HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 07-14 PP 06-11 APN 627-192-043 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of a City Council request to review a Planning
Commission decision approving a precise plan of design for a 2,770
square foot World Savings/Wachovia Bank at 73-051 Highway 111,
APN 627-192-043.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Studio E Architects
2411 Second Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
CASE NO: PP 06-11
DATE: March 8, 2007
CONTENTS:
Staff Recommendation
Background
Draft Resolution No. 0�-14
Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP 06-11 .
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2434
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council affirm the action of the Planning Commission by
adoption of Resolution No. o�-i4 , subject to conditions.
Background:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The commercial zoned (C-1) property is located at the southeast corner of Highway 111
and Monterey Avenue (Highway 74). The site was formerly occupied by a Shell gas station
which has been demolished.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 06-11
Page 2
March 8, 2007
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
North: C-1 / Palm Desert Bank
South: C-1 / EI Paseo Commercial
East: C-1 / Baker's Square
West: PC-3 / Commercial Center
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan for a single story 21-foot high 2,770
square foot bank. The project is designed with 18 parking spaces and takes access from
Highway 111.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this request at five separate public hearings
beginning November 2006. At the hearings the Commission offered comments to improve
the project and the applicant brought back revised plans each time.
February 20, 2007 the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote (Limont and Tanner voting nay)
approved the project subject to conditions including landscape modifications requested by
the City's Landscape Specialist and dedication of an easement of a 100-square foot area
of land at the corner for the placement of a piece of public art.
Commissioners Limont and Tanner expressed concern that the building architecture was
too boxy and that the flat west-facing wall was not appropriate on such a prominent corner.
No members of the public spoke at any of the public hearings held by the Planning
Commission.
The attached minutes and staff reports detail the evolution of this project.
SITE PLAN
The property is irregular in shape due to the angle at which Highway 74 intersects with
Highway 111. The building is located at an angle to the intersection with its west wall
parallel to Highway 74 (setback 30 feet from curb).
Staff Report
Case No. PP 06-11
Page 3
March 8, 2007
ACCESS AND PARKING
The former Shell gas station had access from both Highway 74 and Highway 111. This
project will close the Highway 74 access and take its sole access from Highway 111.
Parking for 18 vehicles will be provided on the east side of the building. The parking lot will
connect to the existing Baker's Square parking fot to the south and east.
Code requires a minimum of 11 parking spaces (i.e., 1 space per 250 square feet). The
project complies with code.
PROJECT DATA
STANDARD C-1 ZONE PROJECT
Height 30 feet 21 feet
Front Setback 5 feet 14 feet
Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 6 feet
Side Yard Setback 5 feet Highway 74 6 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback 0 feet 62 feet
Street Setbacks from curb 21 feet 30 feet west/ 38 feet north
(1 foot per foot of building
height)
Daylight Triangle Setback 42 feet (north corner) 60 feet
(minimum of 2 feet for
every foot of building
height)
Parking 11 18
Landscaping 20% 43%
ARCHITECTURE
The plan now reflects a 21-foot high contemporary desert architectural style with a large
glass front facing the intersection of Highways 74 and 111. The building's east side forms
Staff Report
Case No. PP 06-11
Page 4
March 8, 2007
an arc with shaded glass. The west elevation facing Highway 74 provides an expanse of
stucco with small window areas running horizontally and vertically.
Staff offered the architect an opportunity to describe this architectural style and he
responded as follows:
The new concept is notable for its varied appearance and personality as
seen from different vantage points. A large aperture of glass on the north
opens to the intersection of Highway 74 and 111 and welcomes daylight and
views of the interior while a broad folded plane of smooth stucco shields the
harsh western sun and acts as a canvas for landscape shadows to dance
across as the day ends.
The eastern side billows out like a wind filled spinnaker sail and a set of
natural stone building elements anchor the building to the desert floor
offering a warm textural contrast.
Building materials proposed are intended to be clean, simple, elegant and
compliment the bright blue desert sky and golden background mountains.
Smooth finish off-white stucco with an earth-tone medium textured natural
stone veneer and low-e glass set in dark bronze storefront system speak to
the financial use inside.
Thickened walls and deep recessed windows and large overhangs mitigate
the desert sun while responding to this primary intersection of Palm Desert.
Note: The building color was changed from off-white stucco to a sage green following the
preparation of the above narrative.
Architectural Review Commission reviewed this revised proposal at its February 27, 2007
meeting and granted preliminary approval.
PUBLIC ART
In lieu of payment of a fee to the Public Art Program, the Art Manager requests that the
applicant grant the City an easement on which the City could place a significant art piece
on the corner.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 06-11
Page 5
March 8, 2007
ANALYSIS
The property is located at an important intersection in the city. The site has been vacant
for several years.
The building as proposed complies with all code requirements.
The proposed use as a bank is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning.
Staff felt that the original project architecture (the November submittal) was too industrial
for this location. The revised architecture is a significant improvement to the original.
The project needs an effective landscape concept particularly along the west setback area.
This is currently being worked on with the applicant's landscape architect and city
landscape staff. Condition No. 11 of the draft resolution covers this matter. If this matter
has not been finalized by the City Council hearing, then it woufd be appropriate to add a
condition requiring the final landscape plan be reviewed through the Landscape
Beautification Committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further
review is necessary.
Submitted by: Approva .
_ .
Steve Smith '
Homer Croy
Acting Dir. of Community Development ACM for Dev ment Services
CITY COUNCIL CTION:
Approval: APPRO�ED �"� DENIED
RECBIVSD OTHSR Jqelo�knf
r� �tlo.�f=�"�"'_ �
MESTING DATE -�"7
Carlos .�Orteg � � n /` �
City Manager NOES:
ABSENT: ��
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Oriqinal on File th City C],Qrk's OfficF
* Adopted Res. No. 07-14, as amended to include the following condition for the west
side of the building: to raise the window located on the lower left-hand corner and
add a second shadow bog in an attempt to break up the west elevation. 4-0
(Ferguson ABSENT)
RESOLUTION NO. 0�-�4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING A DECISION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 2,770 SQUARE FOOT WORLD SAVINGS/
WACHOVIA BANK AT 73-051 HIGHWAY 111, APN 627-192-043.
CASE NO. PP 06-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California,
approved a request by STUDIO E ARCHITECTS on behalf of WORLD
SAVINGS/WACHOVIA BANK by adoption of its Resolution No. 2434; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was received and a public hearing was scheduled for
the 8th day of March, 2007, on the above noted matter; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to reaffirm the Planning Commission approval of
said request:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
C-1 zone and the amended Palm Desert General Plan.
2. The project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate
property values in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby affirm the Planning Commission decision
approving Case No. PP 06-11 as shown on plans date-stamped February
20, 2007, subject to conditions attached.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-14
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 07-�4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 06-11
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which
agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
3
RESOLUTION NO. 0�-14
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying,
among other matters, appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic
replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits, but not limited to Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
10. That the applicant/owner shall dedicate to the City 100 +/- square feet of land in a
location acceptable to the Public Arts Manager generally located in the setback area
to the northwest of the building for the placement of a public art piece.
11. Landscaping plans to incorporate the requirements in the memo dated February 6,
2007 from the City's Landscape Specialist (attached hereto as Exhibit A).
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of property frontages shall be provided by property owner
and shall be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
landscape design standards. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review
simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
Fee credit based on site's previous service station use may be applicable to listed fees.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 07-14
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading pe�mits.
DESIGN PLANS
7. Project shall be designed to retain all nuisance water on-site.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on Autocad shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
9. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
11. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code .
12. Driveway location and design subject to approval by the Public Works Department.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e.
• 8' curbside sidewalk on Hwy. 111 and Hwy. 74 and removal of existing driveways.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 07-14
14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
15. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
16. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
17. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
18. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
19. Reciprocal easement for access and parking shall be provided prior to issuance of
grading permit.
20. Asphalt shall be removed in the area north of Hwy. 74 driveway and replaced with
curb and landscaping.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 0�-14
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any
portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A106C
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. (For clubhouse
only.)
7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of verticat clearance.
Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must
be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in
industrial developments.
8. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
Note: Building is 2,770 square feet. If there are any changes to the square footage to
3,000 square feet, the building shall be sprinklered.
//
7
_ `- G� � �p
( ( �°C � 0�-�o6�a�
��
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Acting Planning Director
From: Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist
Date: February 6, 2007
Subject: Worid Savings Landscape Plan
Steve
Per your request, I have reviewed the latest submittal for the aforementioned project.
� Following are my comments:
■ Just a reminder that the project abuts Cal Trans ROW on Hwy 74 and Hwy 111
• it appears that the east side of the building does not meet the City's Parking Lot
Shade Tree Ordinance
■ We still need to see some canopy trees on the west side of the building
■ The building needs a more dramat�c landscape to compliment the architecture.
The plant material chosen is rather low profite, with tall palms and nothing in
between
■ Bouiders are lacking
■ Plant spacing needs to be revised per the City's Piant Palette Guide
{f you have any further questions or comments, please contact me at ext. 444
ooa,R,n,t,
�, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
� �
REQUEST FOR CITY CDUNCtL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE: Planning Commission
(Nams of Determinin9 Body)
Case No. PP 06-11 Date of Deciaion: February 20. 2006
Project Proponent: Sh�dio E Architects
Addresa: 73-051 Highway 111
Description of
Appiication or Matter Conside�d.•
PresentatiQn of a resolution denying a Qrecise olan of design for a 2.770 square foot World
Savings/Wachovia Bank at 73-051 Highway 111. APN �27-192-043
�, �
�� o � ...,�r.;;u..,,, ,,, r, ,
oo� COPY '
_
�.N W Q ....���
vwo c�"�+ DATE �' —o
a�� w ./t �
�-a �
r o., p •
vc.+
Me er of the City Cou il
FOR O�FICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: ��—�-� O� Received by: ,L
Actlon Taken•
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
H:1WPtloc�\WPDATAIFINERTVhrorldMvinpr.wpd yy�p3
CITV Of Pfl � �l DESERI
73-5�o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM UHSERT,CAI.IFORNfA 92260-2578
TELs]60 ;46—o6it
e�x:760 ;q�-7oq8
i nfoCzpalm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to review a Planning Commission decision approving a World Savings/Wachovia
Bank precisa plan of design for a 2,770 square foot bank at 73-051 Highway 1 1 1, APN
627-192-043.
; _._ _
--- I I Q�� � w�S� ai�i.0 �~ �
--- _ I u�i� �T1 J
I--�—, �I _ a_�—��
;--� — �� I ��— --1 ��--+---� —� r�-���
—�
� � \�—�� MANN RD I F L ) �i_� � �_i_� ��'"� �
` I I� Z�— r—T-� �_tAN OORGONIO WAY_
i i� I 0� ��AN--1 —� � 1 j
I '� � I�j �C RN'J I CLEM� � I .�s�
�, SUBJECT , GR ��
` ;= PRQPERTY � �`�Y �' � �
_
�=���-—---______ �i �� '^T ' I ��;`�'I�! �-1--�
' ' ' � � i
�� STATE HYYIf ��� ►��M oeseR
I ��------i----�-__T� NA
I ;r---_� i i ��\� IALM DEi�RT.DR f._
�I--—� l� I I I � I I �
i � _ �
i �--- � � � � i I
�--�___�__ A I t _J �I�
EL PASEO
�n� ��� ��� - �_ EL Pt
�C a�_
I
�6��� � � � ���
, �� � �� ,,�� �
e <�� I�p �y
�Q� � ��� ,�r`��o •�,� ��
� , � ���r-, rQ.�' �.`� �c�,,� � so
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Manday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
February 26, 2007 City of Palm Desert, California
DRAF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 06-27 - ALLEN DESERT PROPERTIES AND
BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot
line adjustment between the golf course and Lot 11, more
particularly described as 336 Metate within Bighorn.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion
carried 5-0.
VI11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
r■� A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant
(Continued from November 21 and December 19, 2006, January 16
DRAF�1 and February 6, 2007)
Per Planning Commission direction on February 6,
presentation of a resolution denying a precise plan of design
for a 2,770 square foot World Savings/VI/achovia Bank at 73-
051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
Mr. Smith indicated that per the Commission's direction at the last meeting,
staff pravided Commission with a resolution of denial. Also included was a
copy of the previous staff report that had a resolution of approval attached
to it. The applicant contacted some members of the Planning Commission
in the last two weeks and revised the plans which were on display. He said
the plans showed a lower building and a color change that the applicant
could describe. He also noted that the public hearing was left open at the last
meeting, so before taking action, they should see if anyone wishes to speak.
2
�RaF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007
Chairperson Campbell said the public hearing was onen and asked the
applicant to address the Commission.
MR. JOHN SHEEHAN of Studio E Architects in San Diego, Califomia,
came forward. He stated that subsequent to a conversation they had
with members of the P{anning Commission, they made a few
changes. Most notably was a height change. They removed three feet
from the height of the building, lowering it from 24 feet overall to 21
feet. Secondly, another significant change was a pretty dramatic color
change in the stucco. He distributed a color material sample. He
described the color as a warm gray green and asked for any
questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if he dealt at all with signage or talked about
it.
Mr. Sheehan said yes. He said the drawings presented did not show
signage. They would be working closely with the Planning staff and all
signage proposed for the building would meet with the City's
guidelines for size, location, materials, color and so forth.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one.
Referring to the color sample, Commissioner Schmidt requested clarification
on one of the samples.
Mr. Sheehan indicated that stone tile represented the material used
on the fins and there is a base of that material on the westward
Highway 74 side as well as the whole lower building portion that's the
service core would be covered in that material.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the rough-textured stone they were shown
at the last meeting would remain.
Mr. Sheehan said yes. His sample was a better representation of
cofor, but the texture woufd be rough.
Chairperson Campbell thought the color was similar to the building on
Portola and Highway 111 at the art gallery. She said it was very nice.
Commissioner Limont thought it was still a box on the corner and with
comments at the last meeting, her hope was that they would take a look at
the architecture in Palm Desert that was more representative of the desert
3
�RAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007
and less of San Diego. She said it was a pretty building, but she didn't think
it belonged on that corner.
Commissioner Tschopp said he stood by his comments from the previous
meeting. He thought it would work fine on that corner and was still in favor.
Chairperson Campbell also said her comments stiil stand from their last
meeting, especially with the colors being toned down and the building height
lowered. She liked the building.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for additional
comments or a motion. She noted that they had both a resolution of app�oval
and a resolution of denial in front of them. Commissioner Tschopp asked for
clarification that they could act on either one. Mr. Smith replied that was
coRect.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff with the new
colors and lower height.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the motion included amending the
conditions of approval to include all of the conditions before them,
including the comments about the signage. Mr. Smith said yes, and the
landscaping. Commissioner Tschopp concurred.
Commissioner Schmidt said the applicant had shown a willingness to
adjust his building appreciably and she would change her vote in favor of
it under these conditions.
Commissioner Tanner stood by his comments as stated previously. He,
too, thought they needed a different building, one that doesn't square to
those streets. The colors were fine. This was the fourth time Mr.
Sheehan came back and he never really changed the approach to the
building, never really changed the architectural squareness. He thought
it was still too square, it was not where it needed to be, and that`s why
he would move to disapprove it. Those were his thoughts and stifl his
opinion.
Chairperson Campbell noted that they have a motion fo� approval and a
second on the floor and asked for the vote. Motion carried 3-2 with
Commissioners Limont and Tanner voting no.
4
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2434 approving
Case No. PP 06-1 1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-
2 with Commissioners Limont and Tanner voting no.
B. Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06-17 and TT 35426 -
STARWOOD/WVC RANCHO MIRAGE, INC., Applicant
Request for a recommendation to the City Councif for
approval of an amendment to PP/CUP 96-28 and DA 96-1
to allow the construction of 300 new timeshare units (of
which 215 are already entitled) with a height exception for
a 52-foot 8-inch maximum roof height, a 40,000 square
foot Villa Clubhouse and amenities. The project is located at
39-500 Portola Avenue, also known as a portion of Lot 9 of
Tract 28451 within Desert Willow Golf Resort.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and displayed a materials sample
board. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of the project, subject to the conditions.
Regarding the parcel on the map shown directly to the east of the
northernmost yellow pa�cel, Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Bagato
would go back over what was being proposed there. Mr. Bagato said the
applicant could share more and wanted to do a power point presentation.
They were looking at developing that site as well. He thought it was
going to be another timeshare product with lower heights and the density
would depend on what was approved with this parcel.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the height of the two approved
hotels on the overall site. Mr. Bagato said the Courtyard on the corner of
Cook and Frank Sinatra was 47 feet with a 50-foot tower element; the
Residence Inn also had a height exception and he could find out the
height. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Bagato knew the height of
the existing Intrawest project. Mr. Bagato said it is two stories at 24
feet.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the covered parking and if it would
be similar to Int�awest. Mr. Bagato indicated that there was a diagram in
the back of the packets. He said it didn't match Intrawest, but thought
it complimented its architecture. Commissioner Schmidt thanked him.
5
, � �,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mr. Smith summarized pertinent January 25, 2007 City Council actions.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
� A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Appllcant
(Continued from November 21 and December 19, 2006 and January
16, 2007)
Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770
square foot Worid Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN
627-192-043.
Commissioner Limont and Commissioner Schmidt both stated for the record
that they listened to past meeting tapes for Case No. PP 06-11 (November
21 and December 19, 2006} and reviewed the supporting documents and
plans and were eligible to vote on this matter.
Mr. Smith distributed a landscape comment sheet received late this
afternoon from Diane Hollinger of the Landscape Division. He said that in the
memo she indicated a few minor issues, which he thought basically said the
landscaping is almost there. One issue was the number of trees in the
parking area. There is a code requirement for a certain minimum number
and it looked like there needed to be one or two mare trees. Secondly, on
the west side of the building they were showing a series of tall palm trees
2
( (
M{NUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2007
and he definitely concuRed that they needed some canopy trees in that area.
But other than that, that part of the plan had been taken care of.
Relative to the architecture, Mr. Smith said the matter was before the
Commission at thei�last meeting and the indication seemed to be if they had
adequate landscape treatment on that west elevation, probably the
irnprovement to the architecture versus what they had seen back in
November, that it was probably ready to proceed.
With the modifications necessary to appease the landscape folks, staff
recornmended approval, subject to conditions, including the additional
conditions relative to landscaping.
Commissioner Tschopp clarified that staff's recommendation was to take into
consideration and incorporate Ms. Hollinger's landscape recommendations
into the plans prior to going to Council. Mr. Smith clarified that the plan
wouldn't necessarily go to Council. There were no exceptions to code that
would necessitate that. If the matter were approved at this body, it would be
complete at Planning Commission unless appealed.
