Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-28 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 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 15 3 Kristi Hanson X 16 2 Chris Van Vliet X 15 3 John Vuksic X 17 1 Ray Lopez X 17 1 Karen Oppenheim X 18 Karel Lambell X 12 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: SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of September 14, 2004. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 �I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Mr. Smith stated that this request was before the Architectural Review Commission at their meeting on September 14, 2004. The applicant has returned with revised plans for the commission to review. Mr. Urbina stated that previously the applicant had requested 36" high lettering for the signage facing Washington Street. The ARC had commented that the letters were too big and requested 24" high lettering. The applicant has come back with revised sign drawings proposing 30" high letters for the first letter of each of the three words with the other letters being 24" in height. The applicant feels that the sign needs to be a little bit more prominent so he's proposing 30" high letters. Previously, the signage color proposal was red and he has changed it to yellow to provide more contrast with the lavender background. There are yellow signs in the shopping center. The ARC also expressed the desire to have the sign contractor try to do something with the lettering on the south and north elevations to try to follow the curvi-linear shape of the building. They have come up with some slanted lettering on the south elevation. The first letter in each word would be 24" in height. On the rear elevation facing west into the center, the lettering would be 18" in height. Commissioner Gregory stated that the revised plans are a big improvement. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the band that the letters will be mounted on. Mr. Urbina stated that the banding is not dimensioned on the plans, however, the applicant stated that the band is 4' in height. Commissioner Hanson asked for clarification on the colors of the wall. Mr. Drell stated that the photographs are not representative of the real colors. Commissioner Hanson stated that she had a question about the all capital "Hand G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 2 fire ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 AGENDA Carwash and Detailing Center" and it seemed like the letters were very large. The letters should be reduced to 14". Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to reducing size of rear west elevation lettering to 14" in height (as opposed to 18"). Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed. 2. CASE NO.: RV 04-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRANK PROULX, 77-260 Indiana Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store a 23' fifth wheel RV in an abandoned driveway of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 77-260 Indiana Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this item was on the September 14, 2004 ARC agenda. Staff has taken pictures and some members of the commission have visited the site. One of the questions that the commission had asked was if there were any alternative locations for the RV storage. Commissioner Gregory stated that the house is beautiful, very nicely appointed with landscaping and very well maintained. The owners have taken a lot of pride in the home and have done everything that they can to make the RV storage area look good. From my perspective, it's okay and they've done everything that they can do. Commissioner Lambell stated that the landscaping on the east side is lovely and it's very much in keeping with the neighborhood, in fact, it's better than the neighbors'. Mrs. Proulx stated that her son, Ray Martin of Ray Martin Design, is responsible for the landscaping. Commissioner Lambell commented that the only other place on the east side of the property would disturb the landscaping and it would look like a "sore thumb" sticking out of the house and the garage. I agree with Commissioner Gregory that there really isn't another option. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 AGENDA Commissioner Vuksic stated that he drove by the house many times and he looked at it from different angles and also drove around the neighborhood. The house is very nice and I was very impressed, particularly with the east side and the landscaping with the roses and plumerias. I thought that the enclosure for the RV looked unnatural. I didn't see anything else that I could even compare it to in the neighborhood. Most of the houses are very nice and I really like the neighborhood. People obviously take a lot of pride in their homes. I did see a couple of other oleander hedges in the area that went out to the sidewalk, but they weren't used as a big enclosure. Everything else was nicely manicured and set back from the street. I'm concerned about the precedent that this would set because I don't see anything else like it out there. I think that the pots on the pallets make it look odd and it makes your home look like it's on the lower half of the scale instead of looking like one of the best homes in the neighborhood with that big object out there. I can't vote in favor of this. I think that the applicants are very nice and obviously take a lot of pride in their home, but I can't feel good about voting for the RV to be stored there. Commissioner Lopez commented that he agreed with Commissioner Vuksic in that they're going to set a dangerous precedent where everybody is going to park their RV's by their house and then later come in after it's all done and ask for approval. If it was a brand new project, we wouldn't approve it. I didn't see any other homes with RV's or boats in the front of houses in this area. Mr. Drell stated that the fact that we have an ordinance that allows RV's in the front yard means that it can be done. If what the ARC is saying is that it's impossible to do then that's a fundamental problem, but we have an ordinance and it states that this is something that can be done. The commission doesn't have to worry about setting a precedent because the ordinance already sets the precedent. The ordinance requires an enclosure like this to occur. The ordinance requires it to be physically screened. To deny it because it's physically screened is not setting a precedent. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the location has to play into it. Mr. Drell stated that it's a matter of scale that at this particular location there isn't physically enough room to adequately screen the RV or to screen it itself creates an aesthetic problem for the property. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 4 smov 1400, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez stated that people drive very fast on these streets and if everybody starts putting trees right up to the sidewalk and people try to pull out in their cars, there are going to be problems with the line of sight. This might not necessarily be true at the proposed location, but people are going to ask why they can't put a big hedge right up against the sidewalk because someone else has one. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission has to look at each case individually. Commissioner Vuksic questioned the maintenance on a landscape screen. Mr. Drell stated that by definition you can't screen an RV in a front yard by building a structure because we don't allow structures in the front yard. The only option is landscaping. That's the only way that you can screen an RV in the front yard because planting material isn't subject to setbacks. That's the only solution. The only other variance would be if you have a 30'-40' setback where the hedge and structure could be setback and doesn't have to be right up on the curb. Where you're dealing with the minimum setback and a large RV it might be hard to approve. Each case should be looked at individually and should be denied or approved based on the unique circumstances. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that two weeks ago when I looked at pictures of the RV screen, I was reticent about how it would be maintained. After seeing the pictures today and seeing how lovely you do maintain the landscaping, I feel that I could easily approve this. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he felt that unfortunately the RV is too big for the location. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the request. Motion failed 3-4 with Commissioners Vuksic, Hanson, Lopez and Van Vliet opposed. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request with the comment that the scale of the RV in proximity to the street is not appropriate. Motion carried 4-3 with Commissioners Lambell, Gregory and Oppenheim opposed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 5 err ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-50 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SKB-PTP, 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2250, Portland, OR 97204 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of remodel of exterior facade at Palms to Pines West. LOCATION: 72-655 — 72-695 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is proposing a remodel of the Von's shopping center at Palms to Pines West. Russ Stout, architect, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Vuksic asked where the glass mosaic the was going. Mr. Stout stated that basically everything on the right side of the material board are options for the materials for the individual tenants. The basic concept is to strip off all the overhang and the tile roof down to the base of the building and work with the existing towers and through varying heights and popping out the existing face of the structure create some interest. There will also be some trellis work but also allow each individual tenant to have some identity. The center is currently fairly vacant. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that currently there are overhangs over a lot of the glass in the center and it looks like they intend to take a lot of that off and they don't have much going back on. Mr. Stout stated that there are a couple of areas where they've popped out some trellises. With each individual tenant, there's an opportunity to create awnings and overhangs. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted them to make sure that there would be sufficient shading on the glass. Mr. Stout stated that this would be a natural tendency and it will evolve as each tenant goes in. Commissioner Gregory commented that it either evolves with each tenant or it's forced by the commission. Mr. Drell stated that we haven't forced anyone on El Paseo to add overhangs or awnings. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is an existing center which has shade. Mr. Drell stated that El Paseo used to have big, dominant awnings and they were torn off because they were bad for retailers. Most of them have been replaced with smaller awnings, but we left that up to the discretion of the retail tenant. Part of the center is north facing, which is somewhat less of a problem. This is really a GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 6 `Vale ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES hypothetical except for Von's itself. Mr. Stout stated that Von's hasn't voted on the renderings yet. Mr. Stout stated that on the large-scale drawings, the middle design is the design that they would do. This is the base design. Commissioner Hanson asked at what point does the tenant have to design their storefront. Mr. Stout stated that the owners are going to do the renovation at their cost but are going to allow the tenants certain looks at each storefront to give it more of a downtown village appearance. Mr. Drell stated that we'll be seeing specific storefront designs for every one of the tenants. Commissioner Gregory stated that the middle drawing is the "vanilla shell". Mr. Drell commented that this is how we approved The Gardens on El Paseo. We had a hypothetical design from the architect and had materials and a very conceptualized sign program and then we had individual tenants coming in for approval. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if every tenant would come to the ARC for approval. Mr. Drell stated that they could all come to the commission or some could be approved by staff. This is an architectural master plan and ultimately we're going to be seeing specific detailed storefront designs for Von's and each individual tenant. Commissioner Van Vliet stated concern about approving the plans and then we'll be locked into that. There could be no other additional submissions from Von's in terms of the front elevation. Mr. Drell stated that we will see the normal detailed drawing, even on Von's. Commissioner Vuksic commented that conceptually the proposal is great. I've got tons of questions to ask the architect in a more detailed review because I can't understand what surfaces are doing in relation to each other. It's interesting that the one piece that we're taking as our model is the big thing over the entrance of Von's and it looks really top heavy. It's sitting on these little columns with a huge mass. There would be an understanding that I would critique that and hope that the architect would develop it a little bit more. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for conceptual approval of the middle drawing on the plans submitted on September 21, 2004 with the understanding that every tenant, including Von's, will have to come back before the Architectural Review Commission with final plans for approval. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 7 • `1 rw *4001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-124 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRITE LITE NEON CORP., 5514 Satsuma Avenue, No. Hollywood, CA 91601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Best Buy/ Magnolia Home Theater LOCATION: 44-449 Town Center Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is not present. The proposed letters have aluminum faces with silver edges. The proposal will have to go to the City Council for an exception for the size limit. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could put the additional signage on the vertical column. It fights too much with the Best Buy sign and it looks confusing. The new signage could be put below the Best Buy sign. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the Best Buy sign is very loud. Commissioner Hanson stated that they've given the sign a lot of prominence for something that's a small part of the business. Commissioner Gregory suggested putting the Magnolia Home Theater sign on the column below Best Buy. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to be present. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: C 04-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SKB-PDM INVESTMENTS, 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2250, Portland, Oregon 97204 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel of front canopy and storefront of shopping center. Henry's Marketplace LOCATION: 73-011 — 73-161 Country Club Drive G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to add MISC 04-51 to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-51 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., 4725 Sunny Dunes, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval to exceed lot coverage by 3%. LOCATION: 72-591 Hedgehog Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that this is a brand new home on a 7,200 square foot lot with 38% lot coverage, therefore, the applicant is asking for approval to exceed the coverage by 3%. Mr. Drell stated that the backyard looks small. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has a lap pool in the yard. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of model homes for 159-lot single family subdivision. LOCATION: Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 9 rrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: PR-5 Nancy Keenan, architect for Rilington Communities, was present to address the commission. This project was before the Architectural Review Commission at their meeting on September 14, 2004 and they have returned to respond to their comments. A new street scene with elevations of each model was displayed for the commission to review. The street scene has been modified to show how they've paired the garages so that they better match the street tree program that works with the landscaping. It sets up the rhythm of trees and shows how the landscaping on the street will actually be seen. One of the comments that came up at the previous meeting was that the architecture looks very one-sided. The front side of the architecture seems to be better represented than the other sides of the buildings. A 3-D rendering of the homes was included in the commission's packets. The architect responded to each of the eight comments that the commission made at the previous meeting. The windows were moved around on Plans 2 and 3 to make them line up a little better. The architecture has been modified so that all of the exterior walls are now shown as 2 x 6, excluding the garage. There will be a 2 x 4 set inside the 2 x 6 walls to allow the nail-on window to be applied to the 2 x 4 to create a recess all the way around all the exterior windows. The area around the garage door was thickened. The jam could be pulled out altogether to create a cleaner detail and add 2" to the column. The window element on the porch on Plan 2A was pulled down to the head of the window. The bathroom window was narrowed and pulled away from the corner on the side elevation of Plan 2A. The gate was removed on Plan 4 because there was a comment that it was too small. Mr. Drell stated that he had suggested having a more substantial arched structure that creates some sort of front door. Removing the gate isn't the solution. Commissioner Hanson stated that it needed to be more significant because the previous gate was too small. The Tuscan eave detail was shown to the commission. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the 12" recess of the windows. Ms. Keenan stated that on Plan 1, the three bullet windows that are under shutters are recessed 6". She didn't feel that it was necessary to recess a window that small any more than 6". The larger windows are recessed 12". Commissioner Lambell asked if all the lentils and sills are the same foam treatment because they're depicted differently in all of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES elevations. Are they all the same thickness, height, depth and width? Ms. Keenan stated that they're all the same and extend out 2". Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to adding an additional 2" to the trim detail on either side of the garage to thicken the column on Plan 3B. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Jewish Community Center review of line of sight study. LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that the architect provided the commission with a line of site diagram which they used to argue for maintaining the 30' high tower. The applicant was not present. View 1 shows the view from Portola. View 2 is taken from the intersection of Shepard Lane and Portola. View 3 is taken from the southern limit of the property and Portola. The commission commented that based on the exhibits, they're not convinced that the tower has to be 30' in height and could be lowered 4'-5'. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to reaffirm their previous decision and determined that the tower height could be lowered 4'-5' without impacting the visibility of the graphics mounted on the tower wall. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD DEBONNE, P.O. Box 1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape plan for a 17,061 square foot office building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 11 '�w► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES LOCATION: 44-851 Village Court ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 12