Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-09 � t � � PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 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 8 1 Ronald Gregory X 9 0 Kristi Hanson X 5 0 Neil Lingle X 6 0 Richard O'Donnell X 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 9 0 John Vuksic X 7 0 Staff Present: 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 April 25, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 7-0. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 i � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES IV. CASES 1. CASE NO.: SA 00-34 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BILL ECKEBRECHT, EUROPEAN ANTIQUE IMPORTERS, 80-288 Royal Dornoch Drive, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised plans for business identification signage LOCATION: 74-990 Joni Drive, Building 3, Units A & B ZONE: S.I. Ms. Chafin reported that the Commission considered the applicanYs proposal on April 25, 2000 (see attached minutes). The Commission continued the case to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans according to the concerns expressed at the meeting. The Commission was concerned about locating the sign on the building fascia and suggested installing it underneath the fascia above the two doors. The Commission also suggested that the sign design be more creative and reflect the type of merchandise to be sold. Staff was concerned that the size of the sign exceeded the maximum allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has submitted revised plans which address all concerns. The revised application shows the sign centered underneath the fascia and between the two doors measuring four feet high by 10 feet wide. The sign will be comprised of plywood background painted antique white, with 10-inch raised 3/8" plywood letters painted red. The sign also includes 3/8" decorative molding on the corner and a top spire, all in gold leaf, as well as a one-inch gold leaf border. The sign is to be bolted to the masonry wall, and the existing exterior illumination will be used. The revised plans meet the City's Sign Ordinance requirements, and staff believes all the concerns expressed by the Commission and staff have been satisfactorily addressed. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the revised plans as submitted. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the revised plans as submitted. The motion carried 7-0. 2 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA 2. CASE NO.: SA 00-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RIOFINE NEON, 3500 Tachevah, Palm Springs, CA 92262 for PAT'S LIGHTING & LAMPS, 73-605 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of modification to existing business identification signage LOCATION: 73-605 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant proposes to replace the existing business identification sign for Pat's Lighting & Lamps, located at 73-605 Highway 111 (in the Jensen's shopping center). The business has 79 feet of frontage along the parking lot and is entitled to 64'6" square feet of signage. The existing signage consists of an illuminated can with an off-white background, blue copy reading "Pat's" and brown copy reading "LIGHTING & LAMPS." The trim matches the brown copy. The applicant proposes to create an internally illuminated channel letter sign measuring 30 inches in height and 11.25 feet long (28 square feet total)with bright blue copy reading "PAT'S." The applicant also proposes to replace the existing can sign with a 41 square foot can sign having white background and bright blue copy reading "LIGHTING & LAMPS." The total signage proposed equals 69 square feet. Staff originally approved the signage request over the counter on April 14, 2000, with a condition that the blue copy match the turquoise copy used in the Jensen's sign, which was recently approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff attached this condition in an attempt to create some consistency in the shopping center's signage,which is currently very diverse. The representative from Riofine Neon indicated concurrence with the condition, and a permit was issued. 3 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA The applicant's client subsequently expressed objection to the turquoise color, and the applicant requested that the signage proposal be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff has visited the site and noted that the proposed blue color does not appear in any of the signs which currently exist in the center. Staff would reiterate its preference for use of the turquoise color in order to create some consistency in the center, and would suggest that the can sign utilize the turquoise color for the background with the copy in white, as Jensen's has done. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed channel letter sign with the condition that the color be turquoise to match the Jensen's sign, and that the Commission approve the can sign with the condition that same turquoise color be used for the background, with the copy in white. Chairman Gregory preferred that the can sign be removed and replaced with channel letters, to which Pat of Pat's Lighting and Lamps replied that it is cost prohibitive to do all channel letters. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the existing can color be changed to match the building color, and that the letters on the can sign be illuminated, but that the background be non-illuminated, and that the blue color proposed by the applicant be approved. