Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-14 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** 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 20 3 Kristi Hanson X 20 3 Chris Van Vliet X 20 3 John Vuksic X 22 1 Ray Lopez X 21 2 Karen Oppenheim X 21 2 Karel Lambell X 17 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 Ryan Stendell, Planning Technician Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 23, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of November 23, 2004. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 'err' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-64 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEN STENDELL, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 5' high wrought iron fence with 6' columns, 8' from the face of the curb. LOCATION: 74-044 San Marino Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is in the process of remodeling an existing home on a small 5,000 square foot lot. He's trying to maintain the front yard space because they don't have any room in the rear yard. The columns are 6' high and 8' from the curb. The wrought iron portion of the fence is 5' high. The code states that the Architectural Commission can approve exceptions in the wall standards. If this came to us a couple of months ago before the issues with the City Council, would recommend approval. The proposed wall is consistent with the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting an exception to have the wall at 8' from the curb, instead of 15' per code. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to know if the wall is consistent with what's going on in the neighborhood. Do you feel comfortable in saying that it is? Mr. Bagato stated that there are a lot of block walls in the front yards of this neighborhood. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the adjacent houses have walls out that far. Mr. Stendell, applicant, was present and stated that there are no frontal walls on the adjacent lots, but across the street and on the corner of San Marino Circle and San Marino Way there's a non- conforming front wall. Mr. Smith asked if there was a sidewalk in front of the house. Mr. Stendell stated that there is no sidewalk. Mr. Smith asked if the area from curb to fence will be landscaped. Mr. Stendell stated that it will be landscaped. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why they need the wall so close to the curb. Mr. Stendell stated that the property was purchased with the existing garage in the rear yard, therefore, trying to create some sort of a yard in this area is futile so I'm trying to create somewhat of an early California Spanish bungalow and it would work pretty nicely having the front yard as the entertainment GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES area because the living room, kitchen and dining room are all in that area with immediate access to that area. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the neighbors were aware of this proposal. Mr. Stendell stated that he'd be more than glad to get neighbor approval. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if all the lots in this area are, 5,000 square feet and narrow. Mr. Stendell stated that the lot immediately to the east of this lot is over 19,000 square feet. My lot is actually a little bit less than 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it is a very small lot, but I'm concerned about setting precedent whenever we allow people to do that. Commissioner Gregory stated that there was a comment earlier about the neighborhood and the fact that there are existing walls that are close to the curb. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was 20% or 15% of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's not like he's asking for a 6' wall all the way across the front. It's pilasters with wrought iron so really it's open. Because of the challenges of this particular lot, they do need a front landscaped area or patio space. It would be more aesthetically pleasing to have a wall with some wrought iron to cordon that area off instead of having your patio furniture sitting out in your front yard. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about a 4' high wall. Mr. Smith stated that the setback would be 7' from curb. Commissioner Van Wet stated that he would be able to have it even closer to the curb with a 4' high wall and he could do all masonry. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the current proposal better. Commissioner Van Wet stated that it is open somewhat so it would be better. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he could get the neighbors' approval. Mr. Stendell stated that he would be willing to do that. This condition was not added to the motion. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-152 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHAD ADDINGTON, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 3 5*00, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. About Face LOCATION: 44-530 San Pablo ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that the ARC approved the sign program for this building which showed the "About Face" signage on the wider element on the south end of the building. Recently, the applicant came to us requesting that the sign be moved to the narrower element which is closer to San Pablo. This is not the location where the sign was originally approved, which is why it's come back to the ARC for review. The applicant is asking for an exception to the previous approval. The letter style is the same as the existing California Vein Specialist sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the owner has approved the change to the sign program. Mr. Bagato stated that there are two owners and he has the signature from both. Chad Addington, representative for Sign-A-Rama, was present and stated that the applicant would like the "About Face" sign closer to the street so that you can see it when driving south on San Pablo so his sign would have a little more visibility. