Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-25 t t �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2001 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 14 4 Kristi Hanson X 14 2 Neil Lingle X 11 4 Richard O'Donnell X 11 3 Chris Van Vliet X 16 1 John Vuksic X 16 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 11, 2001 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of September 11, 2001, with minor changes. The motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Diane Hollinger as the City's new Landscape Specialist. 1 r sWV ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 01-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN J. CODY, 74-277 Hwy. 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior elevations for re-construction of an existing fire-damaged apartment duplex LOCATION: 44-211 San Pasqual ZONE: R-2 Mr. Alvarez distributed photos of the fire-damaged apartment duplex. Plans for re-construction had been distributed in the Commission's packets. He stated that all exterior walls were being removed. The re- construction will include a small addition on the south side. The living room will be expanded into the area which had served as an exterior balcony on the south and east elevations. A new balcony will be added on the outside of the expanded living room. For additional architectural detailing, the applicant has added aluminum awnings on some of the windows and added some glass block to one of the exterior walls to break up a previously blank elevation. Staff has requested the applicant to address some of the windows on the north elevations, perhaps by recessing the windows or adding fur-outs around the windows. The entire building will be re-stuccoed. Mr. Cody explained that they intend to increase the size of kitchen by expanding the living room onto what was previously the balcony. The two bedrooms of each unit measure about 11x12 feet. He stated he could do something architecturally to improve the look of the building's street face. He noted that it was a budget job because it was fire damaged and has been sitting for awhile. He stated he could put shades on the north elevation windows or could put a "donut" around them, but being on the north side, there isn't a need for sun protection. The existing construction is 2x4 frame and due to their arrangement, he cannot put a bay window in the wall because there is nothing to support it except the walls. He intends to re-insulate the entire building with R- 38 on the roof and R-19 on the sides. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 2 ow ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Cody pointed out the building was visible to all elevations. It is sitting at the setback on the street elevation, but has lots of room around the sides and rear. Commissioner Vuksic stated that originally the building had some artistic-ness to it. There was a cube with a large section cut out of the cube to be the balcony. That artistic-ness is not now there anymore. He asked why the applicant didn't architecturally supplement the cube since the building had space along the three sides. Mr. Cody responded that the owner did not have the budget for that. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the current proposal was not adequate to meet the Commission's expectations. By expanding on the floor space, some of the architectural elements were taken away. While the applicant would like to have more space, the Commission would like to see more architecture. Commissioner Hanson remarked what made the existing structure work was the porch and suggested adding the porch back on. That would break up the architecture on the front of the building. Mr. Cody replied that he could not add a patio on the front elevation because he is at the setback line. Commissioner Vuksic recommended adding another porch somewhere else, for instance along both sides of the south/western corner. He suggested the porch be designed around the Eucalytus tree so that the tree will shade that porch in the afternoon. Commissioner Hanson suggested the possibilty of putting an additional, small deck off the eastern elevation. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case asking the applicant for additional architectural detailing, ie, recessing/furring windows, and suggested balconies be installed on the south/southwest corner under the Eucalpytus tree and on the north elevation. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 01-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD HALL, 47-784 Silver Spur Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 6-foot block wall with 5-foot setback to enclose front yard pool LOCATION: 47-784 Silver Spur Trail ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato distributed photos of the applicant's neighborhood which showed many of the neighbor's front walls. The photo also showed that there is already a white 4-foot wall along the applicant's front yard. The Commission found the present wall to be very nice. The applicant's request is to increase the size of the wall to six feet and to continue its length and adding a gate. The Commission would like to see what type of gate is being planned. The Commission also asked if the applicant would be adding to the current wall or replacing that wall with an entirely new wall. Either way, it would like to see the details. The applicant's home owner's association had given written approval of a gate "five to six feet in height". Commissioner O'Donnell noted that if the wall goes to six feet, landscaping, other than turf, would have to be planted on the exterior side to break up the wall's mass. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to allow the applicant to provide a site plan and details about the wall, ie, whether it will be built on the existing wall or will replace that wall, the gate, and exterior landscaping. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 00-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, 7143 Katella, Suite B., Stanton, CA 90680 RICK BLOMGREN, AIA, Axcess Architects, 186542 Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final architectural plans for Buildings 2 and 7 LOCATION: 77-904 and 77-932 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 (FCO) Plans were displayed for the Commissioners during the meeting. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant final approval for Buildings 2 and 7 subject to increasing the size of the columns on the right side of the south elevation and around the corner of the Building 7. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 01-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DGI SIGNS, INC., 77-720 Springfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 CAMERON NEVINS, 74-478 Hwy. 