Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-13 , PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES **************************************************************************************************** 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 Wayne Connor X 11 2 Ronald Gregory X 11 2 Kristi Hanson X 8 0 Neil Lingle X 9 1 Richard O'Donnell X 11 2 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 11 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 rrr , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2000 MINUTES IV. CASES 1. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND AQQRES�St ROBERT RICCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for JOHN &MARY OATEY, 51 Gibraltar Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for a 7,430 square foot office building LOCATION: 44-650 Village Court(east side Village Court, north of Hwy 111) ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith reported that on March 28, 2000, the Commission granted preliminary approval of the proposed office building. At that time, the Commission was concerned with the east elevation and its lack of detail. The applicant has added a shed roof section to the east elevation. On May 9, 2000, the Commission reviewed the landscape plan and approved it subject to the applicant placing carports in front of the building to meet the shading requirement. When the matter went to the Planning Commission, the applicant was requested to relocate the carports to the north end of the site. This was requested by the property owner association for Village Court. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant final approval of the working drawings. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans as submitted. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 00-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS BOB RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for L.V. INVESTMENTS, LLC, 75-150 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of working drawings for a 12,766 square foot auto part industrial building LOCATION: 42-100 Beacon Hill ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith reported that the plans reflect the changes recommended by the Commission. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans as submitted. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 00-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, 43-400 Warner Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92211-8213 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscaping and walls associated with proposed expansion of church facility LOCATION: SE corner Warner Trail and Robin Road, 43-400 Warner Trail ZONE: R-1 (9,000) and RE (40,000) Mr. Smith reported that revised plans have not yet been submitted. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Van Vliet, to continue the case due to lack of revised plans. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 3 *00 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: CUP 99-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LES SURLOW, 78-640 Autumn Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for ROBBINS & BROWN, 14955 Califa Street, Van Nuys, CA 91411 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised landscaping plans LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane West (Temple Sinai, formerly Southwest Community Church building) ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the case at the applicant's request. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 00-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHERMAN/SHRADER ENTERPRISES c/o LEWIS BISHOP, 73-350 El Paseo, Suite 207, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised plans for a 1,437 square foot addition to existing retail building for Kinko's (former tenant A.G. Edwards) LOCATION: 72-795 Highway 111 (Palms to Pines shopping center) ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith directed the Commission's attention to the revised plans. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the revised plans as submitted. The motion carried 5-0,with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 4 lw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2000 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: CUP 00-8 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BLT ENTERPRISES, 511 Spectrum Circle, Oxnard, CA 93030 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 10-acre solid waste transfer station and material recovery facility LOCATION: North of Dinah Shore (extension), south of Union Pacific Railroad, east of Monterey Avenue and west of Portola Avenue (extension) ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith reported that the applicant seeks preliminary approval for a 54,280 square foot solid waste transfer station, materials recovery facility and buy back center. The site is located south of Interstate 10 along Dinah Shore. The site totals 10.1 acres and is zoned Service Industrial. The property has two ingress/egress points from Dinah Shore Drive and future rail spur from Southern Pacific rail. The rear of the site has a material drop off area that is ramped down out of sight. The front or south elevation provides the main entrance to the office/visitor's center. The building consists of concrete tilt-up panels with a metal roof. The building has metal roll-up doors on the east and west elevations. The building has a maximum height of 56 feet from grade. Staff has an issue with the height of the building. The City's Zoning Ordinance for industrial zones limits building height to 30 feet. The applicant's presentation to the Commission included building colors, material samples and a landscaping plan. Chris Murray of BLT clarified that the building, which will completely enclose the entire solid waste transfer and recycling facility, will be 36 feet high rather than 56 feet high. A 30-foot clearance is needed to allow the hydraulic lift trucks to unload inside the building, so a Variance will be needed since the maximum allowed height is 30 feet. The site will feature one access dedicated to ingress and one access dedicated to egress. The building will be a concrete tilt up on a concrete 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES slab. Mr. Drell noted that the drawings do not reflect how the building will look and indicated that more illustrative architectural plans should be submitted. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the building colors be warmer, i.e., earth tones. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he embraces the function of the building, and added that he would like to see drawings showing as much detail as possible on the architecture, as well as any future connection to the railroad. Mr. Smith noted that the structure will be quite visible from the 1-10 freeway. Commissioner Van Vliet noted that this will be a high visibility building because of its size; so it should have a good deal of architecture and landscaping. Commissioner Connor commented that some of the proposed plant material would be too fragile, especially in such a high wind area. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate suggested modifications. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2000 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: CUP 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAVIER VILLARREAL, 77-710 Mountain View, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an accessory building within rear yard setback LOCATION: 77-710 Mountain View ZONE: RE (40,000) Mr. Smith reported that the recent code amendment requires property owners on lots larger than 40,000 square feet to obtain approval of the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission before erecting a detached accessory building in the required rear yard. The code does not specify setbacks or height limits or size limits. The intent is to be consistent/compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant proposes to locate the structure 32 feet from the rear property line (required rear yard for a main structure is 50 feet). The proposed 2,987 square foot accessory structure will be 14 feet high. Staff visited the site and took photographs. The lot to the east is vacant. The lot to the north is mostly undeveloped except for an older, smaller home located near Delaware where it fronts. The lot to the west has an attractive wall system along Mountain View, but the rear yard is used for extensive outdoor storage of a tractor trailer and a large truck. The subject property in the west part of the rear yard currently stores two RVs and other vehicles. Staff has some concern with approving an accessory building which is more than three times the size of the main dwelling, but acknowledges that the structure is needed. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the requested accessory building. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Drell commented that the applicant should submit architectural plans as well as landscaping plans, with which Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. Commissioner O'Donnell believed that the 50-foot setback should be maintained, and agreed that the building definitely needs architecture and that the applicant should submit landscaping and architectural plans. Commissioner Vuksic wondered why the applicant wants to site the building 32 feet from the property line and in halfway between the side property lines rather than being closer to one side. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't have any problem with placing the building within the 50-foot setback as long as the building has some architecture. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the applicant also submit a site plan which includes the driveway location. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant was not present in the audience. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case because the applicant was not available to answer questions. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2000 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: PP 00-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS• MAINIERO SMITH & ASSOCIATES, 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301, Palm Springs, CA 92262 for BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 10670 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Dallas, TX 75231 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review and comments on conceptual plans for two office buildings, service station and convenience store and sit-down restaurant LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford: 74-950 Cook Street ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Bob Smith of Mainiero Smith stated that the project architect was not present to address the Commission and suggested that the case be continued. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case at the applicant's request. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INV. CO. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final landscape approval for sales building, entry drive and parkway adjacent thereto LOCATION: Southwest corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5, S.O. Mr. Smith reported that staff has reviewed the plans and would suggest a more drought tolerant/desert themed landscaping, and noted that the applicant was not present to answer questions. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case with direction to the applicant to use a more drought tolerant/desert themed landscaping. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 10. CASE NO.: TT 29585 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS KRISCO, INC., 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 3, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 16 single- family homes LOCATION: 73-055 Hovley Lane West ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith reported that the final working drawings are consistent with the previously approved preliminary plans, and staff recommends approval. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans as submitted. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2000 MINUTES 11. Presentation regarding proposed UCR campus Jim Baker of UCR introduced the project architect, Roberto Nardi, who presented architectural renderings and a model depicting a circular building to house classrooms, some faculty offices, a research area and outdoor cafe, as well as a second phase for a conference center with a 320-person capacity auditorium/lecture hall. Mr. Nardi explained that one of the major features of the building is moveable louvers to block the wind, as well as a thermawall to face the southwest that will create a buffer zone. The building will also feature an aqueduct which will be used to humidify and cool the building. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he is excited about the design concepts and the utilization of energy efficient features. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant conceptual approval for the landscaping and architecture. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 11