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she doesn't have a problem with it. It looks fine. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-162 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): H.M. YOUNG JEWELERS, Mr. Bill Glendell, 73-900 El Paseo, #1, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. H.M. Young Jewelers G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T. MICHAEL HADLEY, 25 Calle Bonita, Sedona, AZ 86336 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a two-building office complex. LOCATION: 73-301 & 73-321 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-65 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHARLES WOLFORD/CHRIS KELLER, 74-855 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high Douglas fir fence with setbacks of 12' and 15' from the curb for a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-855 Fairway Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the home is on the south side of Fairway Drive. The home is situated across two lots. What the applicant is requesting is putting in a wall with a 12' setback from Fairway and a 15' setback from Canterbury Court. A picture of a sample of the fencing was given G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA to the commission to review. Street side yard setbacks on a corner lot is 12'. This is a unique situation because they really have two fronts. Charles Wolford, applicant, was present and stated that his neighbor across from Canterbury Court has a wall that faces Fairway and it has a 10' setback . I'd like to have a 12' setback to avoid cutting into an olive tree. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that a bigger concern is the fencing material. Are you proposing to use wood? Mr. Wolford stated that he is proposing to use wood, which is not common. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it's an approved material. Mr. Drell stated that it's not an approved material in the front. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant has done some great things to the house with some nice decorative block work in the front. He asked Mr. Wolford if he could use the block material for the wall. Mr. Wolford stated that it is rather expensive. I've chosen wood because it's the most affordable option and architecturally it would be very interesting. You see a lot of wood fences in Palm Springs. There will be landscaping around it to make sure that it looks good. It'll be 1' x 8' Douglas fir, primed, painted and water sealed. Mr. Drell stated that from a public visibility point of view, the Fairway elevation is more prominent. If there was a spot where we would rather have a 15' setback it would be on Fairway. Mr. Wolford stated that he's trying to avoid losing a large olive tree and is asking for a 12' setback. Commissioner Hanson commented that she wouldn't want the tree to be cut down. Mr. Drell stated that he could put the tree on the inside or the outside of the fence. He asked for a landscape plan for the front of the fence. Mr. Wolford commented that there is existing landscaping but he will add more landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there are other houses in the neighborhood with fences closer to the curb. Mr. Smith commented that the property in question is basically an island because he has cul- de-sacs on each end of the property. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there are a few other houses in the neighborhood with front yard walls. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of location and material with the fence at 5' in height, subject to landscape plans being submitted and approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 6 ``rr 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA 6. CASE NO.: HPD/PP 04-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST, P.O. Box 6200, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 83816-1937 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new single-family residence in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. LOCATION: Summit Cove, Lot #4, Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: PR/HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: SA 04-165 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. The $99 Furniture Store LOCATION: 72-750 Dinah Shore, Monterey Shore Plaza ZONE: PC Chad Addington, representative for Sign-A-Rama was present and distributed revised plans to the commission. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's fine with the revised plans. Mr. Bagato stated that the signage is non-illuminated. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of revised plans submitted at the meeting, subject to signage being non-illuminated. Motion carried 7-0. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-66 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD S. RICKTER, 74-123 Windflower Ct., Palm Desert, CA 92211-2903 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a second unit in the rear of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-123 Windflower Ct. ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: SA 04-140 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEVIN PARKER, 1384 E. 5th Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage. Fairfield Inn LOCATION: 72-322 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of front courtyard wall (4' stucco with l' of wrought iron on top). LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 8 ' %✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith showed the commission a series of photographs that were provided by the applicant. This is on the north side of Calliandra, which is off of Haystack. The applicant would like to do a combination wall at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory stated that because of pool protection, this proposal won't work. It has to be constructed of 5' of non-interrupted material so that a child can't climb over it. It has to be one material from top to bottom, per the Riverside County Health Department. Mr. Drell suggested switching the spa to the other side which would give the applicant more access to it and also the wall could be moved back. He asked the applicant if the drawings were to scale. Mr. Haile stated that they are not to scale. Mr. Drell stated that if they're not to scale then we can't accept them. Drawings that are not to scale are virtually useless. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the applicant might be able to move the pool and spa back far enough so that the wall could be moved back. Mr. Drell stated that he might be able to move the wall to 12' from curb, but not 15'. The applicant has to have a compelling reason why he needs the wall at 12' from the curb in order for it to be approved. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the applicant return with a scaled plan and see how far he can move the wall back to 12'- 15' from curb. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with scaled plans. Motion carried 7-0. 11. CASE NO.: SA 04-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANTHONY KELLEY/AKC SERVICES, INC., 31681 Riverside Drive, #J, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Marriott Courtyard G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 9 Orr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-895 Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell stated that the Marriott would like to change their signage to reflect their new logo, including their monument signage and an additional wall sign. The new wall sign, which is a can sign, is located on the building at more than 20' in height. Staff does not recommend approval of this sign. The porte cochere sign is being updated to their new logo. Commissioner Gregory commented that it looks "clunky". There's not a lot of relief between the address and the wording. Mr. Drell commented that they don't seem to go graphically together very well. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that they're three different elements. Mr. Drell stated that the address needs some sort of style to it. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if it would be possible to re-do the "Courtyard" and the "Marriott" at the same time so the two would go together. Right now, it's not good. Anthony Kelley, applicant, stated that he could move the numbers and make them look nicer. Mr. Stendell stated that they have 120 allowable square feet, which they already have used. The additional wall sign is 88 square feet. Mr. Smith asked the applicant if his client would rather have the additional signage on the porte cochere or the new wall sign. Mr. Kelley stated that they would prefer to keep the porte cochere sign. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for (1) approval of the monument sign, (2) can sign on upper level is not approved, and (3) applicant may resubmit plans for signage on porte cochere showing a unified letter/number style. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: DR. CORINA MORRISON, 72-705 Highway 111, Suite 9, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revisions to approved preliminary plans. LOCATION: 72-415 Parkview G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 10 SOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: TT 31490 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3398 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of model units for 8,000 and 10,000 square foot single-family lots. LOCATION: 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive, Northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: TT 33120 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT MAYER CORP., LARRY BROSE, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a mixed use residential and commercial project. LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey and Country Club ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Drell stated that this plan came out of discussions with the City Council during the general plan. This is a very important, prominent corner. We need some high-quality architecture in this location, but I don't think we're there yet. The residential has a lot better architecture. My only comment on the residential architecture is that when we have a project that has fifteen different designs you can have a lot of variety, but when you have two designs they should go together. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN I I loop( `%No ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that when she looked at the plans, her first impression was that she felt like she was in Minnesota or South Carolina. Brick is a good material, but it's too traditional. The commercial building is too "mid-West looking". The stacked stone on the homes looks fine. The critical elevation is the back of the commercial building that backs up to the residential neighborhood. They usually have lights in those areas. Mr. Drell stated that there's going to be a sidewalk in that area. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they'll have rear doors which will require lighting. Commissioner Hanson stated that the height of the building in relationship to the homes is going to be an issue. The homes in that area would've been premium lots because of the direction that they face with the view, but now they won't have a view. Mr. Drell asked the commission if this might be a project where we'd rather have the buildings out near the street with the parking behind them. Commissioner Hanson stated that with the right architecture it could work. Larry Brose, representative for the Robert Mayer Corporation, was present and stated that they own the property and have a commercial partner and are also partnered with Transwest for the residential portion. The architects are present to answer any questions. Hank Gordon was present to address the commission regarding the commercial portion. We've been developing commercial properties for 48 years. This came about as part of my discussions with Robert Mayer. We developed the Albertson's shopping center across the street. I thought