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised signage at Cam's Corner LOCATION: 74-478 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1 A colored drawing of a proposed monument signage was distributed in the Commission's packets. The two monument signs will replace those on Hwy. 111 and Deep Canyon. The third sign on Alessandro has been or will be removed. The proposed monument signage was GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES shown at 8 feet in height. Mr. Skip Berg explained that the two side-by- side modules were 7 feet (one module will be for the tenants' signage, the other will be for "Mobil" and the prices of four types of fuel. The Commission agreed 8 feet was too high and should be downsized to about 6 feet. The Commission considered alternatives consisting of moving the wording "Mobil" over to the tenants' side of the monument's face, leaving the pricing on the other side of the face. Another alternative was changing the design from a monolith to a two-height desgn, ie, keeping "Mobil" on the same side as the pricing at the 8 foot height and lowering the height of the tenants' side as there will be no more than three identification signs on that side. This would reduce the mass of the monument. Mr. Berg, the applicant, distributed a drawing of another version he had been working on which stood about 6-foot, 8-inches in height. The Commission recommended removing the words "Cam's Corner" as it was already located on the corner of Hwy. 111 and Deep Canyon. This would reduce the amount of signage within the monument sign to six feet or less. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the revised monument signage subject to 1) remove the words "Cam's Corner", 2) keep the monument height to six feet or less measured from the sidewalk, and 3) increase the reveal above the words to match the reveal at the sides. Staff will review the location of the monuments, one each on Hwy. 111 and one on Deep Canyon. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) STATE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK PARTNERS, 74-770 Hwy. 111, #201, Indian Wells, CA 92210 FRANK URRUTIA, FRANK URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, #201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 6 Nftw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for Phase 2, Buildings A & C, for an office/industrial complex LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, 1,000 feet +/- east of Cook Street, opposite entrance to California State site, COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK ZONE: PCD Plans were distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Smith stated the Commissioners had previewed Building B during its last meeting. These are the two other rear buildings for the project. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of Buildings A & C as presented. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LYLE-HALL, LLC, 721 S. Palm Canyon, #216, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of building sign program and landscaping for an 18,079 square foot, two-story office building, CANYON FINANCIAL PLAZA LOCATION: 77-990 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Building Sign Program: Mr. Smith reported the applicant is requesting 21-inch letters on the first-level 36-inch facia and 18-inch letters on the 48-inch second-level fascia. The facias run lengthwise around the building. Mr. Drell stated that almost every two-story building with multiple tenants has had signs on the second floor and every second floor is above 20 feet and has received waivers for the height of letters. The bottom of the upper fascia is at 21 feet which puts the signage about 22.5 - 23.5 feet. The lettering will be custom hand-painted, copper patina finish, black returns, reverse channel, halo-lit letters. Each signwill cost $4-5,000. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES It was noted that the Shah/Morningside building on Fred Waring was not allowed to have lit letters. That building is at the corner of a residential street and Fred Waring has a different character than it does at Washington Street. Mr. Drell pointed out that the applicant's building was at a major intersection with lots of street lights, activity, and traffic. It will be across from the Indian Wells Tennis Center and Southwest Community Church's yet-to-be-built church. In addition, Hospitality Dental which will sit behind the new building already has lit reserve channel lettering. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it were necessary to have signage on the upper fascia. Mr. Lyle responded there would be ten tenants. The ones located in the corner offices would probably want more than one sign. It was noted that not all tenants in every building have signage on their buildings. An example was the Shah/Morningside building. The Commission did not object to signage on the lower fascia. Mr. Drell stated that typically it was the building identification sign that goes on top. In that respect, those tenants who do not get signage, there is prominent identification of the building. The applicant stated the name for the building could be "Canyon Financial Plaza". The Commission agreed that the name of the building might be able to go on the upper fascia, but that the tenants' signage should be limited to the lower fascia. The applicant noted that if he is unable to get a bank as a tenant, he would not consider a building name. He feels it is very important to get financial tenants such as CPAs, attorneys, H&R Block and they do want signs. They are facing the busy intersection in the Coachella Valley, according to a study completed by CVAG. These will be prominent financial businesses. Mr. Drell stated they were entitled to one square foot of signage per lineal foot of frontage on the first floor and half a square foot of signage per lineal foot of frontage on the second floor. Commissioner Hanson recommended granting preliminary approval to the signage locations on the bottom level fasica as presented, maximum one sign per bay, and to not approve signage on the upper level fasica for now. This does not preclude the applicant coming back with actual tenants' signage and applying for this. This approval is for a building program which at this time does not include upper level signage. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES Landscape: Discussion centered on whether a decision could be made about the applicant's property without the cooperation of Desert Breezes' Home Owners' Association on their 15-foot wide perimeter strip of land. Mr. Drell stated the applicant couldn't be held hostage to improvements of another property owner that he has no control over. It will be the Commission's responsibility to make sure that the Desert Breezes' Home Owners' Association landscape plans blend with this applicant's landscaping. However, both parties are working on desert-themed landscaping and like what the other is doing. Mr. Knight had reviewed the conceptual plan. He will need to see the preliminary plan to see which plants are where. He noted that the trees are called out, but the shrubs are not. Mr. Knight stated the plant materials are acceptable, the parking lot tree requirements have been met due to the carports and under-the-building parking. The applicant's landscape architect will meet with Mr. Knight to discuss specifics. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval to signage locations on the bottom level fascia as presented, maximum one sign per bay, and to not approve signage on the upper fascia right now. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of the landscaping subject to consultation with Mr. Knight and Commissioner Gregory. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010925.ag.wpd 9