Comrnissioner Tschopp said that the plans to be approved would incorporate
Ms. Hollinger's requirements including additional boulders and low plant
material. Mr. Smith thought she was looking for medium material as shown
in the rendered photograph, which had fairly tall palms and they've got quite
a bit of shrub material at the base, but they didn't have anything in the
middfe. Commissioner Tschopp asked if those would be incorporated into
the landscape plan. Mr. Smith said yes. Staff was willing to go forward with
this, but only if they added this.
Commissioner Tanner noted that as they went through Diane Hollinge�'s list,
it appeared that the east side of the building did not have adequate shade
for the parking and asked if that was something the City was required to do
or if it was a requirement of Wachovia. Mr. Smith clarified that there was a
code requirement of one shade tree for every three parking spaces. In the
memo Ms. Hollinger noted it for the benefit of landscape architect that it was
a requirement they would have to comply with.
Commissioner Schmidt indicated that in the staff report the building was
described as 25 feet high and on the drawing 24. She asked which was
correct. Mr. Smith agreed that the drawings indicated 24, but the applicant
3
. ( (
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
at the last meeting said 25, so he went with the more egregious number and
thought the applicant coufd address that when he comes forward.
Commissioner Schmidt said she would defer the rest of her questions for the
applicant.
Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was onen and asked
the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. JOHN SHEEHAN, Studio E Architects in San Diego, Califomia,
came forward. He clarified that the building would be 24 feet high.
Commissioner Schmidt thought that was better.
He agreed and said he had with him some additional material (bigger
versions of what they already had) and also brought back the model
and color materials board,which he distributed. He said he would like
to respond to questions. And also present was a representative from
the bank, Mr. Steve Miller, who could address any operational
concerns that might come up, in addition to his landscape architect
who could address the Diane Hollinger memo or other specific
questions.
Mr. Sheehan said they worked with their landscape architect and the
City's landscape review staff person and made significant strides
forward in addressing some of the concems expressed at the last
meeting. He was happy to take questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Sheehan had a copy
of Diane Hollinger's memo and asked if he was comfortable with what she
said in her memo.
Mr. Sheehan had the memo and deferred the question of comfort to
the landscape architect to address that specifically.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the drawings that they received in their
packets were what they were being asked to approve.
• Mr. Sheehan said that was correct.
4
. � (
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
Commissioner Schmidt said that nothing had changed much from their last
meeting, except landscaping and the height of the building.
Mr. Sheehan said that was correct, in addition to some concrete
definition of building colors and materials which were being passed
around. But no substantive changes from the last meeting.
On the site plan, Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was more than one
ingress and egress to the site. When entering from Highway 111, she asked
if someone had to exit onto Highway 111 or if they would still be able to exit
at the south end of the parking area.
Mr. Sheehan said there is a way to get into the bank's parking area
from Highway 111, which he thought was really clear. Then there was
a second means of getting into the bank's parking lot through an
existing parking lot which is accessed from Highway 74. He pointed
out how to enter the existing parking area and said it would remain.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if one handicapped parking space was
adequate.
Mr. Sheehan said in their review with the bank, they felt it was
sufficient.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the number of employees.
Mr. Miller spoke from the audience and said four.
Commissioner Schmidt commented that she had been concerned about 18
parking spaces if there were going to be substantially more employees.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that the mechanical
equipment was no longer going to be on the rooftop.
Mr. Sheehan said that was correct. They were exploring the possibility
of putting it down in the landscape area south of the lower portion of
the building. He said there was a natural depression there presently
and with plant material or a low wall, it would be screened.
Commissioner Schmidt thought code required a wall or fence and asked if
he would comply. She noted that the screening wasn't shown on the drawing.
5
( (
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
Mr. Sheehan confirmed they wouid comply.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the location of trash receptacles.
Mr. Sheehan said that because aN the trash was sensitive bank
information/customer information, it is shredded and picked up by a
service several times a week, so there is no trash enclosure. He
confirmed that everything in the bank, including the employee kitchen
trash, would all be picked up by a service and recycled and there
would be no trash trucks or encfosures. That is standard operating
procedures for this bank.
Commissioner Schmidt noted there was a roof pitch on the high part of the
building and asked what material was being used.
Mr. Sheehan said it would either be a built-up system or metal
system. They weren't sure yet.
Commissioner Schmidt said she spend quite a bit of time peering down on
that site from up on Highway 74 coming northbound down the hill and said
it would be extraordinarily visible, so it should be pretty. She asked if that
was something they had to approve, the material.
Mr. Sheehan indicated that in their computer modeling of the site,
because Highway 74 is bending at that point, by the time the site
comes into view they are actually a lot lower than they might
otherwise think. Even when they were at the intersection of EI Paseo
and Highway 74, that was just about when they could start seeing the
site. That was a concem they had as well. They wanted to insure that
the bank has a good appearance from all angles.
Commissioner Schmidt agreed that it had to. She asked about the signage
on the Highway 111 fascia of the building. It appeared to be cut outs above
the overhang. She asked if there was any other way they would do it.
Mr. Sheehan said they could explore signage alternatives with the
DRB folks. He wasn't sure how signage was handled in general in the
city.
6
, � (
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
Commissioner Schmidt quite honestly thought this sign took away from their
building. Not the one on the other side. For her it was too mid century. She
asked about the lighting and if it was something addressed {ater on. She
hoped it would be low key and from the ground shining up into the trees. Mr.
Smith said that was covered by the City's Dark Sky Ordinance and certain
lights were permitted. Any parking lot lighting had to meet the maximum
three-foot candles. Commissioner Schmidt asked for and received
confirmation that someo�e looks at that carefully.
Commissioner Schmidt said she was reaily trying to like this building, but this
is a signature building and she was very worried, particularly about the color
of the building.
Mr. Sheehan concurred. He confirmed that they are still using white.
There were three arguments that they were putting forward as to why �
it is white. One is that the EI Paseo and Highway 74 intersection is
now flanked by a pair of pretty handsome, substantialiy white
buildings. They felt this one could benefit from that as a grouping with
a familiar feel or set pieces. Second, it is a color one associates with
traditional desert architecture/Spanish such as the La Quinta Hotel.
Thirdly, it would be a facade that would accept really colorful
landscaping out in front of it. It would be a kind of foil to the reds in the
Ocotillo and the lime greens in the other plant materials. Those were
their arguments.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that there will be eight-foot
sidewalks, not six-foot sidewalks. The drawings said six, but she thought Mr.
Smith was looking for eight feet. Mr. Smith said it would be whatever Public
Works Department dictates as covered by their conditions. If it says eight
feet n the conditions, that is what the sidewalks would be.
Mr. Sheehan said that was fine.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the landscape architect would be
addressing the Commission.
Mr. Sheehan said yes, if he's permitted.
MR. HARRY MESTINECK with Ivy Landscape Architects, 434 West
Cedar Street in San Diego, California, stated that to date they have
7
. �� �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
had several review discussions with Diane Hollinger and he befieved
those discussions had been fruitful. They've been modifying their
plan. As Mc. Smith mentioned, they were just handed this latest round
of comments from Diane, but in a quick review of them, they also feel
they are minor and continue to move in the direction of their
discussions. He said he would go through them and make comment.
Mr. Mestineck said that on occasion Diane has reminded them that
the project abuts the Caltrans right-of-way and if the project moves
forward, they will certainly apply to have the project, the landscape,
and street edge improvements reviewed by that authority. The second
comment said that it appeared that the east side of the building
doesn't meet the City's parking lot shade tree ordinance. He said
there are 18 stalls and there needs to be one per three. He said they
do have six trees on the plan, and he thought the two trees closest to
the building do get a little bit away from the curb of the parking lot, so
they would be happy to work with her on refining those locations and
a little closer to cars and doing the job that they are meant to do with
respect to shading. They felt that was a minor comment that they
could accomplish.
The third comment was the need for some canopy trees along the
west side of the building. At the last round they added more mid size
material like the Ocotillo and some agaves, but he didn't object to
maybe bringing in some Paio Verde trees, which they are proposing
for the parking lot, and have those populate that west side of the
building. He thought that would give a little more horizontal quality
there. He said they would be happy to work with Diane on the final
locations and quantities.
The next statement was that the building needs more dramatic
landscaping to complement the architecture and Diane went on to say
that the plant material chosen was rather low with tail palms and
nothing in between. He thought with the addition of plants like the
taller agaves, the Ocotillo and the addition of the Palo Verde trees
that would help them move toward accomplishing that goal and there
was no objection there.
Next was that the boulders are lacking. He said they have in excess
of 30 boulders called out in the plan. They were sort of equally strewn
8
, � t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
about the landscape zone and if City staff felt that wasn't enough or
that they needed to be rearranged and have stronger populations of
boulders here and there, he would be happy to work with Diane on
that aspect.
Mr. Messineck said the next issue was that the plants needed to be
revised per the City's plant palette guide. To date, he believed they
were attempting to follow those guidelines, but if they were amiss in
a few areas with a few species, he would again welcome the
opportunity to sit down with Diane and have her show them where
. they aren't in compliance and they would make those changes. So no
real objection to these late comments and their history to date has
been to have a good diaiogue and their goal is to meet every single
requirement put upon them. If the Commission felt they want to
include these items as design conditions, they were happy to comply
with them. He confirmed there were no objections whatsoever.
There were no other questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone
wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There
was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked
for Commission for comments.
Commissioner Tanner noted that he wasn't at the last meeting, but he did
listen to the tape of the last meeting of this particular plan. As he told Mr.
Sheehan previously, Commissioner Tanner wasn't sure that Mr. Sheehan
really realized what Palm Desert's architecture was all about. He thanked Mr.
Sheehan for bringing something back with softer touches; however, as far as
he was concerned it was still just too square and too harsh. He was of the
opinion that is a very focal point of Palm Desert, Califomia, and he would like
to see something a little less squared and something a littl� more in tune with
Palm Desert. Those were his feelings. He, too, would like to see a lot more
landscaping, especially on the Highway 74 side. And on the north side it's
basically just a flat wall. He didn't think it was the right thing for that particular
lot in his opinion.
Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioners Tanner and Schmidt in
that she would love to like the building and she didn't. It's not only a focal
point for Palm Desert, it leads into the belle of Palm Desert, which is EI
Paseo, and that's a prime entrance for people coming from the north to the
9
� ( �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
south and coming into Palm Desert through Monterey, Highway 74 and up
to the Palms to Pines Highway.
Additionally, Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner that
the building was too square, too modem, and she didn't see how it reflected
the architecture of Palm Desert and what they are trying to achieve as a city.
Her only suggestio� might be to go over and fook at the Visitors Center, not
that they would replicate it, but it makes the statement of what Palm Desert
is heading towards as far as their architecture.
Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't enamored with the architectural style,
but he never really liked that era of architecture. He thought the building
looked like it belonged more in Palm Springs than Palm Desert; however,
having said that, he wasn't that opposed to the architecture of the building.
And given that it has Architectural Review Commission approval, complies
with the code, is consistent with the general plan and is much lower than a
building could be on that corner, he would be more in favor of approving it
because with the additional landscaping as outlined, he thought it could be
made to look fairiy attractive there.
Commissioner Schmidt said she wanted to revise what she said ea�lier. Mr.
Sheehan's building is a beautiful building, he had done it very well and she
appreciated that. Her problem is that building on that corner. In her view it
would be too massive for that entrance to the city. What she was trying to do
was justify mitigating the mass of it with a color. She drove up and down Ef
Paseo a couple of times and up and down Highway 111 and it seemed to her
that if it were a more muted sail, it would fit better into the entire plane there.
This building would be ours once it was built and would be there a very long
time. It might end up in Palm Springs Life with other mid century architects.
She just could not vote for it and she wanted him to hear that in case he
didn't want them to vote and wanted to go back to the drawing board again.
She knew he worked hard and there had been several meetings. The
message seemed to have the same thread through it. No one really likes that
type of building on that corner. She heard it from just about everyone,
including staff. She didn't now where to go with that.
Mr. Sheehan spoke from the audience. Chairperson Campbell pointed out
that the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he would
have a chance to respond at some point. Chairperson Campbell said no.
10
�
�, �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 2007
Chairperson Campbell commented that Mr. Sheehan has come a long way
from the first meeting they had back in November. At that time he was tumed
down all the way around. She agreed with Commissioner Tschopp and
actually liked the building. She liked the lines of the building. It was more
angular on the north side, but has the softness in the south area. With
adequate landscaping and all the other conditions contained in Diane
Hollinger's memo, which the applicant was willing to do, she liked the
building.
Commissioner Tanner asked if that was a motion.
Action:
Commissioner Tschopp said he would make a motion to approve the project
with the landscape recommendations incorporated into the conditions of
approval. Chairperson Campbell seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-3.
Mr. Erwin advised that Chairperson Campbell should instruct the staff to
prepare a resolution of denial for the next meeting. Chairperson Campbell
asked if Mr. Smith wou{d prepare that for the next meeting. Mr. Smith said
yes.
Commissioner Tschopp said it was his understanding that the hearing would
rernain open. Mr. Erwin said the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tschopp
recalled that in the past when they asked staff to prepare a resolution of
denial, Commission decided that they would leave the public hearing open
until the following meeting. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Erwin stated that
if they wished to do that they needed to reopen the hearing, lt could be
reopened because no one has left.
Chairperson Campbell reo eq ned the public hearing, noting that there could
be another staff report. Mr. Smith said it was unlikely there would be another
staff report. Mr. Erwin advised that a motion should be made to continue the
hearing to the next regular meeting.
Aci
lt was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, by minute motion continuing the public hearing to the next
meeting on February 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 20�7
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-
0 (Commissioner Tanner was absent).
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising
only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing
described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Pfanning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant
(Continued from November 21 and December 19, 2006)
Request for approval of a precise plan of design
for a 2,770 square foot World Savings Bank at
73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
Mr. Smith explained that the property is the former Shell service station site
at Highway 111 and Highway 74/Monterey. He recalled that when the matter
was before the Commission in November, there were some concerns about
the project architecture. The applicant appeared at Architectural Review with
revised plans, which were circulated to Commission. Mr. Smith informed
Commission that at this time staff had not prepared a report on the revised
plan and consequently did not have a resolution of approval. Staff
recommended that the matter be continued to the next meeting on February
6. He requested that the applicant be given the opportunity to share the
revised plans and colors. He thought the applicant would like assurance that
he is headed in an acceptable direction in that on November 19 he heard he
wasn't. Mr. Smith reiterated the staff recommendation and asked for any
questions.
There were no questions for staff. Chairperson Campbell stated that the
public hearing was Open and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. JOHN SHEEHAN, Studio E Architects, addressed the
Commission and had baards to display. He noted that after the last
meeting he had a meeting with Phil Drell to try and get his direction
and to explore alternatives to arrive at a design more agreeable to the
Planning Commission. He met with Phil the week before Christmas
and looked at four different alternatives of revised exterior massing
and elevations of the building. He had one Mr. Drell thought was
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
promising and in his opinion looked sculptural. Mr. Drell steered them
away from the boxiness of the former scheme and toward something
with more variation in massing and different appearances from the
different vantage points, as well as toward materials that might be
more sympathetic to the desert.
Mr. Sheehan said what he was bringing to them this evening, that they
already had before them, was a result of the meeting with Phil Drell.
He also wanted to get the Commission's feedback on the materials
and colors.
Mr. Sheehan distributed a model of the proposed building. He said the
site plan was virtually the same. What the new exterior was trying to
represent was different attitudes of the different sides of the building
as it appears from different vantage points. On the north,they wanted
to open the building as much as possible and present a big glass
facade that would invite the natural light deep into the heart of the
bank and allow the activity of the bank to activate the corner and be
something that would be noticeable and vital at that corner. Because
of the sun, they were very selective and careful with the openings on
the west. There were a couple of deep slot openings with very thick
eyebrows or hoods over them to protect the direct sunlight from the
west. One would be positioned so�t of low as seen toward the
intersection and also a vertical one aligning with the back tower line.
The idea was to form a protective roof to shield the interior from the
sun and as one approaches or looks at it from the east and south, that
protective roof, which was difficult to see in the drawing which billows
out, there was a decidedly different look to the building viewed from
the southwest.
He said as one moves around the building, it has a very different
character and thought the light and shadows cast by the palm trees
and the mesquites against the form of the building would be very
attractive. He said they were looking at an abstract computer model
that didn't have the benefit of all the planting and trees that are part of
the landscaping. There would be a lot of fo�eground planting and
ground planting that wasn't represented. It primarily showed the pa{ms
and mesquites, but he said there was a lot more planting that would
anchor the building.
Mr. Sheehan also said there was a series of heavy stone-like
elements that anchor the building to the ground, so part of it feels like
a sail, part of it earthbound and those were the big stone piers that
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
hold the sun canopy on the east side, the service portion of the
building which was the low mass on the south and then there would
be a band of stone underneath the horizontal window. So there would
be a series of elements holding it down to the ground and then it gets
lighter as it goes up.
In terms of materials, what they were considering was an off-white
stucco. He said they would like to get the very smooth texture called
steel troweled that is perhaps similar in color. He was very interested
in getting the Commission's feedback on the part represented as
stone or masonry. They had a couple of different alternatives. There
were two square pieces. One was a cut and polished concrete
masonry. The others are a rough-textured masonry similar to the
Council Chamber walls, but not painted, and would show the natural
aggregate.
Another direction they were considering that felt more like dressed
stoned, a kind of tan-colored piece that feels like cut sandstone and
the other was more of a rosy red similar material. One had more of a
rough texture, the other a more�nished character to it. As far as the
white, it was their feeling that it would best capture the shadows of the
landscape and they thought it would actually compose nicely with the
present buildings at the corner and flank the intersection of EI Paseo
and Highway 74. If they come down Highway 74 from up the hill, the
buildings on the right sort of form the gateway to EI Paseo. They
thought this might be a third member of that party. That was largely
the inspiration for that color choice.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Limont had a question regarding the height of the building.
She asked if it was necessary for offices upstairs.
Mr. Sheehan said no, it was a tall volume at the banking floor. It was
one story and was just for aesthetics and volume inside.
Commissioner Tschopp asked for the height.
Mr. Sheehan said 25 feet, well beneath the maximum allowed there.
Chairperson Campbell asked about the wall facing Highway 74. She noted
that it was blank with just a narrow window and on the rendering, a tree and
landscaping were depicted. She asked if that wall would be all white.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
Mr. Sheehan said yes.A more accurate representation of that facade
was the model and the drawing he had. He said there were finro
significant openings.
She asked if there was going to be quite a bit of landscaping covering that
wall and that part of the building.
