Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-26 • ' � r+�' ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 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 4 Kristi Hanson X 3 1 Chris Van Vliet X 4 John Vuksic X 3 1 Karel Lambell X 3 1 Nancy DeLuna X 4 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 12, 2008 meeting will be continued to the next scheduled meeting on March 11, 2008 Action: No action taken. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: . ' �r v�rr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: MICHAEL AND MARIANNE TOIA, 46-020 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of golf cart barn structure for its aesthetic blending with the existing home and surrounding community. LOCATION: 46-020 Burroweed Lane ZONE: R-2 8000 (4) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Comm�ssioner Lambell, to grant a continuance. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 08-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to an approved sign program to change a location of a sign; Law Offices of Mark McGowan. LOCATION: 72-630 Fred Waring ZONE: O.P. SP Mr. Stendell presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that Bay 3 is where the appropriate signage was allowed and the applicant approached staff and asked if he could have Bay 1. Mr. Stendell stated that he was resistant at first strictly because of how controversial this case became with signage at the sign program level, and stressed staff's feelings about signage in office areas as being kind of ancillary to the main commercial building. He also indicated to the applicant that he had the option to request G:\Plam�ing\lanine Judy\Word Piles\ARC�Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc 2 ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Architectural Review to amend that decision. He mentioned that staff had already given out one location on the Fred Waring frontage and felt that putting a sign in the first bay as proposed is like trying to grab more frontage on Fred Waring and takes away from the buildings. Mr. Mark McGowan, applicant, presented discussion on the location of his office and the location of the signage. He stated that there is nothing inconsistent with the sign placement there with the sign plan which was originally endorsed and approved by the City. The location as indicated as the Bay 3 location would directly block the one large window of his complex, which is only 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Gregory asked for something that had more detail. Mr. Stendell presented that to the Commission. He stated that as we allocated signage on the Fred Waring elevation we allowed four signs on Fred Waring and two on the front elevations, which are located as you turn into the project. There are four different bays and the allotted space was the third one which is directly over a very nice big window. His first thought when the applicant came in was to move it to Bay 4 and approve it,, but he understands the function of the applicants business and that he would want people to at least be able to see him. The applicant then asked for another sign via this process. He has one sign that is already appro��ed and the other sign he would like closer to Fred Waring. Mr. Stendell felt that the applicant was trying to grab too much signage and felt that Bay 2 was a good compromise. Commissioner Gregory stated that this was a typical situation where we have too much signage going on at one corner. Mr. Stendell stated that there is the potential for that in this new project and he didn't want to start off on the wrong foot. Commissioner Hanson stated that how we arrived at the signage locations for this new complex was quite specific and one of the things we as a group feel is that we are completely over signed in this city; there are too many and they are too big. We want you to have signage for your place of business, but the fact that a sign is out on the corner, puts it really in your face. She stated that she would be willing to vote for Bay 2. G:\PlanningUanine ludy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc 3 . ' `rrri'' ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Commissioner Gregory stated that the idea was not to have the building look like a billboard. He felt that the applicant had the main thing covered with the Fred Waring signage, which is the most important to catch someone's attention on the main drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve subject to moving sign from its approved location at Bay 3 to Bay 2. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 08-59 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AKC SERVICES, INC. 31681 Riverside Drive #B, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall and monument sign; EZ Lube (formerly Jiffy Lube). LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that the property is located on the corner of Highway 111, Cabrillo Avenue and Alessandro Drive. In February of 2005, a precise plan and a conditional use permit application were filed to allow a single-story, 2,048 square foot Jiffy Lube oil change facility. The building is currently in the construction phase and since the approval date the ownership has changed, which is now EZ Lube. He indicated that staff spoke with the applicant and informed them that staff is recommending denial based on the actual size, with the lettering being three feet and the monument being box-like in a cabinet. The applicant since has provided a new monument sign and new lettering. The lettering is being reduced from three feet to two feet. The applicant doesn't want to go any lower than two feet because of the corporate logo. The "Fast Oil Change Experts" was originally submitted at 2' X 1", and they have now reduced that to 1' x 6". The Commission reviewed the site plan and discussed the locations of the signs and felt that they didn't need a monument sign. Commissioner Hanson recommended that the "EZ Lube" signs at two feet are okay, the "A" sign facing Highway 111 is fine G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc 4 ARCHITECTURAL R�"C/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 on the fascia, move the "A" sign that was located more on the Cabrillo/Alessandro side to the east exterior above the windows to the left of the garage bays on the low parapet. She stated rhat ths other directional signs are for safety and had no issue, but she would prefer that if it is required to have "Fast Oil Change" be individual letters attached and non-illuminated and no monument sign. Commissioner Gregory asked that the applicant submit a revised drawing with all changes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval subject to: 1) move the "A" sign located on Cabrillo/Alessandro to the east exterior above the window to the left of the garage bays on lower parapet; 2) make "Fast Oil" individual letters, attached and non-illuminated; 3) no monument signage; and, 4) submit revised drawings. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; EI Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes�2008\AROR0226.doc S . ' `�r� ARCHITECTURAL R�/IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. CASE NO: PP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL LANG, COMMERCE REALTY, 149 Palos Verde Blvd Ste E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan amendment and architectural review for an extensive remodel and minor addition to an existing 76,393 sq. ft. retail center: EI Paseo Plaza and Marketplace (Jensen's) LOCATION: 73-547 to 73-613 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Ms. Schrader presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated that this request is for a Precise Plan amendment for an extensive remodel and minor addition to an existing 76,393 sq. ft. retail center on a 5.15 acre site bounded by Highway 111, Larkspur Lane and EI Paseo with an addition of 7,000 square feet of a new building that would face EI Paseo. Farade remodeling would include the following existing buildings: Jensen's Market and adjacent shops facing Highway 111, Three Dog Bakery facing Larkspur Lane, and various shop tenants in three buildings that face EI Paseo located directly behind (south) of the Jensen's shopping plaza center. On the EI Paseo side there is some infill going on where right now there are empty spaces, which are like vacant courtyards that are not really functional and they are proposing to fill them with retail. The parking is about four spaces over what is required. It would be restriped and bring parking all the way up to actual buildings along the Jensen side and would take away the diagonal parking and redo the trees for shade. Handicap has also been addressed and the Fire Department has preliminarily approved this new layout of circulation patterns so that does not need to be a concern. Mr. Keith Palmer, Architect, stated that this center was built back in the 60s and was remodeled in the 80s. There are two components; the shopping center portion that faces Highway 111, and the lower scale shop buildings that face right on to EI Paseo. The property over the years has gotten old, tired, and run-down and ownership would like to give it a new shot in the arm and bring it up to speed by tying the Jensen's portion in better architecturally to what is going on in the EI Paseo area. One of the advantages of doing the infill additions on EI Paseo would make a continuous shopping G�.\PlanningUanine ludy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc 6 ARCHITECTURAL R�/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 frontage along that edge. By doing that they are able to create some higher architectural elements and create some more variety in the street frontage there. They are also proposing a tower element on the corner that would anchor the whole complex and give a more prominent image to the EI Paseo frontage. They are not proposing any additional square footage to the shopping center portion, but they are proposing some architectural treatments that help enhance the faCade that is there now. Currently the fa�ade is monotonous and a continuous run of stucco with a few signs, which are not coordinated with the front entrances or the leased space they are associated with. What they want to do is create more scale and village atmosphere. One fairly easy way to do that is to create some taller roof elements over the existing ones that will give more prominence to some of the major tenants; create more interest; get more ins and outs; add more variety of color for the plaster veneer; create an entrance tower element for Jensen's; create a link between the shop buildings by creating an archway that can facilitate signage for the tenant that is buried in the back; remodeling to the smaller shop buildings; create some variety with the signs and columns; and create some awning type elements that would relate specifically to the tenants. A lot of challenges in this center is working around current leases and trying to get opportunities for some of those tenants to expand or improve their situation. They have gone through all of the city groups and agencies in reviewing the site plan, worked out solutions for the handicap access for the bus lane, the deceleration lane, landscaping improvements, and repaving. They have turned the parking to 90 degree parking, which allows them to pick up additional parking to support the added footage and create more shade in the parking lot. They would like to work with the City to try to make enhancements in the entire sidewalk frontage along EI Paseo to attract better tenants to the center. Mr. Bill Lang, Owner, stated that since they have been out marketing new tenants with this program they have been able to attract more and more national and large regional tenants which are a benefit to EI Paseo and to this end of the City. They feel that it is a very important area and wanted to give it the importance that it requires. Mr. Palmer stated that they are introducing cupola type elements at the higher building elements and on the corners of the Jensen's side so that they tie the two centers together. They felt that that helps to add more architectural character and to get away from the G�.\PlanningUmiine Jttdy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc / - � � ARCHITECTURAL R�C/IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 strip mall look. He stated that between the EI Paseo buildings and the Jensen's shopping center portion is a service drive that the owners thought would be an advantage to visually making some kind of a connection between those two buildings. So part of their design includes an optional truss Iike element that would span between those two buildings to create some connection between the two. The same architectural metal work motif would be used in the high portions of the bays of the Jensen's center. Commissioner Hanson stated that she really liked that idea because right now it looks like a service area and it would stop your eye from transferring back into that space. Mr. Lang stated that they would also be using landscaping and making that back front section look more like retail space. Mr. Palmer stated that they were hoping today to get the Commissioners nod to go on to Planning Commission and get the project moving. They are trying to do the construction during the off season summer months so that these phases and remodel can be available for the retailers when the high season comes in. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she understood their wish not to have something look like a strip mall and have differentiation; however all of the cupolas are over the height limit of 30 feet. In fact, they have one over Jensen's at 42 feet, another one at 40 feet and three at 34 feet. She was troubled by the height exception. She noticed that they have a lot of architectural differentiation and she didn't feel that they need the extra added height that goes over the limit. She thought the wonderful architecture that th�y hays does it well without having to exceed the height limit. Mr. Palmer stated that they did consider the height limit and felt that it was worthwhile to add an architectural projection and felt that the proportions are better with it. They feel that the cupolas help tie in the EI Paseo frontage and the Larkspur frontage. Mr. Lang stated that what sold him on the cupolas was that the roofs on the EI Paseo side are so flat and low that you would need them in order to overcome those low roofs. Commissioner Hanson stated that as an architect she felt that height limits were sort of arbitrary and from her standpoint when she looks at that it has a lot more pizzazz with it than without it because it does visually draw your eye up. She also felt that it was answering to what is across the street at The Gardens, which is very tall and very vertical. Mr. Lang stated that the thing that exacerbates the problem is the slope of the terrain for The G\PlamiingVanine Judy\Word FilesAARC Minutes\2008VAR080226.doc O . ` �r *�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Gardens, which is uphill quite a bit. Mr. Bagato stated that from a zoning standpoint the height limit is listed as 30 feet in the commercial zone, but the section of the zoning ordinance general provision 25.56 does say that tower elements, which are spirals, towers, cupolas, and chimneys, can be above the height limit. They are allowed because we expect some elements of the buildings to go over to provide variation. Commissioner DeLuna asked even if it was up to 42 feet. Mr. Bagato stated that the ordinance states that you can have it up to 25 feet above the height limit of the zone; so it would be 55 feet in the commercial zone. He added that it is carefully reviewed by staff. Commissioner Lambell stated that at the moment that whole area seems to be so flat and she is pleased to see the cupolas from the standpoint that it will encourage pedestrian walking along that area. Currently there is absolutely no incentive to walk back and see what is behind Three Dog Bakery; in fact it is a negative. IVir. Lanc� stated that part of their thinking was to walk around and look at different ways on how you see their site. They spent some time up at Tommy Bahamas looking over at what you could see. It creates a lot of interest on a lot of different levels because you view our center not only standing on the street or on the corner, but also from the second level of The Gardens. So they really wanted to encourage people to cross the street and come over and see what is going on there. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she didn't have much of a problem with the 34 foot cupolas on the front, but she did with the 40 and 42 foot cupolas. She stated that the one in the Jensen's center isn't as noticeable, but the 40 foot column cupola on the end is 10 feet over what the height requirement is. She understands the necessity or the desire to have architectural relief and differentiation and the 34 feet doesn't bother her as much as the two that are over 40 feet. Mr. Lang stated that Tommy Bahamas across the street dwarfs that corner. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't have any problems with the towers and felt that it enhances the architecture. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she didn't object to it from an architectural perspective, it was just the height and if you accept one then all of a sudden everyone else wants to come in at 42 and 44 feet. Commissioner Hanson stated that it relates to architecture and how it ties together. Sometimes we say no because the height isn't appropriate, and is not architecturally interesting. It would be approved on a case by case basis. Mr. Bagato stated that we look at it by the ordinance and the G:\PlanningUanine ludy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226_doc 9 • � `�rI` ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ordinance allows for the towers and we are not trying to approve the whole building over the height limit. We look at things in context with the code. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the vast majority of these buildings are well under the height limit; it's not like a huge mass up at 34 feet going straight across. Mr. Palmer stated that if you were to average the height, the percentage of floor area that exceeds it is probably less than 2% of the whole center. Commissioner Lambell asked what size the cupolas were. Mr. Palmer answered that they were eight feet by eight feet. Commissioner Hanson made a motion for approval and Commissioner Gregory asked if the motion could include putting a little pressure on the applicant to put that archway there because that will really help that spot. Mr. Lang stated that they were in complete agreement. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to including the archway. Motion carried 4-1-0-1, with Commissioner DeLuna voting NO and Commissioner Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: CUP 07-17, PP 07-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST OF 1982, 660 Newport Center Dr. #1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural design for a proposed Precise Plan to construct 121 senior community care and healthcare units on 8.63 acres: Oakmont Senior Living. LOCATION: 73-050 Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-7 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. G�.\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080226.doc 1� , � ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. �-- TONY B GA PRINCIPAL PLA ER G:\PlanningUanineJudy\WordPiles\ARCMinutes\2008WR080226.doc 11