Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-12 � � �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ` > ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES APRIL 12, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 2 Kristi Hanson X 6 1 Chris Van Vliet X 5 2 John Vuksic X 7 Ray Lopez X 6 1 Karen Oppenheim X 7 Karel Lambell X 7 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 Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 22, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of March 22, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ��r+' `'�r✓' ' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 05-36 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & SIGNS, 2950 Palisades Drive, Corona, CA 92880 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Lowe's Home Improvement Center. LOCATION: 35-850 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is proposing two monument signs; one on Monterey and one on Gerald Ford. The monument signs have a non-illuminated blue background with routed out letters. The letters will light up, but not the background. The sign for Lowe's has individual channel letters that are white and are illuminated. This is the second submittal. The first submittal showed signs that were too large. The signs have been reduced, however, the square footage was calculated by the applicant per letter and our code states that the square footage is calculated with a box around the area. The applicant has been informed that they're still over-sized. On Monterey, they're entitled to up to 246 square feet and all three signs plus the monument sign comes out to 303 square feet so they're still about 57.5 square feet over size on Monterey. On Gerald Ford, they're allowed 141 square feet and they have 125 square feet of proposed signage so they're okay on Gerald Ford. Staff is recommending that the signage be reduced on Monterey. The height of the monument sign meets the code. Jack Mandel, representative for Lowe's, was present and stated that they've removed the words "Home Improvement Warehouse" from the signage and have increased the size of the word "Lowe's". The capital "L" is 7'11" in height, which is actually smaller than the standard for Lowe's. Mr. Bagato stated that they're over the size limit and suggested that they could eliminate some of the signage or decrease the size of the signage. Mr. Mandel stated that the most important sign is the Lowe's sign on the front of the store. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're going to have to re-do the plans. The design is acceptable, but the sizes need to be reduced. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R050412.MIN 2 � � • � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES The applicant was directed to work with staff. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you don't want it to look too small or it would look out of scale. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to having the applicant work with staff to reduce overall square footage of signage so that it complies with the City ordinance. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM ADLER, 666 Upas, #1501, San Diego, CA 92103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a perimeter chain-link fence at a single-family residence in the hillside. LOCATION: 45-875 Edgehill ZONE: HPRD Mr. Bagato stated that a written request from the applicant was included in the commissioner's packets, as well as written comments from a neighbor. The property is located off Edgehill and is a hillside lot next to the Baptist Church and a few residential lots. There is existing chain-link fencing around the church and most of Mr. Adler's property, which was installed before the City had an ordinance opposed to chain-link fencing. Mr. Adler added 135 feet to enclose a portion of his property without a permit. He's here asking for an exception from our code because we don't allow chain-link fencing. Mr. Drell stated that the property owner wanted a fence that he could still look through. Photos were distributed for the commissioners to review. A notice was sent to the neighbors ten days before the meeting. Mr. Adler, applicant, stated that his neighbor, Mr. Fisher, pruned his smoke tree. I didn't want to have my smoke tree trimmed and he came over and did it anyway. I tried to work out the problem with him and since the fence was 6' high and matched the existing fence, I told the fence company to enclose my property and they said that I didn't need a permit. After I learned from Mr. Fisher's attorney that I was supposed to get a permit, I decided that the codes did not apply. I was concerned G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050412.MIN 3 � � ' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES that Mr. Fisher might come back on my property and do more damage to the property so I went ahead and had the fence put up. The chain- link fence matches Mr. Fisher's fence exactly so that it would be as unobtrusive as possible for that area. This is a very unique area. There are only three houses in this area and a church and all the fencing is chain-link. I was mainly interested in protecting my property. All I did was connect the end of Mr. Fisher's fence to the fence that runs parallel to the church parking lot to close that off so that Mr. Fisher couldn't come onto my property. Mr. Greg Fisher, 45-835 Edgehill Drive, neighbor, was present to address the commission. The objections that I have for this fence is that Mr. Adler knowingly violated the codes of the City of Palm Desert. It sets a non-conforming precedent for future chain-link fencing on Mr. Adler's property. The enclosed portion of the existing chain-link is around the rear of my property. My total footage of chain-link fencing is 475 feet, not 975 feet, which may have been a typo. The new chain- link section is an eye-sore, in my opinion, and it devalues both of our homes. My front view from the