Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-10 ,, �' � �T� CITY OF PALM DESERT ' _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . � MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2006 **************************************************************************************************** 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 1 Kristi Hanson X 1 Chris Van Vliet X 1 John Vuksic X 1 Ray Lopez X 1 Karen Oppenheim X 1 Karel Lambell X 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 13, 2005 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of December 13, 2005. The motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez abstaining. 1 �r�'' '�r+r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: TT 30795 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of architecture for single-family detached residences at Falcon Crest. LOCATION: 74-501 42"d Avenue ZONE: R1-M Mr. Smith stated that the Redevelopment Agency is seeking final approval of the single-family homes that were formerly known as Hovley Gardens and now known as Falcon Crest. There are some modifications to the roof lines. Mr. Urbina stated that each of the three plans has three different elevation types. On elevation B, there is a modification over the entryway area to the roof lines. The architect could not attend the meeting, but if there are any questions the Redevelopment Agency would like this item to be continued to the January 24, 2006 meeting. Mr. Smith commented that this request for approval does not include signage. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for a facade enhancement of existing building. LOCATION: 73-750 EI Paseo (Coble building) G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN 2 , , � �` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 AGENDA ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 05-11 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD/SPINELLO, LP, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of architecture and landscaping for a 2,813 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive thru. Jack-in-the Box LOCATION: Northwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to review by the applicant's architectural design firm. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, 78-078 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a monument sign for Chicago Freddie's. LOCATION: 74-450 Highway 111 (previously Bash's) ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the monument sign for Chicago Freddie's was installed without permits. The sign looks like they have too much text on it. The old sign was a cream color with brown lettering that read "Bash's". Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the sign. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN 3 'rMrr' 'rrr+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Stendell stated that it's approximately 10' in height. The structure has been there for many years and the current owner changed the face of the sign. Recently, light displays have been added to the roof in the shape of palm trees and a golf cart without approval. Mr. Drell commented that sign permits can't be issued if there are non- conforming, illegal items on the building. An approval can be given, subject to the removal of the light displays. Jesse Cross, representative for Best Signs, was present and stated that they draw up a proposal for every client and let them know that City-required permits are not included. We do charge for a permit procurement fee on every proposal. The customer declined our services and was supposed to have gotten the permit themselves. It should've been an easy approval because any change of face is typically an over-the-counter approval. Commissioner Gregory disagreed. Mr. Cross stated that the Chicago Freddie's sign is a little larger than most. I'm trying to help my client resolve this problem. Everything that's on the sign is extremely important to them. We could possibly eliminate the bottom line. The sign should be descriptive so people know what's there. This is what the client wants. Commissioner Hanson asked about the awning at the entrance and wondered if they're going to put signage on it. Mr. Stendell stated that they've taken the old awning off and they're recovering it with a black awning. They didn't show any signage on the awning. However, a separate sign company asked if they could add signage to the mansard roof area. Ms. Hollinger stated that the applicant has never submitted a landscape plan after they had been asked to provide one. Mr. Drell suggested meeting with the applicant to discuss all the issues that have been discussed. Commissioner Oppenheim asked the applicant if the words Chicago Prime Steaks and Chicago Freddie's were the most important part of the sign. The last line can be removed. Commissioner Hanson suggested having the words "Chicago Freddie's" on top, remove the word "featuring", keep "Chicago Prime Steaks" and "Open for lunch and dinner" and remove everything else. The background should not be white. Mr. Cross asked if he could keep it white. Commissioner Gregory suggested off-white. Mr. Drell stated that off-white would look dirty. I've never liked ivory. Mr. Cross stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES that beige would be the most ineffective color for the client. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the background could be brown and have the text reversed in white. Mr. Cross stated that it would be 75% ineffective compared to white. At this point, I'm going to send the client to the commission because it's not my place to approve of these changes. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to submit a landscape plan, remove light display from roof and revise the monument sign face to reduce clutter. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 06-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COUNTRY CLUB AWNING & BLINDS, 74-885 Joni Drive, #6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Laser Express. LOCATION: 73-655 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this property is located on EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed awning will be tan with a logo that's 18" wide and 24" tall. The letters are green and will be 10" in height. There will be a cream colored band, which will be 4" in width. The awning will project out 3' from the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he couldn't tell what he was looking at by the exhibits. Commissioner Hanson stated that it appears that the awning would project out at half the building, instead of wrapping into it which is a little odd. Brian Lanning, representative for Country Club Awning & Blinds, was present and stated that the awning will return into the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the drawing is wrong. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN 5 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the awning doesn't fit in with the architecture of the building. It's hard to tell because the photo of the building is so bad. Mr. Drell stated that they need to see a real photograph. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned about how the awning would look from the side. Most of the time you'll see it from one angle or the other and there aren't any exhibits that show these elevations. Mr. Lanning stated that the sides are flat and return flush to the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant has to submit real photographs with the awning superimposed on the photos and show the sides as well as the front. They should also submit photos of the building without the awning so we can see how it would work and attach. We also need to see the awning structure and the mounting details. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a section showing mounting detail and more detailed exhibits and photos. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP 03-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of north retaining wall, car ports and streetscape at a 320-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 73-230 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that the commission is being asked to look at a wall proposal on the north side of the property. Mr. Drell stated that as the project evolved, they ended up with a requirement for a huge retaining wall at the back end of the project and they have a line of garages. Instead of something that looks like the back end of garages on the street on top of a big retaining wall, the applicant is proposing a design element that disguises the whole thing. The applicant came up with a mountain silhouette scene, similar to a building that was previously G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060110.MIN � .. � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES approved on Monterey. The applicant is still insistent on putting a tile roof on top of the building, which doesn't make a lot of sense because it looks like a tile cap on top of a mountain design element. The suggestion is to have a flat roof. Three alternatives were shown to the commission for their review. The applicant stated that the ridge line is out of the line of sight in each case. The second option shows that the mountain scene being 12"-18" higher than the mountain scene on the third option. The second option wouldn't require additional engineering for the roof structure. Commissioner Hanson stated that the exhibit just shows one piece of the actual elevation. The applicant stated that the wall will continue along the entire north elevation. Rod Murphy was present and stated that the 3-D panels that they're proposing to use and would be applied to the retaining wall and build it into a mountain scene. Each layer would vary between 3" in depth to 8" in depth. Commissioner Hanson asked about any projects that are across the street on "A" Street. Mr. Drell stated that the McCloud project will be there and there will be commercial buildings or multi- story residential in this area. Commissioner Hanson stated that if the area across "A" Street will be developed as multi-story residential, then option C would probably be better because the roof would be sloping away from you. Mr. Drell stated that the multi-story residential will probably be sub-grade. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would rather not see option A, option B would probably be fine, but option C is optimal. Commissioner Lambell asked if option C would look like a movie set with the mountain scene coming up slightly above the roof ridge. What will it look like when you're looking at the side of the garages? Mr. Drell stated that option C has a flat roof. The problem is that this is an enclosed garage and they're not open car ports. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could make the back look like the architecture of the buildings. In theory, the idea of a 3-D panel mountain scene sounds like a good idea, but there is concern about the execution. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the size of it is also a concern. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060110.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was trying to visualize a huge wall with a mural on it and a roof or create the wall so tall that you don't even see the roof. The applicant displayed samples of the 3-D panels for the commissioners to view. Mr. Drell asked if the applicant had any pictures of murals that had been done using the 3-D panels. Mr. Murphy stated that he has used this product on walls that are 30' high on buildings in Rancho Mirage on Naranda Patel's building. It has a raked horizontal pattern. Comrriissioner Vuksic stated that it might be safer to make it look like a mural of a building, as opposed to making it so huge that it's screening the building. It might look big and flat and very odd. I'd rather see the roof over the top of it and make the mural a little smaller. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to give the commission a sense of what it's going to look like and some options. I understand the concept, but am concerned about the execution. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with (1) revised elevations that show the ends of the garages, sections and dimensions showing distance to the curb, and (2) exhibits that show what it will look like. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN g _ "�f' `�'` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Bagato stated that the architect has two options for the commission to review. I recommend option B. The colors need to be changed to be more compatible with the desert. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the purpose of the height of the building. Mr. Bagato stated that they have a 30' height limit and they're proposing a 21' roof height. Commissioner Lambell asked about the wall on option A. Mr. Bagato stated that the wall that screens the bays might cause a visibility problem for people driving out of the bays onto the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the finish and wondered if it was going to be smooth plaster. Burt Tarayao, architect, was present and stated that it will be a hand-troweled finish. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned that the finish might crack. Mr. Tarayao stated that he's intending to have expansion joints to break up the large area of plaster. Commissioner Gregory was concerned about the elevation as viewed from Alessandro. The other elevations are quite attractive. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations are a huge improvement to the previous submittals. However, there are certain elements that don't have any architectural reason to be there. Changes were made on the plans by the commissioners to illustrate the details that haven't been finished and showed how they should be finished. Commissioner Hanson suggested changing the colors to more of a desert palette with warmer colors. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with (1) revised plans that show the finished details, per the changes that were made by the commission at the meeting, and (2) resubmit a more appropriate color palette suitable to the desert. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR060110.MIN � . �` � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a new 15,000 square foot showroom/warehouse. LOCATION: 73-665 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the site is on the south side of Dinah Shore between Monterey and Portola. Mr. Stendell stated that the building is under the 30' height limit, except for a tower element that compliments the building very well. The west elevation faces Pres Development, which is a multi-building project. The elevations all look attractive. The landscaping is not ready yet, but staff is recommending preliminary approval on the architecture. Commissioner Hanson asked that the applicant either return or extend the roof parapet. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to returning or extending the roof parapet. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:06 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060110.MIN 1