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant approval of the plans with the condition that the background color of the can sign match the building color and that only the letters (not the background) be illuminated and that the letter color on the can sign and channel letters be the blue color proposed by the applicant. The motion carried 7-0. 4 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA 3. CASE NO.: SA 00-39 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS� PARAGON SIGNS, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for STAT URGENT CARE, 73-758 Agave Lane, Paim Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument sign LOCATION: 73-211 Fred Waring , Suite 101 ZONE: O.P. Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant requests approval of a double-sided freestanding sign for Stat Urgent Care, located in the Sunlife Medical Center building at 73-211 Fred Waring, Suite 101. The building has 176 lineal feet of frontage along Fred Waring. The only permanent signage on the building is the Sunlife Medical Center sign which totals 15 square feet and is located above the entry doors on Fred Waring. The proposed sign totals 17 square feet on each side, and will feature a medical cross graphic and sintra painted letters, all in red with gold trim. The monument will have a stucco finish to match the building. The sign will not be illuminated. The applicant proposes to install the monument in the grassy area near the northwesterly corner of the building. Staff would suggest that the proposed copy color match those used in the existing Sunlife Medical Center sign. Staff has determined the property line to be 15 feet from the face of curb, and has informed the applicant that the sign must be located on their private property, and the applicant has agreed. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the proposed monument sign, with the condition that the sign be located within the applicant's private property in the grassy area near the northwesterly corner of the building, that the copy color match that of the existing Sunlife Medical Center, and that the stucco finish match the building. Mr. Smith suggested that a condition of approval be added to limit the Fred Waring frontage to a single monument signage, per the Sign Ordinance. 5 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the border is not wide enough. Don of Paragon Signs noted that the monument will be made of aluminum with a stucco finish to match the building color and texture. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the monument tie in architecturally with the building and be more substantial, i.e., have a 12-inch concrete or brick base, and six-inch mow strips. Commissioner Vuksic felt that the monument cap should match the architectural detailing on the existing building. Chairman Gregory noted a consensus among the Commissioners to allow the temporary banner and sign to remain in place until the next meeting, wherein the applicant will present revised drawings. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate modifications suggested by the Commission. The motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 00-41 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, 46-120 , Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 for A.G. EDWARDS, 73-991 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-991 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant requests approval of business identification signage for a new building and business located at 73-991 Highway 111. The building is currently under construction and is located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue. 6 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA A.G. Edwards will be the tenant occupying the entire buiiding. The applicant signage request for north elevation (Highway 111) includes one set of blue individual channel letters reading "A.G. EDWARDS," centered on the north elevation, and the sign totals 16 square feet and is proposed above the building's north entrance. The applicant also proposes one internally illuminated double-faced monument sign, six feet in height, with a stucco and metal base to match the building's color and roof material. The sign copy is to read "A.G. EDWARDS" "Investments Since 1887." The copy is blue. The sign also includes an illuminated stock market sign (i.e., Dow and NASDQ). The sign would operate from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm. and would change to a "time and temperature" sign after 3:00 pm. The stock market sign would display the increase/decrease in stock volume only, and no individual stocks would be advertised. The monument's sign copy totals 23 square feet on each side. Staff cannot support the use of both the wall sign and a double-sided monument sign in such close proximity to each other. The stock market sign is one that the ordinance prohibits. Section 35.68.090 of the Sign Ordinance prohibits signs which move, rotate, flash, reflect, blink or appear to do any of the foregoing, with exception to time and temperature signs. In addition, the Ordinance prohibits signs which advertise the price of a product. With a recommendation from the Commission, staff will address a possible exception to the Ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City's Sign Ordinance prohibits the use of mottos or slogans. The proposed monument sign proposes a slogan reading "Investments Since 1887." This copy must be removed, and the applicant has agreed to do so. On the east elevation, the applicant proposes one set of blue individual channel letters totaling 16 square feet. This elevation is entitled to 75 square feet of signage. Staff would recommend that the Commission approve the east-facing sign centered above the three large windows on the east elevation, as staff believes this will create separation from the corner and will look aesthetically better. On the south elevation, the applicant proposes one set of blue individual channel letters totaling 16 square feet located over the south entrance. This elevation is entitled to 61.5 square feet of signage. 