Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08 `lw e CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** 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 15 3 Kristi Hanson X 16 2 Neil Lingle X 13 5 Richard O'Donnell X 14 4 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 16 2 Ray Lopez X 16 Q Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 24, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of September 24, 2002. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lingle abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 `*✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 47-321 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PHILIP SMITH, 83-810 Via Deo Circle, #101, Indio, CA 92201 CHANCY MILES LOTT, LOTT ENTERPRISES, INC., 44 Lakeshore Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for an addition for a proposed Family Life Center. LOCATION: 47-321 Highway 74 ZONE: R-1 The Commission reviewed the revised plans and agreed that the changes that they had requested at the previous meeting were made. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-21, GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for PORTOFINO, 249 Las Entradas Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of "The Villas" at Portofino. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Country Club and Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 AGENDA Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 3. CASE NO.: C 02-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Alessandro, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of commercial remodel. LOCATION: 72-760 El Paseo, south end of Palms to Pines central. ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioners Vuksic and Gregory abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 02-158 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TNT ELECTRIC SIGN, INC., 3080 E. 2911 Street, Long Beach, CA 90806 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for business signage. Hampton Inn & Suites LOCATION: 14-900 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Mr. Smith stated that the Commission reviewed the signage on August 27, 2002. The request was continued to allow the applicant to lower the sign on the west elevation. The applicant has eliminated this sign. The second request was to lower the monument sign to a maximum of 6' and improve its aesthetics. The monument sign has been lowered to 9'. The Commission also requested the use of reverse channel letters on the wall signs, which are not indicated on the revised plans. There are two directional signs on the northwest, which will be known as Technology Way. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the monument sign should be lowered. He's not sure if they even need the monument sign because there's a sign on the building. It seems to be overkill. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the way the building is angled, a person in a car wouldn't be able to see the sign very clearly if they were moving north on Technology. He commented that it would make sense to have a monument sign in this location. Commissioner Lingle stated that he doesn't have a problem with the location, but the size is too large. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the monument size and design looks large and clumsy. The design could be a lot richer. The sign has tiny bits of space on either side of the sign and a big block at the bottom with the word "Entrance", which needs some articulation. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that it be lowered to 6' in height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would be possible since they have a huge block at the bottom that seems to be doing nothing but propping up the rest of the sign. Commissioner Hanson commented that she thinks that they need at least 2' of the block to get the sign up above the landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that considering the size of the project, 6' may be a tough standard since little projects have that same standard. Commissioner Hanson suggested a monument sign that is no taller than 7'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant was proposing reverse channel letters for the signage on the building. The applicant, Annie Tan, stated that they are proposing regular channel letters and are not halo lit. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the Commission had asked for reverse channel letters at the ARC meeting of August 27, 2002. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the directional signs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're small and thought they were fine. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of directional and building signs subject to using reverse channel letters with white neon and continued the freestanding sign with direction that it does not exceed 7' in height and that the architectural detailing be improved. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 4 or 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 02-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SBA NETWORK SERVICES, INC./ CINGULAR WIRELESS, 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for installation of wireless telecommunications tower with equipment shelter. LOCATION: 100 Kiva Drive (Bighorn Maintenance Yard) ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the Commission had previously approved a mesquite tree installation. He has been advised that the mesquite tree installation is no longer feasible. Doug Kearney, applicant, stated that he went over the mesquite tree proposal with the architect and the vendor of the tree. He brought samples of what the leaf type would look like on a broad leaf tree and also a sample of the bark. The Commission had asked that the tree be brought down in scale and make it more umbrella shaped, but the problem is that the trunk would have to be fatter and the branches would have to extend 20'-30' to bring it into an umbrella shape. The tree will be set back 50'-60' from the street and it will blend in with the existing vegetation. Commissioner Gregory asked about the mesquite tree. Mr. Kearney stated that the vendor can match the bark but not the leaf. The umbrella shape is a problem because the scale would then become monumental. Commissioner Gregory stated that the broad leaf tree would stand out more than it needs to. He doesn't have a problem with a plain tower if it's skinny and discrete and tucked away. He thinks that the faux tree proposal is going to a lot of trouble and expense for something that's not a part of the desert landscape. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that the proposed tree would look worse than a tower, even though a tower won't look good either. Mr. Kearney stated that a green cylinder tower is an option. It would be approximately 36" in diameter at the top. Commissioner Gregory asked about the height of the tree. Mr. Kearney stated that it would be 45' in height. Commissioner Gregory stated that the trees in that area are 25' tall. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Kearney commented that Bighorn has a restriction in their CCR's that all antennae structures have to be concealed in some manner architecturally. Commissioner Gregory asked if there are any other faux tree manufacturers. Mr. Kearney stated that he uses the top-of- the-line manufacturer and this is the best that they can do. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there are no palms in that area and Bighorn went to great lengths not to put palms in that area. Commissioner Hanson wanted to know the exact location of where the tower will be. Mr. Kearney stated that it will go above the lower parking area. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's pretty close to the corner. Mr. Smith asked why they've gotten away from the flag pole option. Mr. Kearney stated that the flag pole was Bighorn's least preferable option. Commissioner Lopez commented that there's a monopalm in Palm Desert Country Club with no other palm trees around it and you don't see it. It's off the road approximately 100' and he drives by it everyday and doesn't notice it. Even when you're in the park, you don't see it. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are no palm trees on that side of Bighorn. Palm trees are prohibited on that side of Bighorn. Residents can have small palm trees in their courtyards where they're not visible. Bighorn has already approved the monopalm design on the proposed site. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he's not so sure that this is the best location for a tower. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are a lot of areas in commercial developments where we're willing to sacrifice some aesthetic value in order to make it work. Bighorn is a high-end country club and she's not sure that this is an appropriate location for a cell site. Mr. Kearney stated that this is his only option. Commissioner Lopez stated that there is a cell site that looks like a rock outcropping and blends into the hillside. He feels that this would be the best option. Commissioner Hanson stated that they did look into that and were told that there were some issues as to why they couldn't do that. Mr. Kearney stated that it has to do with power runs, microwaves and phone lines. There are also bighorn sheep in that location. Diane Hollinger suggested the Hidden Hills area or the trailer park as alternate locations. Mr. Kearney stated that the elevation drops in the Hidden Hills area. He ruled out the trailer park because it's residentially zoned. The Commission stated that Bighorn is also zoned residential. Mr. Kearney stated that the Bighorn site is in the maintenance yard, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES which he thought would be an easier location. Mr. Smith stated that there is an RV storage area in the back of the trailer park. Ms. Hollinger stated that there are a lot of existing palm trees in this area so a tower wouldn't stand out as much as the one at Bighorn. People live up on the hillside at Bighorn and will look down at the site in the maintenance yard. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission would feel comfortable with a plain tower and a large mesquite tree (or trees) planted between the tower and the street. He doesn't want to disguise the pole to look like something different, but screen it with something large in front of it. Commissioner Lingle asked why we have to approve something here if we don't like the location. He's heard two other Commissioners say that they're not satisfied with the location. There's also an issue relative to it being a palm, which is probably the best solution but not the solution of choice. Perhaps another location would be more appropriate. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Kearney if there is a requirement on the part of the City to accommodate his needs to add a cell site. Mr. Kearney stated that the one jurisdiction that they give the City is the aesthetics. Commissioner Lingle stated that he would want the City Attorney's counterpoint as well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are any other locations. Mr. Kearney stated that he wouldn't be coming back if there were. He would've already suggested an alternative if he had one. This site was driven by what the radiofrequency engineer needs for this specific area. The primary objective for this site is not for Bighorn but for the Highway 74 area. Commissioner Gregory asked who approved the site at Bighorn. Mr. Kearney stated that the general manager approved the site without input from the homeowners. Commissioner Gregory stated that the general manager might be somewhere else next year. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission could approve a monopalm, monotree or a plain pole. He would like to hear from the landscape architects. He asked them if the proposed monotree would blend in. Commissioner Gregory stated that it wouldn't blend in with the proposed leaves. It looks more like a magnolia tree. Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of (1) a monopalm, or (2) a monopole with an effort being made to plant 1-2 large mesquite trees or other acceptable desert tree G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 7 'ftW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES according to the City's Landscape Specialist to help screen it from any views from the street with approval by the Bighorn HOA. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how much screening would be required around the monopole. The back of the pole should be screened as well. Commissioner Gregory stated that the homeowners may protest a cell site in this area. Mr. Smith commented that it will have to go to the Planning Commission and notices will be sent to property owners within 300' as well as the association. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he does not see a good solution. He wants to respect the vernacular established in the beginning and the design guidelines that reflect that and the other alternatives don't seem to be any better. Mr. Smith stated that telecommunications towers are not permitted in the residential district. In order to go here they need a waiver, which the ordinance does provide for. Not every residential community lends itself to these towers. Presumably, the applicant was approached by the people at Bighorn saying that they need cellular service. The last cell site that the Commission had difficulty with was on the back side of Jiffy Lube. The City Council approved this site. Commissioner Lingle asked the applicant if the general manager at Bighorn approved a monopalm at this site with the authority of the homeowner's association? Was there dialogue from the residents? Did they have any influence into that decision? Commissioner Gregory commented that his motion was subject to approval by the HOA because he doesn't know what power or authority the general manager has. He feels that the homeowners should have the opportunity to address it. Mr. Kearney stated that the meeting that he had at Bighorn was with 5-6 gentlemen and one of them was their legal counsel. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if they decide to install a monopalm, there really isn't enough room to plant additional live palms there. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would probably be better not to add anymore palms there. Commissioner Hanson stated that the landscape at Bighorn was done that way for a reason and she doesn't think that we should compromise just because somebody needs better telephone service. She feels that there are other locations that would be more appropriate. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the monopalm seems like the least offensive. If there was a cluster of them, maybe it would look like they sprouted up in one spot. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Lingle stated that if the people who live there have approved it and understand that it's going to deviate from what was originally planned, then it's likely that the Planning Commission will approve it anyway. He wants to know what the homeowners want. He suggested giving them a menu of options that would be acceptable to our Commission. Commissioner Gregory revised his motion to say that either a monopalm or a monopole be considered as options by the HOA. If the monopole is installed, then some effort should be made to screen it with a desert-type tree or trees to block it from the City's view. If the monopalm is selected, no additional live palms should be planted. Either option should be approved by the HOA. Action: Motion defeated 2-4-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to be convinced that there's not another location possible. Mr. Kearney stated that he wouldn't be coming back here if he did. Another location that he looked at was the church, but the radiofrequency engineer ruled it out. He looked at Ironwood Park and the elevation was too low and would need a 90' tower at this location. He looked at the BLM Center, but because it slopes down they would have to go up in height quite a bit as well. Mr. Smith asked about putting a tower on the BLM building itself. Mr. Kearney stated that he would have to raise it quite a bit. Commissioner Gregory suggested a flag pole, but Mr. Kearney commented that it would have to be very high. He looked at the AT&T site on the hillside, but the engineer ruled that site out. Commissioner Lingle stated that once again he's hearing that the site is not appropriate. If that's the issue and aesthetics are secondary to that then no motion in the world is going to make a difference. Mr. Smith asked if the clubhouse area at Bighorn had been considered as a possible site. A flagpole tower may be appropriate in this location. Mr. Kearney stated that he was directed to the maintenance yard. The Commission is looking for the ability of Warren Smith to represent the association, which would also be helpful to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lingle commented that if they canvas the homeowner's, he would like to know the percentages of pros and cons. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request with applicant directed to consider alternative locations with approval of the Bighorn Homeowner's Association. A suggestion was make to consider a telecommunication's tower disguised as a flagpole near the clubhouse. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez opposed and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KLAFF REALTY, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of Phase Il. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111, northwest corner of San Pablo and El Paseo. El Paseo Square ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Hanson stated that she reviewed the plans in great detail and approved of them. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR02108.MIN 10