Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-25 Noe ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 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 15 3 Chris Van Vliet X 18 John Vuksic X 18 Ray Lopez X 15 3 Karel Lambell X 13 5 Nancy DeLuna X 8 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 11, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the September 11, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioners Hanson abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY LEMON, 70446 Boothill Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of one (1) home with a maximum 18-foot high roof element on Lot 8. LOCATION: 73-090 Kavanaugh Court ZONE: R1 10,000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining. 2. CASE NO: PP 04-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOLT ARCHITECTS, 41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building 3 of the University Center Professional Park. LOCATION: 41-555 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion subject to landscape review by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-2-0, with Commissioners DeLuna and Lopez abstaining. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 2 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 3. CASE NO: P 06-01, C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SINATRA & COOK PROJECT, LLC. 828 North Ogden Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90046 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 268-unit condominium community; The Vineyards. LOCATION: 37-755 Cook (Northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell stated that Council had modified the plans at the final Council meeting, but the drawings were not adjusted to go with it. When checking the differences between the two he noticed several inconsistencies. The two conditions made were in reference to the number of garages and removal of the studio apartments, which changed the layout quite a bit. He indicated that staff went through a series of meetings with the architect and the applicant and came up with A, B and C elevations and felt comfortable with the design. He stated that the architect, Mr. Ricciardi, indicated that since there were so many long buildings he would alternate between round and square windows on every other building. Mr. Stendell described the changes to the Commission. Commissioner Hanson suggested that all column details on Unit A at the garages needed to be consistent. Mr. Stendell stated that in the preliminary approval there was stone wainscoting on all sides and felt that the stone still needed to be there. Commissioner Hanson wondered why they had awnings on all the buildings except one. She felt that they didn't need the stone and suggested adding awning to the rest of the building to add more interest and shadowing. She said that they wouldn't have to do every window just key spots. Mr. Stendell asked the representative if they would consider making that change. Mr. Robert Wilkenson, Representative, stated that he would run that suggestion by the architect. He then asked for suggestions on the location of the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 3 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REEW COMMISSION *age MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 additional awnings. Commissioner Hanson indicated her suggestions and also requested color samples for the awnings. Mr. Stendell thought that the awnings where metal and mentioned that he talked about the color with the applicant regarding fading. The Commission reviewed and discussed the other elevations. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval of working drawings subject to 1) review by staff of final awning placement detail on Unit A; and, 2) submitting awning color samples for review. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 4. CASE NO: MISC 07-37 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH, 73-061 El Paseo #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of retail storefront awning and signage for a retail cosmetic boutique; Cos Bar. LOCATION: 73-080 Ell Paseo, Suite 2 ZONE: C-1 SP The Commissioner reviewed and discussed the sign request. It was felt that a blade sign would be much more effective for pedestrian traffic than a sign right at the door. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval of facade with the removal of the sign underneath the awning. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 4 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REWEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP 07-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 3257 E. Guasti Road Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of for a new wireless telecommunications facility for T-Mobile USA, Inc. LOCATION: 74-675 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 Ms. Schrader presented a proposal for 12 cellular panels to be located along a new ten-foot parapet screen, proposed to be constructed atop the existing Holiday Inn. It would be ten feet at its highest and would step down to meet the roof, with four (4) panels on each of the parapets for a total of 12 facing east, west and north directions. Included in the request are four (4) cabinets on the ground with two (2) GPS antennas that would be screened by a six and a half foot block wall in a new 209 square feet enclosure. The issue the staff has is the visual impact with both the block wall and the roof element. The parapet element, while it requires that height in order to receive proper reception has a step down appearance that is a little intrusive and the block wall would require additional screening and softening. In its construction they would remove a few trees and demolish some of the existing landscape there that softens the property and screens the restaurant that is next door. Commissioner DeLuna asked why the block wall had to be placed in an area where trees would be removed. Ms. Laura Bishop, Representative, stated that the building is a narrow rectangular structure that is located on the west of the property towards the front property line, and the equipment would have to be located reasonably close to the antenna; otherwise the extension of the cables would be far too long for it to be usable. It could not be located on the rooftop because the roof wouldn't be able to support it. What they propose to do for mitigation is to place three (3) Golden Rain Trees in 48-inch GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FIIes\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 5 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVfEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 boxes on the front of the property. Two (2) of those trees would be located adjacent to the wall and in front of the T-Mobile compound and one (1) would be located on the other side of the concrete walk. They are also proposing a hedge around the block wall that would grow in sufficiently thick to screen it, and the removal of two (2) Flowering Pear Trees that are not doing well on the north side of the building. Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that she would review the landscape plan and then give her recommendations. Commissioner DeLuna asked why the step down of the parapet was being constructed in a style that was not compatible with the existing architectural design. Ms. Bishop stated that was what Verizon proposed years ago for this building, however the design was flexible. The only thing T-Mobile needs is the height for the antenna because they were not putting in an antenna structure such as a palm tree. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the step down was radical and rigid looking and something that would catch the eye. Commissioner Van Wet asked if they could relocate their antennas back from the face of the building, away from the parapet edge. Ms. Bishop stated that they would run into structural issues if they move it away from the wall of the building. She didn't know if it was possible or not to move the antennas back and would have to explore that. Currently they are set against the wall and in order to screen them they would need to build the walls up. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that was where the problem was and the parapets would not work. Commissioner Hanson stated that the parapets didn't go with the building and adds a degree of oddness to a building that is already a relatively odd structure. She indicated that it be moved more towards the center to look more like an enclosure on top of a building that is set back. Ms. Bishop stated that they couldn't move the antennas totally in the middle of the building because they would have what is called foreshadowing. If they move the antennas farther back on the building you start getting an effect where the antennas are actually hitting the rooftop. They can move it back a certain distance, but usually if they move it back they would have to increase the height to account for that. G1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 6 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it might be an inappropriate place to locate it. She stated there were no other locations for that site and indicated that there was an existing palm tree on SCE substation immediately north of the property that currently does not have room for another site. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was some way it could be moved back from the edge and somewhat visual from the street, but not nearly as unattractively visible as with the proposed parapet. Commissioner Van Wet stated that if it was far enough back it probably would be okay. The Commission discussed the height of the building, line of sight and location of the panels and screening. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it would be possible to put in a monopalm. Ms. Bishop stated that if the City approves a tree, they would prefer that. The Commission was agreeable to a monopalm. Ms. Bishop and the Commission discussed the size of the monopalm and it being tall enough to rise above the rooftop. Commissioner DeLuna asked how high they would have to go. Mr. Bagato stated that the code is 65 feet, however they approved the Edison monopalm at 75 feet and at that time the Planning Commission indicated they would be willing to approve taller ones if the antenna was in the vault and not on the outside. Ms. Bishop stated that it wouldn't need to be that high and thought the building was around 40 feet. Commissioner Gregory stated that the City typically would require some real palms of the same variety to compliment the monopalm so that it doesn't stand out. Ms. Bishop stated that there were live palms at that location currently, and said that if the Commission prefers a monopalm that is typically the carrier's preferred design. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant a continuance subject to allowing applicant to redesign plans to include a monopalm and submit landscape plant materials for the 209 square foot enclosure to be reviewed by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 7 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 C. Miscellaneous Items: VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070925.min.DOC Page 8 of 8