the best use would be a drug store with a drive-thru pick-up prescription window. We were able to get Walgreen's to commit to it. We haven't tried to market any of the other commercial property because I have the theory of not doing that until we have appropriate entitlements. We did market the drug store site because we wanted to have something to talk about. Typically, we don't put rear doors in the commercial buildings unless the code requires it. If the shops are less than 1 ,500 square feet they don't want a back door and all the loading comes through the front door. The sidewalk is a fire escape for any of the units that are greater than 1,500 square feet because the code requires a second exit. We're flexible to modify the elevations of Walgreens if they aren't acceptable. We started with a typical Walgreens structure. This is what they would like to have, but we can come up with an elevation that's compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the glass on the second floor of the Walgreens building. Mr. Gordon stated that it's Walgreens' identification which they've used on 1,500 stores across the United States. When people see it they know that there's a Walgreens store G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES there. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission doesn't want to dictate a certain style. However, there are certain styles that are more applicable to the desert. The proposed style doesn't really work here. Mr. Drell stated that since this is a mixed use project, there should be some relationship between the commercial and residential projects. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're really two separate projects so I'm okay with the houses being entirely different than the commercial center. I wouldn't want my house to look like a commercial center or even resemble that. I just don't like the commercial center at all. I think it's flat. The materials need to be looked at again. This is a very prominent area and I'd like to see something spectacular rather than the same old thing with just a different facade on it. I have a major issue with the 22' high building next to the residential area. That's a major issue. Rod Gremer from Transwest Housing was present and stated that they plan on adding a lot of landscaping between the commercial and residential border. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there isn't any planting area between the commercial buildings. He suggested adding more pocket areas for planting to reduce the harshness of the buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated that they show a 22' high building 13' from the property line with a 10' setback so no matter how you look at the residential properties will be looking straight into a building. There's no way you're looking up from it. She suggested possibly having a sloped roof on the back of the commercial building to cut down the vertical element. Mr. Gordon stated that he could reduce the rear portion of the commercial building to 18'. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to give us a building that has some architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant should bring the architecture all the way around the entire building, not just one side. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the architects drive around the area a little bit and look at the various styles of architecture. Mr. Drell asked the commission for their input on the residential elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the only thing that she didn't particularly care for was one column on one of the elevations. She asked the architect if they were using 2 x 4 walls or 2 x 6 walls. Kurt McKenley, architect for Transwest Housing was present and stated that they're 2 x 4 walls with a 2" x 2" recessed detail so they can recess the windows. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's a pronounced lack of solar mitigation. They don't show a lot of protection over most of the windows. Mr. Drell stated that there are awnings over certain windows on the Spanish-style elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the second floor plan, they have front-facing windows that have no depth to the walls at all. Mr. McKenley stated that this concept is called a two-pack. It's a design where you twin homes and you have one home with the garage set back and one home has a garage G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES forward so you have a Z-lot between them. That creates a street scape where you don't have all the garages up on the street. Even though the rendering of the garage-back house has a big space there, it's really tucked back off the street. Mr. Drell stated that usually we get to see a rendering of the street scape. We need to see a street scene of how these houses are actually going to look. Mr. McKenley agreed to produce a street scene. The other thing that we've done is to do a one- story dominant house, which has the second story as 20% of the overall square footage of the first floor and only houses a couple of the secondary bedrooms. All the windows on the fronts of the houses have been recessed with double-studded walls. The windows will be recessed 3Y2". Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to recess the windows a lot more than 3Y2". Small openings should be recessed 12", large openings in the fronts (including the garages) should be recessed a minimum of 18". The sides of the houses are very visible on the second floors so they need to be recessed as well, otherwise it's going to look funny. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Plan 1 B has a small second floor that's nestled nicely into the house and it looks like they can easily recess the windows on the sides as well as the front without major impact to the home without decreasing the square footage. Mr. McKenley stated that the only issue is that you end up double-studding the entire building so it's like framing the house twice. Commissioner Hanson stated that at a minimum they'll have to use a 2 x 6 wall on the outside. A 2 x 4 with an 1 '/2" x 1 %2' recess for a window isn't adequate. This is a standard detail that we require on every recent tract housing project. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they can improve their product without substantially driving up the cost. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should use 2 x 6 walls with a minimum of a 2 x 4 recess on all sides. Rod Gremer, representative for Transwest Housing asked if there are any alternatives for shutters and surrounds. Mr. Drell stated that they have to use architectural features that make sense. Commissioner Hanson commented that she has an issue with having windows really close to the outside of the building. It looks too tight and odd. They have enough room to move them in about 6"-8". Commissioner Vuksic asked about the chimney caps. Mr. Gremer stated that they're metal and they vary with the architectural style. Commissioner Lambel asked if they intended to phase the project. Mr. Brose stated that they intend to build it all at once. Commissioner Lambel commented that this corner has the opportunity to be a real jewel of a corner. It has the opportunity to be a "wow" and I think that you're hearing from us that it's not a "wow" at the moment. We have some real concerns with the commercial building coming right up against the homes. Please drive around and look at other projects in_the area and make this project spectacular. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out a utility bathroom window on the second floor of the house and no one is going to miss that. They'll know exactly what that is. Try GRanning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocsAgmin\AR041214.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES to make it part of the architecture. Commissioner Lopez wanted to make sure that they've provided a place for the trash cans so that they're screened. Mr. Smith stated that landscape plans have been submitted and Ms. Hollinger has submitted her comments to the landscape architect. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans for both commercial and residential elevations. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 04-13 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO, 1201 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92404 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for Sacred Heart parish hall/gymnasium and expansion of school. LOCATION:43-775 Deep Canyon ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-100 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for the sales building, homes, maintenance facility, golf cart storage building and gatehouse for the Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPR Mr. Drell stated that the elevations are different from what the commission previously reviewed. The architecture was sort of "organic" G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 15 'err✓ i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES in style. Ted Lennon, applicant, was present to address the commission. Their effort on the gatehouse was to mimic the architecture of Sardinia, which has similar terrain as the hillside in Palm Desert. The roof the is different from their original plans. They tried to used concrete tile and tumble it but it didn't look good so we went back to the barrel the with triple tiles in the front. They'll have a brown, earthy look to blend into the mountainside to match the rocks. The guardhouse will have an organic feel. Their idea was to create an abobe-type of architecture and then squish it a little bit to give it some unevenness in the shapes and thickness. The 2,000 square foot sales office will be at the entrance and is a very low profile building that's built against a rock mountain backdrop. The tones will be darker browns to blend into the hillside. The windows will all be in thick, recessed walls with trellised overhangs. The clubhouse has a lot of peeled logs inside so there's lots of wood. The sales office will have an earthy plastered finish to the building. There are three basic residential plans which range in size from 2,600 square feet to 3,600 square feet. In the original plan, they talked about doing some 900 square foot units but they're not in the plan anymore. The homes are all freestanding, patio/pool homes with an outdoor trellised living room. They sit on anywhere from a quarter of an acre to an acre of land. The project is basically hidden from Highway 74 and the lower desert area. They all have entry courtyards with stone walls around them with outdoor showers. We're approved for 60 residences, but we're building 44 units at this time. The landscaping will be desert landscaping. The palette for the residential neighborhood will be very similar to The Reserve with almost 90% native vegetation. The biggest change to the architecture is the change from the flat the roof to the barrel tile roof. We think we've come up with a very earthy type of architecture. Commissioner Hanson asked about the price points on the homes. Mr. Lennon stated that they're close to $600. per square foot. Commissioner Gregory stated that the windows are recessed, the colors are natural and there's a lot of sensitivity shown on all aspects of designing this development. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the elevations for the maintenance building. Mr. Drell stated that they probably want to defer the maintenance building because it's a metal building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nice to continue the feel of the gatehouse throughout the project so there's not such a separation. Mr. Lennon stated that the maintenance building will be hidden in a valley. They don't want to see it when they enter the project. Mr. Carver built his house in the canyon with a guesthouse so we now have to landscape the maintenance building to screen it from his view to be good neighbors to him. Janice Wood has a property up on the ridge G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 16 err/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES and she may see the top edge of the building. The main problem is to solve the problem with the Carver unit so we're doing some landscape studies. Our goal is to come back to the City with a landscape and berming plan that addresses these issues. If we can screen the building, are we okay with doing a metal building with a brown rusted roof with earthy finishes? Commissioner Van Vliet asked if you would be able to see down valley. Mr. Lennon stated that you won't see it at all because of the huge berms. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if it's screened and you can't see it, then it should be fine. Mr. Lennon stated that they're a little bit behind and they're just starting construction of the bridge. We start grading next week on the lower area. We've rough graded all but one hole on the top. We've sanded about 7-8 greens on top. The golf course architect is Tom Doke who is the hottest, young, new architect in the business. He's been designing golf courses for twenty years and designed Bandon Dunes, which is ranked in the top twenty golf courses in the world. He and his staff will do a lot of the shaping of the course themselves. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUZANNE LOPEZ, 3257 Primera Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90068 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to construct an attached garage, entry vestibule and 7' high front yard wall 6' from curb face at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 45-807 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Howard Peterson, architect, was present to address the commission. A picture of the north elevation and a site plan was passed around to the commissioners for them to review. The City has widened the street adjacent to this home, which cut off some of the front yard. What Ms. Lopez is trying to do is create a buffer between the street and the house and get some privacy, a better looking house and provide a sound barrier between the street and the house. To do that, it infringes on the existing setback. A new location for the wall is being proposed at 5' on the--outside of the wall with the entryway at the original location of the original retaining wall. We're looking at this as a work session. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES The owner is a hands-on owner and is an artist. Additional pictures of the site were shown to the commissioners. We're proposing a four-car garage, which is 17'10" in height from the grade to the top of the parapet. There's a new tile roof being proposed which wouldn't change the plan of the roof line itself. We would like to replace the existing roof with tile. The existing house will stay the current color and the new portions will be similar colors but lighter. We had a work session this morning with Public Works and Community Development in hopes of getting this plan approved so that we can proceed with construction drawings. The wall, location of the wall, location of the entrance need to be approved. I got a confirmation this morning from Public Works that they would go along with the 5' vestibule. We wanted it to be wider. There's a long range plan for a 6' sidewalk from the curb. Across the street are portable classrooms for a school with a church on the corner. Ms. Lopez has done a wonderful job in landscaping the entire site. She's started to re-locate plants which are native to the desert and move them to the front of the property. We don't have a finalized landscape plan for the meeting today. Ms. Lopez stated that the house is going to be rustic looking. The driveway, front wall and walkway is going to be constructed of used concrete, which will create a nice look. I have antique Indian gates that will go in the archway which are made of wood with grills for the entrance. This is an R-2 lot and in the future I'm planning on doing a second unit addition which is why I'm adding a four car garage at this time. Commissioner Hanson asked how they intend on leaving the two palm trees in the middle of the garage. Ms. Lopez stated that she doesn't want to take the trees out. Commissioner Van Vliet asked her why she's not going to move them. Ms. Lopez stated that they're very high and very large and they would be too hard to move. I'm just going to let them come out the top of the roof. This area will be used as a work space so it doesn't matter if it's water tight or not. Mr. Peterson stated that they would like approval of the wall, the colors, the tile roof and the garage. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the entry wall. Mr. Peterson stated that the wall is 5' high with wood peelers on top making the wall 7' high. Ms. Lopez stated that the material is used concrete. Mr. Urbina stated that the vestibule would require a variance application because they want to put it right at the front property line, which would be 12' back from the curb face. We're looking for feedback on the vestibule design, wall design and materials, as well as G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES the 17'10" high garage. Commissioner Gregory stated that the height of the garage would probably be our primary concern. Because it's here we will review the color. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the setback for the garage is 17', which is fine. Mr. Urbina commented that this is before the commission because the height exceeds 15'. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was a reason why the back section is raised up. Ms. Lopez stated that she wanted the whole garage to be high for storage space and work space because I do large canvases and paintings. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he didn't feel that the roof height was an issue because it's just on the rear portion of the garage. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a neighbor on the rear side who might be impacted by the height. Mr. Peterson didn't think so because it's a very deep lot. Commissioner Hanson commented that I'd like to see the vestibule lowered by one foot. The applicant stated that there are palm trees in this area that aren't on the plans. Commissioner Hanson stated the commission has to have plans that shows what the landscaping is going to look like. Your plans show the vestibule at 12' from back of curb with a 14' high element, which is huge in comparison to the rest of the house, other than the garage that you're adding. The garage is a much larger element and the entryway is the same height. They're both at the same importance and I don't that it's right in relationship to their scale. There are no dimensions on the plans. Showing the landscaping might actually help. Commissioner Van Vliet requested an elevation of what the entry wall is going to look like because we don't have one to review. You're using a different, unique material and well into the setback so we would like to see the wall design and wall height of what it's actually going to look like. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant is saying that the pictures that were submitted aren't accurate. The wall would be better at 5' in height with decorative pots on top. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that they check with the Building Department to see if it's possible to build the proposed wall. Commissioner Lambell commented that you've come a long way since the last submittal. However, I'm thoroughly confused. I read plans all the time and I'm having trouble following them. You need to give it to us in one nice, neat little package. This is a real good step, but you're not there yet. We need to see the existing palm tree locations. We need to see the-correct roof heights. Give us what you've already received approval from. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that there is some concern about the height of the gate structure. Commissioner Hanson stated that if Public Works has said that they don't more than a 5' wall then they can't do that structure. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there are not drawings showing how the wall is going to look with the gate and entry. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant has to show the commission specifically what she intends to do. The commissioner agreed that color is not an issue. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations showing (1) vestibule lowered by 1% (2) 5' high wall with pots on top, and (3) gate and wall plans showing arch over entryway. Garage height and colors are acceptable. Motion carried 6- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. (Commissioner Vuksic left the meeting at 2:00 p.m.) C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PEGGY AMES & RANDY WERNER, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised south elevation of a new two-story, office/apartment, storage/warehouse building. LOCATION: Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-67 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STAN & MICHELLE SMITH, 73-526 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to raise existing 4' high wall on the west side of the property to 6' (12' to 4' from curb). LOCATION: 73-526 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the wall has been constructed with the benefit of a permit. We've been told by the applicant that at least part of it was there before and it was a 2'-4' high wall in the same location. Staff approved a portion of the wall but the wall in question is along Burroweed to the north property line. The issue is the extension to the wall. At the north corner of the lot, the wall is as close as 4' to the curb. On a street side yard a 6' high wall, code would require it to be setback 12'. The applicant advises me that at some point it is 12' back from the curb. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was determined that there was a 4' wall in that location. Mr. Stan Smith stated that the reason why the wall was torn down was because there's a huge palm tree in the corner of the wall. I had the palm tree removed because it had pushed the wall over at that corner. The tree was moved to the front yard. I had the opportunity to get the crew that was doing the work on the front yard wall to do the side yard wall so I did it without getting a permit. I also raised it from the original 4' to 6'. I'll do whatever you need me to do. Mr. Smith stated that there's a stop work order on the wall at this point. Mr. Stan Smith stated that he'd be happy to stucco the wall and landscape in front of it. Mr. Smith commented that the north corner of the house is closer than the south corner. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the commission is concerned about precedent. Mr. Stan Smith stated his neighbors on every side of him love it. The commission agreed that they would like to go to the site to see exactly what the wall looks like. Commissioner Van Vliet requested a site plan for the next meeting. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to the meeting of December 28, 2004 to allow the commissioners to visit the site. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: MR. & MRS. KICHIK, 44-525 San Juan Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 15'6" roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 44-525 San Juan Avenue ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner' Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel to add SA 04-164 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-164 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EVERITT'S MINERALS & GALLERY, 73-580 El Paseo, Suite "C", Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. LOCATION: 73-580 El Paseo, Suite "C" ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is for an awning on El Paseo, which will be blue with 8" white copy for the business name. It's located across from The Gardens. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have a problem with it. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Vi. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR041214.MIN 23