7 . 'i�,► `,,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA Staff recommends that the Commission approve the signs with the following conditions: 1. That the monument sign be moved toward the corner of the Highway 111 and Portola in the form of a single-base, double-faced monument sign; 2. That the monument sign's stock market sign be reviewed and recommended for review by the Planning Commission and City Council; 3. That the monument sign's slogan "Investments Since 1887" be removed; and 4. That the east facing sign be approved centered or further south on the building's east elevation. Nancy Cobb of Imperial Sign and Chris Lacy of A.G. Edwards were present and were willing to move the monument sign to the corner of Highway 111 and Portola and were also agreeable to the monument in the form of a single-base, double-faced monument sign. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the proposed wall signs with the condition that the east facing sign be centered or located further south on the east elevation. The motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. Chris Lacy of A.G. Edwards indicated that he will probably not want the monument sign at all if he is precluded from advertising the Dow and NASDQ numbers. Commissioner Hanson was concerned that the project's landscaping may need to be revised is the monument is placed on the corner. Mr. Alvarez noted staff's concern about the impact to traffic which could be created by allowing the Dow and NASDQ numbers to be presented. Commissioners Lingle and Van Vliet felt that a monument sign is unnecessary because the proposed wall signage will be sufficient for the building. 8 ' `�'° ``�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA Commissioner O'Donnell feit that advertising the Dow and NASDQ numbers would be distracting to drivers. Commissioner Vuksic expressed concern about setting a precedent if the applicant were allowed to advertise the Dow and NASDQ numbers, and anticipated that the City would receive requests to advertise lotto jackpots and prices. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the revised monument sign (double face with single base located at the corner of Portola and Highway 111) with digital display limited to time and temperature only per Ordinance Section 25.68.090.A. The motion carried 4-2, with Commissioners Lingle and Van Vliet dissenting and Chairman Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 00-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�, DGI SIGNS, 77-720 Springfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for MANHATTAN BAGEL, 73-847 Highway 111, Palm D.esert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-847 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant proposes business identification signage for Manhattan Bagel, to be located at 73-847 Highway 111 in the space between Elephant Bar and Palm Desert Florist. The business has 25 feet of frontage along on the Highway 111 frontage road (north elevation) and is entitled to 25 square feet of signage on that elevation. The business has 27 feet of frontage along the south elevation facing the parking lot and is entitled to 27 square feet of signage. 9 . �rr�'' �„� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Signaqe for north elevation (Highway 111,� On the north elevation (Highway 111), the applicant proposes an internally illuminated can sign mounted on the wood beam just below the eave. The applicant indicates that this is the only location on the building which accommodates signage. The proposed can sign measures 18 feet long and three feet high. The total proposed sign area is 54 square feet. The sign face would be white acrylic with a red translucent film background with 16- inch letters in translucent white acrylic, and the metal light box frame would be painted in blue. At issue are the sign's proposed size, location and cofors. The proposed 54 square foot can sign exceeds the maximum square footage allowed by the City's Sign Ordinance (25 square feet in this case). The proposed sign would project above the eave, and Section 25.68.300 of the Sign Ordinance prohibits signs higher than the eave line of the building. The Commission may also wish to consider the appropriateness of the proposed red background with white letters and its compatibility with the existing signage on the building. Signage for south elevation (parking lot,� On the south (parking lot) elevation, the applicant proposes internally illuminated channel letters measuring 19'8" long, to be centrally located above the arched entry to the courtyard. The 16-inch high letters will be clear red neon with a red lucite face and aluminum returns painted in blue. The size of the proposed sign fall within the limits of the Sign Ordinance. The Commission may wish to consider the appropriateness of the proposed red background and blue returns with white letters and its compatibility with the existing signage on the unit to the east. The arched entry on the south elevation leads into a courtyard area, which will be open to the general public. As a condition of approval of the use at this location, no restaurant usage is permitted in the courtyard (i.e., no table service). The applicant is agreeable to this condition, and indicates that the business will not have table service, as patrons will be served at the counter and will use the tables inside the business or the public courtyard to consume their items. Staff has requested that the applicant install signage indicating that the courtyard is designated for public use. The applicant has submitted a sign to be mounted at eye level next to the arched entry which will read "COURTYARD OPEN TO GENERAL PUBLIC." 