Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-10 ' *460* CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 13 2 Kristi Hanson X 13 2 Chris Van Vliet X 12 3 John Vuksic X 14 1 Ray Lopez X 14 1 Karen Oppenheim X 15 Karel Lambell X 9 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 27, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of July 27, 2004. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of community center. Catalina/Pueblos Community Room LOCATION: 73-750 Catalina Way ZONE: R2, SO Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-99 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC.,1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Big Fish Grille & Oyster Bar LOCATION: 74-225 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-43 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHARLES GARLAND, 74-854 Velie Way, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof height of 17' on a single family residence. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 AGENDA LOCATION: 73-308 Bursera Way ZONE: R-1 12,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 04-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CINGULAR WIRELESS, c/o Saundra Jacobs, 3345 Michelson Ave., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 73' high wireless telecommunications mono-palm and equipment shelter. LOCATION: 38-105 Portola Avenue, Santa Rosa Country Club ZONE: OS Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-101 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Ave., Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage and sign program. LOCATION: 44-530 San Pablo ZONE: OP Commissioner Vuksic asked to have this item removed from the agenda. He didn't have anybody look at different sizes of signs. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the sign company come up with a couple of real elevations where they show one at 24" and one at 18" and then we can go through this again. Mr. Drell commented that they need to take a straight-on photograph so that it's accurate. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 AGENDA Commissioner Vuksic commented that the letters will be illuminated from the ground. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to review different letter sizes. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-103 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERI LOCKARD, 73-375 El Paseo, #F, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of canvas awning with business signage. LOCATION: 73-375 El Paseo, #F ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to add MISC 04-29, Denny's Restaurant, to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 04-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DENNY'S RESTAURANT, 72-950 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint colors. LOCATION: 72-950 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: GPA 04-01, C/Z 04-03, PP 04-22, PMW 04-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM J. WORZACK, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of new office complex. LOCATION: SW corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that this is a vacant site at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. There's a driving range maintenance facility immediately south of the site. The main issue with the site plan at this time is that the Public Works Department is requesting an additional 11' of right-of-way for a 55' half street width from center line to the property line. The project does involve a general plan amendment change of zone from residential to office professional. Staff thinks that it will not be an issue accommodating the additional 11, feet of right-of-way. The building shows a 20' setback from the Cook Street property line. The OP zone allows a 15' setback. There's additional room to squeeze the buildings together. The applicant had commented to Mr. Urbina that he could redesign the site plan to accommodate the additional right-of-way. Staff is concerned about the east elevation of building one, which would be visible from Cook Street. There's a wall in that location that would enclose a courtyard. Staff suggested that the applicant stagger the walls. Mr. Drell commented that the trees on the elevation and the trees shown on the landscape plan are different. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the material used on the wall. Guy Dreir, architect, was present and stated that it would be stucco and 14' in height. He tried to keep the architecture very simple and classic with a courtyard and a big overhang. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that the trees really help in the elevation. It's hard to pick on the building because it's nice. The commission has to take the landscape aside and can't count on the trees always being there and being healthy. Mr. Drell commented that the landscape plan doesn't show all the trees. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the Cook Street elevation looks pretty plain. Mr. Dreir stated that he could angle the wall and if he could get some extra offset he could stagger the walls and put some glass in between them to get some depth. Mr. Drell asked about signage locations for the buildings. Mr. Dreir stated that there won't be any signs on the building. They are proposing two monument signs which are 14' in length, but could be reduced. Mr. Steve Metzler commented that they met with Public Works and they didn't ask for the additional right-of-way originally. They're already setback and if Public Works takes another 11', they're going to be so far in from the Parks & Recreation District that it's a problem. Mr. Drell commented that the City is dealing with the Parks & Recreation District site. The general plan shows Cook Street being six lanes. Someday there will be a bridge going across Cook Street. Mr. Metzler stated that he's worried about people being able to find his building if it's set back too far. It's already 20' back and now Public Works is asking for another 11'. Mr. Drell stated that this is a discussion that would be appropriate at Planning Commission. Mr. Metzler stated that you're going to be looking right down Cook Street at the water tower. Mr. Drell stated that everything on the site plan is going to have to be moved down 5' and then make up 6' within the project. Mr. Dreier stated that he'll have to take the driveway out to reconfigure the parking spaces. Mr. Drell stated that in theory, the 15' is really an average 15' in terms of the setback off Cook Street. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the thickness of the walls. Mr. Dreier stated that he's going to go up on top of the roof and frame them at 18". The applicant asked for comments on the landscape. Ms. Hollinger stated that she submitted written comments on the landscape plan and offered to make a copy of them for the applicant. On the whole, the plan needs work. It may not meet the water calcs because they're proposing some very heavy water use plants. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to altering the wall on the Cook Street elevation. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 14,115 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-277 Portola ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that staff will be going forward with a code amendment to limit office buildings on non-arterial streets to single story. Staff feels that this will be the only way to create a residential scale project. Consequently, the commission is in a position to indicate that as a general office building this might be acceptable but given that it's now going to be in an area where the City is limiting buildings to one story and 18' in height, obviously this proposal does not comply with that. Mr. Drell stated that the ARC's action will be a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the arterial streets are Cook Street and Monterey. Mr. Drell stated that the streets that are going to six lanes are considered arterial streets. This section of Portola is not going to be six lanes. Commissioner Gregory asked what the commission is supposed to do if the building is indicated at two stories. Mr. Drell stated that they're being asked to comment on the building as a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gregory stated that he felt that the ARC did that at their last meeting by commenting that it's an attractive building, but it has some neighborhood problems. Mr. Drell stated that after the last meeting they thought that it was going to be taken immediately to the City Council during their study session. Upon consulting with the City Manager, it was made clear that the Council has already given their direction and the proposal should be taken through the normal process of Planning Commission and then to the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES City Council with the proposed ordinance amendment. The setback standards in the zone are already essentially residential setback standards. The only thing to alter to make it residential would be the height. Even a pitched roof house that's two story has an eave line that's close to 18'. When you're talking about a two-story office building, the eave line is typically at 25'. The comments by the commission will move this along to the Council and they'll make their decision based on their input. If the commission thinks that residential scale office buildings can be developed at two stories, then they can disagree. According to the general plan, the City is looking at office buildings like you see on Monterey south of Fred Waring. Commissioner Hanson asked if they're supposed to say that they like the building, but it's going to have to be modified to a one-story building in order to meet the new ordinance. Mr. Drell stated that they could say that it should meet the new ordinance or say that this is a residential- scale building. Does it meet the goal of "residential scale"? Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it depends of the definition of "residential scale". Mr. Smith commented that in the minutes of the City Council, they indicated single story as one of the things to consider. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you can't have an office building of a significant size be of residential scale. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't have to be of significant size. Maybe it's not going to be a significant size. It would have to be smaller. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if economically it would work to shrink it. Mr. McFadden stated that it depends on how much it would have to shrink. The use would have to be more intense and go to medical use to justify the rate of return. He has nine extra parking spaces. Commissioner Gregory commented that an example of a building that would be similar is Dennis Dudek's building on Deep Canyon and Alessandro. It has a gabled roof as well as some hipped areas on the roof and has a residential quality to it. Commissioner Hanson commented that she really likes the proposed office building, but to call it residential scale is difficult. If you're looking at homes nearby that are 15' in height then how high is the office building. Mr. McFadden stated that it's 25' to the ridge and 18' to the eave. If you go around that neighborhood, the majority of the newer homes are two story. There's a multi-family project immediately across G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES the street that's two story. The residences immediately to the north of this project are two-story townhouses. In this residential neighborhood, we're designing something that's indigenous to the neighborhood and this would be appropriate in scale. Commissioner Gregory commented that he has a feeling that everyone likes the building. If the ARC says that it's residential in scale and he proceeds from here, he might have trouble getting approved at the next level. If he can make some serious "tweeks" to make it what more what people would regard as more residential, then it might make it easier. Mr. McFadden stated that in regards to the neighbors, that's a sensitive issue. Honestly, what's coming up the street to the south of this (eventually this is all going to be commercial) really comes down to a lot of people who bought in this area because it was economically affordable at the time. They've seen an extreme peak in value. We paid fair market value for our property and it may be at the top of that bubble and they may see a decline. If Portola is widened even more than it is, as some of these adjacent residences get opened up to Portola and you see what's there... Really you have to walk this neighborhood and look at this neighborhood like I have. When I was told not to even consider doing any two story I walked around the neighborhood and saw what was there... I don't always go in the direction to ignore people. I see the development of Portola going in a certain direction and I'd like to contribute to that. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was wondering if he could do some things to give the illusion towards compromise. Mr. McFadden stated that his site plan is in the ninth revision. I've gone through the process and have lost a ton of square footage already with ultimate right-of-way increase after increase after increase. It's not that we're immovable. We're very flexible. Mr. Drell stated that to make the argument that this is residential scale is something that you recognize when you see it. The Council has a hard time visualizing hypothetical ideas. There are alternative degrees of two-stories. The question for the commission is whether or not the proposed office building is residential scale. Commissioner Lopez commented that the building is great, but there hasn't been enough attention put toward the landscaping. The neighbors are really concerned about the parking. Maybe something that creates more of a barrier would help the neighbors. Growing up in this area and walking down this street as a kid, I don't envision this GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 9 fir+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES office there. The building is great but if I was still living there, I wouldn't be happy about it. Mr. McFadden stated that there's more open frontage on Portola than there currently is now. It's not as cluttered of a site than it currently is. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the applicant is concerned about maintaining square footage, if he's open to the possibility of dropping some of the building, then why not? What I see here is a great two- story office building, but I don't see it as residential. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was imagining the two-story townhouses in the area so it could possibly be of residential scale, but the pieces and proportions of this building look really nice. It's hard to imagine chopping it up so it looks like townhouses and trying to make it into something that it's not. I have a very hard time visualizing where to go. Mr. Drell suggested possibly having greater setbacks. The language could have more restrictive standards in terms of setbacks and height. This project really is at the limit of what the setback is. Mr. McFadden commented that he'd like to talk about the setbacks. It's going to be 8- 10 years before the curb line is moved so they'll have eight more feet of landscaping than what's required until that time. I know what's it's like to be in a facility that's under parked. I'm coming in with nine extra parking spaces. I can move the building about five feet and that's with no planting on the west side of the building on the other side of the sidewalk so you can get into the building. Then I'll have to start eliminating parking. I'll probably come back with some sort of a building that just meets the parking requirements and a higher intense use. I'm concerned that I'm not going to be over parked, which is one of my goals in this office building is to make sure that there's ample parking. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was wondering if they could use some of the guidelines that we use to review residences which exceed the maximum height. We look for fascia lines to be lowered, the use of hipped roof elements, and sensitivity to the neighbors. Give the neighbors a feeling that you understand their concerns and maybe you can "have your cake and eat it to". Just bring some of the elements down somewhat. Mr. McFadden stated that the residents are hanging on to any issue that is tangible for them. I've been to each of these neighbors homes. I've had a public hearing at Valley Christian Assembly. I've tried to be the good neighbor. Some of them bring up issues that I are not an issue. Ms. Martin's concern about the view isn't G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdoos\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES relevant because my building is not even behind her. Her backyard has absolutely no view out of the backyard because of the way she's added on and because of the trees, but she will bring up the issue that her view is being destroyed. Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant if he could bring the commission some thumbnail sketches showing lowering it down into the ground and berming up something to hide some of the building. The most interesting part is the second story. If you take away the second story it's a regular office building. The character is on the second floor, not on the first floor. Mr. McFadden stated that by doing that you would minimize some of the rammed earth details. Commissioner Hanson stated that the reality of where we're going in the desert, because we're growing so fast, is the fact that land is so expensive and we're going to have to start going up. I think that good architecture going up is great. Bad architecture going up is bad. I'm not against going up. I think that both myself and Commissioner Vuksic feel that the height limits are sort of arbitrary anyway. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't think that they were arbitrary, but that they're based on what is the minimum that you can actually manage to build a building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the current ordinance doesn't allow for architecture or interest. That has become a negative. Mr. McFadden stated that he needs a zone change. If I can't get a zone change, then I have to back out of this deal faster. I'm here for the next six months, potentially. I really want to go forward and get to the next step with the condition that I have to come back to the ARC. I would love that. I don't have a problem with adjusting the building, but without a zone change this project is dead. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant needs the approval of the commission to get a zone change. Mr. Drell stated that the presumption is that the commission is going to be making comments that are going to be heard by the Council. This is scheduled for the Planning Commission on September 7, 2004. The applicant could be continuing to work with the ARC. Commissioner Lambell stated that the Council and Planning Commission are going to want to see what the building is going to look like. The current proposal is going to be a hard sell. Mr. McFadden stated that it may not necessarily be a hard sell. If this is a residential scale building with the caveat that after they're done with the zone change I could come back to the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that there's no question that he'll come back to the ARC. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that if what the Council is after is a residential scale, are they going to be affected by that and less likely to approve a zone change? Mr. Drell stated that the zone change will be sold by the building. To deny the building they have to come up with reasons why they don't like it. To deny the zone change you don't have to have a reason because the general plan designation still provides for residential use. It's a dual designation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant is presenting a building that's going to be a harder sell to get the zone change. Mr. McFadden stated that he hasn't done the study to see if he can diminish this building down. It might be a good idea to go into the ground but I have to look at the site work. I can produce that fairly quickly. I would like to have this commission's blessing that the standards need to be adjusted, but that the height is in conformance with commercial development adjacent to a residential area. It's worked elsewhere in the City, why can't it work here? Commissioner Hanson stated that I can't speak for anybody else, however, I think that the heights that are currently indicated are more like 21', not 18'. 1 think it's going to take lowering certain aspects of it in order to bring it more into a residential scale. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that another issue is that this is a 14,000 square foot building, which is different from most of the other residential buildings that we're thinking of that are probably between 3,000-4,000 square feet. The proposed building is a big mass. If it were three or four separate buildings, it would look different. I think that it would be very difficult to get that size of a building into a residential scale. Commissioner Gregory commented that there could possibly be more movement between higher and lower sections so it may not have to be separate while giving it some articulation. This might add a little more of a residential feeling. Mr. McFadden stated that they should look at the full build-out because they've got one of the neighbors that they're getting the zone change for. That house should come down shortly thereafter and be developed into another single office space that'll use our parking egress. We're going to share our egress as well as everybody south of us will be getting shared egress across the sites. When this area is built out, there are going to be parcels that are going to require smaller buildings and a few parcels will have larger buildings. Commissioner Gregory stated that he has the feeling that the applicant is willing to make some adjustments to the building and suggested that this be done before the next meeting so the ARC can review it. Mr. McFadden commented that he'll be on vacation during the next meeting G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES on August 24. Commissioner Hanson commented that sketches are fine. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with sketches of alternative designs which would be more residential in character. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC KLEINER, 2171 India Street, # Q, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 2,100 square foot office building and an 11,500 square foot warehouse. Intertile, Natural Stone Surfaces. LOCATION: 74-842 42nd Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant, Eric Kleiner, has returned with revised drawings for the commission to review. Mr. Kleiner stated that he was trying to make sure that the design elements that were proposed at the previous meeting could become reality and the building worked out pretty well. It started to come together very nicely where I felt very comfortable with it. The clients were actually excited about the new developments with the translucent roof in between the two buildings and also the steel arch and stone display item. The garage doors are 18' high, which are mandatory for their business, and I brought in steel sections that are about 17' and put a cross piece across and small steel horizontal trellis element with a small I-beam on the top which is going to support the cable to support the stone elements. There are also smaller articulated trellis elements that are basically designed around the same shape but they're using some of the old wood, which will be planed and cut to match the shape. They've taken the same slope with a 10' plate height going up to about 16' and added translucent glazing to the 10' breezeway. The horizontal corrugated steel wraps around the entire building, as well as on the smaller building. They eliminated the rooftop canopy idea. There will be six evaporative coolers mounted inside on the ridge and they'll vent to 3' square roof ventilators. They altered their plan to work with their G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 MINUTES storefront windows to get those commercially sized. There will be a landscaped entry trellis to provide shade. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:47 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 14