Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-09 � � �1��"� CITY OF PALM DESERT �- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • � MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** 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 5 1 Kristi Hanson X 5 1 Neil Lingle X 4 2 Richard O'Donnell X 6 0 Chris Van Vliet X 6 0 John Vuksic X 5 1 Ray Lopez X 4 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 26, 2002 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the minutes of March 26, 2002. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Smith stated that per the direction of the ARC, the City is heading towards a code amendment that would require approval to change the color or texture of buildings. He stated that he is looking for input before proceeding any further. Mr. Drell asked if the Commission would want the staff to bring back color changes on projects that they have approved or do they want to delegate that to staff and for staff to only refer them to the ARC if they are questionable. Mr. Drell stated that this would include both residential and commercial buildings. Commissioner Gregory stated that his favorite example would be the Fred Waring/Monterey building. He asked what if they painted it fluorescent orange and even though it's totally within their rights to do that, it negates what we're trying to do here with new construction. He commented that if they're trying to change a color to a slightly different shade of mauve or taupe, the ARC does not need to have it approved. Mr. Drell stated that they should have to get our approval and this can't be left to their discretion. Commissioner Hanson asked if there would be a fee that a person would have to pay to change the color of their home. Mr. Drell stated that there would not be a fee. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he is concerned about code enforcement. He stated that this will be the easiest rule to scoff. He stated that homeowners are going to paint their house. He commented that they have a Time of Use Ordinance for leaf blowers, which is not enforced. Mr. Drell stated that it is enforced based on complaints and the same thing will happen with the exterior building colors. He stated that if everyone likes it, no one complains, no one cares and it's no problem. The Commission asked how the public would know about having exterior paint colors approved. He commented that we could put it in the newsletter, website and newspaper. Mr. Drell stated that right now we approve a house and there's a statement that they sign that they are agreeing to build the house as approved. Then there is a property maintenance ordinance that says they are supposed to maintain it. He commented that it is ambiguous in that you are not required to have a building permit to paint your house. He stated that this is not a horrible problem. In twenty years, there have been 2-3 times that people have used bad judgement in their paint 2 ��,�►"° � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES colors. Commissioner Lingle stated that there was one here within the last ninety days. He stated that he came back to this Commission and told them about the fence that was built at Fairway and Deep Canyon and we approved that. He commented that they did not approve bright orange and teal and that's what it is. Mr. Drell stated that there should've been an approved color for the fence. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he does not see any problem with regulating the color of commercial, industrial or large buildings in general. He commented that they might have a legal problem with residential buildings. Mr. Drell stated that there is no distinction between residential and commercial. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that you would be using valuable staff time approving paint colors for residential homes. He asked how we regulate something like Hooters that come in and say that these are my corporate colors and these are the colors I choose to use. Mr. Drell stated that trademark signage is protected. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they go on to use the colors to paint the fascia or the columns. Mr. Drell stated that it is a legal question that they may or may not be able to deal with. Mr. Drell stated that this ordinance is to say that on buildings that we have approved we require them to say what color it is and we approve that color. For instance, if they would've said they wanted to use purple when they proposed it we would've said that they couldn't have purple. If they said that they would change it to white and then the day after the final they change it to purple, that is what this ordinance is designed for. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about all of the buildings that were built before the city was even incorporated in the 50's and 60's. Mr. Drell stated that if they wanted to repaint, this ordinance would apply to them as well. He commented that the color of the building has more of an impact than the architectural design. He stated that this hasn't been a big problem and 99% of the time people, for their own property value consideration and peer pressure, will use good judgement. Commissioner Hanson stated that if her neighbor painted their house bright pink, that could reduce her property value and she would be upset about that. Commissioner Gregory asked about landscaping when a person plants all the trees that are required and then as soon as they're approved they chop everything down. Mr. Drell stated that one of the things that we spend more attention on than anything when we approve a single family home is the landscape plan. He stated that under our ordinance you are required to have front yard landscaping and we approve it. Mr. Drell stated that if we waste our time requiring it and approving it to begin with, then the assumption is that our intention 3 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES is a waste of time if it can be changed five minutes after we approve it. He stated that technically if they change the landscaping from arid to turf, since the Water Efficient Ordinance does not apply to single family homes, as long as it looks nice we don't care. If they let it all die, we have a property maintenance ordinance that says that the front yard has to be landscaped and letting it die isn't an option. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that for enforcement purposes, the City is relying on complaints by neighbors which puts the neighbor in a very negative position and most neighbors are hesitant to complain. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the responsibility should be on Code Enforcement. Mr. Drell stated that Code Enforcement takes anonymous complaints. Mr. Drell concluded that unless the proposed color is questionable, the ARC does not need to see these requests. He asked the Commission if they would like to make a comment to the Planning Commission if they think it should apply to single family homes. Commissioner Hanson stated that she does not see any reason to not have it apply. She stated that it saves you on the few that are going to be a problem. Commissioner Gregory stated that it will be a good tool. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the black RV structure on Portola has been taken down but now the RV is still parked there with a grey cover over it. Mr. Drell stated that Code Enforcement is going after him again. He stated that they are filing another complaint against him and they could be fined or go to court. A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: MISC 02-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FERN'S FENCE, 40586 Clark Drive, Hemet, CA 92544 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of request to install 24" high ornamental iron to existing block wall and gate at south end of development. LOCATION: Vista Paseo ZONE: PR-7 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020409.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES, ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of (1) royal Arco blue LED stripe on canopy and building, (2) south and east perimeter wall change, and (3) adding a vestibule area at entrance. LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. ARCO ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Mr. Smith stated that the last time it was before the ARC they talked about the LED stripe and the Commission specified that it be white, however, the stripe is blue. Commissioner Hanson stated that she is alright with that. Mr. Smith stated that Arco would also like to change the wall detailing. The previous wall proposed had a cultured stone cap with cultured stone veneer. Commissioner Hanson stated that they didn't show any cultured stone on the building. She preferred the revised wall detailing. Commission also accepted the revision to the north elevation adding the glass entry. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020409.MIN 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: LEWIS BISHOP, ARCHITECT, 44- 645 San Onofre Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE Of PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for 3,794 square foot commercial building. Marc's Golf. LOCATION: 73-330 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to landscape plan approval by Landscape Manager. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO.: CC 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JM MADERA, 2842 Roe Lane, Suite 200, Kansas City, KS 61103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of working drawings for Phase Two of Monterey Shore Plaza. LOCATION: 72-680 Dinah Shore ZONE: PC Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to landscape plan approval by Landscape Manager. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R020409.MIN 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA 02-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three awnings with signage. LOCATION: 44-760 San Pablo ZONE: C 1 Mr. Smith stated that this item was on the ARC agenda two weeks ago and the applicant, Ernie Brooks, asked for reconsideration of this matter. Mr. Brooks stated that Mr. Purcell, the owner of the building is present. Mr. Purcell has removed the overhang that was almost ready to fall down. He commented that there are two buildings that are on the right and left sides of Mr. Purcell's building that have a parapet wall that stands 2'-3' feet higher on each side. He stated that Mr. Purcell is willing to raise his parapet two feet so that awnings could be left at the proposed height. Mr. Brooks stated that they want to use the proposed colors because blue and white are part of his company logo. He commented that currently there is no parapet on this building. Mr. Brooks stated that they're concerned about sun protection and signage. He commented that in the past they had three can signs, which were all different colors. He stated that they are trying to clean up the building and make it more uniform. Commissioner Hanson asked where the signage would go. Mr. Brooks stated that the signage would go on the 14" vertical part of the awning, which would be a removable part of the awning in case one of the tenants happened to move out he wouldn't have to replace all of the fabric. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is signage on the awning does he have to subscribe to the 8" maximum letter height. Mr. Brooks stated that if they use upper and lower case letters, they can use 10" or 11" for the first letter. He commented that he is proposing 14" of area space for signage so that he can go to 11" or 12" on the first letter. He stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020409.