Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 "fir► CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • A MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** 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 16 5 Kristi Hanson X 17 4 Chris Van Vliet X 15 6*excused John Vuksic X 21 Ray Lopez X 18 3 Karen Oppenheim X 21 Karel Lambell X 20 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 25, 2005 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of October 25, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 165 Luring Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of office / warehouse for a marble and granite fabrication company with revised site planning and architecture of two buildings. Stonecrest LOCATION: 73-500 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 05-129 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new business signage. IL BAMBINO PIZZERIA LOCATION: 74-478 Highway 111, Suite C ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the signs were installed without City approval. The Code Compliance Department has issued a citation. Jim Engle, representative for Imperial Signs, is working with the business owner to try to fix some of their problems. There are two versions of the signs. Version one shows a small channel box with reverse channel letters for the word "pizzeria". The applicant requesting approval of the oval can sign that was put in the middle of the entryway which faces Bash's and Highway 111 when traveling eastbound. The second version does not show any can signs with the letters being red reverse channel. Mr. Engle stated that the plans should show regular channel letters, but he is willing to use reverse channel letters. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 AGENDA Commissioner Oppenheim commented that version two looks a lot better. Mr. Drell stated that it could be better to have a can sign on the tile portion of the building because as businesses change, the tile would have to be re-done. Perhaps this isn't the right can to be on that tile, but to have a sign that doesn't destroy the tile every time would make sense. Commissioner Hanson suggested making the oval sign the same color as the tile and having only the letters illuminated. Mr. Drell asked if she's suggesting the same color or a compatible color. Commissioner Hanson commented that she's trying to make the sign go away. Mr. Drell stated that he's not sure that they could get it to go away. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that the oval sign was too big for the space. Mr. Drell agreed and stated that it should've been a foot or two narrower. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they should add more design to the sign. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of "option two" on single-letter signs and continued the oval-shaped sign to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show that the sign is better integrated into the building. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: SA 05-130 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHE-SHE, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 2, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. LOCATION: 73-061 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-38 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEFF & JEANINE QUINT, 72-539 Pitahaya Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of carport with an average setback of 20' from the face of the curb. LOCATION: 72-539 Pitahaya Street ZONE: R1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 05-123 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SCOTELLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., P.O. Box 2096, Palm Desert, CA 92211 IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of sign program for new office building. LOCATION: 39-800 Portola ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 6. CASE NO.: SA 05-128 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):THE MARKET ON EL PASEO, 73-375 El Paseo, Suite F, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of recover of existing awning and new business signage. The Market on El Paseo LOCATION: 73-375 El Paseo, Suite F ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: SA 05-136 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, #L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument sign for Atria Hacienda Senior Living. LOCATION: 44-600-44-610 Monterey Avenue ZONE: R1,SO Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 05-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON, 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on a single-family home. LOCATION: 630 Pinnacle Crest, Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 5 `4r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD T. BOURESTON, 5500 Trabuco Road, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92620 RONALD SAKAHARA, 16842 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a single-story office building. LOCATION: 44-651 Village Court ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that the building was designed to utilize the sun exposure and make it energy efficient. The architect, Ronald Sakahara, was present and addressed the commission. There is a residential area to the north of the project. After meeting with staff a number of times, we were asked to put the trash enclosure away from the building. The basis of this design was based around sun exposure. The glass will be placed asymmetrically up against the pilasters to create a shadow pattern. A trellis was added for articulation. The north and east elevations have thickened walls (18" thick). They're using a contemporary desert theme with three colors. There is a series of existing trees along the frontage, which will remain. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the buildings are made of. Mr. Sakahara stated that they're plaster on a wood-framed structure. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thought it was a tilt-up building at first. Mr. Sakahara stated that they had considered using tilt-up construction but chose to use wood frame. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a reason why they decided to use identical windows everywhere. Mr. Sakahara stated that it is an office building and they're using sheer walls so there's a 5' section of window and a 5' section of wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the shade detail is very well done on the west elevation and asked about the roof-mounted equipment. Mr. Sakahara stated that the mechanical units will be less GRanning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 6 *401e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES than the parapet height. There should be no issues of any visible equipment. I'm allowing for a 5' parapet. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL MACMASTER, 21542 Surveyor Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for (2) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings. LOCATION: Spyder Circle; south of Dinah Shore (Gateway Industrial Park) ZONE: SI Bill MacMaster, applicant, was present and stated that he has provided more articulation with the overhead doors. The sand-blasted, ribbed concrete has been introduced to the side walls. They'll also recessed the overhead doors two feet. The parapets have been expanded to ensure the screening of the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the grading plan and the fact that these buildings are on two separate pads. He asked if there was a grade differential between the two pads. Mr. MacMaster stated that there will be approximately 18" of grade differential by the time that they're done. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the plans show a difference of 2'/2'. Mr. MacMaster stated that they're working that out right now. It will be 18" to 24" of differential. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the finished floor will be at different levels. Mr. MacMaster stated that these will be two free-standing buildings with a pair of walls between them. They won't share an entrance. There will be a step that will occur on the wall heights that isn't shown on the rendering, which was an error by the artist. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was concerned that this is a symmetrical building and it might look a little "off" with the grade differential in the middle of it. Mr. MacMaster stated that the buildings are not identical but they have similar GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 7 `r W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES elements. The parapets could be offset further if the commission wishes. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there will be a 6' high block wall that separates the building from the residential area. Mr. Bagato stated that the residential portion will be below grade so it might not impact them too much. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the building doesn't look that bad. The shadow line is really important so if it's not like that, then it will look bad. It needs to be 3', as opposed to 6". Mr. MacMaster asked if he could work with staff on the details. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that if staff has any questions that they can fax the details to the commission to review. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to applicant working with staff on issues as discussed at the meeting. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed. 3. CASE NO.: C 05-05 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 TARLOS & ASSOCIATES, 17802 Mitchell North, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of Del Taco restaurant building at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-540 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that some of his concerns with the plan on the west elevation is that the tower and the trellis are too high. Mr. Drell asked about the function of the trellis. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like they're trying to add an element to a bare wall. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't have to be 12' in height. The whole point of a trellis is to bring the scale down. Having it at 8' in height might be better. Commissioner Hanson suggested lowering the trellis and adding tile detail above it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the glass G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES above it is actually flush with the wall and it would add more shadowing and it would take your eye away from the flatness of the wall. Right now there's too much exposed wall above the window. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the arches be thickened. They're about 2" thick on the plans, but they should be a minimum of 12" thick. Mr. Bagato stated that one of the items in the design guidelines states that tile patterns be added to certain elevations. Commissioner Hanson commented that they could score the plaster behind the arches, which would add some detail. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the boxy form at the drive-through window on the north elevations seems too tall for what it is. It's competing with the gable roofs. There's also a stone arch with a window in it and a really big flat spot above it that looks pretty deep. The element above the window should be thickened where the sign is. The plaster should come out about 12" from the window instead of being flush with the window. The same goes for the east elevation if that's flush as well. This should come out 6" above the doors. On the other side door, it should come out 12". Commissioner Hanson suggested that they repeat the tile detail or expand on it above the doors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the north end on the east corner the wall doesn't look thickened. The wainscot should come out 6". The drive-through window should be centered inside the arch instead of being off a little bit. Overall, the forms look really nice. The details are going to be important and I'm concerned that it's not going to be well detailed. Commissioner Lopez asked about overhangs or some sort of covering over the drive-through window. The applicant stated that they don't have anything over the drive-through window. Commissioner Lopez stated that they have to add some kind of covering over this area. Also, it was suggested that they add trash cans near the exit. Commissioner Lambell asked about the proposed dog park and commented that she likes the idea a lot. She asked about the red awnings. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the red awnings were a nice accent. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 0541 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL CARVER, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 9 '40✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES GARY MCGUIRE, 1350 Fashion Valley Road, 41" Floor, CPG, San Diego, CA 92108 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a new bank building with a drive through. Wells Fargo Bank LOCATION: 34-340 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed bank in on a single pad with a drive-through. The main concern is that the two towers look tall and narrow. Gary McGuire, applicant, was present to represent Wells Fargo. Commissioner Vuksic stated that previously there were comments about the slope of the roofs. Some of the towers seem artificially stretched. Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks like the towers are elongated. Even though the towers have tile and some detail, they seem very flat as opposed to being recessed. The recess needs to be 18" or more. The roof slopes are probably 6:12 and a typical tile roof is 4:12 or 3:12. Everything seems tall and linear. Everything needs to come down proportionally. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have a huge wall on the north elevation and the windows are only inset a few inches. The wall needs a little more detail to it as well. Mr. McGuire stated that they were going to put in a shuttered awning over the top of it. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: CUP 05-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT-NEXTEL, BARBARA SAITO, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2005 MINUTES RESCO SELF STORAGE, 901 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 72' high monopalm cellular tower and equipment shelter. LOCATION: 72-150 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add Case No. PP 03-22 to the agenda. 6. CASE NO.: PP 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATEL ARCHITECTURE, 71-711 San Jacinto Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for a new office building. Oracle Plaza LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive, east of San Pablo ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for final approval. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. TONY BAGATO for STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051108.MIN 1 1