10 . �11�1►` +�i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES The sign will measure 12 inches by 12 inches. The proposed copy color is dark brown with cream background. The raised letters would be made of med ex, which looks like wood. Staff recommends that the Commission determine acceptability of the proposed signage. Chairman Gregory suggested that the word "general" be deleted from the "COURTYARD OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC" sign. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the sign be more architecturally compatible with the building, i.e., decorative wrought iron letters centered over the entry or a ceramic Mexican tile sign. Chairman Gregory noted that the sign proposed for the Highway 111 elevation would project above the eave, which is contrary to the Sign Ordinance. Skip Berg of DGI Signs pointed out that the neighboring business sign (Palm Desert Florist) also projects above the eave, and added that he would be willing to reduce the size of the sign to match that of Palm Desert FlorisYs sign, and that the sign would project no more than three inches above the eave. Mr. Berg commented that the client does not want to vary from the tomato red color. Mr. Drell suggested that the red background be opaque rather than translucent, and Mr. Berg agreed. Commissioner Connor suggested that the lettering be placed straight across rather than arched, because when the size of the sign is reduced, the arch won't be as apparent and the letters may just appear to be crooked. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed opposition to the proposed blue trim color and added that the plans submitted were incomplete, as no color/material samples were included, and the elevations were not correctly reflected in the color plans submitted, with which Commissioners Connor and Lingle concurred. Commissioner Lingle indicated that he is also opposed to approving signage above the eave since it does not conform with the Sign Ordinance requ�rements. 11 ' �r"` `;�,�y ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to: 1) approve the north (Highway 111) elevation signage with the condition that the size match that of the existing Palm Desert Florist sign to the east, that the sign not extend above the eave any higher than the existing Palm Desert Florist sign to the east, that the red background be opaque, that the returns be red to match the background with 1-1/2" blue trim cap; 2) approve the south (parking lot) elevation channel letter sign with red returns to match the letters and blue trim caps; and 3) authorize staff to approve a sign that blends in with the architecture which indicates the courtyard is open to the public. The motion carried 4-3, with Commissioners Connor, O'Donnell and Lingle dissenting. 6. CASE NO.: PP 99-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: HOMA, LLC, 9200 West Sunset Boulevard, Penthouse 9, Los Angeles, CA 90069 for JIFFY LUBE, c/o Brian McNabb, 8842 Saturn Street #100, Los Angeles, CA 92235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings for a 3,000 square foot Jiffy Lube facility LOCATION: 42-275 Washington Street (Albertson's shopping center) ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant requests final approval for a 3,000 square foot Jiffy Lube facility,The applicant received preliminary architectural approval on September 14, 2000, and also received Planning Commission approval in October of 1999. The landscape plan was granted preliminary approval of April 11, 2000. Staff has reviewed the working drawings and found them consistent with the preliminary approval,with exception to scored stucco not shown on the building's east, west and north elevations. The landscape plans have been reviewed by Spencer Knight, the City's Landscape Manager. Staff recommends that the Commission grant preliminary approval, subject to review of the final landscape plans. 12 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the plans with the condition the two parking lot shade trees at the west end be placed in adequate size planters and that scored detailing on the elevations be included in the working drawings. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Chairman Gregory abstaining. 7. CASE NO.: PP 00-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: 60B 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: Preliminary approval of a 4,900 square foot industrial building (Building No. 2) LOCATION: 42-100 Beacon Hill ZONE: S.I. Mr. Alvarez reported that this project was before the Commission on April 11, 2000, wherein the Commission reviewed finro industrial buildings located on the east side of Beacon Hill. Building #1 received preliminary architectural approval, and Building #2 was continued to allow the applicant to address staff's concern regarding lack of architectural detailing and comments made by the Commission. The revised plans for Building #2 have been submitted and include modifications to the building's west elevation. Two architectural projections or fur-outs have been added to the building's west facing windows. No modifications to the other elevations have been made. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission review the plans and determine its architectural compatibility with Building #1. 13 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Ricciardi pointed out the recessed glass and pop-outs which were added to match the architecture of Building #1, and added that he is also using the same colors as Building #1. A retaining wall is proposed to have tree on both sides, but staff has indicated that it may be preferable to have one set of larger planters on one side of the wall. Commissioner Connor commented that the building just looks like a painted concrete box. Commissioner O'Donnell acknowledged that the building is to function as an service industrial use, but indicated that doesn't mean it has to look like a box. Commissioner Lingle agreed that the building needs some architecture to it. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the City has approved similar buildings, which means that a standard has been set, and the Commission must therefore adhere to that standard. Chairman Gregory noted that Mr. Ricciardi would prefer to keep the corner of the building, which is to serve as an office use, at two stories, while Commissioner Vuksic has previously suggested that the height of that corner be reduced. Commissioner Vuksic drew an illustration of his concept for the corner of the building for the applicant's consideration, which featured a single-story office portion on the corner, and increased massing (thicker) pop-outs, and noted that Building #1 features more substantial pop-outs. Mr. Alvarez explained that staff's reasoning for eliminating one row of parking lot planters is to allow for one row of larger sized planters to accommodate shade trees. Mr. Smith indicated that the retaining wall would be moved to accommodate larger planters rather than finro narrow planters. Chairman Gregory felt that it would be better to plant trees on the south lot if staff's approach is indeed followed. 14 ' �wrr+' �r�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Drell suggested that staff be allowed to work out a final solution for the parking lot shade tree planters and that they could be approved as part of the working drawings. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval for Building #2 with a reduced height at the entry, increased massing of the pop-outs and authorizing staff to approve the retaining walls and planters. The motion failed 3-4, with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, O'Donnell and Van Vliet dissenting. Commissioner O'Donnell indicated that he would like to see the plans come back to the Commission with the requested changes before approval is granted, with which Commissioner Lingle concurred. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that he can make the changes as proposed by Commissioner Vuksic, but if the Commission does not then approve his project, he intends to go to the City Council and require the Council to take steps to make this Commission operate properly. Commissioner O'Donnell pointed out that the concerns expressed today are the same ones which were expressed the last time the plans were presented, and even though Mr. Ricciardi indicated the changes would be implemented, the plans presented today do not reflect those changes. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate modifications suggested by the Commission. The motion carried 7-0. 15 . �` y� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROBERT RICCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, 75-090 St. Charies Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for JOHN & MARY OATEY, 51 Gibraitar Drive, Paim Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of landscaping for a 7,430 square foot office building LOCATION: 10 Village Court (east side of Village Court, north of Highway 111) ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith reported that on March 28, 2000 the Commission granted preliminary architectural approval of the proposed o�ce building, but landscape plans were not available. The applicant has now submitted preliminary and final landscape plans. The plans have been reviewed by the City's Landscape Manager, Spencer Knight. Additional parking lot shade trees are required, per the ordinance. If the applicant does not wish to add the trees in the parking area in front of the building, as an alternative the applicant could add carport shade structures. Other comments of the Landscape Manager are noted on the plans and will be available to the Commission. Mr. Smith explained that this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission last week, but since the applicant was not available to comment, the case was continued. Staff recommends that the landscape plans be given preliminary and final approval, subject to the comments of the City's Landscape Manager. Mr. Ricciardi believed that carport structures would be an acceptable alternative to his client. Chairman Gregory noted that India Hawthornes do not thrive in full sun against a reflective surface, and suggested Green Cloud (Texas Ranger) as an alternative. 