Mr. Sheehan said yes. There were signage obligations from the
bank's perspective so that sign was either going to be in the location
shown or pushed out more toward the corner. But there was a
significant amount of landscaping currently shown on their drawing,
which had been back and forth a few times with the person in
Planning.
Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that they wouldn't be looking at
a blank white wall right there as viewed from Highway 74.
Mr. Sheehan said no, not at all. He said it would be a foil to some very
beautiful and sculptural desert landscaping and that was the intention.
Chairperson Campbell wanted to make sure some of the landscaping was
not going to take 20 years to grow bigger and mature. They wanted
something to cover that wall now.
Mr. Sheehan agreed.
Commissioner Schmidt asked how locked in they were to the white color.
Mr. Sheehan said they would entertain other colors. What they liked
about the white is that it seems to represent a kind of theme along
Highway 74 there. They also thought the white wouldn't date the
building as much as some of the other colors being seen in the desert
at the moment. They did look at others that were a burnt red or
something close to the colors of the sandstone at the library.
Commissioner Schmidt wondered if that was a really big design element for
them.
Mr. Sheehan stated that they were working with a really good design
architect who was choosing some really colorful plant material in lime
greens, red oranges and so forth. They would like the ability to have
that be the frame of the picture.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
Commissioner Schmidt commented that the fascia abutting Highway 74 was
pretty plain and they were counting on the landscaping to dress it.
Mr. Sheehan agreed that it was pfain with some very selective
openings. In the former scheme they had some vertical fins as a
means to control the western sun, so this was another approach to
being very careful about putting in openings where they would benefit
the interior and people working there, people using the bank and the
rest as a foil with an interesting landscape composition in front. They
also had some conversation with someone on the Arts Commission
and there had been some expression of interest in terms of getting a
portion of this site dedicated for an art piece and they were very open
to that idea. It's a great corner in the context of the whole city for a
significant piece. The bank was leasing the land and also in
attendance was the person in charge of real estate acquisition for the
bank. So that agreement would have to be worked out with the person
who still holds title to the property. He thought it was the same person
who held it when it was a gas station. He thought it would be an ideal
location in terms of art and would love to work with the City in terms of
selecting the appropriate piece and placement.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that Mr. Sheehan asked for some feedback on
the material and she particularly liked the square piece of rough stone.
Mr. Sheehan indicated it was similar to the Council Chamber, but not
painted.
Commissioner Schmidt concurred.
Commissioner Limont asked if it was absolutely necessary to have the name
of the bank standing up on top of the roof.
Mr. Sheehan said if they asked the bank, they would answer yes.
They want signage. When the first bank first appeared it was World
Savings, which has been acquired by Wachovia, so it got smaller/
fewer words.
Chairperson Campbell pointed out that the bank across the street had the
name on top.
Mr. Sheehan said it was an obligation of commercial architecture.
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that the model with the
architectural relief was more of the direction they were heading now.
Mr. Sheehan said yes.
Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that they were proposing to
put in significant amounts of landscape elements that will incorporate
different heights to dress up the west.
Mr. Sheehan said yes.
Chairperson Campbell thought it was quite an improvement from the last
design. It has a lot of feeling, a lot of flow, and she liked the roundness of the
building at the corner, so they have come a long way.
If Mr. Sheehan was to use the square rough-textured material sample,
Commissioner Schmidt asked what size would be used.
Mr. Sheehan said he personally liked a four-inch tall by 16-inch wide
block dimension or unit dimension that was horizontal, as opposed to
the Council Chamber which was 8 x 8 x 16. So there would be more
grout lines, more joints.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the width of the columns.
Mr. Sheehan didn't know off the top of his head, but thought at least
two-feet wide to have a feeling of heft and that was intentional. They
want to anchor the building down to the ground.
Commissioner Schmidt commented that she wished it were not quite so tall.
She understood the design element involved and could see the proportions
and understood that, but it just seemed tall, particularly when there was no
interior use.
Mr. Sheehan noted that someone could propose a two-story building
and this was well under code.
Commissioner Schmidt understood that they were well within their right, she
was just commenting.
Mr. Sheehan said he appreciated her comments.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 2007
There were no other Commission questions of the applicant. Chairperson
Campbell asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed project.There was no response. Chairperson
Campbell left the public hearing o en, noting that staff was requesting a
continuance to the next meeting, February 6, 2007. She advised that since
this item had been continued from previous meetings, the two new
commissioners would not be able to vote unless they listen to the tapes of
the previous meetings.
Before making a motion, Commissioner Tschopp commented that this is a
very multi-faceted building. He thought the model helped out significantly
over the pictures. Although 25-feet in height was well within the guidelines, it
still seemed to stand high up, but thought the key would be proper
landscaping. He requested when they came back on February 6 they show
their landscaping plans, including the trees. He thought that might be helpful.
Chairperson Campbell agreed with Commissioner Tschopp. She thought Mr.
Sheehan had a lot of input this evening from all the commissioners and when
he comes back at the next meeting, they would like to see the proposed
landscaping. She requested a motion of continuance.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson
Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 06-11 to February 6,
2007. Motion carried 2-0-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt abstained,
Commissioner Tanner was absent).
B. Case No. TPM 35269 - ESSI SHAHANDEH, Applica�t
Request for consideration of approval for a
tentative parcel map to subdivide an existing
18,338 square foot residential lot into finro parcels
at 44-454 San Jose Avenue (APN: 627-135-
004).
Mr. Stendell informed Commission that the title block on the maps included in
the Commission packets was wrong. He presented a corrected map and
noted that if approved, all corrections would be reflected on the final map. He
reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He asked for any
questions.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Vfl. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising
only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing
described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant
(Continued from November 21, 2006)
Request for approval of a precise plan of design
for a 2,770 square foot World Savings Bank at
73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
Mr. Drell explained that the applicant wasn=t at the meeting, but did visit his
office earlier in the day and showed him some preliminary sketches of a new
design. He thought they were more interesting and they would go back to the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC)for review.
Commissioner Tanner asked for and received confirmation that this item
would be continued to January 16, 2007. He hoped they would be able to get
on the January 9 ARC agenda.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 06-11 to January 16,
2007.
Mr. Smith advised that the public hearing should be opened to allow public
testimony.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21. 2006
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar as amended by minute motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be fimited to raising
only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing
described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDtO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770
square foot World Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN
627-192-043.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to
the conditions contained in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Campbell stated that since there would be only one access to
the parking off Hwy 111, would that have it's own right turn lane on the
corner. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be a right in and a right out.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how far down from the intersection would the
turn in be. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be about 90 feet and would be
located where the easterly Shell Station exit was. Commissioner Tschopp
asked if the traffic engineer felt that this was safe. Mr. Smith indicated that it
was a lesser of three evils.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Smith indicated to Mr. Sheehan who arrived late, they did go through
the staff report and explained the difference of opinion with Staff versus
the Architecture Review Commission, (ARC).
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21� 2006
Mr. John Sheehan, Studio E Architects, 2411 Second Avenue, San
Diego thanked the Chairperson for continuing the item since he was
stuck in traffic and thanked the Commission for their patience.
Mr. Sheehan stated that he had been before the ARC on three
occasions and each time he was invited back to make some
adjustments to the scheme. On the last visit, as the report states he
did receive ARC's approval. In the eyes of our client, there have been
a series of fairly significant adjustments made to the building;
particularly with colors, materials and overall building heights. In our
minds, we have been trying to work with the ARC to a successful
resolution of their issues. He stated that seeing the report for the first
time this morning he was not aware that Staff had issues with the
design scheme. Their landscape architect has been working with the
City's landscape specialist to come to a successful completion of the
landscape scheme.
Mr. Sheehan indicated the item in the packet was the latest iteration of
what they were led to believe was something that met with the City's
approval and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the architecture design proposed is
something that World Savings uses as a theme for their buildings.
Mr. Sheehan stated that World Savings has since the mid 70s
adopted a program for their banks that are markedly similar. When
you step inside their branch, everything is very prescribed. What they
have done as part of their business model is to make each and every
branch different on the outside. They have a long-standing history of
hiring architects to design their branches all across the country,which
they deem as doing interesting work. This is not a franchise design.
Each one of their banks is intended to be site specific.
Commissioner Tanner stated that if this structure was supposed to be site
specific then why was it so out in left field with the City of Palm Desert. He
asked if the architects visited the City and did they really think that this would
be something that the residents would like to see going up 74 and east on
111.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21. 2006
Mr. Sheehan stated that he was the architect responsible, and has
been here several times for business and vacation. They came and
met with Mr. Smith before they put pencil to paper because they knew
it was a sensitive site and walked through what the City's expectations
might be; was it in a particular style district, was it's proximity to EI
Paseo important in any way as it relates to the building's appearance
and style, did it have to fit into some kind of character. We knew it
was a landmark site and it is obviously a very significant and important
corner and obviously that is why the bank chose it for their site. We
would like to flatter ourselves thinking they chose us because they
were looking for something interesting and different. We make no
apologies about it. It is decidedly contemporary and it is perhaps
more influenced by mid-century modern proto-types that one might
see in Palm Springs and less so by the more Spanish inspired,
colonial inspired architecture that you find on EI Paseo. But again,we
met with the City and asked all those questions because we were
prepared to design within the confines of the City's requirements and
we were told there wasn't anything specific to respond to.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the large brown area that has the World
Savings name on it was vertical or an angle and what was the height.
Mr. Sheehan responded that it was vertical and the height was about
11 feet below what would be permitted there and has been lowered
once. The reasons for the height are largely three-fold. One the bank
wanted to have prominence and realized that it was only necessary to
have a one story building there, but they wanted as tall a one story
that seemed legitimate. Second of all, their banking floors are of a
scale and size that deemed a certain ceiling height so that drove the
height up; and then added to the ceiling height, was the necessity and
the desire for mechanical equipment screening. Those things all
added together resulted in the height of the building.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked modern designs, but even
before she read the Staff Report she reviewed the picture and didn't like it.
She stated that it didn't have any lines and looked like a big box that was top
heavy. She stated that she liked windows, glass and mirrors but didn't think
that piece of architecture was right for that corner.
There were no other questions for the applicant. Commissioner Lopez stated
that the recommendation from Staff was to continue this item until December
19, 2006.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21. 2006
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed project.
Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was closed. Chairperson
Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Hargreaves, City Attorney, if this was
something that she chose to abstain from was it proper to offer her
comments. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since she would soon be elevated to
the Council and this item would be forwarded to the Council, she should
abstain and not offer any comments.
Commissioner Tschopp stated that it meets the code and the requirements of
that area, however the architecture is good for mid-century modern
contemporary but we are dealing with a very prominent corner and this
building stands out. It's not really a part of Palm Desert and stands alone as
designed. He stated that he didn't like the architecture and the perforated
aluminum shading fins. Based on the architecture he would not be in favor of
this building as presented. He stated that it doesn't fit into the City on this
corner and felt that this wouldn't do the City justice.
Commissioner Tanner concurred and stated that this doesn't belong on the
entryway to Palm Desert and going up Highway 74. If you look in the
neighborhoods it should blend and shouldn't stick out like a sore thumb. The
ARC reviewed this design and it met their requirements, but not from a
planning standpoint. He stated that he truly did not like the architecture at all
and asked Mr. Sheehan to change it.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she already made her comments earlier
and stated that Staff was reviewing the landscape to breakup the lines on the
building, but did not feel that it would be enough to hide the building.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he liked the idea of this unique building as it
pertains to the concept of what World Bank does with their architectural
themes, but he wasn't excited about where it was located. For instance, the
World Bank over on Washington, a very unique looking building,fits into what
is in that particular area and that is what makes it unique as well very visible.
Here it is a little over the edge on a corner that is the main thoroughfare for
our city. I would tend to agree that the architecture would not be in the right
location.
7
MINUTES .
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21. 2006
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner to continue this item to December 19, 2006. Motion carried 4-0-1-0,
with Commissioner Finerty abstaining.
B. Case No. PP 06-12 -ADAMS / BERARDO, Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the
construction of a three-unit apartment complex located at 74-
455 Driftwood Drive.
Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to
the conditions contained in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Campbell stated that there were three ga�ages. Two of the
garages have two cars and the other garage has only one car. Mr. Stendell
clarified that there was a one-car garage for Unit B and the applicant was
only required to have three covered spaces, but would be providing five (5);
with the one lone space being outside, which is allotted for Unit B. He is in
essence getting two spaces, however he doesn't get the last covered one.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. RUDOLFO LIZARDO, 748 Village Way #8 in Palm Desert, the owner
representative, stated that he was present to answer any questions.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed application.
MR. PERRY HYDE, 74-464 Candlewood, adjacent property owner,
stated that he wasn't opposed to the complex. However, he did have
concerns about privacy. He stated that there is currently an existing
wall, which is five (5) feet in height and that his, home has three
sliders and basically open to the back. He felt that he would be living
in a fish bowl and asked that the wall be raised. Mr. Stendell stated
that the applicanYs plan calls for a six (6)foot wall and suggested six
(6) feet on one side and five (5) feet on the other. Code does not
require a six (6) foot wall. If the applicant does not want to increase
the wall, then staff wouldn't be recommending that.
8
t' (
PLANNtNQ COMMISSION RESOLU?10N NO. 2434
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF
� PALM DESERT, CALIFORNiA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 2,T70 SQUARE FfJOT WORLD SAVINGS BANK AT 73-
051 HIGHWAY 111, APN 627-192-043.
CASE NO. PP OB-11
W HEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,Califomia,did on the 21 st
day of November. 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was con�nued to December 19,
2008, January 16, February 8 and February 20, 2007, to consider the above noted request by
STUDIO E ARCHITECTS on behalf of WORLD SAVINGS BANK; and
WHEREAS,said applicatlon has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert
Pr�cedure for Implementa�on of the Cal(fiomia Environmental Quality Ad,"Resolutlon No. 08 78�
in that the Director of Community Development has detertnined that the project is a Class 32
Categorical Exemptlon; and
WHEREAS, at sald public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes�mony and
arguments, if any.of all interested persons desiring to be hearci, said Pianning Commission did flnd
the following iacts and reasons to exist to appiove said request:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objecctivves of the C-1 zone
and the amended Palm Desert General Pian.
2. The project will be compatible with adJacent uses and will not depredate property
valuss in the vicinity.
3. The p�ecise plan will not endanger the public peace, health� safety or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, Catifomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the flndings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Case No. PP 06-11 as shown
on pians date-stamped Febniary 20, 200�', subject to conditions attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 20th day of Febrvary, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: TSCHOPP, SCHMIDT, CAMPBELL
NOES: LIMONT, TANNER
ABSENT: NONE , �
ABSTAIN: NONE
SONiA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
�
�' Steph n R. Smith.Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
(� ( .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2434
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 06-11
Deuartment of Community DeveloQment:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which
agreement shall be recorded. lt is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
finaf landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying,
among other matters, appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic
2
. ' (
PLANN{NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2434
replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
8. The project shaH be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits, but not limited to Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
10. That the applicanbowner shaH dedicate to the City 100 +/- square feet of land in a
location acceptable to the Public Arts Manager generally located in the setback area
to the northwest of the building for the placement of a public art piece.
11. Landscaping plans to incorporate the requirements in the memo dated February 6,
2007 from the City's Landscape Specialist (attached hereto as Exhibit A).
penartment of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of property frontages shall be provided by property owner
and shall be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
landscape design standards. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review
simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary sails investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
Fee credit based on site's previous service station use may be applicable to listed fees.
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shafl be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
3
( �� .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2434
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shatl be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN PLANS
7. Project shail be designed to retain all nuisance water on-site.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on Autocad shall be
submitted to the Di�ector of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
9. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way p�io�to issuance of any permits.
10. Any and all offsite improvements sha{I be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
11. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code .
12. Driveway location and design subject to approval by the Public Works Department.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e.
• 8' curbside sidewalk on Hwy. 111 and Hwy. 74 and removal of existing driveways.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shall be granted until pubfic improvements have been completed.
15. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
16. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
4
.
i �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2434
17. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as welf as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
18. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside
County Flood Control Distri�t for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
19. Reciprocal easement for access and parking shall be provided prior to issuance of
grading permit.
20. Asphalt shall be removed in the area north of Hwy. 74 driveway and replaced with
curb and landscaping.
Riverside Countv Fire Deuartment:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available befo�e any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon pe� minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any
portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water pians must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
5
l /. �
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2434
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A106C
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. (For clubhouse
only.)
7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall
be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance.
Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must
be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in
industrial developments.
8. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
NQte: Building is 2,770 square feet. If there are any changes to the square footage to
3,000 square feet, the building shall be sprinklered.
//
6
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 6, 2007 continued from November 21 and December 19,
2006, and January 16, 2007
CASE NO: PP 06-11
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World
Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
APPLICANT: Studio E Architects
2411 Second Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
I. BACKGROUND:
' A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The commercial zoned (C-1) property is located at the southeast comer of
Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue (Highway 74). The site was formerly
occupied by a Shell gas station which has been demolished.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: C-1 / Palm Desert Bank
South: C-1 / EI Paseo Commercial
East: C-1 / Baker's Square
West: PC-3 /Commercial Center
Il. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan for a single story 2,770
square foot bank. The project is designed with 18 parking spaces and takes access
from Highway 111.
A. SITE PLAN:
The property is irregular in shape due to the angle at which Highway 74
intersects with Highway 111. The building is located at an angle to the
intersection with its west wall parallel to Highway 74 (setback 30 feet from
curb).
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
B. ACCESS AND PARKING:
The former Shell gas station had access from both Highway 74 and Highway
111. This project will close the Highway 74 access and take its sole access
from Highway 111.
Parking for 18 vehicles will be provided on the east side of the building. The
parking lot will connect to the existing Baker's Square parking lot to the south
and east.
Code requires a minimum of 11 parking spaces(i.e., 1 space per 250 square
feet). The project complies with code.
C. PROJECT DATA:
STANDARD C-1 ZONE PROJECT
Height 30 feet 25 feet
Front Setback 5 feet 14 feet
Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 6 feet
Side Yard Setback 5 feet Highway 74 6 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback 0 feet 62 feet
Street Setbacks from curb 25 feet 30 feet west/ 38 feet north
(1 foot per foot of building
height)
Daylight Triangle Setback 50 feet (north corner) 60 feet
(minimum of 2 feet for
every foot of building
height)
Parking 11 18
Landsca in 20% 43%
D. ARCHITECTURE:
The applicant has revised the architecture considerably from that originally
shown to Planning Commission at its December 19, 2006 meeting.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
The plan now reflects a contemporary desert architectural style with a large
glass front facing the intersection of Highways 74 and 111. The building's
east side forms an arc with shaded glass. The west elevation facing Highway
74 provides an expanse of off-white stucco with small window areas running
horizontally and vertically. When the revised elevations were shown to
P{anning Commission January 16, 2007, Commissioners expressed concem
with the west elevation and were assured by the applicant's architect that this
area would have significant landscape treatment.
