Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 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 19 3 Kristi Hanson X 19 3 Chris Van Vliet X 19 3 John Vuksic X 21 1 Ray Lopez X 20 2 Karen Oppenheim X 20 2 Karel Lambell X 16 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of November 9, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRAVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, 73-081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 38 triplex units (total of 114 units). LOCATION: North side of Country Club, east of Monterey Avenue between Merrano and Suncrest. ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID PREST, PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72-624 El Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two new single-story office buildings. LOCATION: 39-850 Portola Avenue, north of Country Club Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that there haven't been any changes to the plans. The preliminary plans were approved by minute motion. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Gregory abstaining. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 2 saloe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-157 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PAIGE LINN ENTERPRISES, INC., P.O. Box 1583, Palm Springs, CA 92263 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. Heiress LOCATION: 73-260 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): QUIEL BROS., 272 S. "I" Street, San Bernardino, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised tenant signage for new building. Lyle Commercial LOCATION: 78-000 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant submitted revised elevations showing every sign on each elevation. The scale looks more appropriate. The Fred Waring and Washington frontages don't have any more room for signage. Neil Bohmen, representative for Quiel Brothers Sign Company, was present to address the commission. Mr. Bohmen stated that Lyle Commercial has merged with Coldwell Banker so they want to have their identity. Basically, it's Coldwell Banker but they have to use Lyle and Associates whenever they use Coldwell Banker. Mr. Smith stated that it was approved in location "A" but now they would like to put it in location "B", which means that it has to be reviewed. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the last time Mr. Bohmen submitted plans the upper fascia was 4' and now it's been changed to 3'. Mr. Bohmen stated that it's supposed to be 4'. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the plans are drawn wrong so the G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES upper fascia is really bigger than shown. Commissioner Gregory asked if the sign dimensions were correct. Mr. Bohmen stated that the dimensions are correct. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he has an issue with having multiple colors of signage up high on the building. He suggested making them blend in and making them more conducive to the building. I don't see why they can't be moved down to the lower fascia. They would still get lots of visibility on the building. If you do want something on the upper fascia, the signs need to be all the same color and tie into the color tones of the building. Mr. Bohmen stated that the main problem is that those are national companies and they can't change the colors. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that he move them down to the mid-fascia. Commissioner Hanson stated that he should put all the signage on the mid-fascia. Any of the colors are acceptable, except red. Mr. Bohmen stated that with the number of tenants that they're proposing it probably won't work to put all the signage on the first floor. It's going to look pretty cluttered and he isn't sure if there's enough room anyways. Commissioner Hanson stated that Chicago Title has two signs. Maybe they should only have one sign. Mr. Bohmen stated that it might work on the side elevations but the other sides of the building are shorter. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that there would be enough room to put all the signage on the lower level. This is a highly visible building. Commissioner Lambell commented that with so many signs on this building, it seems like one sign will become predominant. It's going to get so complicated because it's so cluttered looking. What we're being asking to approve is something that looks like a "carnival kind of a building". If the signs are moved down to the lower fascia, then they can be any color that they want. Commissioner Hanson agreed that they would look better on the lower fascia. Commissioner Lopez stated that the building is beautiful and the signs don't bother me right now. The red is pretty bright. It is an office building and signs are put up on them for a reason. So far I haven't seen anything that's offended me, other than the red on the Keller-Williams sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that the thing that happens when you have signs on top and bottom is instead of your eye being drawn to a certain place, you don't know where to go. You're looking up and down and all over and it's very distracting. When the signs are all on one level, then your eye runs in a linear fashion instead of all over the place. Commissioner Lopez commented that there are trees near the lower level and wondered if the signs would be visible in that location. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Keller-Williams sign is too big G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES and bold and it overpowers the entire building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would like to see the revised plans because it needs to be done artfully or else it will look cluttered. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request with the suggestion that the applicant submit plans that show revisions of 1) proposed color package with signage only on the lower fascia and may stay the color that they are with the exception with Keller-Williams which needs to be a muted red color such as rust, or 2) signage on upper fascia with one uniform color scheme. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-61 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. & MRS. ZEITOUNIAN, 73-950 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of 18' roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 72-983 Grapevine ZONE: R-1, 15,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) CHRIS BRATTY, 1920 Main Street, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center. LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the plans look acceptable, however, landscaping is not ready and is a long way off. Because the landscaping plan isn't close, they can't get started on their grading plan. Even though they want to get started, they're not doing what's necessary. They've indicated signage on the working drawings, but there are no details. The signage will need a separate review. Staff will handle the site lighting. Conditions 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the City Council approval have not been addressed. The applicant also has to work with the Art in Public Places staff. It is recommended that the architecture be approved by the commission. The other issues will be addressed relative to appropriate screening of the trash areas and the truck loading ramp. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of architecture, subject to 1) approval by Landscape Manager, 2) compliance with all City Council conditions, 3) separate parking lot lighting plan approval, and 4) separate sign review. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: SA 04-159 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSL- COAST SIGNS, INC., 1500 Embassy Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Courtyard/Residence Inn, Marriott Hotel LOCATION: 38-305 Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-54 APPLICANT (AND ADDRE$A. GEORGE BUONO, 38-681 Parker Ridge Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 8' high wall for entryway to a single family residence. LOCATION: 72-922 Grapevine ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this case was presented to the commission at their last meeting and landscape plans were requested. Mike Buccino was present to represent the applicant. Landscape plans and elevations of the wall were displayed for the commission to review. The entryway is 8'5" to the top of the column, but the wall is 5'6". Gate plans were shown to the commission, which was decorative wrought iron. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the driveway gate and what it would look like. Mr. Buccino stated that they haven't designed the gate yet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the distance from the wall to the property line. Mr. Buccino stated that it's 5' on one side and 2' on the other side. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's driven by the property and it looks like the wall is higher than 5'6". Mr. Buccino stated that there is a grade change going up to it. From the face of the wall to the curb is 14' on one side and 12' on the other side and there will be a lot of landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the curb is 1'/2' below the wall which is why it looks so high. Mr. Buccino stated that he's going to do some berming with the landscaping with olive trees and other plant material. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the wall is really dominant and it seems like it parallels the curb, which seems a little insensitive to the neighbors. Then adding the 8'5" pilasters at the entryway draws more attention to the wall. It seems like those areas could be lower profile so that they don't draw so much attention to them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the higher elements at the entryway actually breaks up the wall. If it was all one height it would seem monotonous. This, at least, is a point of interest. Commissioner Hanson stated that the houses across the street are low, old-style homes and the proposed house is rather tall and you need a taller element on the wall. If you had a low wall, it would reinforce the height difference between what is around it and that house. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet suggested undulating the wall in and out to get some interest in the wall. Mr. Buccino stated that he's going to plant palms with heavy trunks that will go in on both sides of the wall to lessen the impact of a property line wall. We're landscaping on both sides of the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was concerned about the 8'5" portion of the wall. Mr. Buccino commented that the higher portion creates a nice relationship with the wall. The gate itself is gorgeous and is just under 9' but it's all open and very airy. Commissioner Lambell asked if there would be light fixtures on top of the pilasters. Mr. Buccino stated that there won't be any light fixtures on top of the pilasters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned because he didn't see anything to indicate that the soil is going to go up to the wall to make it 5'6" high. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-31 & C/Z 04-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS. ROBERT & MARILYN FORD, P.O. Box 3449, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 1,826 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-447 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 8 �rrw' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 04-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, Barbara Saito, 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, CA 92620 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a wireless telecommunications mono-palm and equipment shelter. LOCATION: Oasis Country Club, South of Hovley Lane, north of Sand Dune Drive ZONE: PR-4 Mr. Urbina stated that he would like the applicant to add four live palm trees (two south and two north of the tower). The applicant agreed to add four live fan palms. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval, subject to adding (4) live fan palms (two north and two south of the tower). Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS JOE BARON, 74-074 San Marino Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on an accessory building. LOCATION: 77-680 Mountain View ZONE: RE Mr. Stendell distributed photographs for the commission to review. Mr. Baron had additional photos that were passed to the commission members. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant had any drawings or elevations of the building. Mr. Baron stated that he spoke to all of his neighbors and they didn't have a problem with the building. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES There are a lot of similar buildings on the street in the neighborhood. The lot is an acre and a quarter. Mr. Smith stated that there's an existing home on the front of the lot. He is meeting the setbacks for the zone. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant indicates that he will remodel the home after the accessory building is complete. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was going to be a metal building. Mr. Baron stated that it's a steel frame building with a stucco exterior with a neutral faux finish. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the shallow pitched metal roof. Mr. Baron stated that it's a 1:12 gable roof. The eave height is approximately 16'. He tried to bring it down as low as he could but he's trying to accommodate a 14' door for his RV storage. Commissioner Hanson asked if he was planning to store five RV's. Mr. Baron stated that he has a fleet of classic cars and motorcycles. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if it would be possible to drop the roof down in some areas where you don't need the height. Mr. Baron said that he couldn't drop the roof down because he has a lot of large vehicles. He has to have to big doors. Perhaps it could be dropped down but it's typical of what's in the neighborhood. It's almost identical to what's right next door. Commissioner Hanson commented that she could understand with the size of the property that he would want to have at least a portion of the building to be large enough to accommodate the RV's, but personally has a hard time with the entire building being at the same height. This is a commercial building stuck in a residential area. I understand that some other people may have similar buildings, but that might have been previous to this board's review process. Mr. Baron stated that the next-door-neighbor has a similar building that was approved by the ARC and it's not that old. Commissioner Hanson asked if the neighbor has a building that has five doors and it's all 18' in height. Mr. Baron stated that they have two big doors. The photo that was submitted was of a typical building that's already been built. The neighbors won't be able to see his building, except for the ends. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Baron what he would be storing in the building. Mr. Baron stated that he has a lot of motorcycles, street rods, classic Cadillac and it's basically a hobby shop. Commissioner Vuksic stated that all of those vehicles are the height of normal cars. Mr. Baron stated that he has two RV's as well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the buildings in the photographs are tall buildings but they have some architecture. They're not just a massive, massive building. Mr. Baron stated that GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdoos\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 10 ,too Nftoi ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES there's a building under construction right now that's 18'-19' all the way across the top with a large door in the front. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission would like more architecture on the building so that it ties into the house in some way. They would like some articulation so that it doesn't look like a big box. Mr. Baron stated that he intends to stucco the exterior so that it doesn't have an industrial look to it. Commissioner Gregory suggested-that Frank Laulainen would know exactly what to do to add architecture to the building. Mr. Baron stated that he met with Mr. Laulainen and they discussed some options. Mr. Laulainen drew the site plan with the landscaping. The back lot is elevated at least 4'. There will be a 4' wall at the rear with a planter. Commissioner Hanson stated that she has a problem with the fact that this is a very large building with six big doors in it with no other articulation other than it being plastered with windows. I don't know what that means because I can't look at it. I want the applicant to be able to accommodate his RV's and he should be able to do that on this piece of property. I don't think that the entire building should be one big box just because it's easier. The accessory building should tie into the architecture of the home. Mr. Baron stated that he can't tie the accessory building into the main building. This building is key to making the whole project happen and it's got to be done with this efficient building structure make of practical steel. Commissioner Hanson stated that he can do something made of steel and still break the roof up and not have the entire building at the full 18'. Mr. Baron stated that if he brought the roof height down he would lose the interior space and he'd be packed into a confined area and would eliminate the option to have shelves. Commissioner Hanson stated that Mr. Laulainen has the ability to take a look at it and figure it out. We don't have enough information to approve this request. I'm not going to approve a picture of a different building. Mr. Baron stated that he wants what his neighbors already have. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant why he needs something with such a huge interior. It's a 50' x 100' building and Mr. Baron is saying that he doesn't have enough shelving unless he goes up 18' high. Mr. Baron stated that he might want to build a mezzanine for storage inside the building. If I didn't have the 18' height, I wouldn't have enough room for it. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he won't have enough height inside for a mezzanine. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't see that as an argument. This is a huge site and you don't have to go vertical to do it. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the photos of the neighbors' storage building has a lot more architecture and a different type of roof material. The tile roof ties into the house. There's one tall G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 1 1 wr N ft ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES door and the other doors are much shorter. Mr. Baron stated that he's trying to build a utility building for under $100,000. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would help his property value by building a building that looks attractive. You're going to look at it all the time from your house. You need to add some more architecture to it. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the commission needs to see what it's going to look like. Mr. Baron stated that then he'll have to pay an architect thousands of dollars. I've already paid him thousands to get to this point. I have a company who will sell me the package for the building and they have all their planners. Commissioner Hanson stated that the company who has already been paid for this package should put something together for the applicant to give to the commission. Right now, we don't have enough information to be able to approve it. We need elevations. We need to know exactly what the building is going to look like. The commission has given the applicant direction that a full height building with all the same size doors is not necessarily appropriate for a residential area. We want the applicant to accommodate his needs and he needs to evaluate that. Mr. Baron can also take a look and see if there are areas where he can drop the roof and still accommodate his needs and tie it into the architecture of his home. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with plans that reflect more architecture rather than photos of other somewhat similar structures. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-63 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) STEVEN PLANT, 43-825 Carmel Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to replace existing fence with a 5' high fence in the front of the house 7' from the curb. LOCATION: 43-825 Carmel Circle ZONE: R-1 Steven Plant, applicant, was present and stated that he would like to replace an old cedar fence with a new 5' high fence. The only part of the yard that's private is in the front of the house. They only have 5' in the rear yard. There's a 6' cinder block wall on one side and 6' cedar G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041123.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 2004 MINUTES fence on the other side. From the front balcony which faces the street, if I go 4' all I see is the top of cars driving by. One more foot up to 5' allows me some privacy. Commissioner Gregory asked if he's gotten approval from his neighbors. Mr. Plant stated that he could do that without any problem. Mr. Smith asked about the material for the new fence. Mr. Plant stated that he'll use whatever the City requires. Mr. Smith stated that any approved material is acceptable such as slump stone or stucco. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the neighbors would have to approve of the proposal although it's the same as what he had before but now it's rather permanent. Mr. Smith stated that as long as the material that he ultimately selects to finish it in is approved under the code, then it is considered approved. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval, subject to using approved material, per code. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:52 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR041123.MIN 13