16 • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 AGENDA Chairman Gregory concurred with the City's Landscape Manager's comments regarding plant spacing. Mr. Smith indicated that the carport design will be brought back before the Commission when the working drawings are submitted. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary and final approval of the landscape plan with the condition that carport structures be used across the front of the building to meet the City's shade requirement. The motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: SECOY ARCHITECTS, 45 Plaza Square, Orange, CA 92866 for STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for former Rite Aid building (now Staples Office Supply) and review of revised parking lot layout LOCATION: South side of Highway 111 east of Plaza Way ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith reported that this matter was last before the Commission at its meeting of April 11, 2000. At that time, the plans for the westerly most building (Staples) had been revised. Commission had concerns with the plans at that time. The plans have been revised, particularly with respect to the loading dock location. Also, Mr. Glasser has submitted a revised parking lot plan which provides additional parking spaces for the larger Staples building. Susan Secoy recalled that the Commission's primary concern during its most recent review of the project was the view of the project from the intersection � of EI Paseo and Plaza Way; so the loading dock has been reversed and more layers and architectural elements have been added to that elevation. 17 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES The loading dock has also been further screened from view with additional architecture. The question is whether or not the project should have more identity on the EI Paseo elevation since more architectural features have been added. Commissioner Hanson indicated that she would not suggest adding signage to this elevation, but would suggest a low wall to further screen delivery trucks. Commissioner O'Donnell pointed out that this project is a good example of the applicant working in a cooperative spirit with the Commission to design a building that reflects the quality expected by the citizens of Patm Desert. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval with the condition that a six-foot wall be added to provide further screening of delivery trucks. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Lingle abstaining. 10. CASE NO.: CUP 99-13 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� SPRINT PCS, 4683 Chabot Drive, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 85-foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial pine tree LOCATION: 77-800 California Drive ZONE: R-1 (9,000) Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant was before the Architectural Review Commission in November of 1999 for approval of an 85-foot tower camouflaged as an artificial palm tree. The Commission voted 4-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet dissenting, to approve the tower with a maximum height of 60 feet. 18 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES The applicant has worked with staff and the Homeowners Association to come up with a solution that will benefit both the City and the Association. The new request consists of an 85-foot tower camouflaged as an artificial pine tree. The pine tree design will allow for an additional service provider to co-locate and thus eliminate the need for additional towers in the vicinity. The proposed 85-foot tower is the maximum height allowed by the City Code. At this height, the tower will achieve adequate coverage for this area, will allow for co-location, and will eliminate SprinYs need for an additional tower site in Palm Desert. The applicant has provided coverage simulation sheets with existing coverage, coverage with a 65-foot tower and coverage with an 85-foot tower. The light yellow represents minimum coverage; the light brown represents better coverage; and the green color represents the strongest signal. Fencing currently exists around the perimeter of the site in the form of six- foot high chain-link fencing. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an eight-foot block wall around the perimeter of the sit to screen the mechanical equipment. 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. Staff believes that the artificial pine tree will blend in with other mature vegetation in the general vicinity. The height of the tower can be supported by the fact that the tower will provide co-location and will potentially eliminate the need for two additional communication tower sites in the near vicinity. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the tower as proposed, with a condition that an eight-foot decorative block wall be constructed around the perimeter of the site to screen all associated ground equipment. 