Planning staff is advised that the applicanYs iandscape architect is meeting
with City landscape staff to work out a plan. We will report on the outcome
of that meeting at the Commission meeting.
Staff offered the architect an opportunity to describe this revised architectural
style and he responded as follows:
The new concept is notable for its varied appearance and
personality as seen from different vantage points. A large
aperture of glass on the north opens to the intersection of
Highway 74 and 111 and welcomes daylight and views of the
interior while a broad folded plane of smooth stucco shields the
harsh western sun and acts as a canvas for landscape
shadows to dance across as the day ends.
The eastern side billows out like a wind filled spinnaker sail
and a set of natural stone building elements anchor the
building to the desert floor offering a warm textural contrast.
Building materials proposed are intended to be clean, simple,
elegant and compliment the bright blue desert sky and golden
background mountains. Smooth finish off-white stucco with an
earth-tone medium textured natural stone veneer and low-e
glass set in dark bronze storefront system speak to the
financial use inside.
Thickened walls and deep recessed windows and large
overhangs mitigate the desert sun while responding to this
primary intersection of Palm Desert.
Architectural Review Commission reviewed this revised proposal at its
January 9, 2007 meeting and approved it.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
E. PUBLIC ART: .
In lieu of payment of a fee to the Public Art Program, the Art Manager
requests that the applicant grant the City an easement on which the City
could place a significant art piece on the comer.
III. ANALYSIS:
The property is located at an important intersection in the city. The site has been
vacant for several years.
The building as proposed complies with all code requirements.
The proposed use as a bank is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning.
Staff felt that the original project architecture was too industrial for this location. The
revised architecture is an improvement to the original even through it presents a
mostly blank wall facing Highway 74.
The project needs an effective landscape concept particularly along the west side
of the building. As of the writing of this report (January 26, 2007) Planning staff has
not seen an acceptable preliminary landscape plan to see how it might reduce the
impact of the building and actually create the "canvas for landscape shadows to
dance across as the day ends" as the architect described in his narrative.
Based on assurances from the architect that the landscape plan will be worked out
in time to show it to the Planning Commission, staff is prepared to recommend
approval of the project subject to conditions.
If an acceptable landscape plan is not available for presentation to Commission,
staff will so advise the Commission and recommend a continuance to a date certain
when the landscape Plan will be available.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no
further review is necessary.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case No. PP 06-11 be approved, subject to conditions.
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. November 21, 2006 Staff Report and Minutes
Prepared by: Reviewed d Concur:
1�
Stev Smith Homer roy
Acting Dir. of Community Development ACM for Development Services
/tm
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N4.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 2,770 SQUARE FOOT WORLD SAVINGS BANK AT 73-
051 HIGHWAY 111, APN 627-192-043.
CASE NO. PP 06-11
W HEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,California,did on the 21 st
day of November, 2006, hoid a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 19,
2006, January 16 and February 6, 2007, to consider the above noted request by STUDIO E
ARCHITECTS on behalf of WORLD SAVINGS BANK; and
W HEREAS,said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert
Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 06-78,
in that the Director of Community Development has dete�mined that the project is a Class 32
Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments,if any,of all interested persons desiring to be heard,said Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to approve said request:
1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the C-1 zone
and the amended Palm Desert General Plan.
2. The project will be campatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate property
values in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safery or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Case No. PP 06-11, subject
to conditions attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 6th day of Februarv, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 08-11
Deaartment of Communitv Develoarr�ent:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
co�ditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of tirr�e is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and•
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trashlservice areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the fife of the project,which agreement shall be notarized and which
agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying,
among other matters, appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
replacement of materiais. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits, but not limited to Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval,subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
10. That the applicant/owner shall dedicate to the City 100 +/- square feet of land in a
location acceptable to the Public Arts Manager generally located in the setback area
to the northwest of the building for the placement of a public art piece.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of property frontages shall be provided by property owner
and shall be water efficient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
landscape design standards. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review
simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
Fee credit based on site's previous senrice station use may be applicable to listed fees.
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
3
PLANNiNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DESIGN PLANS
7. Project shall be designed to retain all nuisance water on-site.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on Autocad shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
9. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with"as-built"plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
11. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26
of the Palm Desert Municipal Code .
12. Driveway location and design subject to approval by the Public Works Department.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTI4N
13. Ful! public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e.
• 8' curbside sidewalk on Hwy. 111 and Hwy. 74 and removal of existing driveways.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
15. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
16. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
17. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Seetion 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
18. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
19. Reciprocal easement for access and parking shall be provided prior to issuance of
grading permit.
20. Asphalt shall be removed in the area north of Hwy. 74 driveway and replaced with
curb and landscaping.
Riverside Countv Fire Deaartment:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC and CBC or
recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the
job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any
portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K"
type fire extinguisher is requi�ed in all commercial kitchens. (For clubhouse
only.)
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shatl
be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of verticai clearance.
Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must
be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess
of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in
industrial developments.
8. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
Note: Building is 2,770 square feet. If there are any changes to the square footage to
3,000 square feet, the building shall be sprinklered.
//
6
(r ti, � �
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 19, 2006 continued from November 21, 2006
CASE NO: PP 06-11
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World
Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
APPLICANT: Studio E Architects
2411 Second Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
I. BACKGROUND:
After the public hearing before Planning Commission on November 21, the
applicant agreed to revise the plans. Revised plans may be available at the
meeting. If new pfans are avaifable, they will also be scheduled for the next
Architectural Review Commission meeting on January 9.
Staff is therefore recommending that the public hearing be continued to the January
16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case No. PP 06-11 be continued to January 16, 2007.
Prepared by: Review a Concur:
Phil Drell Ho er Croy
Director of Community Development ACM for De� opment Services
/tm
.
. � �-
� CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: November 21, 2006
CASE NO: PP 06-11
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World
Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043.
APPLICANT: Studio E Architects
2411 Second Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
I. BACKGROUND:
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The commercial zoned (C-1) property is located at the southeast corner of
Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue (Highway 74). The site was formerly
occupied by a Shell gas station which has been demolished.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: C-1 / Palm Desert Bank
South: C-1 / EI Paseo Commercial
East: C-1 / Baker's Square
West: PC-3 / Commercial Center
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan for a single story 2,770
square foot bank. The project is designed with 18 parking spaces and takes access
from Highway 111.
A. SITE PLAN:
The property is irregular in shape due to the angle at which Highway 74
intersects with Highway 111. The building is located at an angle to the
intersection with its west wall parallel to Highway 74 (setback 30 feet from
curb).
, � ��
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
B. ACCESS AND PARKING:
The former Shell gas station had access from both Highway 74 and Highway
111. This project will close the Highway 74 access and take its sole access
from Highway 111.
Parking for 18 vehicles will be provided on the east side of the building. The
parking lot will connect to the existing Baker's Square parking lot to the south
and east.
Code requires a minimum of 11 parking spaces (i.e., 1 space per 250 square
feet). The project complies with code.
C. PROJECT DATA:
STANDARD C-1ZONE PROJECT
Height 30 feet 20 feet
Front Setback 5 feet 14 feet
Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 6 feet
Side Yard Setback 5 feet Highway 74 6 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback 0 feet 62 feet
Street Setbacks from curb 20 feet 30 feet west/ 38 feet north
(1 foot per foot of building
height)
Daylight Triangle Setback 40 feet (north corner) 60 feet
(minimum of 2 feet for
every foot of building
height)
Parking 11 18
Landsca in 20% 43%
D. ARCHITECTURE:
The building's contemporary architecture incorporates a 10-foot high glass
store front topped with a dark bronze corrugated metal section. An aluminum
2
( (
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
sun canopy wraps around the glass storefront as does a series of perforated
aluminum vertical shading fins.
The project architect describes the architecture as follows:
The World Savings Palm Desert Branch is a decidedly
contemporary building that draws inspiration from the Valley's
rich tradition of mid-century modem landmarks. The building's
proportions, lines and details emphasize the horizontal nature
of its site and setting. A deep-bronze colored upper-story made
of folded metal panefs hovers over a transparent under-story
of clear glass. A broad horizontal trellis shades the glass like
the brim of hat, while vertical semi-transparent fins protect the
west facade from the low afternoon rays. A rough-textured
masonry wing anchors the southwest corner of the structure.
Materials and colors inside and out reflect the warm earth
tones of the nearby hills while performing the important task of
absorbing--rather than reflecting--the bright desert sun. The
building's overall height results from the desire for a dramatic
high-ceilinged banking floor coupled with the need to hide
rooftop equipment.
Staff's reaction to the design was that it is too industrial for the site.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) embraced the architecture in
general, but had significant issues with the original building proportions which
have now been addressed. ARC granted preliminary approval at its October
24, 2006 meeting.
Even with the changes required by ARC, staff continues to be concerned
with the "industrial" nature of the architecture on this prominent corner.
E. LANDSCAPING:
Due to the hard edge architectural style, appropriate landscape design will
be essential. The initial plan indicated minimal plant material on the west and
north elevations.
The applicant is being urged to include strategically placed trees in front of
these elevations to break up the building mass and soften the edges.
3
. � � .
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
F. PUBLIC ART:
In lieu of payment of a fee to the Public Art Program, the Art Manager
requests that the applicant grant the City an easement on which the City
could place a significant art piece on the corner.
III. ANALYSIS:
The property is located at an important intersection in the city. The site has been
vacant for several years.
The building as proposed complies with all code requirements.
The proposed use as a bank is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning.
Even though ARC has given the project preliminary approval, staff continues to be
concemed with the project architecture. The main feature is the signage which we
have been given to understand may be changed (copy and color) as a result of the
recent merger of World Savings with Wachovia Bank.
Staff has also not yet seen an acceptable preliminary landscape plan to see how
it might reduce the impact of the building on the corner.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the project be continued to a date certain when
we have plans addressing the above concerns.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no
further review is necessary.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case No. PP 06-11 be continued to December 19, 2006.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. l.egal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
4
� ( (
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
C. ARC Minutes
E. Plans and exhibits
Prepared b : Revi wed and Approved by:
<-�
Steve Smith Phil Dre
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Revierr nd Co u .
� �
Ho r Croy
ACM for Deve p ent Services
/tm
(W pdocs\tm\sr1pp06-1 1 a sr3) `�
, �. `.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: PP 6-11 Worid Savings Conditions of Approval
DATE: October 27, 2006
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of property frontages shall be provided by property owner
and shall be water e�cient in nature in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
landscape design standards. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review
simultaneously with grading plans.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soifs engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
'" Fee credit based on site's previous service station use may be applicable to listed fees.
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shafl be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid p�ior to issuance of grading permit.
5. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shalf be at the time of buiiding permit issuance.
6. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits,
DESIGN PLANS
7. Project shall be designed to retain all nuisance water on-site.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on Autocad shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance
of any permits.
9. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or
service districts with"as-built"plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the public works department for
improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits.
10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
� ( (
11. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26
of the Palm Desert Municipal Code .
12. Driveway location and design subject to approval by the Public Works Department.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full public improvements required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards, i.e.
• 8' curbside sidewalk on Hwy. 111 and Hwy. 74 and removal of existing driveways.
Rights-of-way necessaryforthe instaliation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with
this project.
17. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed.
18. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
23. Reciprocal easement for access and parking shall be provided prior to issuance
of grading permit.
24. Asphalt shall be removed in the area north of Hwy. 74 driveway and replaced with
curb and landscaping.
,���
Phil Joy
G:IPubWorkslCondiGons ol ApprovallPPLANSIPP fr l t Wald Savings-117•74.wpd
�
( �
, r
�� ,,r'l,�%
� �+.1
<l
�' '� CITY OF PALM DESERT
� �
COMMUNiN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
� • (1f';'� YT�T� �-1�
i 1
._ , �
' v LtNJ{�
TO: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER
.o,,,- ,, - T
cr���,;:��� �
FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS � �
SUBJECT: PP 06-11
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
The submitted precise plan and tentative tract map has been reviewed to determine the
need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required
trash/recycling enclosure for each project.
Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plans it has been determined that this project will not
be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout.
Trash Enclosures: The plan does not appear to reflect a trash enclosure(s). The plan
must provide for a trash/recycling enclosure(s) that is consistent with the Palm Desert
Municipal Code. The construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC,
Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of the Desert must review and approve the plans
prior to final approval by the City, since its vehicles will be servicing the complex and the
responsible agency to determine trash capacity for the complex. They should also
assist in determining the Iocation of enclosure to meet the circulation needs of the
disposal (waste) trucks. The Applicant may contact Jennifer at Burrtec Waste and
Recycling Services, (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue.
FRANK ID E
DIRECT�R OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS
cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works
Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety
a
� ' ' UiRORNiA �r � RIVERSIDE �,�UNTY
• pE�FIREP0.01EC/pti r
� ►
FIRE DEPARTMENT
� F '���„�,��, In cooperation with the
� California Department of Forestry and Fire Protecticm
- � i 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
�� �w�nrirr r� ��(J �i
/
Tom Tisdale ;;^✓�'�
Fire Chief
Covc Firc Marshal's Officc �:� �"•-�� �T'T
73710 Frcd Waring Drivc#l02 �` ' ' " � � ' �'
Proudly serving the palm Dcscrt CA 92260
unincorporated '� � .� 2�
areas oi Riverside (760) 346-1870 ���
Coun�and lhe _
cities :'G11'�,';'� h ' ,T
CIT}" F ::�. . .....
sanning TO: SF��-'Z' '�'� ►-�-�il DATC: �'��� �(�./ —
4 < <`�
Beaumont � `
� .. �"'� ti 1. -i.� T� �..r-.
Calimesa REF: � 4��^1,1 -^ C.`GY1-G(s_�{(o.� .{ `,: . . _ .. __
b
Canyon Lake ��� � 8 2�
,� If circled, conditions anpiv to nroiect
Coachella �
° �f.� With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the ���vc'
Desert Hol Springs referenced project, the fire department recommends the follow ng fre� � �
Indan Wells protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
° Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Proteclion
Indio
. Standards:
Lake Elsinore The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for tl�e
La Quinta remodel or construction of all buildin s er UFC article 87.
, r� A tire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
Moreno Valley pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed
a
Palm Desert on the job site.
�� Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
Perris gpm tlow of:
Rancho Mirage 3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
'r 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
San Jacinto �"� 3000 Qnm for commercial buifdinQs
.;.
Temecula The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
�I Fiydrant(s) 4"x 2 '/z"x 2 '/:", located not less than 25' nor more tl�an:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via
Board of Supervisors
� vehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion oPa multiiamily dwelling me�sured vi:i
Bob Buste� vehicular travelway
District 1
�'� 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
John Tavaglione vehicular travelwa
District 2
. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and inctudc
Jim Venable verification that the water sYstem will roduce the re uired �re tlow.
o�s�����s P 9.
10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
Roy Wllson
o;s«;�,4 I existinQ water mains will not meet the reauired fire flow.
Tom Mullen I
District 5 `�I
1 I
I�
�,�
_ � . {._ � .
11. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprink{er system. This applies to ail
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator vafves and
fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hvdrant. Exemnted are one and two familv dwellin�s.
12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water-tlow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
13, install a fire alarm system as reauired bv the UBC Chaater 3.
14 Install portable fire eatinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2AlOBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A"K" type fire extingaisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
15. install a Hood/Duct$utomatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96
in all public and private cooking operations except single-family
residential usa�e.
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
oaeration that aroduces airborne narticles.
1 I. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extendi��g
to within l50' of all portions of the eaterior wafis of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallet parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadway must be 3b' wide and 32' wide
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial
develoumenis.
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install �
"Knoa Boa" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"with a minimum vertic�l
clearance of 13'6"
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accented
` � � f �-
l
20. A second nccess is required. This can be accomplished by two m:tin
access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an
adioininQ develonment.
21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to tl�e
Fire Marshat a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occu anc e.
Z A{{ buifdings shafl have ifluminated addresses of a size approved by
the citv.
23. All fire�sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
prior to construction.
24. Conditions sub,ject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained with�n twelvc
months.
2S. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be rcfcrred to
the Fire Marshal's Ot�ice at (760)346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive#222. Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
�_ s-. �� ;� 7?c'� Sz L�,�� �C:�'�, l � <1 rz c�. C�Vr�'�g ,�
� � �
tZ� �.p�,��IZZo _
`��.,' t��r�L ��r.rl�rcv<r�
T
Sincerely,
��� `'-���
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
�
(� �
; � < < 7 2�6
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�--�--� ��
� � ART IN PUBLIC PLACES �11� �
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
�,5
From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator rJ
Date: 10/26/06
Subject: Wortd Savings Bank
Case No. PP06-11
This memo is a revision to the memo dated 09/OS/06. The Art in Pubiic Places
department, upon recommendation from the Architectural Review Board, has
reviewed the plans for Worfd Savings Bank, and would like to request an
easement of ten feet by ten feet in the center of the southeast corner of Highway
111 and Highway 74/Monterey. This easement woutd be used for a future Art in
Public Places project.
� ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION �
MiNUTES JANUARY 9, 2007
B. Preliminary Plans:
1. CASE NO: PP 06-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411
Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised
preliminary approval of architecture for World Savings Bank.
LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the plan originally
approved faltered at Planning Commission and stated that the
architects were taking another pass at the design. The Commission
asked why it faltered. Mr. Smith stated that the Planning
Commission deemed it an important corner relative to visibility and
thought it was too boxy and massive for this location. He stated
that this item would appear on the agenda for the next Planning
Commission meeting and Staff wanted this conceptual plan
reviewed at ARC.
Mr. Mike Burnett, AIC, presented handouts that included finro (2)
schemes. It still had the same open space with teller lines, desks
and a smaller area in the back for the restrooms, workroom and
kitchen area. The building would have smooth finish stucco with
nice natural stone.
Commission reviewed the rendering.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the offset of the lower element
and the tall efement appeared to be substantially greater in the
model than it did on the drawing. Mr. Burnett stated that the model
was a little more accurate.
G:Wlannir�Uanne JuAy�Word FileslARC Minutes�2007W2070109.rttin.pOC Page 4 of 10
ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION �
MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007
Commissioner Lopez stated that one of the Wachovia signs were
standing up on its own and not against a backing and asked if they
planned on doing that. Mr. Bumett stated that they did plan for that
and stated that there were three (3) locations on this building for
signage; one (1) coming from Highway 74, one (1) at the
intersection and one (1) on the Highway 111 side.
