Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-22 . �' � ��'�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MARCH 22, 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 1 Kristi Hanson X 5 1 Chris Van Vliet X 4 2 John Vuksic X 6 Ray Lopez X 5 1 Karen Oppenheim X 6 Karel Lambell X 6 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 8, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of March 8, 2005. The motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioners �opez and Van Vliet abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . ' Y�+' �," ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92620 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of installation of a wireless telecommunications facility within an existing architectural feature on an existing building. Radio equipment will be installed within the existing office space. LOCATION: 72-221 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to make it clear to the applicant that the commission is concerned that the end result is as it is depicted in the photo simulation and they had some questions as to how they intended to fill in the missing tiles. The applicant, Barbara Sido, commented that they planned to take off all the current tile and will replace it with new tile so that it looks the same. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion with the understanding that all of the tile will be removed and replaced so that the appearance will be the same as the existing architectural feature. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, 73- 735 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of auxiliary buildings at Ironwood Country Club. LOCATION: 73-735 Irontree Drive ZONE: PR7 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050322.MIN 2 � ' �rr✓ '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 AGENDA Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to add case number PP 04-19 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0- 1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GLASS BLOCK PRODUCTS, INC., Maryann Ahlgren, 68-816 Summit Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new industrial building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the commission granted preliminary approval on July 27, 2004, subject to adding a furring wall on the west elevation to recess the glass block and extend the wall on top of the raised portion at 28' back by at least 5' so that it looks like an element. Mr. Urbina stated that they have accomplished those items. Commissioner Hanson stated that the furring detail should be extended to the entire front elevation and the rest of the commission concurred. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for final approval subject to extending furring detail to entire front elevation. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROBYN S. RITCHEY, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, S-104, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R050322.MIN 3 . . �r+' `�r++ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a 9,500 square foot office/warehouse building. LOCATION: 34-751 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the commission looked at this project in January 2005 and the elevations have been revised. Mr. Urbina stated that the old site plan showed the building up against the northerly property line with a zero setback. The revised plans show that the plan has been flipped so that there is a zero setback along the southerly property line. There's a proposed two-story industrial office building along the south side of the property. The treatment along the southerly property line with a zero setback is the elevation that shows four different colors of block in a mountain design. If the applicant uses four different kinds of block, it may look like a "Legoland" pattern like the Fred Waring wall on the south side of Fred Waring east of Portola. Ms. Ritchey wants to reserve the right to possibly use a stained-type of block in the proposed colors. The east elevation of the caretaker's unit will also have a zero property line setback and for that, an 8" x 8" rectangular block is proposed. Ms. Ritchey's thinking is that this will face the back of another industrial building on the opposite side. They will either landscape their side of it or they might build their own building with a zero setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that he noticed that there's a very specific column design on the first floor and then as you move up to the second floor, the same column effect is being continued but with a very different shape. He wondered if there would be any logic in continuing the same look, whether it's the bottom design or the top design. Ms. Ritchey stated that the reason why she did that was to create a layered effect architecturally so that rather than having vertical elements that are 30' high or more she would rather have a band element and have the top flare out with a capital effect on the columns to help give a broader scale to the top so that it has a more grounded feel. This is the westerly side and the flared columns will create some shade in this area. Commissioner Hanson commented that there's only 3'/2' from the roof to the top of the parapet and wondered if that would be enough height G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050322.MIN 4 , . �r�r► ",�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES to screen the roof-mounted equipment because we don't like to see them at all. Ms. Ritchey stated that the equipment will not show. Ms. Ritchey commented that she would rather use a colored masonry product instead of a stained concrete block because it would last longer. Commissioner Hanson thought that the mountain pattern on the wall might look a little bit too contrived and would prefer that she use the decorative block in a way that's more representative of the building. Ms. Ritchey stated that she was trying to soften the architecture with the curved lines. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's more concerned about the green color, but the others are fine. The green needs to be more of a deeper shade. Ms. Ritchey stated that they only offer colored block in certain colors. The color scheme that I like is on the art gallery on the corner of Portola and Highway 111 and these colors are similar. Commissioner Hanson commented that she picked those colors herself and they're not the same. The green thaYs on the art gallery is darker and has a little bit more gray in it. The proposed green is too light. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't mind the green and felt that it would fade over time. Commissioner Gregory stated that the area for landscaping against the building is tight and it's important to choose the right plant material to add softness to the building. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she felt that it was nice to see someone finally trying to do something to a wall that not too many people are going to see. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the building, but would like to see a different green. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that stain would fade quickly and they'd have to re-stain the block every couple of years. Mr. Smith stated that this is a preliminary approval and Ms. Ritchey can work on the colors and we'll have a better idea when she comes back with the working drawings. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) approval by the Landscape Manager, and (2) exterior colors to be determined. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050322.MIN 5 � � �rr/' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CMC WHITECAP, THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a 31,679 square foot office/industrial building. LOCATION: 73-600 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that staff's concerns are that the north elevation facing the freeway is not aesthetically pleasing and not what the City Council expects. There are some tamarisk trees along the railroad tracks and the site is level from the freeway. The cars on the freeway will be able to see the rear elevation. I did receive, via e-mail, the revised landscaping plans and there are some trees proposed along the rear property line. If the trees are to be used as a visual screen, there may not be enough of them. The species is Southern live oak. Staff is recommending that the north (rear elevation) be revised to incorporate some additional enhancements. Commissioner Hanson suggested incorporating the reveal that's shown on the front elevation into the rear elevation and add some articulation along the top of the building. Mr. Urbina stated that staff had recommended after the first Architectural Review Commission meeting that the applicant consider having a three-sided building along the rear property line to take care of the outdoor storage. The applicant is proposing to have outdoor storage with a height stacking limit of 8'. Based on staff's experiences with other industrial projects that have outdoor storage, the pallets will exceed 8', therefore, we'd like the commission to consider either requiring a 12' high block wall along the rear or some other method to address the stacking height issues of the outdoor storage area. Commissioner Hanson asked about the height difference from the freeway to the pad. Mr. Thomas Sun, applicant, was present and stated that he believed that it was almost level. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he would have a problem raising the wall. Mr. Sun stated that he would be willing to raise the wall to 10'-12'. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050322.MIN 6 � � `�r✓ '�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES Smith stated that the wall would then have to be landscaped. Mr. Sun stated that he will work with Diane Hollinger on the landscape plan. Commissioner Lambell stated that the revised plans are a huge step forward compared to the previous submittal. Mr. Urbina asked the commission to note the area in front of the perimeter wall along the east elevation and wondered if there was sufficient architectural treatment since it will be visible to westbound traffic along Dinah Shore. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's okay with it. There will be landscaping in this area. Commissioner Hanson suggested using Phoenix date palms in the landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the 12' high rear wall. Mr. Sun stated that he's thinking about keeping the wall at 8' high in the front and stepping it up towards the back. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he was concerned about what it's going to look like if it's 12' high. Commissioner Gregory asked if there would be any berming at the base of the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the site plan doesn't show that there's enough room for berming. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a metal grid to the top of the 8' wall for vines to grow on so that it isn't so solid. I wouldn't want to see a 12' high wall all the way across the rear. I'd like it to be a little bit more architecturally. Mr. Sun suggested varying the height of the wall. Mr. Urbina asked the applicant about the sliding gates that provide access to the outdoor storage area and asked if they would be solid metal. Mr. Sun stated that they would be see through. There was a letter that accompanied the re-submittal that says that if they intend to use wrought iron, it must be see through. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission needs a detail on the gates. It was suggested that the applicant consider how much you can see through to the back storage area. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) incorporating reveals into one rear panel, (2) add articulation to wall, (3) need detail of gate on east side, and (4) add metal grid to 8' high exterior wall or other system to screen open storage from public view. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050322.MIN � . . � `�rr+i' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES 3. 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 eleven office/industrial buildings. LOCATION: 73-800 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD HARVEY, 77-470 Wyoming Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high wall, 12' from the curb. LOCATION: 77-470 Wyoming Avenue ZONE: R1 Mr. Smith commented that the request is for a 6' block wall finished with stucco to match the house. There is currently a wood fence in this location at 12' from the curb. The matter is before the commission because technically we're between ordinances. Commissioner Gregory stated that Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned about the staining of the block, as opposed to plastering and painting the block. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the plot plan, the side yard is actually much longer than the front yard but thaYs not the way it's really depicted in the drawing that was submitted. Richard Harvey, applicant, stated that he's trying to extend the side wall up to the front of the house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that since the side yard is twice as G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050322.MIN 8 ' ' '"�rr �rr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES long as the front yard and he wondered if he needed to carry it all the way to the front of the house or could he die it into the house further back like the existing fence and add a gate. Mr. Harvey stated that it would be more helpful if the wall came all the way up to the house because of the traffic noise on Warner Trail and it would add more room on the side for trash cans and other storage. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the design of the gate. Mr. Harvey stated that he hasn't decided on the design of the gate. It will probably be brown steel mesh but would be solid. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the commission give the applicant some direction so that he can come back with an accurate plan and get some input regarding the concern about how the gate is handled, location and finish of the wall, need for articulation which is required to the current guidelines. Mr. Smith stated that the location of the wall will either extend up to the front of the house or it will extend to the back of the house. Commissioner Hanson commented that the wall should go to the back of the house. He could do some landscaping that would soften some of the noise from the traffic. There are no windows in the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the distance between the house and the wall. Mr. Harvey stated that there would be about 8' between the fence line and the house. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it could overlap and doesn't have to line up with the back of the house but it needs to be weighted toward the back of the house. If the wall went about 6' past the back of the house and turned it in, that would be okay. It would give him a spot for his trash cans and also give the wall a lot more relief on the corner than the current proposal. Commissioner Lopez stated that he lives on Kansas and it's quiet from about midnight until about 6:00 a.m. when the first car races through the neighborhood. I just about jump out of my bed because it's so quiet when there aren't any cars around. The applicant's house is even closer to the street. It was suggested that Mr. Harvey install double or even triple-pane windows to reduce the traffic noise. Mr. Harvey agreed that new windows would help. Commissioner Hanson suggested planting vines, trees and shrubs to help reduce the noise. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't feel comfortable making a decision unless there was an accurate plan because the plan is not accurate. I'm also concerned about the wall articulation. The wall needs to have some movement and possibly some pilasters. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050322.MIN 9 . . � �, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES Harvey stated that it would help him to know what to tell a contractor so he could hire somebody. Mr. Smith asked if the wall would be more effective as a noise barrier if it was closer to the house or further away. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be more effective if it were further away. The closer it is, more sound will hit the wall directly. The further it is, the more the sound will go over the house. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with scaled drawings that show (1) wall at proposed location except to stop it before it reaches the front of the house, (2) provide more sound relief with landscaping, (3) show gate detail, and (4) add articulation to wall. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050322.MIN 1