19 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Adan Madrid of Sprint PCS presented area coverage maps depicting current coverage, coverage with a 65-foot tower and coverage with an 85-foot high tower. The antennas would be mounted at 77 feet, and the artificial pine tree would go up to 85 feet, but the tops of the antennas would be at 80 feet, and the additional five feet is needed to make the pole resemble a pine tree. Marilyn Hamlet, President of Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association, indicated that the HOA is very supportive, and the proposed project has been featured in the HOA newsletter for the past year, and the only response from the homeowners has been questions as to how soon it can be completed because they are anxious for their cell phone service to improve. Commissioner Connor asked if the HOA would be opposed to the tower if it looked like a pole rather than a #ree, to which Ms. Hamlet replied that the HOA prefers the pole to look like a tree, and added that the HOA was also supportive of the previously proposed arti�cial palm tree tower. Mr. Madrid noted that the existing mature landscape includes trees up to 70 feet in height. Chairman Gregory noted that the primary impact would be to the residents in Palm Desert Country Club, who have expressed support for the project. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the proposed artificial tree does not resemble any type of pine tree he is familiar with, and suggested that an artificial palm tree may actually be better. Commissioner Connor asked if it would be possible to have finro artificial palm tree towers together, to which Mr. Madrid replied that it may be possible, depending on whether or not the finro towers would have signal interference problems. Commissioner Connor noted that some of the tallest trees in the Valley are Eucalyptus. 20 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Connor asked about the longevity of the proposed material in a desert environment, to which Mr. Alvarez replied that a maintenance agreement would be required as part of the conditional use permit that would have to be granted by the Planning Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the diameter of the pole, to which Mr. Madrid replied that it would be finro to three feet at the base and would taper off to less than one foot at the top. Commissioner O'Donnell indicated that he is concerned that an 85-foot tower is not aesthetically appropriate for a residential area, although there is a technological need for such a facility, and added that he would prefer two artificial palm trees. Commissioner Van Vliet indicated a preference for an 85-foot artificial palm tree rather than an artificial pine tree, with which Commissioner Connor concurred. Chairman Gregory commented that an artificial palm tree would be acceptable to him. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to approve the plans with a condition that an eight-foot decorative block wall be constructed around the perimeter of the site to screen all associated ground equipment. The motion carried 4-3, with Commissioners Connor, O'Donnell and Van Vliet dissenting. 11. CASE NO.: MISC 00-12 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS� BRIAN SPRUIELL, 74-480 Fairway, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of a seven-foot plaster finish wall 9'8" from curb LOCATION: 74-480 Fairway ZONE: R-1 21 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez reported that the property is located at the northeast corner of Fairway Drive and Deep Canyon. The applicant's requests includes approval to replace an existing dilapidated wood fence with a new seven-foot block wall with a plaster finish. The applicant requests approval of two exceptions. The first is the six-foot height limit and the second is the required 12-foot setback from face of curb on street side yards. The wall is proposed at seven feet high and 9'8" from the face of curb. The property lines begin 10 feet from face of curb, thus the minimum setback would have to be 10 feet. The wall will tie into the existing residence and will not impede line of sight. In the past, the Architectural Review Commission has granted exceptions to the setback requirement for block walls if the proposaf achieves the following: 1) the proposal will be a significant improvement to the neighborhood; 2) the setback is in character with others found in the neighborhood; 3)there are special circumstances unique to the property that limit the location or warrant a height exception. In this case, all three of the above items apply to the property. The new block wall will replace a dilapidated wood fence in the exact same location and will enhance the neighborhood. The applicant will plant espaliered bougainvilleas on the wall and install cobble gravel along the street side yard. The applicant wishes to match the adjacent neighbor's setback along Deep Canyon at 10 feet from face of curb. The applicant also requests approval of a seven-foot high wall (Ordinance allows maximum six feet high) to mitigate noise from Deep Canyon and to ensure privacy. Staff believes that the above factors warrant an exception to both the height and setback requirements. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the seven-foot block wall on the property line or 10 feet from face of curb. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval for a six-foot high wall 9'8"from curb. The motion carried 7-0. 22 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES 12. CASE NO.: MISC 00-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• RICHARD JOBE, 73-213 Bel Air Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approvai of a single-family residence measuring 17'5" in height LOCATION: 72-993 Bel Air Road ZONE: R-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the City's Single-family residential ordinance requires that all new residences above 15 feet in height receive approval from the Architectural Review Commission. The applicant seeks approval to construct an 18-foot high single-family residence at 73-993 Bel Air. The residence has a hipped roof system, and the pad height sits seven feet below the adjacent property to the south. The building's setbacks exceed the minimum requirements for this size lot. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the plans as submitted. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the plans as submitted. The motion carried 7-0. 13. CASE NO.: MISC 00-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�, CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of exception for fence which encroaches into setback and exceeds height limit LOCATION: 73-625 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the plans as submitted. The motion carried 7-0. 23 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES 14. CASE NO.: RV 00-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• RICHARD L. WORD, 73-115 Catalina Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval to store a recreational vehicle in a front yard area LOCATION: 73-115 Catalina Way ZONE: R-2 (7) Ms. Chafin reported that the applicant seeks approval to store a recreation vehicle in the front yard at 73-115 Catalina Way. The vehicle measures 10 feet high, 34 feet long and 10 feet wide. The applicant's home faces north and has a driveway on the westerly portion of the lot. The applicant proposes to store the RV on the easterly portion of the front • yard and screen it with a block wall and a solid wood gate. The front yard measures 37 feet from the edge of the house to the existing block wall in the front yard. This block wall measures six feet in height and 22 feet in length and is located 15 feet from the curb. The applicant proposes to build a gate which would connect the front yard block wall with the side yard block wall. The gate would measure 12 feet wide by eight feet high and be constructed of solid wood material. The applicant also proposes to excavate two feet of soil to accommodate a driveway which would extend to the street. This would necessitate a curb cut and encroachment permit, and both would require prior approval from the City's Engineering Department. The City's RV ordinance requires that the recreational vehicle be substantially (not completely) screened, and be aesthetically acceptable. Pursuant to RV ordinance requirements, staff mailed notices of this meeting to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property. As of the writing of this staff report, no comments have been received in response to the notices. 24 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES Staff visited the site and was able to photograph the property, but the RV was not on the premises. Although the proposed screening mechanisms seem to be aesthetically acceptable, staff is concerned that the 10-foot RV will still be quite visible above the six-foot block wall and the eight-foot high gate, especially since the RV would be so close to the street. Therefore, staff cannot support the request. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission not approve the request. Mr. Word explained that he also intends to use a fabric cover over the vehicle. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how often the vehicle is used, to which Mr. Word replied that he uses it six or seven times a year. Commissioner O'Donnell thought that the vehicle is so massive it will be like a having building very close to the street. Chairman Gregory suggested that the applicant may wish to consider getting signatures from his neighbors who are supportive of the request, and also suggested that a detailed plan be submitted showing how the applicant intends to drop the height of the RV via excavating the front yard. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the RV would have to drop down four feet in order to screen it sufficiently. Commissioner Hanson was concerned that the vehicle would be stored too close to the street. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it is too imposing to locate in the front yard. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to not approve the applicant's request. The motion carried 7-0. 25 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES 15. CASE NO.: MISC 00-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ALLEN FENCE CONSTRUCTION, P.O. Box 515, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 for BUCK THUF2MAN, 73-800 Whitestone Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of inesh fence to screen errant golf balls LOCATION: 73-800 Whitestone Lane ZONE: R-1 (10,000) Mr. Alvarez reported that a mesh fence was installed in the rear yard by the applicant to match a fence which the neighbor erected a couple years ago, and the application is a result of a neighbor complaining that the applicant built the fence without a permit. Staff would recommend that Bougainvillea be planted to improve the aesthetics of the fence. The applicant also proposes to build a similar fence in the front yard. Commissioner Hanson agreed with staff's suggestion regarding the Bougainvillea, but expressed opposition to such a fence in the front yard and suggested that the golf course should take care of it on the other side of the street. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approved the fence in the rear yard subject to adding Bougainvillea, but did not approve the fence in the front yard and suggested that the golf course take care of it on the other side of the street. The motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 26