Commissioner Vuksic asked how they planned to drain the roof.
Mr. Burnett stated that they would have a small parapet with roof
drains coming back down through the building independently.
Commissioner Hanson asked where the roof equipment would be
located. Mr. Burnett stated there would be one (1) condenser
behind the lower building, behind a berm with plenty of landscaping
to screen it. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they would have vents
on the lower roof. Mr. Burnett stated that he could see a potential
for heat gain at the top of the volume, which would be handled with
some kind of ventilation. He stated that nothing would be seen
from the street level.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if the material for the darker forms with
the horizontal lines would be stone. Mr. Burnett indicated they
would like to use some natural stone and earthy materials and
stated that they would provide a color board at a later date.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could see this being a lot of
different things and not necessarily stone. A nice split face block
would be an appropriate choice, something textured to offset the
smooth.
Mr. Knight, Landscape Manager stated that he would like to see
how the landscape would interface with this building. Mr. Bagato
asked if the landscape plan had changed. Mr. Burnett stated that it
did not, however now that they have a different design it would be
important to revisit that plan. Mr. Smith stated that there were
some concerns with the previous landscape plans and this would
be a good time to revisit.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim, to grant a conceptual approval of Plan A, subject to
landscape review by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-1-0-1,
with Commissioner Lopez opposing and Commissioner Lambell absent.
G:1PlanningUanine Judy�Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070109.mn.DOC Page 5 of 10
� RCHI •
A TECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES October 24, 2006
Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he was intending to put
in the awnings that are shown on the plans. Mr. Groulx stated that
was just for drawing purposes. It would be a plain pallet for the
tenants.
Commissioner Vuksic wanted to make a few comments for the
record on the way it was drawn. He felt that it wasn't thought out
and had concems about quality. He didn't want to go into every
single thing that didn't match the floor plan or where it looked like it
couldn't be detailed. He felt that what was going to happen was
that the floor plan would take precedence because that is where
they poured the foundation to and it won't match the elevation.
Mr. Drell pointed out that these are preliminary plans and not
working drawings. The working drawings will be brought back for
review. He asked Commissioner Vuksic to circle the areas of
concern and indicated that when the working drawings come in,
staff would pay special attention to those areas.
Commissioner Vuksic offered to go over the items of concem with
the applicant.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, to grant preliminary approval, subje�t to: 1) correction of detail
conflicts in the wo�king drawings; and, 2} subject to Phase 2 Fa�ade
Improvement plans accompanying any tenant improvements or sign
approvals. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO: PP 06-11
APPLICANT�4AND ADDRESSI: STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411
Second Avenue,�5an Diego, CA 92101.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request
preliminary approval of architecture�or World Savings Bank.
LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1 -
G:1PIann�npUanine Jutly�Wad Fbs1ARC M�nules1AR061024 mm DOC Page 9 of 22
ARCHITECTURAL RES/IEW COMMiSSION •
MINUTES October 24, 2006
Mr. John Sheehan, Architect, presented a rendering for World
Savings Bank.
Mr. Drell asked Mr. Sheehan if the landscaping depicted on the
rendering was what they would be proposing. Mr. Sheehan
indicated that it was and there would be deer grass, lantana and
some additional palms. Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Manager stated
that the landscape plans were reviewed and comments were made
and sent back to the applicant. He indicated that the landscape
architect they were working with did the landscaping for the Rancho
Mirage Library and he is familiar with desert landscaping.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the building was big.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looked worse in the
rendering. Commissioner
Gregory stated that it could still work if the owner was forced to
back off with some of their interior goals relating to height. The
biggest concern was the top-heaviness.
Mr. Drell stated that the top element dominates and everything else
disappears so you don't see the bottom or any of the wings and
fins. Commissioner Gregory felt that if they brought the top down,
so it would be more in proportion, it would pass.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the view you would experience
more would be when coming down Hwy 74. Mr. Sheehan stated
that by the time you are within eyeshot of the building it tums and
flattens out. Commissioner Hanson stated that she loved the
building, but it was just too top heavy.
Mr. Sheehan then produced another rendering showing the top of
the building lowered by three (3) feet. The Commission reviewed
the finro renderings side by side. Commissioner Hanson felt that in
the second rendering the top was now in proportion to the bottom.
Commissioner Vuksic felt that it needed more hierarchy because it
appeared to be split in the middle. He felt that they could keep that .
same height, but the bottom eve needed to be higher so that the
lower piece would be larger than the upper piece. Commissioner
Hanson wondered if the landscaping made it appear to be cut off.
G�PlenrnngUan�ne JudylWord RIesV1RC Mmutes\AR061024 mm DOC Page 10 of 22
�
ARCHITECTURAL R VIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES October 24, 2006
Mr. Sheehan stated that they were not seeing the first 24 inches of
the glazing as a consequence of the height of the deer grass and
lantana. Mr. Sheehan asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was
suggesting they should adjust the height of the brow.
Commissioner Vuksic felt that they had lowered it just enough and
it was dramatically better, but if he had seen this rendering first he
would have reluctantly made that same comment.
Mr. Sheehan stated that on the original drawings submitted, the
horizontal brow was at the joint between the metal siding and the
storefront. It was the only thing dividing the two materials. In the
second submission, as a need to try to anchor and lower the center
of gravity, they shifted that down. Mr. Sheehan asked
Commissioner Vuksic if he was asking for that to come back up.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked that detail. Mr. Drell
asked if they could raise the glass a foot. Mr. Sheehan indicated
that it would create sectional issues inside the space.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they couldn't raise the eyebrow
and also have the detail, then he would rather raise the eyebrow.
He stated that the way it was in the first rendering, the bottom of the
eyebrow is the same level as the bottom of the corrugated parapet,
which would raise it about two (2)feet.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the glass height was. Mr.
Sheehan indicated that it was ten feet. The door was eight (8) foot
with a 10-foot storefront and it goes up to a skylight.
Commissioner Gregory asked what the material was on the face of
the building above the sunshade. Mr. Sheehan answered that it
was a corrugated metal.
The Commission discussed the color for the corrugated metal
siding. There were two altemative choices of pre-finished metal.
One was a medium bronze color and the other a Terracotta red.
Commission preferred the bronze color.
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by
Commissioner Gregory to approve the lowered version with the
condition that the steel eyebrow be raised about 24 inches so that
G:�Planrnnp�Janine JutlylWorO FileslARC Minutes1AR061024.mm DOC Page 11 of 22
CHITECTURAL �IEW COMMtSSION
.
- :�y11NUTES October 24, 2006
�
Mr. Alan Sanborn, Architect agreed that the parapets should be
thicker and asked the Commission for their recommendation on the
thickness. Commissioner Vuksic suggested 18 inches on the wall,
plus the cap detail and the columns could probab{y use another
foot. Commissioner Hanson suggested that on Backstreet Bistro to
do something that would thicken it up as it comes around. Mr.
` Sandborn stated that he would make the changes and bring them
back as working drawings.
Commissioner Gregory stated that at the last meeting he
mentioned that a little more detailing was needed. Mr. Drell
suggested that the stucco finish be hand-troweled with radius
corners. Cornmissioner Hanson requested that the brow above the
opening not be a huge bull nose and asked if it could be recessed.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if the areas in the tower that appeared
to be recessed in the drawings would actually be recessed. Mr.
Sandbom stated that those areas would be recessed with a
different color. He stated that they would not use the typical
bullnose piece and said that part of the problem was trying to
design something that would sit on that existing roof without having
to tear it apart too much.
Mr. Drell stated that a new design for monument signage was
submitted for this project.
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by
Commissioner Vuksic, to add signage to the agenda. Motion
carried 7-0.
Mr. Drell felt that this signage had some architectural style to it and
was a Iot more interesting than the previous design, which was
basicafly a stacked plastic can. Commissioner Van Vliet asked
what the height of the sign was. Mr. Sanbom indicated that it was
10 feet in height. Commission reviewed the signage proposal and
indicated that this sign had a lot of surfaces and was very creative.
G WlennmpUarone JudylWord FilesWRC MmuteslARD61024.mm DOC Page 13 of 22
�
ARCHITECTURAL R VIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES October 24, 2006
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim, to grant approval of remadel and monument signage, subject
to: 1) addition of 18 inches to wafl depth, plus cap detail; 2) increase width
of columns by one foot; 3) stucco finish to be hand-trowe{ed with radius
comers; 4) addition of recessed areas in the tower; 5) brow not to be the
typical bultnose piece. Motion carried 7-0.
4. CASE NO: C 05-04
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947
Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request
preliminary approval of revised elevations for Parcel 17 at Desert
Gateway Shopping Center.
LOCATION: 34-380 Monterey Avenue
ZONE: PC
Commissioner Vuksic commented to Mr. Carver that he saw
elements on the north elevation that he didn't see on the floor plan
and stated that the eiements need to be there othen�vise it probably
wouldn't be built property. According to the plans there were
recessed elements in the walls and he saw four (4) niches that
were huge and he didn't see anything there. He stated that they
needed to have adequate depth on them because they were nice
elements. There are colonnades on the west elevation as you
come around the comer to the north where it just stops. It's no
Ionger a three-dimensional piece and it just has a thin end to it. He
stated that he saw the same thing on the east elevation for a
different colonnade and stated that they cou{d close that up if they
needed to; and on the south side he suggested closing that up or
thicken up the element to finish that detail. Mr. Carver stated that
one of the elevations was a way to get around the back.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parapet on the west elevation
looked half as thick in the roof plan than how it appeared on the
elevation. The roof plan shows the parapet at one (1) foot thick and
the efevation shows it as finro (2) feet thick, so it needed to be
thickened up to two (2} feet.
G 1PlannmgUanine JuCy�Word FilesUlRC Mrcwtea�AR061024 mm DOC Page 14 af 22
� MINUTES � �
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10_ nna
Mr. Drell indicated that he was disappointed with the exterior
co{ors. One thing that we are trying to do with the redesign is to
create a distinctive storefront design and this is duplicating the
same two colocs.
Commissioner Gregory suggested that this be approved subject
to a re-study of the colors to get more of a variety to better
highlight the storefronts.
Mr. Smith indicated that the wo�icing drawings would be coming
back to the Commission and the colors could be submitted prior
to the working drawings.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, to grant approval, subject to applicant working with staff on new exterior
colors. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioner Vuksic and Gregory
abstaining and Commissioner Hansen absent.
2. CASE NO: PP 06-11
APPLtCANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411 Second
Avenue, San Diego. CA 92101.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
architecture for Worfd Savings Bank.
LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
-
Mr. John Sheehan, Studio E Architects indicated that two new colors
were being proposed for the metal siding for their building. One was a
medium bronze color, not dissimilar from the Coffee Bean on EI Paseo,
and the other would be more Terracotta clay red. lt would be split-based
block in lieu of the smooth based block. In an effort to adjust the
proportions of the building they would be moving the sun canopy down to
be at the head af the door. It was up at 10, and in alignment with the
break between the metal siding and the storefront system. It was shifted
down about 18 inches.
(i�PLvmmgV.u+ine ludy�Word FdaIARC MnutesUR061a10 mn DOC Page 9 of 21
I � �
�� MINUTES
� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006
�
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the proportions on the upper heights
were changed. Mr. Sheehan indicated they oniy lowered the sun
canopy. What was indicated on the drawings by the dash line
represents what the building envelope could be. On the one side up to
30 feet was allowed, so the client had requested that we demonstrate
what the height could be and demonstrate that we are well beneath it.
The client was very interested in screening the roof top equipment. In
fact, that was one of their requirements to the architects that they did not
want to see the equipment under any circumstances, ft was very
important to the client that the parapet height relative to the ceiling and
to the rooftop accommodates the equipment. They felt that this height
gets them where they should go.
Commissioner Vuksic asked what was proportionally revised on the
building from the last meeting. Mr. Sheehan indicated that the
differentiai befinreen the storefront system and the meta{ sidings
remained the same and al1 they did was adjust the horizontal canopy
refative to those two.
Commissioner Vuksic indicated that at the last meeting a 23-foot high
building was presented, which is still 23 feet. The only difference is that
the canopy structure came down so the upper level increased. Mr.
Sheehan indicated that the proportion of glass to siding is identical, now
all you see is a little glass above the horizontaf canopy.
Commissioner Vuksic felt that the architects missed the point. The
Commission was concemed about the proportion of the upper part, but
what was created was the illusion that it was even larger. Mr. Sheehan
stated that is why he included the photographs. He understood what the
issue was, but as he attempted to explain at the last meeting, the
intention on their part was to make what appeared to be a heavy top
float above the glass under story. In their estimation, that proportion is
satisfactory. At this point, the client is not interested in lowering the
overall building; 23 feet is where they need to be.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that this had nothing to do with the height of
the building; it was the proportion of the building. Mr. Sheehan indicated
that they could increase the amount of glass to reduce the amount of
meta{ siding that would adjust those ratios. If they increased the glass,
they would also create additional issues relative to the introduction of
sun in the bu�lding. He felt that from the client's standpoint they were
G\PlonninQU:u�ine Judy�Word FiIoURC MinWa�AR061010.mn.DOC Page 10 of 21
A � � �
�°�` MiNUTES
�'�. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSfON OCTOBER 10. 20as
�
�.
already pushing the envelope on the amount and height of glass. It is
now 10 feet to the top of the third story and indicated that they shouldn't
go to 12 or 14 feet.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he appreciated their concems about
the sun and indicated that by raising the canopy to increase the lower
section and decrease the upper section they wouldn't know the
difference with the sun coming in a half hour earfier. However you would
see the difference in the proportions of the building.
Mr. Sheehan asked if they adjusted the amount of glass to wall, wouid it
stand a greater chance of being approved at the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the proportions were such that the
upper portion was significantly thinner than the lower portion, they would
have a building that looked good and given it's kind of cutting edge style,
it would stand a better chance of being approved. The proportions of the
building now are glaringly top heavy. The client succeeded in making
the sign surface as farge as possible, which was something they wanted.
Commissioner Gregory wondered if raising the canopy and keeping the
glass height the same would create the illusion of less mass on top, and
asked if that would create the same effect without having to change the
actual configuration of the building. Mr. Sheehan stated that it would be
conceivable but they woutd have to possibly study that in model to
understand how that might adversely affect the building. Mr. Drefl
suggested a bigger element and a second tier, maybe not as deep that
is suspended by the cable. Mr. Sheehan stated that what has to be
appreciated about the sun canopy is that it is actually doing the work in
the same way the brim of your hat would do. Mr. Drell stated that is why
he suggested putting another element midway, another horizontal fin
suspended by that same cable.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proportions needed to be improved
so it didn't appear so top-heavy. Mr. Smith asked if there was another
building that was simifar in proportion to this building. Mr. Sheehan
indicated that he drove along EI Paseo to view the buildings and stated
that there were commercial facades that have very ta{I upper stories but
none with concentrated glass on the bottom. Unfortunately their
building doesn't present itself very well in e{evation and appeared very
billboard like and very flat. What one has to appreciate as buildings go
up they also as a consequent of prospective shorten and their lot fines
G.�Plannin;Vonine 1udy�Wwd Fib�ARC MinwaUA061010 mi�DOC Page 11 of 21
M{NUTES `� � ��, J
:
ARCHITECTURAL REVI�W COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2enQ '-
vanish. My opinion is that it won't appear so flat and dramatic. The
model would have shown that.
Commissioner Gregory asked if the model would be of sufficient
assistance and might be worth waiting for a new model if they wouldn't
be making additiona{ changes. Mr. Sheehan stated that they knew going
in to this project that this would not be a slam-dunk since it was an
aggressive and contemporary style buiiding. He indicated that he has
been encouraging the client to consider the possibility of doing a
rendering and show the building in context.
Commissioner Gregory stated that it was not because of the aggressive
design of the building, it just looked too top-heavy. Mr. Sheehan stated
that it looked top-heavy as a consequent of the misfortunate
representation in elevation. Commissioner Gregory stated that what also
might hurt was that most of the angles of the photographs were taken
somewhat from above, which enhances the mass even more.
Mr. Sheehan asked what the Commission would aUow him to take back
to his client as some evidence of progress. Mr. Drell stated that a very
accurate and skilled rendering was needed and asked the Commission
for any feedback on the colors.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he preferred the putty color; the bronze
color. Mr. Drell stated that in the shade the bronze color looked black.
Mr. Sheehan indicated that the color is seen in context and it is worth
noting that World Savings is now Wachovia and their whole scheme is
blue. So where there is red there will also be blue, however they have
not yet been directed to change the signage.
Commissioner Gregory recommended a continuance. Mr. Smith
suggested making the motion to continue as the Commission still has
concems relative to the apparent top-heaviness to the project and would
urge reconstruction of the model or submittai of a well-done rendering.
Commissioner Lambell stated that it was imperative that the model be
rebuilt since the renderings have shown a flat coof and haven't executed
what the model would show. Mr. Drell stated that what the model
wouldn't do is put it physically on the site in the context of the slope and
other buildings.
G\PLvmingUanine Jud)AWord Files�ARC MinutdUR061010 mn DOC Page 12 of 21
, � �
p MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10_ nna
,
Commissioner Gregory asked how long before it would be approved if
this was called up to Councii. Mr. Dreli stated that as soon as this was
approved at ARC, within approximately three weeks it would be going to
a Planning Commission meeting as a precise plan. If they could get the
building portrayed accurately and properiy and have great exhibits, the
Council more often than not would not call it up for review.
Commissioner Lambell asked if the colors needed to be reviewed.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if the sign color would be changing it
would be a huge difference and they might not want the red.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was hard to imagine the b�ue on the
side of the building. Commissioner Lambell asked the architect to get
some direction on what the sign would ultimately {ook like and then the
Commission could decide. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was
concemed that the blue would disappear against a dark background.
Commissioner Vuksic felt a more slightly cooler approach would work
better with the architecture, and would have a better chance of approval
if they kept the colors somewhat warmer.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell,
to continue to alfow the architect to submit a rendering. Motion carried 6-0-0-
1, with Commissioner Hansen absent.
3. CASE NO: PP 06-12
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ADAMS-BERARDO, P.O. Box 12253,
Palm Desert, CA 92255
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of
three (3) unit apartment complex.
LOCATION: 74-455 Driftwood
ZONE: R-3
Mr. Stendell stated that there was a couple of concems relative to
recesses on the windows and garage doors and asked the applicant for
samples of what would be going into the tile recesses. Commissioner
Van Vliet asked if these were apartments. Mr. Stendell indicated that
they were apartments and would be held to apartment standards not
� condo standards.
G�YL�nn�nQUmme ludy�Word F1nMRC MinutaUR061010.mn DOC Page I3 of 21
MINUTES
� •
/' AR HITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26. 2006
.
