Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-14 `�ry Wr✓ MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 12:30 P.M. - COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ******************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X 16 5 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 19 2 Kristi Hanson X 15 0 Neil Lingle X 15 3 Richard O'Donnell X 18 3 Chris Van Vliet X 19 2 John Vuksic X 18 1 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Shawn Kirkpatrick, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant Guests: Joe Dickinson, AIPP Commissioner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 24, 2000 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of October 24, 2000, meeting with the following changes: 1) indicate how the motions made were carried and 2) Item IV.A. Final Drawings, #16 McFadden/McIntosh, change in wording last line of first paragraph to read: Commissioner Vuksic stated that the flush windows should be recessed. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 1 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Commissioner O'Donnell inquired of Mr. Smith concerning the lights at Hooters and Blue Coyote. Mr. Smith responded that he would refer the issue to Code Compliance again. IV. CASES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 00-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BENJAMIN P. URMSTON, PO Box 1566, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 for Elegante Jewelry NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of El Paseo front elevation remodel LOCATION: 73-330 El Paseo ZONE: Plans and colored elevations were presented by staff of the store's present condition and the proposed changes. This facade remodel consists of expanding the storefront out by five feet, maintaining the five-foot setback from property line, creating a flat facade, adding the copper awnings and trying to clean up the existing building. The color of the building will be a transparent "burnt seneca" similar to Eddie Bauer's down the street. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the high parapet being added terminates at the sides of the building. The parapet butts up to the buildings on either side, but does not intersect them. Commissioner Hanson asked what the finish of the lights projecting out at the top of the parapet would be. The applicant is looking at polished brass that has a wall-wash fixture in it. Commissioner Vuksic noted that there was a lot of sconce lighting between the canopies and overhead lighting and asked if there was also under-soffit lighting. The applicant replied that 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES there is under-soffit lighting as indicated by the drawing. Commissioner Hanson suggested that if they were going to do copper canopies, the lights be done in copper also. Applicant agreed that he didn't want a bunch of different colors up there. Commissioner O'Donnell pointed out that there is lighting provided over and under the canopies, under soffits, and by the sconces on the wall between the canopies. There seems be to an excessive amount of lighting. The applicant was concerned that the canopies would throw shadows and lights were needed to counteract that affect. Commissioner Hanson suggested that lighting over the canopies and the sconces on the walls between the canopies should be adequate and requested that a lighting plan detailing the lighting fixtures and wattage be submitted to the Commission when the signage request comes through. This request does not include any signage. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the facade remodel subject to the number of lights on the fascia being reduced, the lights over the canopies are centered, the light fixtures are the same material as the canopies, and that a detailed lighting plan be submitted along with the proposed signage. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: 00-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): REID THOMPSON, 44-250 Indian Canyon Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to increase height of wall to 5 feet with 12' setback from curb 3 ARCHITECTURAL VIEW COMMISSION '} NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES LOCATION: 44-410 Silver Canyon Lane ZONE: PR-5 Applicant is requesting approval to increase the height of front and side yard wall on a corner lot to 5 feet with a 12-foot setback from curb. Staff provided hand-drawn sketches of proposed 5-foot wall. Concern was expressed that a 5-foot wall would not meet traffic line-of-sight requirements for the corner lot. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the request subject to compliance with the daylight triangle ordinance (the 40740') requirements. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): JIM SNELLENBERGER, President,World Development, 78-120 Calle Estado, #104, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final architecture on single family home with height of 17' 3". LOCATION: 76-601 Florida Avenue ZONE: R-19,000 Mr. Smith reported that they had driven out to the site and noted that this height is not out of character with the neighborhood. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the architecture on the single family home with a height of 17' 3". Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: 00-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA & ASSOCIATES, 73-221 Hwy. 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for McDonnell Residence 4 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary architecture and landscaping plans for single family home at Bighorn Country Club LOCATION: 160 Wanish Place Lot 20/21, Bighorn Country Club ZONE: PCD Commission reviewed plans for the preliminary architecture and landscaping provided by staff. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the preliminary architecture and landscaping plans. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: RV 00-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM E. LEITCH III, 74-582 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park and store a recreational vehicle in the front yard of residence LOCATION: 74-582 Fairway Drive ZONE: R-1 This item was continued from October 11, 2000, to allow the applicant to present a gate design and landscape proposal to screen the recreational vehicle. Staff submitted photos taken from a standing position that depicts a more representative view of the site and vehicle than those submitted earlier. Staff also provided photos of a gate on another property to show what the applicant proposed to install. The gate will have a metal background. Staff had suggested the use of trees, one on each side of the 6-foot driveway wall to hide the RV and another further down the wall. Commissioner Gregory reminded the Commission that during the last meeting they had asked for plans or drawings so that they would have something to look at. He reiterated their concern about an opaque