Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-27 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 15 3 Kristi Hanson X 15 2 Neil Lingle X(Excused) 12 4 Richard O'Donnell X 12 3 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 13, 2001 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of November 13, 2001. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 VVK Vo,/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP-01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 ROBERT RICCCIARDI, Robert H. Ricciardi AIA & Associates, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings of two one-story and one two-story new office buildings on Alessandro between San Pasqual and San Juan. LOCATION: 73-720 Alessandro ZONE: OP Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval subject to pending application at Planning Commission with conditions that would require a cul-de-sac at the end of San Juan, height of wall on the north side being worked out with the neighbors and subject to approval of the Landscape Manager. Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 00-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARL KARCHER, 72-875 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architectural working drawings for 5,700 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-558 San Pablo (east side of San Pablo, north of Alessandro) ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 2 `W0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval subject to comments by the Landscape Manager. Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 00-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KENNY LUCKEROTH, 77-555 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of detached accessory structure in rear yard. LOCATION: 77-555 Delaware Place ZONE: RE (40,000) Mr. Smith stated that this case was on the agenda two weeks ago, but was held over so that the applicant could be present. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicants are requesting approval of a detached accessory structure in the rear yard, which falls within the zoning standards. The structure will be 16' high and have a 20' set- back from the rear and 16' set-back from the side yard. The building will be finished with stucco to match the house. Mr. Smith commented that the required set-back is 50'. Through the Conditional Use Permit process the applicant can request a reduced set-back. Mrs. Donna Luckeroth, applicant, was present and stated that they have plenty of room in the backyard for the proposed structure. Mr. Luckeroth stated that there is a structure in their neighbor's yard that is only 5' from the property line. There are also structures that are similar in height and larger than the structure proposed. Mrs. Luckeroth stated that the building would not affect anyone to the east of their property because that property is vacant. She stated that they have added tile to a portion of the roof with stucco exterior to match the house. There G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES are also arches over the windows, which are similar to the front of the house. Commissioner Vuksic inquired as to whether there are any flat-roofed areas on the main house. Mrs. Luckeroth distributed photos of her home. The main house has a hipped roof. The rear of the proposed structure has no architecture. Mr. Vuksic stated that it would be unfortunate to build the structure as proposed as the house is a very good looking ranch-style house on a big piece of property. The proposed structure looks utilitarian. Commissioner Hanson commented that the main house is very beautiful with nice landscaping and pool area. She does not feel that the proposed building would tie into the house. The south elevation should have a solid parapet and provide drainage down through the wall. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the southeast and west elevations are lacking architecture. These elevations face the neighbors and he recommended that the architecture should look more like the main house. He stated that the building looks more commercial than residential. Commissioner Gregory commented that the proposal of putting a building in this location is okay. The Commission is looking for the architecture of the accessory structure to tie in with the architectural style of the home. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the request with direction that the applicant tie the architecture of the house in with the accessory structure. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: SA 01-135 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEMPLE SINAI, 73-251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign at entry of temple. LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ZONE: P.R. Mr. Alvarez stated that the proposed approval of the west-facing sign was brought to the attention of staff by Mr. Wiley,a resident, who lives near the Temple Sinai. The letters of the sign are non-illuminated. Mr. Drell stated that the sign was never approved. The sign is brown and is on a tan building. The sign is only part of the complaint that Mr. Wiley has. There are grade differences between Mr. Wiley's property and the church and the way the wall was constructed for his property, which is approximately 4%2' tall. He has a full view of the temple from his house. There had been thoughts about having a landscape plan that would shield the view of the church and there is further discussion of how to effectively do that. If the screening between the temple use and residential use can be enhanced, then this issue of the sign may disappear. Mr. Gregory stated that the Temple Sinai was inadvertently led to believe that the sign was permitted. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission continued the matter to allow Mr. Wiley, who is a resident near the Temple Sinai, to be present. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 5 `stirâ–º *400, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA 01-128 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VINCENT BATTAGLIA, 74-770 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-993 Highway 111(Southwest corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue) ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez stated that there was some confusion over this case at the last ARC meeting. The tenants were present and they were not aware of the discrepancies between A.G. Edwards and the location of the sign, which was previously approved below the grouping of four windows. The applicant is present today to request the relocation of the Strole & Associates sign to the second story. The sign will consist of non-illuminated letters. The approved sign on the first floor would have been illuminated. Vincent Battaglia, applicant, was present and stated that he represents the tenants upstairs. Dr. Conrow is on the second floor. He is trying to sublet the rear portion of the second floor. This tenant would require some type of signage. The approved first-floor signage does not work with the current tenant, A.G. Edwards, who leases the entire first floor. As a part of their lease, no other signage is allowed on the first floor. First and foremost, he would like to work with the City. Mr. Battaglia is willing to reduce the size of the sign to 7Y2" letters and relocate the sign to the second floor, which would be closer to the sublessee, and it would be non-illuminated with blue lettering. Commissioner Gregory commented that the ARC is a subjective review board and although the policy is to try to discourage signage on the second floor, he feels that another sign at the first floor level would not be as tasteful or discrete as this one. Commission Hanson expressed concern that if Strole & Associates moves out and a new tenant comes in with a really awful sign, then they may want to have their sign on the second floor. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 6 '%W* ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval to relocate this particular sign only. Any future alteration of this sign to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell. Motion carried 4-1-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CD 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JM MADERA, 2842 Roe Lane, Suite 200, Kansas City, KS 61103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of north elevation, MONTEREY SHORE PLAZA II. LOCATION: Monterey Shore Plaza, Lot 5 Parcel Map 24616, Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Alvarez stated that the applicant has made some changes to the north elevation. Architectural elements now have 6" pop-outs and recessed windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that the north elevation is actually a front elevation as it faces House to Home. Therefore, both sides of the building should have similar architectural elements. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the pop-outs should be at least 24". He mentioned that since the grade cannot be stepped down, why can't the grade be raised? Commissioner Vuksic commented on stepping down the roof and bringing the building down to the column level since this elevation is so tall, which is approximately 36' from the grade level. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission moved for continuance and requested that the applicant step down the north elevation in front of the mezzanine, tie in the north elevation with the front of the building so that it is part of the architecture, make pop-outs at least 24", add architectural elements to the north elevation and subject to comments by the Landscape Manager. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS: 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 673, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 73-811 Santa Rosa Way LOCATION: 73-811 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 SO Mr. Smith stated that this project was presented approximately four weeks ago and the applicant has revised the plans, which have been returned to the Commission. Dave Jackson stated that they have gotten away from the Mediterranean look and went to more of a contemporary, modern theme. Their idea was to create an "environment within an environment". They did not add any pop-outs or thickening of the walls. They have added an element on the rear elevation to cover the doorways on the lower level. They have fixed the set-backs, added G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 8 `7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES more landscaping and addressed the water feature issues. One reason why he does not want to add any pop-outs is because he does not want to detract from the "environment within" by having the building moved in and out. He wants to keep as much area with set-backs to keep the water features as the focal point. Mr. Jackson stated that the roof-top air conditioning units are small enough and the 2Y2 ton units are low in profile. A person would have to be almost 685' feet away to see the a/c units. The a/c units are approximately 4" over the parapet line. The trim around the windows and doors will be 3" x 6" to give relief to these areas. The roof tile has been removed. Columns have not been added, as cantilevers will be utilized. Mr. Jackson stated that by bringing areas in and out in certain areas, such as the walkways, would create a hazard for people walking around the building. He feels that one foot pop-outs would create too much of a traffic hazard to someone in a wheelchair or walker. He would like to keep the walkway area simple. Commissioner Vuksic commented the he would like to reiterate his previous comments. There was a discussion regarding the lack of pop- outs and articulation on the building. Commissioner Vuksic noted that there was currently 30' of open space. He suggested that this could be reduced to 28', which would add one foot of pop-out to each side. This would make a huge difference, as opposed to having a flat surface. The walkway does not have to just wrap around the building. He suggested adding planting areas against the building in some areas and making the walkway straight, not going around every little feature on the building. The walkway, as proposed by Mr. Jackson, may end up looking like they have spent as little money as possible on concrete and created a 4' code-required walkway that followed each corner of the building exactly. There are no planting areas against the walls. The reason why the Commission would like pop-outs on this building is because as the building is currently proposed, there is only 3" x 6" trim around every window and door with two-story walls. If some features are created with shadow lines and breaking up the plane, the building will very quickly look much more attractive. The scale of the building will be broken down and interesting features will be created on the building. The elevator tower could have thicker walls and create recesses in it instead of just tacking on the 3" x 6" trim pieces around the very tall, flat walls. Commissioner Vuksic suggested pulling the doors away from the corners in the elevator building to create some architecture. The plans in the laundry room can be flipped. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented on the size of the patios on the lower level. Two chairs and a small table will fill up the whole patio and may interfere with the walkway. Commissioner Gregory stated that the walkway could be greatly simplified to make it easier to walk on. He stated the project needs refinement to make it work better but the idea is interesting. It is unusual having no landscaping against the building as typically, the landscaping softens the building especially in some key areas. Commissioner Gregory suggested moving the walkway away from the building to create landscaping areas next to the building. There is a massive scale to the building and by adding shadow detail and interesting planes and something to give a feeling of depth and relief. By having two-story structures with just panels does not create relief, but just looks like something is added to it for visual interest. Stone coins on the corners would not solve the problem, but it could add some interest to the building but would not create articulation. Mr. Knight stated that the landscape plan is a lot better than it was previously. Ms. Hollinger has made notes on the plans. The plant material is spaced too close and he will really have to watch the water use with the water feature. Some of the plant material specified on the plans have high water usage. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the change that was made in the roof was a big step forward. It changed the look of the building quite dramatically, but he feels that it needs additional refining. He was concerned about the underside of the 3' projection overhang, which will be finished with stucco. He stated that it looks like the heel of the truss is visible without any fascia and would like some detail around the roof. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the projection of the entry roofs on elevation C needs to be more than one foot. Commissioner Van Vliet inquired about the wood trellis carports. The carports will be supported by 1%2' masonry columns. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission moved for continuance to allow the applicant to revise the plans with a view to improving the architecture and interest of the building and subject to comments by the Landscape Manager. (See minutes for additional details.) Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR011127.min.wpd 10 Ifto ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 673, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael ZONE: R-3 Chairman Gregory indicated that the comments for this case were the same as for the previous case No. PP 01-23. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission moved for continuance to allow the applicant to revise plans with a view to improving the architecture and interest of the building and subject to comments by the Landscape Manager. (See minutes for additional details.) Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011127.min.wpd 11