Commissioner Hanson suggested that a sign in this focation would have
to be an architecturally designed feature of the building, like the signage
at Sullivan's.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell,
to continue to allow applicant to submit modifications as discussed by
Commission. Motion carried 7-0.
T. CASE NO: MISC 06-36
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STEPHEN LITTLE, 74-290 Highway
111, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 18-foot
roof height.
LOCATION: 72-871 Tamarisk Street
ZONE: PR
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by
minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0.
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASE NO: PP 06-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411 Second
Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of
architecture for World Savings Bank.
LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
G�PlanningUanme Judy�Word Fi�aURC MinutaUR060926 min.DOC Page 6 of 10
MINUTES � �
ABCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26. 2006
, John Sheehan, Studio E Architects, demonstrated examples of careful
and sensitive use of concrete masonry units and stated that there was
precedence for this style of architecture here in the desert. Responding
to his clienYs desire to have a building that has a lot of presence on the
corner and be very visible, he wants to take advantage of the oblique
angel of the site by pushing the building mass out. The client has
requested that people be able to see into the bank, thereby being more
customer friendly. To balance this request with the recognition of the
afternoon sun, they would be introducing vertical fins; which would
screen the sun and allow you to see in and see out. The other sun
controf device would be a horizontal sunshade; a trellis type feature. He
described the service area that is the lower mass and made out of
masonry and the higher corrugated portion of the building. He stated
that their choice of colors were intended to be used as a heat sink and
by holding the metal away from the actual building wall, it would allow air
to circulate behind it and keep heat from radiating into the branch to
reduce the overall cooling loads.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked the style of the building and
felt that the Commission was receptive to the style. He informed Mr.
Sheehan that he might have a tougher time with the Planning
Commission and Council. He stated that the only criticism he had was
the scale of the upper portion. Some of the examples presented were
wonderful examples of post century modernism in the desert, however
with modern architecture here in the desert, he couldn't think of an
example that has the heavy top that was being proposed.
Mr. Sheehan stated that the client requested that the building be as tall
as possible. They could have introduced openings towards the top, but
decided to make it a very closed unit sitting on a glass base; a kind of
inversion that gets lighter as it goes up to the ramada, purposely floating
the box off the ground.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she liked the architecture, but agreed
that the top was too full. The building would be a very imposing element
and felt that they could take a few feet off the building and still get the
massive look, maybe giving it a horizontal look instead of a ta11 look. The
colors would be an issue as they are not desert colors and
recommended altering the color pallet to be more desert oriented and
instead of using the precision block she suggested the use of stone or
G�Plamm�gVanine Judy�Word FiIuWRC MinutaWR060926.min.DOC Page 7 of 10
'�� .
� �
�UTES
�
,%
block with desert colors. She stated that they should keep the aluminum
storefront, but change the color and felt that it would reinforce that
element even further.
Mr. Sheehan addressed the issue of the building height and stated that
he was responding to his client's desire to take the building to the height
limit. Commissioner Hanson recommended a photo simulation of the
building coming down Highway 74 and from Highway 111, since this is
probably the most visible corner in the city.
Commissioner Gregory asked about the roof-mounted equipment and �
stated that when you come down Highway 74 you would be looking at it.
Lowering the roof to get a better proportion could expose the roof
mounted equipment. Mr. Sheehan indicated that was correct and that
the client wanted a certain volume within their banking hall.
Commissioner Hanson recommended pushing the equipment to the
center.
Mr. Drell indicated that in order to get this approved they would have to
do the photo simulation, show it on the site with landscaping and warm
the colors.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could still get their interior volume
by creating an element from the light well that is higher than the outer
parapet.
Commissioner Lopez questioned where the roof access was. Mr.
Sheehan explained that it was located on the interior for both roofs.
Commissioner Lambell stated that she had a problem with viewing the
renderings because it looked like a billboard and asked for a color
rendering for the next presentation.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to
grant a continuance to allow applicant to submit modifications as discussed by
Commission. Motion carried 7-0.
G\PlanningVanine Judy�Word FiksWRC MinutsUR060926.rttin.DOC Page 8 of 10
` � I1V Uf P �� t �l DES � � 1
7;-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PAI.M DESERT,CALIFORNU 92260-2578
rei.,760 346—o6tt
FAx:760 34i-7o98
i afo�palm-dcserc.ord
CITY OF PALM DESER7
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 06-11
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by Studio E Architects for Worfd Savings Bank for
approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World Savings Bank at 73-051
Highway 1 1 1, APN 627-192-043.
____J - � -q___.. �,_� ` �� `' � �
� � � � -
-—� IIANN RO W _- �
I Z fAN OOROONIO WAY
li 0 I "'N� fAN� � � �
' � sa
� SUBJECT �GR-J "-�R� �!+
(: PROPERTY G�
ALLlY
����=-_��L_--_--____ C-] �1 I I�f�f i�����1�` r IT�T
STATE HWY 111 rA�M DEstR'
-1y(--�---.--.-T- d►A
<<---� � 9 �\ i rwuM oeiar oR s---
— �� � ��
� �► ; _ � -a
d� �_ , � � �
� - L_
EL PASEO EL P�
�oQ� �� -- ��� � --,--
'm6�e ��c� ,��
�� �m �� �
m� � � � �� oM�� ��
i e � � �.� i4�Y �,. ,� ���..,,t.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Cente�, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Pa1m Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project andlor
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delive�ed to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
November 8, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission
i. . � i i
�
' � `-- _ y_ _ , \ ' " .� '� i .. _ _
� . 1 'y � f 5 }�y �
' k F I ��„ ' � � +r ' . �
. . . . ., . � �
� , , .
. � . � _ . . . _ . . .a
, . .1 .
, ' . - . . .
� II • . � , . t
� " f. ' ' '-- � _ " � — __ � . - -___ — -
i Y .f PALM DESERT, CALiFORNIA BRANCH
� ., �..,.. . :�.,.,,.:
� ��''_ - +* . . ^. 73051 HWY 11 '! � y.�
�y � ,
� � 4�* a �3 �1.y �, .
� �� . �
� �f��* �{ �; � �� � . ��� � �+
ti � � � t�
�
� ,�� � ,4 ,f. �'��� ..�;T � - . .. - � ��� m �
� {.'���� �: F + �� +�i��� �i��f r .i,,. r .�. � a _ � "'� �'. .i, ��4 . - , - . . � ._ _ � . .' ._ . '-K_ T' ' ,. ' „� ' � M
� �;� .y �5 _ ��' �+ �� . 4;�s�� .�il ��1�.-��-_ ��k � _ '� � t."���I � �� �yl �� ,L�.�l�•�ii .!k �� � L�
� � ��� �� � � • � �'}I .iF`+ � I' I�� ,�I ��� � �� 4 �y - • 'pL��/� r� f� �
�� 'Lt.` I f '* ,� t��.�,l '�I. M'� �� . 1 �' .� .'�R V { _ ^iFil r_ ' � 'Y. � �
-� �' 'N1 r. �` .. �. �+ .� , ^ . . . „� ' �' �{ �,'�� _ � �H � 1
� ..'� �} .� ��� ���. I� � � '�' J , _ .. J�+�,_,�,�. ■ l� t�7 d C�
'i� � I �K `I i�'}Y L f�� . J � � x R 1 � � �
� .�� x '� � r �iY.l �1 � � _� � �1 � ��� Y ��� 1 J� r L � ��,�'� � � ^y �
€ . � .� . Ih 1 I . � . .�f�* ��t •� � w � � r] �
z r, , � I rr. _ - � ' 1 :T�[' � � y��� � +} �
� �#;�: t— . �— . �� 'i ` - r •"' ;'� ,� � *+]' � _ i. a� R � , ;.�'1�1' :�� � + ;.�y �� ,.x.i
� �?!� � _ ' ,�,* , .� .r�+� * _� �� � r ,r
�' " . .. ti � -- i . �+ r `� '� •�' � a � � ?� �� �
� � . r*I R . . 'I hi- � . . �'*N ".5 ��. . 1+���. i A�Y 1�_ I � ry+
� .. . :� � ,� •� - yu� L ,� '�'+*�r� r �c��;I� � - �� .�_. ������ �� .. . . . .. �y�i�H���MI�X � +�'�"��'�'-` '�'-F' .
€ u F i F F �:,..'�'.4 h•���" +��,�� f� I '!, J � M��, ++ E F.. _��I�i �Mt� �, � '
� �a x {' �� � I; ,M,',+� '� � $ a}�:} 1����•,�� -',�� � *�1� 'fw t'�ir� ,r+� '�.` "j�.' � + �� �
. ��-JJJ , �ry. �y� . -^• } �� ��. � ..� •ar..�
� �/� ' " �. . r L; _ � k S��Y: - . .I Ir - ��4 � 'ti 4'.. - . � ��•y '�'J�I �� r
� � ' i r�k, • �' w� 51'' L ' � {�- l�' �i-�}� �.� ili . I.[,. r�� f � ��R � � �' � .+.� +' �
� �� �.'. . I�J A ~ �� A,�+.. I �# i� F FM.-�«ry.x�.�� � ��.
$ , , I � �HI Li��i � L+ '��. � . . _�41�''�u a�� " , . _' I,s� I�� f� � � �
� � .I � r 4� 'G� � �'� 1 # .. - ' ' . � �!I� ' ��w� � J
��� � � � i'�=�ik w �., +� ' _ '�.�',-'�'# 9 �
� . �-� . .� .. . �f7E � �� �.� � �_�-�- ..�_.� ._. ��M.� , �
� � � l �++_I_ Y� �Zl'� I � '���' ���i� .1 • ' `' .� �L:r�: l �� k �� ' � —
' � , -{T �.,,�.,`"'^. • '�' �- �._.�� � ' �I }' � + '� WORLD SAVINGS
� — i ' �� � t Y�� � � 1 _�' ' ���.� � �M�_ , . � '� F:S� ��A �3.,.lf � � PAEAIdeSERTBRANCH
�" +�MyC] �t � k F'F .,�, �. ���"{+ri+ 4.�'� y � � ',� � �y-'*'�
� ' i . i ' .i � 3+e ,�Y�r� �
` ,' y� t �� CORPORAIEFACRJ7{ES
G ::..,• �y l � ' i i •'� �} - I . '; ' i�•4Y .�„t.� : _ 1s07 tuRWSON 3EREET
� �j�; . �, ...�`I �� �,.,4 _ � . � II� '� - -f .� ' � . . '�� � �., � CALIFOFNU04672
� �� f • � rt I r! I �y ; ��'fe '4. , ` , ' ,�� " �V ,��- '�'7� (570)M6�022
� ;,_. 'ea. .�■ i �r - F�r - � 1= � I
� I , �� "�:,�■.s y� ��� . . u���-" •' rt�"� +� * . �� «.�' . ,.Yr e '�\} M .R � �/n�" {r n
g �., �� � %� � I y��5 "� �'� , .�. Y ' � .�� _�.^� #�r 'w� �'�4 . - L .. .��.. T� . ' 1� ' #�'d 4.� }. . M � V Y 1 O L
�`� . ." �� ' ' �'
� � �+ ^�� . _ .
�� �� �Lr� ... 4. � w� _ +t�' . ,�y'� ����� �± r..� —.�i. �� � "�. � . " _ ' � d!], 4 �� �� C 7 S
�Y a � • � � •t' � `�i�� I . rt��� � a . . y. .. F# � � "� F A R C H I T E
� ��.. .. '� . t. �� . �.�* �y .1� ' ' ,� f- # � y� � k �.
� _ �}, s "�,, ' -� . � + x .� ' - . ig � - � . i. ,.
".4. ti �1'4 '. �ii � ���y • . .,�� 1� •y, + - a . * �� � -r .I � .�� '{ 3477 Second Avenue
. +l ,
J .. . ' , � , � ��r.., y ';,� F�..� �� � �-�4* � *.� .' � ("
� 4 . 1..�� a i � w � � , k � I#"' '�'
w� . k �� I i 1 _ _ ,� '�y� � r ��y,� 'F � �'`�,� �' k:�` � -- w..�� _ �_ .R�-• � �'�� `+f +• «• ..« Son Piega.CaEifornia 92705
q
�t � �—r ^� +�R,�,� � 1s�� � ��1�i!i� � 4k. i1 � J' � �nlqlwn . ..�.... . .�,.����. - �''a � � � T 619.235.9262 F 619.235.D522
� �.�:b.� ��s��f� s� �,, [ t�,,��_F�".' _ '7P*'���,:� �[ .. ■r '��`'�� F:'����;"��;��, ',.��• �nl�F� i'' . '+ ' +'�' � ��Cf,' / � '•J , �r•� �;
+ •. ra � s. �Ar �^iF ' �'�`y�w'�"n"' L �.I'�. I,� �.. tn " K � ► �"' * . �"`"` � � +�-.� f�i�r �'�+�. '{ �r� � -��-�
� ��+��F r�Y r "� ' �,'��l,• �'�4 +r ,i P -�'" �,'�4 `�i#I� ���� ��� # �1���.JF�r4e�,,�,; . * � • k.".'. �� �i� } � �� .�� � �"�' �`��," '�r.,. �. -..,
� J'� � � ���f ' �'!'�}`�+. �r � ��� • ,� � -sF� ;�S �f'���"a�� 'i � � . � .} �� -� '�l ,I�� � f ' �3. b. ���* �r � ` �o.�� �
�� } #� �� . �� w .f+4-.�{ ���,t� f � '� �� � f! f ��' �� e'�
� '��;1 y�Y�� �� ' . ' � �+�� y � _r�� �',''�'�i" . ' . .�Yr ' d�i , ! �'_t `x *!'.' �`'
� .R � .s���� '�� ��.:;:,�: k'� �t +F+ #_9.. "� ' �r�� ' ` R j�, �i�: � . � ,,,* . ��- � � �s'����
o ,� , *. � ,
� . �'�*�'4. �v .:�� �..�.,. ..'..�:{.�. �-{• ���. .v_f s`' i� �._, � , L .?, � . h�Y�� ��� �i • ' �t� �
.st . .� ��
v
� .��.. , ., .. ,. _ ., „� - :� . �•�.;- :.��: . _ . __ _ _ � _. _ - � __ - _ _ __ - _ _ - _ __ VICINIIY MA " �.�
� �' 'y � n/h � P c�im Fahrua7 Di�2007
� BfiE BPuldxo.
§ PNIA�ESERf iX18
� HOR511 Na
� o
o�
�
�
�o�
E
ti ' �
� I
� — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ KEYNOTES �'� ��
� aunnixc errrm
� ... �.. � ~� 2� liEM0YEE7lf5TINGCIIRBCUTANO
�RIVEWAY
� 3� INBT.4LLNEWSIDEWALI(,CURBFN�
- . 01lTfERT01MTCH FJOSTIHG
4� E%PAN�E�ORNEYYhYATEJ(ISf1NGCl1RB
CUT
50 PLANTIPlGPERLSN�8QIPINGPIAd!
� �CGESSIBLEVANLOAUINGZceIE
� 7❑ NEYYASPWILTPARKINGSPFCFS,HEW
URNEWAY ANO LNi�SGVPING
s❑ �asnncsa wui
---- -- H W Y 111 o a���g�o������
g � 06 ENHANCEpppNCRETEENTPANCEPANNG
� .. �. 01 YERT1CpLSHA17EFlNS
� � Q FJ(IS71N66FKERBSql1MEPAp1(ING706E
RELOCJITE[I TO NN'CORNEft OF NkW LOT
� Z 3 . ��� 5�-� 4 2 3 GENERAL NOT�S
� � — ��T - � 7.SEELMLANDLAN�SLAPEFIXt
..,�
— - ._,.__� . __-.-- .......... _
(.. �r,�'� I$ rr I .... �;:�.j Md710NFLINFORMA710N.
� _
� r i ,
� ` r � : I �-��: ��:::�:::� 23EE9UILQINGPUNSFqiP1LOTTIER
� _—_--'_""_'_' L'�/� f :'.I �IF�ENSIONSpHDN6TE5NOTSHWM.
a m ..�r.: ..,.:�.-:..:..
� // N � _,_.. ...�_,..,..._,_,_,.... ..
O � �
, SHEETINDEX
�a �� � / � .. 24•0` /
/
4f'�, / {y� (y� 'V,� '�.r.. 09 FLOORPiAM14
qf / � � ii�.x.... � �.._.
�.�� �`" � `'���•�� dIR00FPLW
-�— N 83 �'��TkY ' k40.OD' �`� '� '�. �--�' ' ,
� �- ���r �+r �.� ,e,-c=- ¢,.. . � , 05 EKiERICRELEVAiIONS
� /�� — — _...,.� � � b '� �� .•. � ���I . - - - OB EXTERIIXt ELEYAT10N8
�' i y R�� �'� - � `� 07 BUILbING SECTION
� � /— � � — — — — — � — — —� �` -�-� — �`" �-�='�, c��--� C7 PRELIMIPl1RYGINDIHGPLAN
` B � � m �'�\ � r , �{�� ^ � � ;� .,`.. �:� I L7 LANPgGaPEfNAH
� � � , ,�a',��\ m ,- , .�;-1��� . . u,, ii , � �=4�
� ❑5 � ; '�` �.. . � �.j, `' °�,° 'f'�;k� ';. �
� ' QQ 1 � .".��, ;' �� �r,�,7° �-��✓�;' I PROJECT TEAM
� o-�1 � � �' a i
� f . �,'�,„:\/� /�, �\ 11 5 $ � � f �8, 12 OWNFR: WC�HL�SAVINGSCORPORITI�H
I
� � � R���,; �.�� ,� � � iam ruRa�sou srnee-r
� ti C , � �o �No,cxa�,s�z
` ��b� - !f�// / i �.� 1 BS2 I- P(510�M8-IP22
/ O
a 5 ` � /' �\ � � n u7 carirncr:ssEves�urM
� t� ;1-.', � ' x` � F—-__ _ o
\ _-�� � `� � � ` �� I,� ,wcHi�: sruoioeracwrecrs
y �*. � 2 �4 �j' ����- 247f SEWNDAVEHl1E
� ` \..���'�'��� / � \ � �
� - �� .u. � SANPIEGO.CA9270f
� � � �:�:%;'�`i < �� � � ... 1�' t �i i P(B7B121&9282 F{819}235-0522
\ - COHTACT: JOHNSHEEFNN
\ � \.�% �� `� �\ �\ � �� ;y"�,. ,��;1,.I _.� " I
MIISE BUPHER
€ \ �/ � \ �� l�/yI \\ \\���@ ����!`��`�'^~�-�,�� f STRIIE� TKJ31'RUC iZ26FEliNAVENI�IE
� \ � \ - x l!� i� �`^��� '
8 /\ � '!.y "'�d_�-y,I �y� ��r i �
/ \ 9 \ FAQiti�aur � �� � \� 4 ��� "rf ��"-"��'�•. � IIIPEHU�LeFACH�CAA7932
� \ \\ / / \ � ��\ 6LO�i x \\ �y� 1 �.�,��- i619�42�9991 �y
F(BiB�BB6•2082 �
� r ` � 15�_= o-� carracr:nMonn',uwuEss �
�� � ��41T�.� xy \ 18`-6" 24'-0' 1$'�" r..�j �
�� \�� � ���. _: ` 1 \ 5 7-Q' h lAN�BCFaE m'uNDSCAFE
' "v � ` y. PE �
\ i 434 CEUAR STREET,SI117E P00
3'� � i t4 I p �- SANOIEGO CA92101
� \ ��,( �� �/ � �eia�jz� WORLD SAVINGS
� � \; a'�'�a�. I �� 6 ��_�_.
f._ h1'.N.