gate and the creation of a compound and they don't have anything to base an opinion on. The gate in the photo does not have a backing and is very tall. 5 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES The applicant needs to be given specific directions on what is needed for an opinion. He explained to the applicant that he would need a plan - not just a photograph of someone else's gate. Mr. Leitch mentioned that he intended to install the gate and landscaping anyway. Commissioner Gregory responded that this would be an "at risk" situation because upon re-submittal, the Commission may not approve the improvements as acceptable to screening the vehicle. The RV is still there now and not in compliance. Mrs. Leitch stated that the twenty neighbors they had talked to had had no problem with the RV or their screening plans. Fairway Avenue is very busy which is the reason for the existing wall. The applicant requested that he be given 45 days to allow him to make the improvements. He noted that during this time of year, it will be difficult to get the work done and could take as long as the end of January. Commissioner Gregory wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware that any improvements still have to conform with City regulations, ie, the 7-foot gate. This Commission is only looking at the RV screening issue. They may still need a permit for the gate. The applicant indicated that he understood that even with these improvements, the Commission may not approve the RV in his front yard. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he needed a maximum period of time to allow the RV to remain in limbo because he has received complaints on this vehicle. Commissioner O'Donnell reminded the applicants that the issue the Commission has to deal with is that the RV has to be substantially screened and that similar applications have been denied. The Commission is extending itself to assist the applicant in the process of the applicant providing the information that shows he can substantially screen the RV. Commissioner Van Wet stated that it is extremely difficult to screen an RV on a lot of this size. The RV is in the front portion of the yard and therefore, more visible. It was suggested that the RV be moved off-site until the approvals are made as they are not in compliance right now and won't be for 2-3 months. Action: 6 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case to allow applicant to make the improvements and keep the RV in the yard for no more than 45 days. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: RV 00-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARION FERGUSON, 74-898 Leslie Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park RV tent trailer in driveway LOCATION: 74-898 Leslie Avenue ZONE: R-1 Staff presented hand-drawn plans for a 30 inch tent trailer parked on the far side of the driveway against the property's bushes. No complaints have been received from neighbors who were sent the notices. The property is triangular. If they could put in the garage, there would be no problem. A suggestion was made to put in potted shrubs or a new fence to screen the trailer; either let them do that or have them put it in their garage. The applicant can put shrubs on both sides or install a fence/gate that obscures the trailer completely. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the case to allow the applicant to express his preferences. Commission suggested either potted plants or a 4-foot fence/gate combination. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, and Gregory absent. 7. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of office facade remodel 7 ARCHITECTURAL RE"EW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES LOCATION: 73-302 Hwy 111 ZONE: Dr. Meints explained the changes that had been made to the office remodel plans since the last meeting, October 24, 2000. On the second story, the trellis will extend past and cover the second window. He provided photos of similar peeler pole shade structures used on the Cathedral City library. As requested, the single horizontal window on the front elevation will be replaced by three windows. One of the roof lines was brought down to match an existing roof line. On the side of the building, they followed through with the changes to the parapets. The parapets have been thickened to 12 inches. In addition,they framed the Village Counseling sign with a reveal which will be plaster and will not be flush with the building to add some dimension. On the backside, a wood frame and plaster relief reveal has been added to the first floor wall below the four windows. The landscaping will be removed. The elevation of the stairway has been changed from two heights to one height which provide more of an open, larger feeling inside. Perhaps it would be better to have one window above stairway door instead of two. The poles that were suggested to be displayed on both sides will be added to the final version. Commissioner Gregory asked if the reveal on the rear wall was meant to look like an entry, but in fact,was not. Dr. Meints confirmed that statement. As it stands, it looks as though something was started, but not finished. The faux door is what they are planning with heavy wood and hardware. It will be protruding out from the wall,with styrofoam/plaster, about six inches. Instead of creating a faux door that someone might want to walk through, it was suggested that it should be a focal point, perhaps raise the sill and make it like a grotto, look like closed shutters, or use the reveal design from the front. The line that wraps around the four windows on the rear side, second floor, is a bit of a facade. They will draw it together to get it more symmetrical. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that with this type of architecture there should be the appearance of thick walls with punched windows. Things 8 ARCHITECTURAL RED W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES that are fairly square, rather than horizontal would be inherent. Dr. Meints stated that the four windows are existing and there was attempt to save money by not putting the reveal on there. Commissioner Hanson offered to provide applicant a book with photos of windows as the plan's window shapes are not indicative of the style of architecture. There may be something simple to help in that area like introducing a mullion(s). The scuppers look authentic and are the best way to provide drainage, however they tend to stain the stucco when it rains. Dr. Meints stated he was aware of the problem and would have the scuppers extend beyond the building. The garage door poles are already there and about the size of telephone poles in diameter. On the side,the garage wall actually come all the way to the pole and from one angle it does come up to and cover the pole. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there was any additional lighting in the back. There is lighting in the back provided by huge shielded spotlights. These spotlights provide adequate lighting and are non-scatter lights at night. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval to the working drawings presented subject to the following comments: the trellis will extend past and cover the second window,the single horizontal window on the front elevation will be replaced by three windows, one of the roof lines is brought down to match an existing roof line, one window above the back entry instead of two, the reveal on the back wall be redesigned with suggestions to resemble the front elevation reveal, closed shutters, or a grotto, the four windows on the side elevation be redesigned to replicate the intended architecture. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: HDP 98-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDDIE AHMAD BABAI, 45-640 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE fW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building working drawings and landscaping LOCATION: 47-075 Southcliff Road ZONE: HPR Mr. Drell informed the Commission that the City Council had called up this project for appeal after this Commission approved it and the Council never approved it. There is continuing litigation. The Commission's approval would be subject to resolution of the lawsuit. If the lawsuit suit is resolved, permits can proceed. The Council believes the building is too big and if it were smaller it could be pushed back toward the slope and away from the edge. Mr. Drell brought in an aerial view of the area to show where the property is located. The house is 17 feet high and there are no specific height limits for hillside properties. This Commission has already given preliminary approval to this house and now has the working drawings and final landscape plans. The original landscape plan was very sparse, but the City Council upon their deliberation suggested that the building should be screened by trees and requested that the landscape architect use extensive screening. The building was approved by this body for height, architecture, and colors. The applicant wanted to pull building permits 1.5 years ago. The delay has been the result of the legal suit. The goal of the ordinance is to have the homes blend into the hillside as much as possible. The Council does not believe that that has been done. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is one of the same height all the way across,there are no variances. However,the previous members of this Commission were satisfied with the solution at that time with the color and design. Commissioner Gregory asked if there could be a compromise and suggested that the color might be made closer to what the City would be more comfortable with. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant chose these colors to try to get it to blend, but typically you want colors a little darker than the background. 10 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Commission Hansen agreed that the selected color will be very light once it gets up there. Mr. Drell stated that if this came down to color as a resolution, the applicant probably wouldn't have any concerns about shades of browns or greys. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why the case was being presented to the Commission and why are they moving it forward for final approval. Mr. Drell responded that the applicant had come in for permits two-three weeks ago. The goal was that given the long delay, if and when the legal issues are resolved, permitting can go forward without delay. Commissioner Hanson stated that she hadn't been on the Commission when the project was given preliminary approval. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that he would like to continue the case to get more information. He stated that he was uncomfortable with what the Commission had been asked to do here in light of what was going on. He believes that neither the size nor the color are going to be acceptable to the Commission as it now stands. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to wait until the resolution of the law suit. Commissioner O'Donnell responded, no, they didn't necessarily want to wait, but that the Commission should get more information. Law suits could go on for years. Mr. Drell stated that technically, once preliminary approval is granted and the applicant does working drawings, the Commission is pretty much stuck with enforcing those concerns and conditions that applied at the preliminary stage. Otherwise, it would be chaotic for people to do working drawings and have the Commission turn around and change its mind. He reiterated that perhaps the Commission should continue for the resolution of the Council process. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why wouldn't the Commission be privy to the Council comments if we are being asked to approve this. Mr. Drell stated that copies of the Council's minutes could be provided. I ARCHITECTURAL RE*tW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if there is a law suit going on here, he wanted to be careful in how the Commission proceeds. In fairness to the applicant, the Commission has made a decision with the preliminary plan and now it had the working drawings. Does the building conform to the approved preliminary plans? He believes the Council's comments are germane to the Commission's decision to proceed with final approval. Mr. Drell suggested that the case be continued until the resolution of either the legal proceeding or Council approval of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked that since she was not here to approve the preliminary plan and didn't like something, what should she do? Commissioner Vuksic stated the issue is what is acceptable under the law on the hillside. He likes things that melt into the site and he likes spaceships. This is a spaceship. But, he doesn't know if a spaceship should be up there where everyone has to look at the house. He doesn't have a problem with it being too big and doesn't think at this point the applicant can be told you have to make the house smaller. He asked if the law makes provisions for this site where it has to be set back. Mr. Drell responded that those were all issues of discussion when it went through for preliminary approval. Commissioner Vuksic's question goes along with Commissioner Hanson's question which is once the preliminary approval is granted and there are new members who did not participate in that decision nor do they agree with it, should they abstain? Mr. Drell stated that technically, when you are looking at working drawings the question is how the working drawings comply with preliminary approval. There are no further judgements, technically. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't see why the Commission should defer its vote on this because of a legal problem that has nothing to do with the process that the Commission is there for. This case has been in front of the Commission having gone through the preliminary drawing stage. Does it conform to the approved plans? Yes or no. Commissioner Gregory moved that the Commission approve the working drawings in as much as they conform to the approved preliminary plans with one caveat: that there seems to controversy on the selection of color, therefore, if the color option could be left open for more expert opinion. Commissioner Hanson has worked at Bighorn for years working with this 12 ARCHITECTURAL 110mdW COMMISSION `oo, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES type of situation. If the Commission could have more study in color, his motion is for approval. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed saying that after all his arguments against proceeding, he had to agree to vote in the affirmative because he thinks the Commission has to make a decision. Mr. Drell injected that it is conceivable that if the legal process ends one way, they'll be coming back with a different building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission had not reviewed the landscape plan before. He disagrees with the Council's suggestion about hiding the building and called it "spite" landscaping. Assuming that this landscape is designed to conform with the Council's request, he would like to make another motion that the applicants submit the landscape plan that the applicants would like to have and that the Commission will review that at another date. His motion would be to continue the landscape plan review. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval to the working drawings,except to leave the option open for more study in color. Motion carried 3-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. NOTE: Approval is conditional on final approval by the City Council or resolution of litigation which allows the issuance of permits. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the landscape issue to allow applicant to re-submit the landscape plan that they would like to have. Motion carried 3-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Connor and Lingle absent. 9. CASE NO.: TT 29444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 for SIX KIDS DEVELOPMENT 13 ARCHITECTURAL ReWEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of first two models for 32 single-family lots LOCATION: West side of Portola, north of Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Commission reviewed plans for the first two models for the 32 single-family lots. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the preliminary architecture and landscaping plans. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: CUP 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McFADDEN/McINTOSH ARCHITECTS, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of revised plans for a 3,693 square foot medical office building LOCATION: 42-575 Washington Street ZONE: PC-2 Plans for this building were last reviewed at the April 11, 2000, meeting when the Commission continued the case to allow the applicant to formalize the building size, height, and setback issues with the Planning Commission because those issues could affect the building architecture. At that time, the parking was significantly deficient. Applicants have made changes to the parking at the west end by acquiring an adjacent lot and adding 16 parking spaces. That solves some of the problems. Other remaining issues include the building's height which extends to 25' 6" at peak and is 27' from the curb. The building meets the 1-to-1 ratio. The Commission can refer the case to the Planning Commission 14 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES without comment or can take up the architecture prior to the issues being decided. Commissioner Vuksic expressed concern that the cantilevered walls were not lining up with the walls on the second floor. If there is a design reason for doing that, he asked to have it explained. Mr. McFadden responded that form follows the function and the function is that it is a very tight site for what the doctor needs to facilitate his services. He feels that the horizontal solid handrails eliminate the absolute necessity for being linear all the way through. The cantilevered detail has been done successfully on a number of office buldings through town. They look better in reality than in the elevation since you don't see it in a flat view. Commissioner Vuksic felt that in reality we would really pick up on these items not lining up. Mr. McFadden responded that because they are on different planes, they would not. There is a solid handrail in front and it is five feet behind it. You don't look at a building flat on, it's always 3-D. The design reminded Commissioner Vuksic of houses where the fireplace chimney goes through roof line and the upper portion of the chimney is offset from bottom portion. Even though there is a strong element going through it, it is weird and he doesn't know how he wouldn't see this. The Commissioner wanted to hear a strong design reason for doing it. Mr. McFadden responded that the need to have something go from the roofline to the floor line is a personal design decision. If there were a clear balustrade, he would agree. But with the large horizontal band, it has a lot of detail and shadow lines across the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that he sees a first floor that is designed, a second floor that is designed, and how they happen to line up is just an accident. Mr. McFadden notes that there is no law that says you have to have things that are lined up. He noted that he can add molding, but didn't feel that it is necessary on an inboard elevation like this. Commissioner Vuksic didn't understand the limitation on space because we are constantly designing with limits on space. Many times we produce our best work because the space limits force us to get really creative. He commented that Mr. McFadden is a talented guy and can do a lot better. 15 ARCHITECTURAL RNq W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson noted that we are only talking about two feet. Mr. McFadden said it would require completely redesigning the building. He offered to talk with the doctors and send them to somebody who is much more capable of getting things through this board. If we are talking about moving this thing a couple of feet, it can be done. But he's been working on this project since February. On February 12th, he called the City asking about setbacks. He believes that after this, we're going to get into a setback issue. He is 30 feet from the street, he did his due diligence, he got all the requirements on this, and now he's probably going to be asked to move it back two feet so that he can start articulating some walls on the other side. It just gets to be insurmountable. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the last time this was here, the Commission made some comments so that the applicant would be better prepared this time. Mr. McFadden stated the he studied the suggestions and implemented those which he agreed with. He wanted to maintain that shed relationship so that it complimented the building beyond. His link to the building beyond is that one shed roof. So he tried to articulate that. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the applicant didn't think that he wouldn't have the same comments as before. Mr. McFadden noted that the cantilever needs to be there because it drastically affects the floor space on the second floor. It creates a shadow line along the whole west orientation along there. Commissioner Gregory noted that the Commission is, unfortunately, a necessary impediment and either applicants work with the various personalities or opinions there are here, or they can go around the Commission. In other words, if he feels strongly about this and this is what he wants to go with that can be accommodated. Mr. McFadden advised that he would make the changes. Commissioner Gregory advised the applicant of his options concerning asking for a denial and appealing that action to the City Council or requesting a continuance to make the suggested changes. 16 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Mr. McFadden asked to hear the totality of the comments. He felt that if we were going to get into setback issues and so on and everything else, this is not going to be productive. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the minutes from the last meeting clearly articulated the Commission's concerns. He felt that the building height remained an issue due to the restricted setback. Mr. McFadden agreed that architectural components are higher, but the roof lines are all at 24 feet. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that he did not intend to start out with an argument. He just wanted to suggest that the option that Commissioner Gregory gave is probably a better way because we are going to go through these item by item to see if there have been any changes and there has been one change. He didn't want to get annoyed or upset and neither did the applicant. Perhaps it might be best to do what was done last time - move it the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant how he would like to proceed. Mr. McFadden responded that all the comments of the Commission are very petty and he was thoroughly frustrated. Commissioner Gregory noted that he was trying to put the applicant in the driver's seat as far as the direction he wanted to go. The way to proceed, unfortunately, is to give a denial on it and then the applicant can file an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission just re-affirm the previous action. The applicant can get input from the Planning Commission, then return for further consideration. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to re-affirm the April 11, 2000, action. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 17 ARCHITECTURAL RtVEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 00-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRIME RESIDENTIAL, LLC, 77 West Wacker, #4200, Chicago, IL 60601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans of a 306-unit apartment project (Canterra Apartment Homes) LOCATION: South side of Hovley Lane, 1400 feet east of Portola ZONE: PR-17 (5) The property has 602 feet of street frontage by a depth of 1,282 feet. The 306 units on this site were approved pursuant to a development agreement executed by the parties on July 10, 1989. The project has a main access point at the mid-point of the Hovley frontage. This will be a full intersection providing for all turning movements. A secondary access with right-in, right-out movements is located at the west end of the site. The building range from eight units to sixteen units per building. There will be 122 one-bedroom units, 170 two-bedroom units with unit sizes ranging from 817 sq.ft. to 1,250 sq.ft.. All buildings are two-stores, 24 feet in height. The project includes two clubhouse areas that each provide a pool/spa area. There are 254 carport spaces, 277 open spaces, 42 garage spaces, and 42 open driveway spaces, to a total of 615 spaces. The project provides only 296 covered parking spaces. Code requires one covered space per unit so the project will need ten additional covered spaces or ten fewer units. The architecture shows the two-story structures, 24 feet in height. The buildings have mission "s" the roofs and tan stucco walls with stone accent treatments. Staff provided full sets of colored elevations and site plans. As indicated, the 306 units were approved as part of a development agreement that was executed by the City Council in 1988. The property has been vacant for the past twelve years and we still have a valid approved project. They are bringing revised elevations for clubhouses, the pool areas, and the units which are an improvement. The grading plan was also presented. Mr. Connelly, Ms. Stacy Fruend, and Mr. Mark 18 ARCHITECTURAL REIN COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Kiner were present to represent the project. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was anything to indicate what the covered parking would look like. Ms. Fruend said the elevation of the car ports will be standard cantilever and that the majority of the carports are located on the exterior of the development to make them less noticeable. Commissioner Hanson commented the clubhouse is nicely done and suggested that some of the stone be used on the apartment houses in various places to tie the apartment buildings in with the clubhouses. Ms. Fruend said they looked at the idea and consulted a few architects. The parties felt that in a true Tuscan style would be best served by stucco. But in terms of looking at it, she asked how much stone would you think would be of benefit to the building. Commissioner Hanson responded that it didn't need to be a lot but there are certain areas where it makes sense. For instance, where things start to pop out, just enough to repeat elements that tie all the buildings together. Ms. Fruend said they have put stone on the columns that are incorporated in our wrought iron fence outside and the pool area. The columns around the buildings are made of stucco. Commissioner Vuksic said there are 23 buildings and the height on each building is 24 feet. It's a really nice project and he really likes the clubhouse, but every building has the same height. There is no modulation in the heights of the buildings. He realizes it's difficult to do that, but he likes the clubhouse tower element. The applicants said they were constrained with the height requirement that left them to the point where all the buildings had to be roughly the same height. Commissioner Vuksic said that certain roof elements can extend beyond the maximum height if it served to enhance the architecture and if approved by the City Council. Mr. Drell stated that you can project above the 24-foot height limit in certain key elements. The degree is a matter of proportion. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was an issue in regard to the number of units and the number of covered parking spaces. Mr. Smith responded that they are about ten short on covered parking spaces, but 19 E � ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES there are enough total spaces, so there will be a few more covered carports added. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval with the comments to add some stone to the apartment units, to pop up a couple of elements with architectural projections above the roof line in the apartment buildings to provide some architectural interest, and to approve the preliminary landscape plan as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 00-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CURTIS R. SHUPE, 73255 El Paseo, Suite 15, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for MS. ELLEN RABB, 73-005 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 4-unit single-story apartment building. LOCATION: 73-815 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-3, 3,000 Mr. Alvarez explained that the building is single story, has a maximum height of 16' 6', and is symmetrically designed with two units and garages on each side. The applicant has provided a material and color sample board. The roof material consists of a flat-concrete the with Santa Fe brown color. The exterior stucco colors and trim consist of brown/beige earth tone. The only issue staff had was that front elevations which are side-entry garages should have additional detailing to add a little more street appeal as they are currently blank walls with the small band. Mr. Curtis Shupe was present and noted that he has added some fixed glass windows to the garages (front elevation). Commissioner Hanson stated that she feels like she's being squeezed at the entrance. There is nothing to indicate that this is the front door, you 20 ARCHITECTURAL RE 'W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES are just walking between two garages. You can walk between two garages, but maybe you need some sort of entry element to tell you are at the front door versus a side door. Commissioner Vuksic suggested maybe using a gate effect. Something up above might be easy to do. The entry area just needs some definition, maybe a gable, maybe picking up some of the walls Perhaps the furred elements at the garage doors could be carried around to create attention. By taking these bands along the sides of the walls, they could make them more substantial or making them into wainscoting all the way down to the ground would make it richer looking. Mr. Alvarez suggested that staff would like to see a little more creativity in the landscape design. The turf goes all the way out to the curb. The City Landscape Manager requests that be reduced. Commissioner Gregory agreed with the City's Landscape Manager in using a drought tolerant landscape palette. No more than 30% of the frontage should be turf. This would give the applicant the opportunity to do something a little more interesting. It is good that the palm trees have been separated from the lawn area. Some of the plants will be crowded at maturity. The revision is fairly minor- if landscape could be continued to provide a more desert theme. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding some depth to the widows. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet, to approve the plan with the following architectural comments: add some sort of roof structure in the middle of the building at the entries to the two rear units, more furring on the walls of the rear garages, make the band a wainscot, and the following landscape comments: use drought tolerant landscape palette, no more than 30% of the frontage to be turf, and to provide a landscape plant showing plants at mature size to avoid overcrowding. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 21 ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION ° NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: TT 29893 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN BRETT, Hovley Estates North LLC, 77 Sedona Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for KRISCO, INC., 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 3, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architecture drawings for 20 single family residences LOCATION: North side of Hovley Lane West, east of Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-5 This item was continued from the October 10, 2000, meeting to allow the applicant to address some of the Commission's concerns. The Commission had concerns with the linear appearance of the front elevations, the connected appearance of the gabled roofs on the side yards, and the lack of recessing used on the front windows and detailing. The applicant has submitted revised drawings that reflect modifications as suggested by the Commission. Variations in the setbacks for several of the homes have been made. Six homes have been moved back an additional 2 feet to 22 feet from the property line. Garages have been grouped together to allow greater combined open space between homes. Commissioner Hanson pointed out that there are two locations (Lots 12 & 13 and Lots 19 & 20) where side setbacks are still 5 feet/5 feet instead of the preferred 5 feet/7 feet. The windows have been recessed on the front elevations and fur-outs and additional details have been added throughout the elevations. The materials being used are a variety of stucco and stone veneers in three color schemes. All elevations except 2A have hip roofs. It was preferred that all models have hip roofs. 22 ARCHITECTURAL RE01tW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson noted that on elevation 1 B, the front window is too high to the top of the fascia. She suggested changing the arch. Applicant agreed to make that change. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that in view of what the applicant is asking for, ie, narrower lots, and in consideration of the size of the houses, the density is too great. The little bit that they have done by moving a few garages back two feet and a few of the other adjustments that they have made in regard to his earlier comments, specifically about the linear look, has improved it somewhat but not nearly to the extent he expected. Staff responded that this development is not out of character for that area. The adjacent tracts have similar lots and similar setbacks. The Planning Commission has approved the lot sizes. Commissioner Vuksic noted the side windows on the Plan 2 guest suite need to be smaller in order to make the furring on the walls work. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval to the architectural drawings subject to 1) changing the side setbacks between Lots 12 & 13 and Lots 19 & 20 from 5 feet/5 feet to 5 feet/7 feet, 2) changing Elevation 2 from a gable roof to a hip roof, 3) the front window on Elevation 1 B is too close to the top of the fascia, need a change in the arch, and 4) the side windows of the Plan 2 guest suite need to be smaller in order to make the furring on the walls work. Motion carried 3-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposing, Commissioner Gregory abstaining, and Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent 5. CASE NO.: CUP 00-8 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BLT ENTERPRISES, 511 Spectrum Circle, Oxnard, CA 93030 and MARK MATTIAS, JR Miller& Associates, 9681 Business Center Drive, Suite B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 10-acre solid waste transfer station and material recovery facility 23 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES LOCATION: North of Dinah Shore (extension), south of Union Pacific Railroad, east of Monterey Avenue and west of Portola Avenue (extension) ZONE: S.I. Mr. Alvarez stated that this is a brand new project in the sense that it has come back a second time redesigned. This building is in the same location, but has been rotated from the south to the west. The functions remain the same with the ramping down for the trucks, the loading of materials in-doors, and ramping out. The concern the staff has is the lack of architectural detail on the elevation facing Dinah Shore Drive, where previously there had been some architectural detailing along the front which mirrored the other elevation. The rear elevation along 1-10 needs to be screened. There are self-haul loading/unloading docks, scales, and trucks waiting to be weighed. The height has been reduced, but still it is at 35 feet. Maximum height in the district is 30 feet, and will have to go before the City Council for a height exception. The City Landscape Manager has reviewed the landscape plans and mentioned that it is acceptable, but may be over planted and may create problems with massing of materials. Applicant's representatives were Dan Rosenthal and Murray Huberon, BLT Enterprises; Mark Mattias and Jan Miller, JR Miller& Associates; and Tom Noble, Noble Associates. Mr. Rosenthal stated that the building height needs to be 35' because they need a clear tipping height in the building of 30-32' so that when the truck body goes up in the air to unload it won't hit the lights or the beams inside the building. The height of the building is controlled by its function. They tried to break up the mass of the building on the side with landscaping. They can make some adjustments on that side by putting pop-outs on the building. The recycling line is elevated about 14' and there are conveyers that go higher within the building. They blow all the plastic containers and aluminum cans into big metal cages which go up to the ceiling. Commissioner Hanson noted that the trellis along the front might be nice to continue along. The Commission considers all sides of the building important. They have done a nice job with the front of it and are being 24 IN ARCHITECTURAL REVVeW COMMISSION ` NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES asked to look at the other sides. It is important that you step it down from the street. The applicant indicated it would be tough to do in that area because that's part of the tipping floor. The issue is at the operational end. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could move the building further towards the freeway. The applicant indicated it could not be moved due to function. Commissioner Hanson asked if the retention basin needed to be that deep. Mr. Huberon stated that they were basing this on the City's requirements. The property backs up to the water district water easement. Commissioner Hanson noted that there is still a requirement for shaded parking. May be the trellis element can be continued around the corner and used for shaded parking and that can read as part of the building to help lower the profile. Commissioner Gregory noted that in an effort to provide landscaping to soften that side of the building they are showing large canopy trees. In reality that won't work because the artist shows the trees going right through the building. If you gave up on those trees and had covered parking in this area, it would tend the trellis concept and give an opportunity to step the building down a bit. Mr. Mattias stated that it would be similar to an apartment complex. The more posts you put out there, the more chances they'll get hit. That would be our main concern. Commissioner Hanson noted that if you have those palms trees, that would be a better way to handle that side. There are some landscape fingers coming into which you could put the posts. Commissioner Vuksic suggested putting some window elements in the south elevation. Commissioner O'Donnell said that his expectations after the first presentation were dashed based on what he had seen here. He was disappointed with the architecture, compared to what was shown last time and what has been done in other locations. He believes this is less than what they have been able accommodate in other communities. The architecture is lacking. It is a high profile building, it is going to be seen 25 4 ry ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES from 1-10, and ultimately that section of 1-10 will see a significant amount of traffic. The fagade facing Dinah Shore Drive needs a significant amount of improvement in architecture. He remembered the applicant giving a presentation last time where the offices were to face Dinah Shore Drive and the applicant has given good rationale today for turning the building. It's a box, a big box, and it needs a lot of help. Some of your other buildings presented last time, even though they were boxes, there was a lot more architecture to them. This level of architecture is not provided in this presentation. Mr. Rosenthal said that on the north side of the building facing the 1-10, the railroad tracks are elevated about 7 feet above grade level. This provides a screen from the freeway that will cut off part of the building from view; commuters might be able to see some of the tops of the bigger trucks. He doesn't believe any of the ground surfaces will be seen. The applicant's concern is that if architectural detail is put on this side of the building within 7-8' of the ground, they won't be seen and would be hit by the trucks. Mr. Rosenthal said there are things they could do to the roof line. The problem with adding reveals or textures, with the wind and amount of dirt out there, they are dust collectors. They try to minimize reveals and textures on the concrete, and try to do it with painted surfaces. They wash down their buildings and keep their building clean. Commissioner Gregory said some of the planters could be bigger. There is an opportunity to soften that wall. Turf is shown to the edge of the street. The water district will not allow that. Commissioner Van Vliet said the building is painted tilt-up concrete. The Commission usually requires some sort of texture on the walls and has allowed combinations with aggregate. Typically, the Commission requires some sort of stucco finish, or exposed aggregate poured into the panels in portions of the building. Commissioner O'Donnell said that the site plan indicates that about 64% of the site will be paved. He knows that a lot of paving is required because of all the vehicular movement. He requested that the large asphalt area on the east side be broken up with more landscaping. 