building and projects out from the building to cover the outdoor dining area and entry area. The existing awning consists of bright red material with white neon letters across the front reading "Jovanna's", and white vinyl letters on both returns reading "A Touch of Mamas"' (copies of photographs attached). 14 'err+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES The applicant proposes a replacement awning measuring between two feet and four feet in height and 19 feet in length which will extend above the eave of the building. The awning is to consist of bright blue material, a bright red graphic and white vinyl letters reading "JOVANNA'S Bistro Grill" on the front surface facing Highway 111. The proposed awning will extend above the eave line considerably and block the view of the the roof. Staff does not believe the proposed awning enhances the building architecture, and is of the opinion that the awning will merely serve as a bigger sign than that which already exists; however, staff will defer to the Commission's architectural expertise in this regard. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the application. Commissioner Holden noted that the architecture, as presented on the plans, is not compatible with the existing structure. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that the proposed awning does not fit in with the existing building. Commissioner Connor noted that part of the problem is that the plans aren't drawn correctly, and the architecture as proposed on the plans is not compatible with the building. Commissioner Urrutia drew some modifications on the proposed plans, and suggested that the applicant make revisions. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to continue the case to allow the applicant to revise the plans according to the Commission's suggestions. The motion carried 5-0. 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 99-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS.• NIALL SAUNDERS, 250 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Clarification on neighborhood requests/wall heights LOCATION: 73-050 Alessandro (northeast corner of Alessandro and San Jacinto) ZONE: R-3 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant has reached concurrence with the neighbors regarding the building height, but as a condition of their agreement, the neighbors want an eight-foot high masonry wall along the north and west sides of the project, as well as eight-foot entry gates. Commissioner Holden expressed opposition to eight-foot walls. Commissioner Urrutia suggested six-foot walls on the north and east sides, and a four-foot wall along the west side, with no gates required. Action: Commissioner Urrutia moved, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to require six-foot walls on the north and east side, a four-foot wall on the west side, and that no gates be required. The motion carried 5-0. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 16