� ...:�::�. �^'11� ' � i �� �' '�lJ�� Z COMJICT:HMAYMESNANha( PALM�ESERT9RANCH
� � \ . ...,.�{i�i \ esr'-r4?-.;s� './ i ,. � , 1 ,�,=;_� HEtnuaaxiat
� � r�6A• "��+ �O� � � '� �,':���...�
� OORPOfL1TE FACILITIES
�, /'I�I : 1907 HARRISON 5'fREE7
� �.",c�'"'- �$, i � ji � � �--� ,�� ���r/ .-.r CML SANBORHCMLENGINEERIMG O►Ki-1ND
� \ l0 y [ � . �...� �[ - �,cP. ENGINEFA: 122YS.GE}IEAUTRYTRNLSUITEC CALIFOFiNfA91612
� \ �x� i`.�-4.,��'�h���/ E ii J. r��I ��' �' PALM9PRING4�Ch922B9 (570)418�4�2
C� '1� \��'v , � f� � y - T 325&13B
� � � 1Y ' \x ��� a r � � � F(7�lazsa790
� � � 2 3 � „��,� r,. '� k � � �.�
B �I.-1�,�Ij� f�.<; WHfl4CT:.IOWISANBORI7
� � j4.., �-� S � UDID E
� �` ��� +� PROJECT DATA
A R C H I T E C T 5
\ \ � � .. k{{� �� 9 NEW 1 STOHY COIAIAERCUL BAHK BUILPING
t f ��1't�4�y� ° �`�'f,
� \ � \\ 2?/ — _ � _ A,v� Vr .:t, ` — _ _:1�,L�'1��'; /;. Pao�crr�oo�ss: 7a��rm�r���
\ "� A-,...a �f�; ,.. � , ; ��. APN: 627-7940134 2 4 Y 7 S e e n n d A v e n u e
� l,c=>
` 3 ..,—y��'-� 7'�-�=,+.- �o— �;"`'ti..��..��'�'j.-.-� s�iE.viFA ,328Ac1��szsaF
�--� �C LOTC04ERAGf� Z,ROSF San�iega,CaliFornio 921p7
� \ � '.� ~
' �`, �y , �� �\�
� \ -- �� „�,�L� �-��� '� ��%��.�.... ` ZONING: GSp T fi19.235.9262 F 619.235.052?
� �'�/ ��-�S CONB�RUCTION TYPE: VNR
� �j� � 89 �4 0'TN 100,97' f �_
� � {� � � r f c , ,�_ , ocuauacr: a
'�i� PROP09EOB111L�WGMEk Y,7TDSF
� � \ � ';_. ,4�y'C~�"\ ��� .{���• I --- I-- . � PROPOSm PM19NGAf1EA: 5,39D SF
_�C.'�,...�, ,A�,r � �q�t.l:l x,
%'� 2n�7 � : �� �aaosmuaosc�re,w� e,�zasF SITE PLAN
� \ `.::,�.
� \ \ � I REql11RE�PMKIMGSPACE5: 14
�t � I � PROP08E�PMqNG Spl4CES: 1B
� � � I I PAAIUN6UN�SCAPE%: 5A% �
`\ B51 �� g52 � ��
\\ � LEGEND �~
�� \ \ -__- �R Fehnr701.2�07
\' 72 PROPERTYLIFE �
� ewv�no.
� P�o��Rrr c�u� oa�r,a — — — �,��NE ��� �a�...,�
O 17£LTr�/B£AR'f1G RADfU5 LEN./i3fS7. TAPiCEN7' Sft9�cKut�
� �1 9 1B'46" 550.00' 89.4G' 44.80' — — — �naraar�wFpRnunpW � ��
S]TE wA�.L-3EE UWEtSCAPE
ACCE391BLE PMNING$PACE
� � r,�� ze'�o- zo.00' 4s.oi,_. a4.7.�' � 02
�o�
- � r
�� �
90'-U 114"
65�_�"
2'-0' 4'-3" 6'-6"
TYP.
_... ____ __._ �
.
�— ----- -� �--�\-------! �
� �--------------- -� �-------------� -------------------i
� \14 13 �
� � I � I
I �
� j � '- �
� � � I
� � + 16 15 i6 �
I -�� #
�a j � �
CV �
� � � � �
i � �
� � I 14
� I _�,_,.�----- i ����
� ' � _ D � --.�. i ' \ �.
a i a D„� n-� D a D \` I \\
��
I .
� �4 j ��� �� I
� ��
� - I ���I \�� � .R
� Q � � �/11' � �O� � r ` •�ry
� �.
�
� �-- � ❑ � ❑ D 2 � .� �' ❑
� ' 0 ° D
� r �— D D ' a�
�
� � � ; ,
� � i � �, o E � ,
� � � i ❑5 �
i i
� i i
8 � i
� � � � ,o �
� � � � � �
� � � � ' ��— �, �
,
� � � ;� `�
W i �� � f WORLD SAVINGS �
E '— \ � � �_ � PALM OEBERT BfUNCH
�q / —y�_ / `� �
` f ° � � pj CORPORATEFACILITIES
� I 'f "---------_ I � � �7 1801HARRISONSTREET
o I OAIQAN6
� � � i �L _� J � ` ! Sca�Fo���z
� \ I
� �------- ----------------- -------__I \ 12 � _�
� 12 35
5 S� UDIO �
� �
� � o '
C W I T E C T S
� �
� ���8� 2�1� Secand Aven�e
�� /
San Oiega,Califarnio 92761
� � 7 819.235.9262 F&19.235.0522
�\\ �
J
�
�
� FLOOR PLAN
�
a
� GENERAI.NOTES KEYNOTES �rr ��
o ���E��R
�` 1.9Ef CMLANO LAMI�CiVPE FOR Q B111L�IHG ENiAAkCE 1� pCCE531BLETRAN$ACTKIN CpUNTER �°`� Febtuery 07.2007
g �womowLL MFa+aaTia�.
$ �]2 IABBI'1�E$KSIWAITING BO'-0'x34'-0' 77 LINEOFUF7ERWFLLFBOYE an� .
� HON20NT1U.SHAf]EOVERFIIVNGPER
� 0 TRANSACTI0NCIXIHTER isi�a� ��asnrnw
40 STOR/�,GEROOM g�'s17$' ELEYATIONS
13 Mh60HRy PIEN PER ELEVATIONS
� Q EIAPLOVEELOUNGE 8'-6'z11'$' � g�IIDINGOYERHAHGPERELE4ATHINSTYP. � ��
� � ACCESSI&ERESTAOOYI T-0'xT-i0'
❑7 JhNITORCLO5ET6'-0'�5�8' q STORFFROHfGLAZINGSVSTFM
� carrrrc+cKooMa-m•,�s�e. +C� oavnsaour�aaanoowwTa
uHo�cRauNosrowhowdN �U'i
' n � I
o�x
.. . �. .. . . ' _. . . . ., . ' „' v" . � � �. . _ .
� . . �, , 5 i , 11'-8"A.F.F.
� ' `�-�*" . .
� — — --- --- — — a _ — ---- ---- _--_ __-- _ _
� � � --- — — ---- -- --- . — ----- - — -- — � _
i
� I � �
g 5 � � .
1 - �i
. 0 ' i _
� j . � � 3 I
i .5I12 '. �`
� . I
I �
1 . 1
i i
� � , i .
� � . i
...I � _ . . , .. - . . . . . .. - �� � � . � . -
� . I - , � � . � . - �. .. ' . � � - . - . . . � , , ' ' . . �, .. . � �. � � _ ' ., ' . .- .
I I /
4 i
� i _ . . ��
� . � ' ,
' � �
� �. � - . . �' .
Y
� . � -� � , - ' . . � .�� � - .. . - , . . � . . � � - - .. ' ' .
J ' . . , . , .. � � - . ' .. . . . . . ., .� .� . . , , ., . � . . .
� I . , . .. _ .. . . . . � ' . - , � _ - , . .
€ � . _ . . . a .
� � . D .
� � . . ; . �
�
.
� ; . . � � . ��
s � ' �
, . . . D 4
� � . � - . .
� �
� � � . . . � o
�
� �� � . . . . �
�
� . _
WORLD SAVINGS
r�oesear ew,ncH
� _ 2
� . .� � . . . . � . . - � 19uR 1fARR150N STREET
� 24'-0"A.F.F.
� 5 ' ciiF�u a�e�z
$ ca�o>a�e�azz
€
� �
� s � uo � o �
� A R C H I T E C T 5
� 12'-S"A.F.F. 5
2477 Second Avenue
� Son�iego.Calikrnia 92701
�
3 619.235.9262 F 619.235.0522
�
�
�
RQOF P�,qN
�
€
� GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTES ,�" �
FeMusry 67,7G�7
7.SEEROORPLANFORA�pITIpNp1 Q &11LT11PROOFING � ���
INFORAUTqN.
� 2❑ IAECFiANICALEWiPMENfOHGWV�E Y-�•u u.uoeeema�e
� SCREENE�BY LW109C4PE AREA �
30 CURVFA WN.L
� �$ 4RH06F�tAwM1�WEpFLOYf �
��
��7
_ I
I I
— — — — — — — — — — .. �eneuunwe rr
� � + � � r } ' �
� i'`��'. ` �r . � �y ' � '�
� ��. �s`� ,�` � �►�4 ,
� . �� � . ��� ;
r.�� .5 � � ± I�� f � 5� � �4 � ` 5` �� �,
. � � 5 .� ` `I �. � r��� �, _t_ _ — — � �—��� .�- f4 •�� — --_ �_� ' %.
� �F �� �� r - �' �''F. � � �
�_ � ' ,I.- '�` �' . { ' r
• I i. ' � _ � 5 ��t�• r � �� �t_ � !e� � �
� �r'�' �' � �� r �
���'' _, I i� � .. � - ;1�'- - �'�� � f�u� .
� � �� � MF{� f. Y ���'�' S� '� _ 5
r� 3 _ � - ' $ � - ' �ti+ � w
i ,� �; � �. ' � �i i � _ f �i t �'14 �r
}4 ,4 y .� � ' :�', �f'� '�+�`�' r� .. � �
' • J � �r '•
� � . A '� � �• �� {t - .
� Iylf'r* +� f"� . . � � � ..r: '+�Ft. -.—_. _ '"" �'—I
� UkI �{�' .. �� , I , �ry�+.�''sx� F � . T�— ._
� '�+'�*.iL' �x.' � - ' ��'�ti is'. ' _� .
�; ryx . . , .'�",.
� 1�`',�.��.;���?`'},5 h,t� ��,��'�.ti.:•��� .�_'k� i�r�... . �� }�� �
��-� �7�-�� �+�� ;.��5 ���f.�f� 4 � '��.fi.r'i�5;�� r� I � �I �
'� _ :� �: �� r _ r �
� ';;•- '�t �i�� � �.'.+.�'.--.� "{ ."�.I��y-.��...°�`.���k-il-Tr� '{ J` .�,
}ry � .. 3���t-'!'S�r .� i- �'�,•: _r ��.� a��J �
� �.{:� Y'- � Y�^;` ��1���. � �:'<:x-�ie�:l ,� ��'f,•i�r���. �� +'. i�* Fy[ �'
�y�,�a,��-��::'� ��� � ,�r l -'�.��-�'.S��� -4 f � r ��{ K 1
� �d�[ 't�F �,�,�. . . # r�r .�C�Ytq"n€ '��.vC�yq. Y .++' � _ .;. ���R{� b
� ` I 2 — _�,`.J�'��..r -5.�;,;�r�.nYr{ .r.•4 •!a �
� ' " , - — + x�..�'F�S•i' I {I
� � +. ' — �J _ � — — .J� � } _ I ' I�
� S � - .� �� .. `r�I'4 L+M1 '" � _ �
1� __-- ._���� - �"T': y - y p
a f� � xS r..+- _�_� ,. �' � ��.4 1 �'i -�Y'k 'f�!
� r.,..;�..:�� �,�:..F:;1y�;,o..•^��" ,s:.'�_ � � �, � � .y � i t } ..
� I � *+i �� ��`�'�4..I�{. � � �y{ I� y :�. ����+ :. I .
T ��.�� ��iJ ,5��.'�' .:JZ�3� �4 rll � _ � �k I � � .��� � F I� �� �
� t 'Y _ —
r �
� � � ,� ,�, ,�,
� '=' '-' � �I IJ IJ E A S T
�
� �
� - -,
�
� ,i f
� �� �� - ��� �
��. �
� . {, �. �
� ?k '' � WORLD SAVINCS
� w �� { { ' + � � PPLM OESERT BRANCH
F ',� •� � • � _� � �T + C-0RPORATE FACILITIES
� � �� I� ��p/ '��� 7901 I�IARRISON STREET
� ; , �: OAiSU4N�
r � CALIFORN1A84672
� - r. �.:� .t- �..- �$,o�..�
� f�, �r '�� � f � F
s ; -. �---- � — � �� � . . S � U D I 0 �
€ �;. .
� i � ,r_ � ' G{.���' k � .. H ' � = C T 5
� . , � .� #,w..� _
Q , � f
� �f. ' 2<l* 5ecar.� Aveeue
� KEYNOTES i �, . ' SoR G6egr.;Cafi`a-rtia a21ET
� 1❑ B��'iH FINlSH SPU�LO � � � 'I � � T 67323s825�F&?9.233.65Y2
� � Dlu4K9R01C�ALlIMINUM3TOREFRON7 !
GuzlNa5v3TEM b — � � ' I
� 3� THERMhL INSl1L11TE�LOtN�E GUZING -�' � _ # A f i �
� p roRUReacoNcr�nuso,�xre�ocK � ; .,�x+� }�,� �XT�RIOR
o VENEERWfDEEPHORIZJpINf$ I i _. ` — , k s!t+,��n �f� E�EVATIONS
� 5[] HDFUZOIf�%PRQIECTINGSUNSHACIE ?_ ' '� ,�34 ��� `�Frk
� GENERAL NOTES � PAINTFDSHEEfMETACWJLLLAND50FFlT �� _ — _ �+��' ��
5 5' �,,[[[
70 FhiICNENEUACCENTWAILSWCMl1VENEER i 'x:���y'� .+ Y1p44��'' �M1B1�
'-' 1.SEECNILANpl,AN0.SCqpEFOR � CURVE�ACCENTWAILCENTEREpOVER � I * � ' '��4• �P+ Fehruery16,2007
.� + �. ���
� �omaw�iNFaw�v.TiaN. eNrnroovRs - .— 4 �y l� ,? ,�„F �«�.
I'r +�.
0 LON�IaaIGAT10NOE5ERT5CAPE L ��`+ i . y} -._� {•,ra awncearxr�rae
� 2.8EEBUELbINGPLNfS FORALI.QTHEft 'L���,*� y �. M1 �v`�}`,1��I� ',l1{ � ��p �� ��'�5..f . "�" *�4'.
'g �IMEH510NSAN�NOTESNOTSHOWN. 7� SIGNAGEPERSEC.25.B8270,2d0,300 .�� `L � y. ' . r y.y. � y.r�.�
¢ 17 MECHANICALEQUIPMENTSCfiEENE� •�'`' ' .+ ��.'��- �� 4• l;�d +� -�� .� � ..*'��. *ti , xo� arreeirro.
� ' '
g 6EHIN�LAN�SCAPE r
� L'J L`J L=1 LJ L"J � O 07
NORTH
i �
_ I
� � I
— — �.+sww�seuE r
,�.
� � � } I R � X T
�'{ ' 4
�' 'i 1 �� r {+ y �� I , �
+ I .11 � � �� y •�' � ` � t .� ��
'�I�� r * � � �'' i� � _� 1 L}. �� �� � , .
�y � '�#�` �'1 �
'�i l i "� •i • �+ 5 t �� 4o�
�/ � :�"^"4�
� �T � '� � r � I � �l �'F T' : i.� �" � 5f � � I �� � -
_ {��1 -� :� ��t �� �� '{'` - �� � 1 �.� �
,�4 � �,.
1 I y '� � � �
� -Y � 4 �� i r �i
4 � � = y*� ��'��` i
� � � + r �+ t�l�1.a �'�'` �
� �.. = -- -- � -- �-�� _ —� : —r�—,����F 4�'�� �. y
� i�'I ' ' . �` . `� . � * � - ' � .'i * '� '"� k��.��,1
� ti I �� { y r� � Y �� �,�., , � �:- ''• ' .�x�'� �
� I ;{*T. ..�.
� . ' ' � - ' 'i' � ; i\y�i��.r�.�. � ��+ . rJ
g , .. � � �� . � . ` . 4, +S "C��� ..
'y ,. '�� ..,;
g ��+y ' . - . ,.�5�:....._ '�b,�s5�'�'yir'=� ':��;
A +�"k{.�r � � . � r . � .��" - r� L��
a }' . ry' _ 5 I � . . . . }�:.�
,.��" f 4;� . '+ �� _ � l . ,�f ' � � � Y} ..n
� � �,�,,,� y:.�� . ' ' �_ T ��
� . �'��FiM�i� . r '# � +' � f � . F ��i,
� ��5 'J � { .�F + w r � `�`}��5� ��i`��� `�� ��, � .� � - ��;5
� %��� �� + � ,3 F�ti:1 i�;.�'+� �� ;x�i��` i� $i �. � ;?F+; �; a '�C . G .�. �"�
��ti �F� '°t'"°t �� - y�� �,�� ��+ '1 � �� � -i{- �'F +��� ;:J,'' _�I�� .•� t�� . .