26 N ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Rosenthal responded that a large majority of that space is for truck maneuvering a large turning radius, waiting, and parking. The only opportunity to put landscaping out of harms' way be along the perimeter. They can, however, soften some corners. Commissioner Gregory asked that they look at softening that side of the project with landscaping. Mr. Alvarez noted that the Commission may have an issue with the perimeter fencing, particularly on the freeway side. It is chain link with slats on three sides. Is there any other solution to that? Commissioner Gregory asked for photos from all views of the fencing. Commissioner Gregory noted that the suggestion to put shaded parking in front was offered as a constructive suggestion to incorporate architectural changes or something to make it more interesting with the opportunity to have shaded parking. Commissioner Van Vliet's comment about textural changes on the building wasn't against paint, he was just concerned with the same monotonous look throughout the entire building. The entire thrust of the architecture is on the office side and it needs to be carried around the building. The building does not need to be shifted. The applicant was encouraged to take some of those elements to break down the massing. It is a big box and they have to try to make it not look like a big box. The City Council will have to address the 35' height. If you have what we consider to be a good architecture for the entire building, the height limit may be overcome. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the case to allow applicant to make changes as mentioned: provide shaded parking along the Dinah Shore elevation, textural changes on the building, breaking down the mass by adding shadow and detailing, and picking up the roof line, carry some of the front architectural elements around the building, and other issues discussed in the minutes. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Connor and Lingle absent. 27 ARCHITECTURAL ReWEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: MISC 00- APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHARLES GARLAND, GLS GROUP, 74-854 Velie Way, Suite #5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 JD DESERT DEVELOPMENT, 75-1160 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two single family models for a 20-lot subdivision and preliminary landscape approval. LOCATION: Bald Eagle Lane (north side of Hovley Lane West), TT 25373 ZONE: PR 5 The plans were displayed before the Commission members. This tract was approved ten years ago. Partial improvements were put in and then abandoned. Staff suggested the need for some recessing of the front windows, utilizing all hip roofs, and additional detailing along the top of the windows. All four sides of the buildings are flush. The units need to be brought down about 4 inches in height to meet the maximum height from the pad. Colors need a little more contrast. Staff also suggested staggering the garage setbacks to create more interest in the street scape. The applicant stated that they were going to try to figure out a way to put a separate casita out front. The only way to do that would be to push the house way back and the capita plan would have to come before the Commission. The setback at the cul-de-sac is 15 feet. The applicant advised that he felt the suggested changes could be incorporated in the plans. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to allow applicant time to respond to the Commission's comments: delineate the project by staggering the units 28 ARCHITECTURAL RE' 'W COMMISSION ` NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES and reconfiguring the garages, bring roof height down 4 inches, recess the front windows, continue front detailing around the units, break up the straight line look of the rear roof line, add wainscoting, change the square window in the round opening, and offer a variety of contrasting colors. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, and Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID FLETCHER, for BCBG, 73- 100 El Paseo, #4, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage and awnings LOCATION: 73-100 El Paseo, #4, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith outlined the request and recommended approval of the awnings and the signs. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval of the signage and awnings. 8. CASE NO.: SA 00-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PARAGON SIGNS, for NAPA Auto Parts, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Installation of illuminated channel letter and logo signs on the north and west building fascias. LOCATION: 42-100 Beacon Hill ZONE: S.I. Staff requested that NAPA's sign request be put on the agenda. 29 ARCHITECTURAL RtbKf W COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve putting the sign request on the agenda. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, and Gregory absent. Staff provided plans to the Commission. The finish on this building is combinations of tilt-up concrete and tilt-up concrete with plaster on the front elevation. The case concerns signage for the north and west elevations. The north elevation would have the NAPA logo and a 4' 6" can box in a 4-foot space. The applicant has been told that the can has to fit within the 4-foot space with 6 inches above and below the can. It is a similar occurrence on the west elevation. They are creating an accent line, but it seems to detract from the rest of the sign. Commissioner O'Donnell thought the sign was too high and would fit nicely on the lower band on the west elevation over the main entrance. Commissioner Hanson summarized that the north elevation NAPA needs to fit within the band with 6" top and bottom (ie, 3' sign), the west elevation there should be no yellow stripe, eliminate the band, and the NAPA and the auto parts needs to be in the lower blue band just above the windows with the same spacing as a minimum. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the signage subject to the following conditions: On the north elevation, NAPA sign needs to fit within the 4-foot band with 6" top and bottom borders (ie, 3' sign); on the west elevation, remove yellow stripe or band, and the NAPA and the auto parts with the red swoosh needs to be in the lower blue band just above the windows with a minimum 6" top and bottom border. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, and Gregory absent. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 30