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES that the can signs that were there before were 18" to 20" so they are actually reducing the height of the signage while cleaning it up. Mr. Brooks stated that he had suggested staggering the awnings in and out 6", but Mr. Purcell did not like the idea. Mr. Purcell stated that he wanted the awnings to be uniform and all in a straight line with a 6' projection. He commented that the awnings would all be perpendicular with the building and 8' high. Mr. Brooks stated that he does not want to lower the awning but would be willing to spend more money and build a parapet wall to stay in line with the other two buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the awning goes down over the top of the parapet. Mr. Brooks stated that the bottom part of the awning would be 8'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the parapet is below the top of the awning. Mr. Brooks stated that it is 2'. Commissioner Hanson stated that the ARC had requested that they add a 2' parapet because they didn't like that the awning would be at the top of the parapet. Mr. Brooks stated that they are going to add lighting for the tenants because at this point there isn't any. Commissioner Gregory asked what the appropriate proportion would be architecturally for the parapet that is proposed. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he does not think that it should be in line with the existing one and should be stepped down. Mr. Purcell stated that there are four buildings and each building steps down 2'. He commented that the building to the right has a parapet wall which is approximately 4' in height. He commented that it would be a perfect 2' step if he was allowed to go up 2'. He stated that there would also be a parapet above the awning, which he feels would look much nicer. Commissioner Gregory stated that this would be 2' running unbroken, without steps, all the way across. Mr. Purcell commented that he is spending his own money on this project and spent $22,000 in December to upgrade it and is spending another $18,000 on this project. He stated that he is not asking for taxpayer's money but would like to get the project under way because he's had a problem with no lighting. He stated that two of his tenants are open in the evening and they also don't have any shade during the day. Commissioner O'Donnell asked for a clarification on the type of material which will be used for the parapet. Mr. Purcell stated that they will use conventional stud framing and replaster the front of the building. He commented that they will paint the exterior the same color that it is now G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR020409.MIN g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES and also paint the rear of the building. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if he anticipated anymore signage on the front of the building. Mr. Purcell stated that there will not be any additional signage on the front of the building. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about lighting. Mr. Purcell stated that Mr. Brooks is going to put lighting underneath the awning which will consist of fluorescent fixtures and will be glowing upward and bounce off the awnings. Mr. Brooks stated that there will not be any additional signage on the parapet. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to grant approval subject to adding 2' parapet and awnings as shown on color drawing with 6" vertical step. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 02-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DARYL SANTELLA, 44-489 Town Center Way, #D422, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for 38% tot coverage and 18' roof height of single family residence. LOCATION: 44-475 Hazel Canyon Lane ZONE: R 1 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 02-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THOMAS KING, 74-535 Candlewood, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to allow a carport structure 22' from curb. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�+,gmin�,4R020409.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-535 Candlewood ZONE: MISC 02-07 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has submitted a copy of the floor plan and elevations. He commented that the applicant has an older home that is zoned R1-10,000. The applicant originally came in with a proposal for a carport structure 22' from the curb. The zoning ordinance would allow this request if the ARC approves it. The residents within 300 feet have been notified and there has been no response. Mr. Bagato presented photographs of the home to the commissioners. He stated that a lot of the garages and carports in their neighborhood are a similar distance from the curb. He stated that he is concerned about the design of the carport structure and felt that it looked almost like a garage opening that could possibly be converted into a garage later. The applicant spoke to Steve Smith yesterday and found that he may have some other opportunities to add a garage. The applicant is here today to address the Commission. Tom King, applicant, stated that Mark Lynch is the designer and is also present to help clarify the design. He stated that the picture that has been presented to the Commission shows the wall of an old carport. He commented that when he purchased the home in 1999 he hired what he thought was a legitimate contractor. He paid the contractor up front, he didn't get a permit and when he came home part of his carport was gone. He stated that the contractor wanted a lot more money, disappeared and the Sheriff can't find him. He stated that he was using a valid license, but it happened to belong to somebody else. Mr. King stated that he originally wanted a garage. He pointed out that there's a swimming pool behind the back wall of the old carport so he can't move the garage back. He also stated that he initially spoke with