� �4 � �,� 4�— _ ° � _� ; :k��'� '� .o . ,� i: IT�'� �
� �: ��. - -— t�; � � � ,�.. ,� � ��� .- t � .��:� � .�.5 ri� t ._ ;:. �r
� '•," ,} ,':� ; � .I�f.. � �.� y# �.,.�. . ' .,�. �' ' � ; „. .: � ��'�; �M
�� � �'���� �,'�� �LLY3 � �'�''4 � �;n : F � � �.�'�' � � �. ;'�`+�
� � i ,k% _, ._�' .�'x�.�. L� ;r.. �. �'r� ' ` ����,r ��.� �� i.� � �� I�+ A+ +�i:-...
M
� , �
. ..� �: � ; �
_ . . . ' . ' ' . ' . '
. A 4n . . . .
. . . �
.� .x , . .. . ._� �K . � .,
.T� „�., �.
� . .. .�r.r .. / ' :_ �
� LsJ �] �s � �' � W E S T
�
�
� i — — ..
� �
� .{ � �j�'4 � i � /
� ' '4 '} � T"� r+� ' �/�J
W5� + �� •�� r��
c� f �• �'� - �j � �I� � i� _�
_ — �Y ��� ; �, � .-i 5�' — '- - - — — — — . , . . — — — — — — - i _�.' "� �� WORLD SAVINGS
� � i� �� ' � ��J PALM�ESERT BRANCH
� � �*'!"� J � ' � • }
�, x ���' �r � � CORPORATEF.SGILIilE5
e ' _ � 1901 HARRI30N STREET
�9 ' ��r � 0.4KWVI]
� _{ ��' CALIFORNIA94612
� . . ./ � 15t0)418d022
� � ' x.- d+" �� � . �`�
3 ' I ►� ��' ���; i. _ _' ! � .i��t�"*C"��.�.�' J
� � � � - . � _ ��ti... ��� �;T ��;}:� ��..�� S � U D I 0 E
� � I I � ��r�� �„ . ` �' . ��"`�.,.,i4�.,�,s�ry�;�:1x - � �r:,��.�f�;•:' � z c r. i r e ., r s
I ' .` � .'L� r��t� . �� `., rf'ii. . . . ',{,�;. 5�
� , �;R++C� ' — ?�+,'�Jb;. ,!�;�� �;,':�i�i'}�F:�=�''f.�';�{-' �`�� �{ i'_{k frVrsY � i4F9 aeccnd Avenue
�+ , . � . _
� y "� � . . 'K,.��*M1+ r'��!. �'.��._ .,._yS'.�. I il�1 'p�i 4 • 7
� « J : ' "'+c• f. "��'Y'�"r "�g„ L h�r �..'Y.�{� _ _
KEYNO7ES � ..,', k`� � ��>',� �,�. � �, .'K":: '�• :g!,-.' � � So��ienc,Csliferi>i�SZ1Gi
� �I_ 5 F y' �r:.fi.��`.�' ' �I`�..
L � _ �
f,.ly}�:���h flr��: .'+f��;;:��y������.' �k :+'ti. � w���� x „F,4�2:�.4262 F 574.235A52i
�dr:��,�•�'� `.e��+Y�. � ';!{yr:"�[:'�`% �.��'��� f�'`~ t�.
� 1❑ SM�OTHFINI5HSTUCC� I � . r'� '`� ' �r.•.•�H.��t„Qkrr� ���± �' �.
' #"' ' _'�+ �{j ' . ,T�-'y�' ?� �
� 2[] aARKBROMEA�VM[NUMSTOREFRONT "- {{- ';"��,+� �;q�r' .. �a. .
� ;��,',��.,}�� }� . r
GLp21NG&YSTEM 'i � y '. ��i y•" ' � 15•'Y ty; '� �'f µ.. �-r.
� p �rteahu�iNsuu�rEu�ow�cuzinc i . . . . i � . :f,#:.'_. ,�� .;,'�::^ ` . � _ EXTERIOR
a 4� TF�(7LREDCONCREfEMA50kRYBLOCK � �- �_��. � _ �'.� �h�?�i_� ;'' ' - ELEVATIONS
� VENEER WlOEEPHpWZ.JpIFlf'S '—'--'� �� � I -
Q HORIZDHTPLPROJECTING Si1N SHME � � I �'�' �� "� � 1-— '.
� GENERA�NOTES o p�N�sH�M�uW�,�o�T � ' _ - � � �_� � . d; ��� �,n
� 7❑ THICI�NE�AOCEPRWALLSWCMUVENEER ' ' ._. is * ,f..• s "4 ='. . ,. , . - � _ .
�:`' i {; � y� .. �.".�,. ` ' ~.�.#� ;� _�:'.:-:��:� �}�'� ^�I cxcrr Fe6�uory�6�2007
1.5EEGMLApIDUW�9CAPEFOR � CURVEOACCENTWALLCEN7EpEDWER "� �'* � � �i�i Y r-{;:' {+y.' ' � f �'•..•t�'r "��. I k {r,�,�' . L �
A��fTI0NAIINFONMATION, EN7RY�OQ93 � ' AC '�S +Y 5 �� •. I f 5• � �=� ��.�'�"~{' ''�' " ' er�
5 ' +-- r r7• 45�;'. J
a� � LOW-IRRIGATIONGESERfSCAPE •`:#� �";Y.'t �_ , �#�:..oy.�;��,'+-"��,���•:q �r,i:'.,,fl� � ��y �'r�C:+�}� r'�;�.._,..,.. �4 ,�. . �� 1 � ��.
� y_ _ �''� t+•'- �'�[-'S {��.� i .L� � I...� �55 �.� �•�'O' aLn�E9FnTYt�e
z,s�eui�o��c Pur�s Fa�au on�ER � ,.�'..1..�.:.�.:," ,i. i x���:,��j.,�� .�„�.=._.. -��:�-";i'�v�'�� , �
� OIMEN$EONSAN�NOTESNOT5HpWN. � SfGNA�EpERSEC.25.9&.270,280,300 � n Ho.
11 IdECHANICqL EpUIPMENY SCREENED
� 6EHINOUN�5CAPE �O ��.� �O�
� � 41 � .,�
� a Q7
- � � i i
�
� .. :`�,.,
� 1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ,�
�
�
�
� 3
�
�
�
4
� c� 3
�
€
$
B
� �
� o �
� _
WORLD SAVINGS
� _ .
PAI,M DESERT BRANGH
CORPORATE FACIlI71E$
� - 79p7 HARRiSON STREET
oacuNo
� cu�Farsnusaeiz
� �� �ato}4se-wz2
�
�
� — —'— � I LI U � O �
�
� '�, A R C H I T E C T 5
� 24t1 Secand Avenue
� .... ....... ...... ...... ........ San piego,Califarnia 42101
� .__._ ___ .___ --- . . .._. ___ ___ ___ 7619.2353262F679.235.0522
�
� 4 2 BUII.DING
� SECTIOf�!
� GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTES
� 1,SEE ROORPLPSI MI�ELE4ATION3 FOR Q ROOFNlFL!PER ELEYATION � �
� k]�ITIOWLLIHFOfiMRTION. �rr
2[] 9TOREFRpfITGIAZINGSYSTEIA Fahrueryle,ma7
Q HOFIRON7ALSHIWfOVERIfANG scuE eawwHo.
� � 7HICI(ENEOSl1NWALL $h•�v nM.xoEar�+rn'e
� n�
n
� � O7
v�7
�
�
�
, • ' � i
f
� I
_� CANDIDATE PLANT LEGEND
�— SYM. BOTANIf.ALICOMMOMNAME MIN.SRE
H W Y 7 1 1 TREES
PARKING lOT TREES
�' CERCI�IUM FLORIOl1M 1 24"BOX
/ �r _— -- � � O BLUE PqLp VEROE
' }---�-%-;� �-.T.-.._...---�--' ..._ 4
,�- k�,cr:�.:�:.�:.r=- ..lr�F��r,
`" .'is�`� '�J{.r::F k.. � � � D E O L.
, �� � x '�v`"r-�`.. ` #���-:`:�:�''�7'���'�a�� � t
.. � , ,,,,�,�� @ v�f k, r � 10 � ��
. =-.r� � �� ��•.
�`-, • v v � ; s�l:y� lr�d.�1 N/ `o` PALMTFiEE5 A R C H I T E C T 5
v v rt�� �y,�' ` � p � �-� ,h`f � WI45HINGTONIA�II.IFERA! 1S'9TH
� �. � �,� � 1 �` - " „V i� s•n �. ._7 ,�'�',:.. 0 CALIFORNfA FAN PALM 2 4 t t S a c o n d A�e n u e
' j,� ' -:�= 2:#„ r{�T:C�r+ri ti�^' --�-.,-'-«-,�--_�� , � . �. - V
� � � � -� ��� �' �'x i':,'�n.l4�� ��� . -.� � - � - ' Son 6ie o,CaliTornia 92101
! � 5� „! '$�(c l ' . $ 5" '�' • B
� �:r -�,� ,�� ����-,� ��1�y�. �J�' '�`..4'.='y 4 .��tC�f - �_/: ' �.' SYM. BOTANICAL 1 COMMON NAME SPACING MIN SIZE
�I - .: � ���'`,'�" � �-` .� a��.� ,�.�,��� 7G79.235.92G2F614.235.0522
g I' ;�a-'. -{_ ' '� '.[aslE�*�3ck��r�s�`i�� ��`�^�Y,,�� °� f 6, g SHRUBS
� � .
�_k�f f} #:5.:f��p�- �`,S�J}.....a iC>.�: �..';�,'� �}.
� + �. �[ w..{'.+4`�." 'f � 1 � �f:�,. .. ��;.: -� x�� S_.
8 � � •M1�`�'''' L'� :v.�N}...��..k �kY:nr f_.,�{rir..�;�.'j, ki £� f_��, , � OALEAPULCHRA 1 60'O.C. SGAL.
�ti ' � �r "�'A_.' ~� r��� - 1 9 O BU3H�ALFA
`;���i�.34.� '�� � �k} ,� 1r:r:Y�t� .w 7r
��o „n � , W'. ; }.! � '_:(, � I _ . O 38'O.C. 5 GAL.
r ��� � } �+ �"*�,f � � ! ' 0 CASSIAARTEMISIpI�ES!
�# � t �.�_. �f� � ` �� .-: FEATHERY CASSIA
��' � ',..�`.�t,--, •� ;k� r '`� 11
ff .3 .� �:�::.���:+�fi'�it_• r1 � _l � ,�•;1.:.<.
� '`�'.,/,}-i ::'��'w�v a.�� -, _.
f:., ,
� , t}}:i�::�' f•��;� SYM. BOTANICALlCOMMONNAME SPACING MIN52E
- �f'����l�yx�� - �1-���'� � 1 GROUNDCOYERS
,�.:;������:#>!�'# "'�;_
� o �-x-` \�� ,.
z'. . °` �� � [ ENCELlq FARINOSAI 30^O.C. t GAL.
',�'�'�' Z � / o O OESERT6NCELIA
.`\ f `�
� � ���� � „_. p O OENOTHERACAESPI703A! 16"O.G. iGAL.
�� ♦ TL1FT£�EVENING PRIMROSE
� �♦ \ 7
i .•`e ��\ � �� - o SYM. B4TANICAL7 COMMON NAME SPAGING MiN SIZE
� * �� �� 3 , o PERENNIAE.S
� �` �k 'J; \� �RIGERONKARVINSKfANUS! SB"O.C. gr,u..
� • • � � � O MEXICAN DAISY
� � O �� ; • �} �� 5 � SALVIAGREGGE! 24"O.C. 5GAL.
y � —r Al1TUMN SAGE
� � P' �k�� �
�3 . f, � )
� ���I:. ���4.�*, }�� �;.k �� i� SYM. BOTANICAL!COMMON NAME SPACING MIN SIZE
'�:.
i _�.-.,.. � a
��y ` " ° '`�W�}:t�'w � � ,��%,p� v ORNAMEN7ALGRASSES
P 'y""�..'' . -����...�+��.. I •/ �u/
r '}� I �t a - o MUHLENBER6IA RIGENS! 30"O.C. 7 GAL,
x }Y'� o O DEER GRA53
� . �'{
;� 1M1;�,��'�''''' ���'�'.� STIPATENLIISSIMA! 1B"O.C. 3GAL.
��...�. � ,- o
��-'�,��'f✓"''���•� f O � MEXICANFEATHEIiGRASS
�\ �* T.w:rt__� \ ����� 12 � �
� .� •.. � � . �'
$ ��'�-' :�.�' �� �i �� SYM. BOTANICAL!COMMON NAME 5PACING MIN S2E
S y ,r< �.�"'. ` � �
'4�ff` � + �� � � �� ACCENT 5HRUB5
� �.'F�' 1�' � yyy
� � '.0..':;';?�"�},�+ �/ � AGAVE64VICDRNUTA! SEEPLAk SGAL. /'
� y �. ` LECHUGUILI,qYER�E �
'��'��� {' ���'k��� ��f/�� �
�=���_,S'.r.'.,.vr- . — '"v I// AGAVEYILMORINIANA! SEEPLAN sc,r.l. �
�y� � F. 'i.�{y //�� . ���•�._:. /� �. OCTOPUSAGAVE �
'}�3�y:�{�4_ ` 4 :• ��
. �'�`�°'....- ' � {`=' • FOII�LIIERIASPLEN�ENS 1 SEEPU4N SGAI. —
k f" _-�'�
OCOTILLO
�,. ��� C�` � WOIiLD SAVINGS
� — . ��/:,'�/h,�4 ��,��..� ��,
� _, 1961 HARRISqN STREET
q f� 1{ CORPORkTEFAGILITIEB
� v MATERIALS LEGEND cuiFOR�u s�is
(510)MBI022
1.UECORATIVE CONCRETE pAVING�EHTRY
� 2.UECORATIVE LAN�SCAPE BOl1L�ER5 � DECOMPOSE�GRANITE(3f8'OIA.)
� 3.STAN�AR�CONCRETE PAVING
S 4. EXISTING SI�EWALK TO REMNN
5.BUIi�ING ROOF LINE �ECORATIVE COBBLE{7•-2•DIA) �
€qq $.CONCRETE BANO B"WI�E
p 7. LOW VOLTAGE BOLL4R�LIGHT5 OECORATNE CABBLE� 7j7�
S 9.ECpMPp3E�GRlW ITE(318"�IA.) BUILDING EQGE(3'-4'DIA.) 1 Y �
� 1�. �ECQRATIVECOBBLE(1'-2'QIA.) �wd«�
11. �ECORqTIYE COBBLE�BUILOINO E�GE(3'�'�IA.) s..,o�u 9nm
12.TRASH RECEPTACIE �A�`�0
� ��s.x�cs�
•re�
w�e�.kaue�em.
� �
� LAN�SCAPE NARRATIVE IRRIGATION CONCEPT STATEMENT PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ���PEMCHITECT
€ LAN�SCAPE�MATERIALS INTENT: IN RECOGNITIDN OF WATER AS A LIMffEO RESOl1RCE IN SOUTHERN TOTAL PARKING AREA=5,330 SF SITE VICWfTY MAP
� THE BIJIL�ING ENTRY WIL�HAVE DECOFt4TIVE CONCREFE PAVING,DECORATIVE 'CALIFORNIA7HE FOLLOWING i�AEASi1RE5 WILL BE L1N�ERTAKEN TO REDUCE
� LANDSCAPE BOULDER3 AN6 qRCHITECTURAL POT€ERY CONTAINING FLOWERING PLANTS. THIS PR0.IECTS�er.t4N�ON THE LOCAL WA7ER SUPP�v. TOTAL INTERI4R LANaSCAPE AREA REqUIRED=2B7 SF{5%)
� THE NATl1RAL GREY CONCRETE PEOESTRlAN WALKS WILL LEA�BANK CU3TOMERS TO THE �,THE IRRIGATION$Y&TEhF WILL BE AUTOMAYICAN�INCORPORATE TOTAL FNT@RIOR LANoSCAPE AREA PFiOVIDE6=26B SF 5 4%f
� B111L�ING ENTRY AN�ATI4E MACHINES. �ECORATIVE COBBLES PROVIDE A BOLD FORM f-
� AGAINST THE BUfL�ING. LOW VDLTAGE BOLLAFtO LIGHTS GNE A WASii OF LIGHT AT THE CONVEhET14NAL LOW VOLUME QRIP HEA�S. FRRIGATION VqLVES SHALL BE . _ _ �� h
PEDESTRIAN AREA5. SEPARATED TO qLLOW FOIt THE SYSTEMS OPEW4710N IN RESPONSE TO THE TOTAL 7REES REQUIRED=8(1 PER 3 pARKING 3PACE5-1 B TOTAL PARKING ` �
ORIEN7ATION AND CONDITlON OF THE SITE. THE IRRIGATI4N CONTROLLER SPRCES) y. KP u
}
SHALL BE EQUIppED WITH EVAPOTRANSPIRA710N 3ENSING CAPAQILITIES. = SAN GORGONIO WAY FEea�u�mri,°°°r
:':... u,=�,��-�� � amer
� LAN�SCAPE PLANTING INTENT: 707AL TREES PRQVIDED=6 ""'""�
::.::._.SF+�7F?;`.�;i.x9NW.... HM
THE LAN�SCAPE AT MATURlTY WITH FfAVE�ROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS ARRANGED IN 2.PiAN7 MnTERIAL ANQ IRRIGniION OESIGN WILL BE SPECIFIED IN � ��
NATURAL FORMS TO REFLECT THE DE5ERT ENYIRONMENT. CONSIDERnTION OF THE PLn,NTS wATER NEEU3 AND NORTH,SOUTH,En57 ���������� ,•.,d� ,,,�,,,�,o,r,,,a
� nNo wESr F.7cpo5UFtEs. HWY 111 u�
� CAtJOPY TREES$UCH AS BLl1E PALO VERDE WILL BE INSTALLE�AT A MINIMl1M 24'BOX � *SITE � �
SITE. PALM TREES INSTlLLLE�AT MINIMUM 15'BTH WILL BE CALIFORNIA FAFJ PALMS. 3.SOIL SHALL BE PREPAREb AN�AMENUE�PER SOIL REPORT
� GROl1NOPL4NE PLANTS$IJGH AS FER7HERY CASSIA,BUSH DALEA,MEXICAN�AISY, RECOMMEN�.471ON5 TO PROVIpE HEALTHY PLANT GROWTH,CAVERAGE, a EL P SEO �
ANp TO PROVI�E FORA MpXIMUM MOISTURE RETENTION AND 70' 0 5 �p' yp� a
� AUTl1MN$AGE qND DEER GRASS WILL BE INSTALLEq qT 5 GAL.AN�1 GAL.SIZH. pERCOLAFfON. � L-�
a
SCALE:1'= 16'-0" 4