Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-28 � � � � PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 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 6 0 Kristi Hanson X 2 p Neil Lingle X 4 0 Richard O'Donnell X 5 1 Chris Van Vliet X 6 0 John Vuksic X 4 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Enforcement Officer II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 7-0. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 �..—. � �rrn° � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES IV. CASES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 99-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ONE EL PASEO, LLC, 1919 Grand Avenue, Suite 2A, San Diego, CA 92109 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings LOCATION: Southeast corner of EI Paseo and Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith reported that the landscape plans show implementation of the Commission's suggestion to remove some of the extra parking spaces and replace them with planter areas. Tom Doczi, the project landscape architect, indicated that some walkway areas between the buildings have also been eliminated in order to accommodate additional landscaping. Chairman Gregory commented that the Commission normally requires more foliage and canopy trees along parkways. Commissioner Connor agreed that the parkway would be too stark, and indicated that he understood the applicanYs desire to maintain an open feeling, but felt that additional Date Palms along the Highway 111 entry would provide more landscaping while still keeping it open. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant approval of the final working drawings with the condition that five Date Palms be added along the Highway 111 entry. The motion carried 7-0. 2 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: SA 00-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN/SIGN, 1802 American Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 for WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new shopping center identification signage LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant proposes to refurbish two existing monument signs and install a new wall sign on the north elevation over the entry to the skating rink. The wall sign is shown with a grey background panel eight feet high by 44 feet. Material type in the background panel is not noted. On the panel, a sloping illuminated sign reading "Westfield" (red) "Shoppingtown" (black) "Palm Desert" (black) is proposed. The copy will be '/2 inch sintra letters with "Westfield" in 45-inch maximum height, "Shoppingtown" six-inch height and "Palm Desert" 12-inch maximum height letters. This sign is trapezoidal in shape. On the existing easterly freestanding sign which currently reads "Palm Desert Town Center,"the applicant proposes to remove the letters, leave the existing tan stone background and insert the same trapezoidal shaped sign which will extend one foot above the background. On the existing westerly freestanding sign, the applicant proposes to remove the current collage of information and replace it with the same trapezoidal shaped sign which again will extend above the background by one foot. On the freestanding signs, the letters will be pan channel (red) "Westfield" and the remaining letters routed push-through letters (black by day; white by night). 3 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Staff has no objection to the proposed sign colors, shape or size. We are concerned that the sign height does not fit with the existing monument structures. If the Commission were to approve the freestanding signs as proposed, we will need to process a height exception through the City Council for the portion of the sign above the background height. Staff recommends that the applicant be directed to revise the proposed signage to better fit on the existing monuments or design and install new monuments which fit the signage proposed. Chairman Gregory indicated that he would have no problem with the signage extending above the monument base, but preferred to avoid a stark white background, and suggested that the bright red letters also be muted. Barbara Cohen of Architectural Design/Sign indicated that the letters will be backlit so that only the outline of the letters will be visible at night, and added that an off-white background could be substituted for the white. Ms. Cohen distributed revised plans which showed the freestanding signs flush with the top of the monument structure. Commissioner Vuksic felt that this looks like a sign is being stuck on a monument, and the sign simply does not fit, with which Commissioner Lingle concurred. Commissioner Connor expressed concern about how the monument sign will look if the applicanYs intent is to merely fill in the etched out portion which currently reads"Palm Desert Town Center." Commissioner Hanson agreed that the proposed sign does not look like it was designed to be there, but merely looks like it was added on. Mr. Drell commented that the property owners will be undertaking a multi- million dollar remodel of the shopping center, so it may make sense to invest a little more in the signage, but noted that the north elevation sign will be temporary since that is where the theaters will be added. Commissioner Hanson felt that the signage should integrate with the architecture, and if the remodel plans have not been submitted, then it is premature to consider signage. 4 , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that he will contact Westfield to ascertain their intentions regarding whether or not the proposed signage is to be temporary. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate the Commission's suggested modifications. The motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 84-7 Amendment APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS� SANBORN ARCHITECTURE, 1227 South Gene Autry Trail, Suite C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 for SHEILA WEINSTOCK, 7071 Consolidated Way, San Diego, CA 92121 � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised landscape plans for 11,492 sq. ft. addition to existing furniture store LOCATION: 72-111 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that the revised plans reflect the modifications previously suggested by the Commission. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of the revised landscape plans. The motion carried 7-0. 5 . • �1�'' °�rr�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MlNUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� GHA HOLDINGS, INC. 68-936 Adelina Road, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture and landscaping for a 4,751 square foot office building LOCATION: 73-081 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant has revised the plans by moving the stairwell facing Fred Waring behind a stone veneer wall, and by recessing the windows on the Fred Waring elevation. Rudy Herrera of GHA pointed out some of the other changes recommended by the Commission that will be implemented, although they were not represented on the plans. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that the details are not illustrated well on the plans, and there are too many inconsistencies in the details that need to be worked out, but felt that, based on Mr. Herrera's comments, the building is going in the right direction. Commissioner Van Vliet liked the fact that vertical elements have been added, and suggested that they stand out more, but agreed with Commissioner Vuksic that the drawings as presented make the building look flat. Commissioner Connor felt that the plans should correctly reflect the changes before preliminary approval can be granted. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that the plans as submitted as not ready for preliminary approval. Chairman Gregory commented that it sounds as if the changes have been made conceptually, but have not been reflected in the plans. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vuksic, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate suggestions made by the Commission. The motion carried 7-0. 6 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: TT 24948 Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74-333 Highway 111, #103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of 21-lot tract of homes at The Grove LOCATION: Deep Canyon 500 feet south of Fred Waring ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant requests design approval for 21 single-story residences located within the final phase of The Grove, or the _ final cul-de-sac known as Silver Canyon Lane. The developer has eight models: Plans 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B. The floor area ranges range from 2,078 square feet to 2,705 square feet with two-car and three-car garages. Heights range from 16'2"to 17'11". Roof types include clipped hip, hip gabled, and hip/gabled. The developer has plotted 12 of the 21 homes proposed, and the remainder of the homes will be plotted at a later date, with similar setbacks. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission authorize staff to approve the setbacks on the remaining lots, if the homes are approved. With the exception of Lots 13 and 16, all homes meet the City's required residential setbacks of F=+20', R=15', Sides=14' Combined, with one side minimum 5'. Lots 13 and 16 will require Adjustments by the Community Development Director. Staff does not anticipate a major problem granting the Adjustments since they are irregular shaped cul-de-sac lots. AI� homes are under the maximum allowable coverage of 35%. The home designs, heights, color and sizes are compatible with the existing homes in the subdivision. The developer proposes light tan stucco colors with terra cotta shades for roof tiles. All fascia and window detailing is carried around all four elevations. Staff does recommend the use of greater variation in stucco colors. 7 • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES The typical landscaping plans have been submitted and will be reviewed by the City Landscape Manager. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval and authorize staff to approve the final working drawings, subject to the following conditions: 1) securing the necessary approvals from the Community Development Director for setbacks on Lots 13 and 16; 2) submitting a greater variation in stucco colors for staff approval; and 3) submitting the remaining plots for staff approval. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the distances between the buildings be optimized. Commissioner Hanson felt that the design should be simplified because there was too much gingerbread. Commissioner Vuksic noted that photographs of other homes in the area show thickened front walls with recessed windows, and suggested that these homes be similar in order to add relief to the architecture. Chairman Gregory indicated that a real landscape plan should be submitted. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that the chimney appears to be a little too low. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to � continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate the Commission's suggestions. The motion carried 7-0. 8 . . �+ v�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI• ROBERT RICCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for JOHN & MARY OATEY, 51 Gibraftar Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of 7,430 square foot office building, including 4,092 square feet of inedical office LOCATION: 10 Village Court (east side of Village Court, north of Highway 111) ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith reported that the property is located on the east side of Village Court, north of Village Center Drive. The site is part of a recently approved office subdivision. Commission will recall Paine Webber was the first building approved and built as part of the subject subdivision. The property is zoned O.P., Office Professional, and totals 28,268 square feet (two lots). The applicant proposes to construct a 5,456 square foot office building now with a future expansion of 1,364 square feet. The building has plaster fur- outs or molding around the windows, doors and roof parapet. The roof consists of red mission tile. Stucco colors are light tan colors, with cedar red aluminum mullions on the frames on the windows. The building's architectural design is typical of what exists at the Paine Webber building, the previous Briggs building approved on January 11, 2000, and at the Indian Wells office complex to the east. The architectural design could be a little more innovative. Staff would like to see a more creative design that incorporates architectural relief on the building's east elevation. Other than the proposed molding on the windows and doors, the building elevations are plain. The plans as submitted do not include landscape material. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval to the architectural plans and continue review of landscaping. 9 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he would like to see more detail on the east elevation, to which Mr. Ricciardi replied that the HOA wants everything to blend in to give a campus feel, and the only thing the HOA would allow is another mission tile element. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval with the condition that more detail be added to the east elevation. The motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP 00-5, C/Z 00-3, GPA 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�• HOLDEN & JOHNSON ARCHITECTS, 44-267 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for CARL KARCHER, 72- 875 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of 5,700 square foot office building LOCATION: 44-558 San Pablo (east side of San Pablo, north of Alessandro) ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith reported that the property is located on the east side of San Pablo, north of Alessandro, and is currently vacant. To the south is a residential unit; to the east are apartments and a vacant lot; to the west across San Pablo are apartments and Royal Palm Drive; and to the north is a residence. The property has 260 feet of frontage on San Pablo with a depth of 114 feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 5,700 square foot, single-story office building on the south end of the property and 36 parking spaces on the north end of the property. The proposed structure utilizes a hip roof system (concrete flat tile) with flat roof sections. The maximum height is 24 feet, while the flat roof sections are 13 feet. Other architectural features include sandblasted, glu-lam beam fascias, stone veneer and stucco with Fry plaster screeds. 10 • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval of the architecture. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval. The motion carried 5-0-2, with Commissioners Connor and Van Vliet abstaining. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., 6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32809-6090 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Review of perimeter/golf course landscaping LOCATION: 36-750 Monterey ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Drell reported that the plant density is still excessive by 50%. Chairman Gregory suggested that the plans reflect plants at their mature sizes. Commissioner Connor felt that the plant types are appropriate. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans subject to further review and approval by staff regarding the plant density and species, and authorized staff to approve the golf course landscaping plans. The motion carried 7-0. 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: RV 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• BONNIE L. ELSTAD, 72-983 Joshua Tree, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approvai to park RV in side driveway LOCATION: 72-983 Joshua Tree ZONE: R-1 (20,000) Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant seeks approval to park a recreational vehicle in the side driveway at 72-983 Joshua Tree. The vehicle measures � 10 feet high and 26 feet long. The home faces west and has a circular driveway in front, as well as a driveway on the north side which runs alongside the garage and extends back to the fence encompassing the rear yard. The applicant proposes to park the RV at the rear end of the north driveway. The vehicle would be screened on the north side by oleanders which are currently trimmed to six feet, but would be allowed to grow higher to provide additional screening. The vehicle would be screened on the east side by the rear yard and on the south side by the rear yard and existing building. The applicant proposes to install a wrought iron gate with mesh on the west side. This gate would be attached to a six-foot wall which would extend out from the garage, and the gate would terminate at the north property line next to the oleanders. The wall would be stuccoed and painted to match the house, and the gate would also be painted to match. The area proposed to accommodate the vehicle measures 28 feet long. Staff would note that the property slopes up from the street, which also mitigates the view impact from the street. The ordinance requires that the recreational vehicle be substantially (not completely) screened, and be aesthetically acceptable. 12 . . '� `,,�'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Pursuant to RV ordinance requirements, staff mailed notices of this meeting to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property. Staff has received one comment in response to the notices from the neighbor to the east who iopined that these vehicles do not belong in residential areas. The applicant has obtained signatures in support of the request from the neighbors across the street at 45-163 Joshua Tree and 46-191 Joshua Tree. The applicant indicates that the vehicle is not parked on the premises Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. because it is used during those hours for a mobile pet grooming service. Staff's inspection of the vehicle interior confirmed the use. The Commission considered a RV storage request on October 26, 1999 wherein staff recommended denial because the vehicle would not be substantially screened. At the meeting, the applicant presented written verification of the neighbors' support, and indicated that the vehicle was driven off the premises on a daily basis. Based on those finro factors, the Commission approved the applicant's request. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request because it appears that the vehicle will be substantially screened. Additional contributing factors to the staff recommendation include the neighbors' support and that the vehicle will not be parked on the property during the weekdays. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the plans as submitted. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the problem is that the language in the ordinance requires the vehicle to be substantially screened, and in his opinion, it is not possible to substantially screen recreational vehicles. Chairman Gregory commented that this case has a lot going for it compared to most of the others presented to the Commission. Commissioner Connor noted that this is one of the best applications submitted, and Commissioner Van Vliet agreed. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant approval subject to additional plants being added to mitigate view of the vehicle for the neighbors to the rear. The motion carried 5-0-2, with Commissioners O'Donnell and Van Vliet dissenting. 13 ' ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 00-6 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS� RBF ASSOCIATES, 74-410 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for CVWD, 85-820 Coachella Heights, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of drawings for Booster Pump Station 540 serving Bighorn LOCATION: West of Palm Valley Storm Channel, north of Green Way (opposite west end of Hedgehog Street) ZONE: HPRD Mr. Drell reported that four to five feet of berming is proposed in front of the eight-foot wall. He spoke with CVWD regarding undergrounding the facility, but it is not a good idea to have chlorinators in an enclosed space, and it would be very expensive to do so. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the facility will be visible from Highway 74, to which Mr. Drell reptied that it will be somewhat visible. � Commissioner Hanson felt that if an appropriate type and color of block is used, i.e., split face, it should blend in with the surroundings. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval, with the condition that the Commission take a look at it before landscaping is installed. The motion carried 7-0. 14 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 00-9 APPLICANT(AND ADDRES�• MARK POWELL, 74-657 Lavender Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of trellis structure adjacent to back lot wall LOCATION: 74-657 Lavender Way ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant proposes to construct a trellis on, or one foot from the rear property line. The trellis would then extend toward the swimming pool. The trellis is proposed to be mounted from the existing property line wall. The purpose of the trellis is to screen the view of the storage shed on the lot to the south. The Building Department advises that the Building Code does not permit structures of this type tess than three feet from the property line. Review of the trellis by the Architectural Review Commission is thus unnecessary. Commission may wish to consider approval of a wall height exception to permit a higher than usual wall. The existing block wall is six feet high. Staff would have no objection to the Commission approving a wall to a height of eight feet provided it is of the same materiat (i.e., block) and finished in the same texture and color. Staff recommends that the trellis request not be approved because the structure cannot be permitted under the Building Code. Mr. Powell indicated that he read the staff report, and in response, has modified the plans so that the structure will be three feet away from the property line, to which Mr. Smith responded that the plans would then be acceptable to both Planning and Building Departments. Commissioner Hanson liked the trellis structure, and Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the structure members be increased in size to mitigate twisting (i.e., minimum 3"x6" or 4"x4" posts be used). 15 �+'" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval with the condition that the structure be located three feet from the rear property line and that the structure members be increased in size to mitigate twisting (i.e., minimum 3"x6" or 4"x4" posts be used). The motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 00-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�• WARREN WILLIAMS, 23 Carla Lane, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 for FELLOWSHIP HALL, 45-940 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Exterior modifications to existing building (parapet, stucco & equipment screening) LOCATION: 45-940 Portofa Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant proposes to finish the work at Fellowship Hall at Portola and Fairway. Commission may recall dealing with this matter previously. At this time, the applicant proposes a three-foot stucco parapet to screen the roof-mounted equipment. The project will also include stucco and foam trim around the windows, and adding a lattice and screen wall on the street elevation. The project will provide improvements to a situation which needs improvement. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant approval of the plans as submitted. Commissioner Vuksic suggested taking off the eaves and going straight up, and drew some graphics on the plans for the applicant to consider. Commissioner Hanson suggested keeping the building as low as possibte. 16 � �i�'' `�1�" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate the Commission's suggestions. The motion carried 7-0. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 17