the Building Department and suggested lolly columns and he was told that these were not generally used in residential design. He came up with another design and they also said that a standard footer has to be used. Mr. Lynch stated that the pool equipment is right behind the wall so there's no way to move the garage back. Commissioner Hanson asked about the one-story addition. Mr. Lynch stated that originally the whole plan was to add a guest house, based on the setbacks which were allowed 2-3 years ago. He commented that he thought that the setbacks have changed three times since then and are no longer part of the current plan. He stated that he wants to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020409.MIN 1� � r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES keep the Eichler design with the Alexander concept. He presented a second set of plans which consists of 2 x 6 construction with trim to match the house. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the second proposal has some merit and the first one won't "fly". Commissioner Gregory stated that the second proposal solves all the problems since they don't have to worry about it becoming a garage and it looks nice. Mr. Lynch commented that he was told that he couldn't build a brick wall that is 80" high because it's not allowed. Commissioner Hanson stated that he could build an 80" brick wall. Mr. Lynch stated that every contractor that he's met with has told him that he couldn't build this wall. Mr. Lynch stated that he had eliminated a wing wall which extends the wall out equal to the first column, which would give it the Alexander style. He would like to add this wall to the plan. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the Commission would need to see it. Mr. Lynch stated that the windows would still be visible from the street but it gives the effect that the wall is holding up the structure. Commissioner Hanson stated that he could do that. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for approval subject to revisions to plans to be approved by staff. Revised plans to be consistent with colored rendering provided by applicant. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 8. CASE NO.: SA 02-55 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT SPRINGS CHURCH, 43-435 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 5' x 8' monument sign. LOCATION: 43-435 Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.R. 5 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to painting base to match building. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020409.MIN 11 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: WESTFIELD CORPORATION, INC., 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1748 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Finai approval of parking structures, Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. 3 Mr. Smith noted that there were seven items that the Commission had discussed regarding the parking structures at the meeting of January 8, 2002. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned whether they had given them preliminary approval when it looks like they gave them conceptual approval. Commissioner Hanson stated that it didn't look like they increased the thickness of the sheer walls. She stated that they had talked about making them protrude. Mr. Smith stated that he didn't recall seeing the material samples. Commissioner Van Vliet asked whether they will be wasting their time even looking at the plans. Mr. Smith stated that Commissioner Van Vliet was correct and they had only granted conceptual approval in January 2002. Commissioner Hanson stated that there were sheets missing from the plans, i.e. A9-2 which shows the trellises. Ali Hamidzadeh, Supervising Plans Examiner, stated that Westfield was still working on the plans and they're trying to get this project going as fast as they possibly can. Mr. Hamidzadeh stated that they are doing the demolition of the asphalt. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved that they reaffirm their position on the conceptual approval subject to the seven items that were mentioned and that they request a complete set of details showing how they are going to meet those seven conditions in the next proposal, seconded by Commissioner Hanson. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. Mr. Drell stated that the City Council already approved this project. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why it would be coming to the ARC. Commissioner Hanson stated that they haven't addressed the issues. Mr. Drell stated that the Council already made a decision about a year and a half ago. He commented that he had spoken to them about G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020409.MIN IZ � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES having shade structures and trellises on top but they didn't understand why he would want them. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they had asked them to make the elevation facing Monterey look a little softer in nature and not so much looking like a parking garage. Mr. Drell stated that they presented exterior materials to the Council but not to the ARC. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they only gave conceptual approval last time so this is coming back for preliminary approval now. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that these were not suggestions, but their requirements for approval. He stated that if they don't meet those, then he is going to ask for a vote to reject the plans. He commented that this is the City's money also thaYs going into the garage. He stated that as a member of the Architectural Review Commission, he is supposed to have some expertise in these matters. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:48 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020409.MIN 13