courtyard faces this fence. My intention in the future is to remove the only chain-link fencing that I have on my property because I think that having a home of this value that the chain-link is an eye-sore, therefore, I would like to remove all of my chain-link fencing and come up with an alternative to still get the same purpose and objective that I need for the fence by working with the City. I would really like to work this out. The only chain-link fencing on Mr. Adler's property is that section on my side and his north side. His complete south side is open and his complete east side is open. By approving this, I would assume that in the future the chain-link fencing could not be added so that is an issue. In regards to any discussion on the history of the smoke tree, that's on my property that blocks the telephone pole. That tree has grown back quite a bit. At my own expense, I've spent $700.-$800. for an acacia tree that was in a 36" box to go in front of the telephone pole to help placate Mr. Adler to try to work this out. My proposed resolution is to not approve this chain- link fence. This has not been approved. He did just put this up with a permit and it is an eye-sore. I think that something else should be worked out. Mr. Adler stated that he would be very happy to tear down the chain- link fence as soon as Mr. Fisher builds a block wall. The fence that I put up only blocks Mr. Fisher from coming onto my property. I didn't want to put up a fence in this location. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN 4 � � ' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 AGENDA Mr. Drell stated that this is an exception to the materials section of the ordinance. Anything that happens in the hillside is subject to Architectural Review. Commissioner Hanson stated that these are really low lying lots in the hillside area. It's not like you're looking up at them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that what Mr. Adler did was a reasonable thing to do. It would look really out of place to have a small section of solid wall when the rest is already chain link. Commissioner Hanson stated that ultimately if the goal is to provide block walls between and around the properties, that's fine. Since Mr. Adler said that he's willing to make that change when, and if, the neighbor does it, it would be a fair thing to do. I don't think it's fair for a small section of chain-link that's basically closing off somebody's property, it doesn't make sense to make that out of a different material. Mr. Fisher stated that it's closing off his property, not Mr. Adler's property. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's the property line between your properties so it's also his property. It seems like it would impact Mr. Fisher a lot more if it was a 6' block wall. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of additional chain-link because it matches the existing fencing. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of gatehouse, pavilion building and comfort stations at Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPRD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050412.MIN 5 � � � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-15 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): BARBARA CLAUSS, 2781 W. MacArthur B-224, Santa Ana, CA 92704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of side entry carport at 16'6" from the curb, stuccoed and painted to match existing house. LOCATION: 45-896 San Luis Rey ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that our code allows side-entry garages 16' from the curb so the applicant is in conformance, but it requires ARC approval. Mr. Drell stated that the side of the garage that faces the street looks like a blank wall. Typically, you can get some architecture on side-entry garages instead of just a garage door. They could put windows in it or something so that it doesn't look like just a blank wall. Commissioner Hanson asked the representative, AI Robinson, if he intended to stucco the inside of the garage. Mr. Robinson stated that he hadn't planned on it. There will be greenery on the outside so you won't see the inside. Commissioner Vuksic asked to see photos of the existing house. No photos were available. The only way that this could be approved is if it matched the existing house. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to have this request continued so that she could go to the site and look at the existing house. Commissioner Lambell asked to see a landscape plan. No plans were available. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) return with photos of existing house and (2) submit landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALFRED COOK/BRIAN GOTTLIEB, 45-120 San Pablo, 2C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 25,000 square foot professional office building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN � � � ' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 43-100 Cook Street ZONE: SI Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant, AI Cook, about the mechanical equipment. It looks like the parapet is 3'/2' from the top of the parapet to the roof sheeting. There is some concern about seeing the units on the roof. Mr. Cook stated that the units are 3'4" and doesn't want to raise the parapet anymore. Mr. Drell stated that you'll be looking up at the building from almost every direction. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 05-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JORGE CONTRERAS, 41-175 Carter Lane, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 18' roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: Lot #20 San Antonio Circle ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO.: SA 05-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SCOTT A. POLIMENI, 35325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 243, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for business signage with deviation to the sign program. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN � � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the building has a sign program which allows bronze letters. The freestanding sign has blue letters and now the commission is being requested to approve two new colors for the signage for Center Point Lending. A letter was given to the commission outlining the reasons for the request. They are careful to not tell us that it's a trademark registered sign. Scott Polimeni, applicant, stated that he owns a franchise of Center Point Lending and he negotiated and executed the lease prior to being aware of a sign program. After the lease was executed, I discovered that there was a sign program. An appeal was made to the President of the corporation to allow us to use the sign program thaYs currently on the building. The response was "no" and it was suggested that he move his business to another city that will allow this signage. Mr. Drell stated that there's nothing wrong with asking for an exception to the sign program. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wished that the submittal showed - more context. It looks odd that the sign has been jammed so close to the balcony. Mr. Polimeni stated that he would like to move the signage to the east side of the building because the trees on Fred Waring would obscure the sign. It would be a lot more visible on the east side of the building. The property owner approved the sign on Fred Waring, but hasn't been asked about locating it on the east side. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to staff finding appropriate location for signage. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 05-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BOB SIPOVAC, 72-651 Theodora Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of single-family residence with an 18' roof height. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050412.MIN g �►wr✓ � . • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 73-487 Grapevine ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the home on this site was burned down completely. There are two existing structures in the rear by the pool. The new owner is seeking approval for a new main house. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have a problem approving a roof height at 18' but there's a little more work that can be done to make it nicer. The mansard roofs could be changed to a pitched roof to make it blend into the rest of the architecture in that neighborhood. We're generally okay with rewarding somebody with an 18' roof height but it's because they've demonstrated superior architecture. I would recommend that the architect take another pass at it and look at pitching the roofs instead of just applying a roof on the face of it or just go to all flat roofs. Make a choice to be one or the other, but do a real roof. Mansard roofs are fake. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the west side of the site. Mr. Sipovac, applicant, stated that there is an existing home to the west and Marakesh Country Club is on the east side. Mr. Drell asked if the garage could be depressed so that it's not so tall. If the garage is lowered 2'-3' it would bring the garage height to 15'. The more it's lowered, the more space there will be on the second floor. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's unfortunate to have an 18' high wall right up against your neighbor's property. Right now it looks like there are two different buildings with a two-story modern building and different architecture on the other building. You'll got to work on making it more cohesive. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations showing (1) "real" roofs, as opposed to mansard roofs, (2) more cohesive architecture, (3) depress garage 2'-3', and (4) submit photos of existing adjacent buildings. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN 9 '�rrrrr' "�r�r` � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST GOBLE, 1650 Zahker Road, #125, San Jose, CA 95122 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for two showroom buildings. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Urbina stated that Building A is very close to the railroad tracks where there are very few tamarisk trees and it's at eye level to the freeway. That was a major issue when the City Council was reviewing Bedrosian Tile, which is another industrial building on Dinah Shore. Mr. Drell stated that the Bedrosian Tile building was a much bigger building and was given a height exception. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the screening of the roof-mounted equipment. Bob Ricciardi, architect, stated that they'll put a screen around the equipment. Mr. Urbina asked if he was going to do this as opposed to raising the parapet wall. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could raise the parapet wall a couple of feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that screening elements would be nicer. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the roof access will be through the buildings with no outside ladders. The signage will come in as a separate submittal at a future date. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to showing on the working drawings details of the screen elements for roof-mounted equipment and enclosing the back of the parapet. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE BARON, 74-074 San Marino Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN l� �rr�" '�✓'` � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for a 17'6" roof height on an accessory building in the rear yard of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 77-680 Mountain View ZONE: RE Mr. Smith stated that the revised plans show the ends being lowered in height. It's a significant improvement over the previous submittal, but isn't sure if it fits in with the existing homes in the area. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's ugly and wondered how he would have enough room for the roof structure for the garage doors. There's no room on the roof for equipment either so it would all have to be installed on the ground. Mr. Smith stated that they could be wall mounted as well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that one of the previous comments was that the roof either had to match the roof on the house or match what the roof is going to be after the remodel is complete. Mr. Smith stated that we don't know what the roof of the house is going to become. The applicant previously indicated that he was going to tear the house down and build a new house. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's so unfortunate that it looks so bad. Commissioner Hanson commented that he stepped it in and he stepped down the ends. This is a very common-type of structure in this neighborhood. Commissioner Lambell stated that it's better than the previous submittal. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion regarding revisions to approved working drawings involving the wall, business signage, exterior colors and landscaping for the Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050412.MIN l 1 �rrr✓ v.rr'` • • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES ZONE: P.C. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant would like to build a retaining wall to allow the extension of the existing berm. There will be access to underground mechanical equipment behind it. The goal is to make the wall disappear. Mr. Knight stated that he'll probably request that they change the palm trees because no matter what you put in there, the heads are eventually going to grow out of scale and leave the wall exposed. You really need a lower canopy tree that's not going to grow out of scale. Or you could leave the existing palm trees and put some kind of a multi-trunk tree in front of them. There was an April 1 St deadline for the applicant to do something to correct the issues. On the basis of the current proposal, we will be extending the temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's encouraged by the solution. Richard Wasserman stated that he was concerned that this may become the "jungle in the parking lot". Mr. Knight assured him that the parking lot will not be a jungle. Mr. Wasserman stated that the entry is a sensitive area for the shopping center. Mr. Drell stated that the trees won't be higher than the wall. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of the landscape concept as submitted with direction for applicant to work with staff. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, Thomas W. Gilmer, 701 S. Parker, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of elevations and landscaping for eleven office/industrial buildings. LOCATION: 73-800 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this property is located on the north side of Dinah Shore and is zoned Service Industrial. The project consists of eleven buildings. They will be doing a parcel map so each lot will be individually owned. The architecture is concrete tilt-up. The buildings are very similar looking. There is some concern about Building 1, which G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN 12 `��wwr✓ "�rr� � - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12; 2005 MINUTES is located on Dinah Shore and could use more architecture. Building 2 will also be visible from Dinah Shore. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that there isn't much variation in the colors and they look washed out. It was suggested to add contrast and make the colors a little deeper. Mr. Drell asked about areas for signage. Tom Gilmore, applicant, stated that the signage request will be submitted at a future date. The signage will probably be raised foam letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this proposed project is a far cry from the other submittals that we've seen along Dinah Shore. You've got eleven buildings and they look so repetitive and there's so little going on. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's seen buildings like this in Orange County and sees them going up all over the freeways there. Maybe there it's okay, but it's not enough here. I know that you're trying to keep your costs down, but we want to see really great architecture here. This submittal is too simple and too plain. It's not there yet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that simple is okay when architecturally you can see why it's simple and it's a strong design in it's simplicity, but that's not what I see here. I see buildings basically getting slapped up. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't like the fact that the buildings are all the same texture. Examples of other buildings that have been recently approved on Dinah Shore were shown to the applicant. It was suggested to add more variation to the architecture with recesses (at least two feet) and interesting forms. The south-facing offices will be very hot if they're left unprotected. Mr. Drell stated that the buildings don't have to be painted all the same color. Mr. Gilmer stated that they could possibly do three different paint schemes. Mr. Drell commented that we're a resort community so we want the peoples experience of our town not to look like where they came from. Dinah Shore isn't just an industrial street, it's an arterial street. Mr. Knight stated that when they come back with revised elevations, don't flower it up with trees. If we see an elevation with plant material, we expect the landscape plan to reflect the same plant material. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR050412.MIN 13 � � • - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow applicant to return with revised elevations showing more detailed architecture. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN 14