Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-28 `�rrr' �rr� ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT � - _- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . • MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2006 **************************************************************************************************** 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 4 Kristi Hanson X 4 Chris Van Vliet X 3 1 John Vuksic X 4 Ray Lopez X 3 1 Karen Oppenheim X 4 Karel Lambell X 4 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14, 2006 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of February 14, 2006. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with_ Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 �rwr` "�+►'° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: C 05-05 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 TARLOS & ASSOCIATES, 17802 Mitchell North, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for the Del Taco restaurant building at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-540 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP / CUP 05-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, TODD KOVALCIK, 14594 7t" Street, Victorville, CA 92395 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new building not including signage for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. LOCATION: 73-086 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. + G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN 2 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 06-07 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF, 77- 305 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of single-family home with 42% lot coverage and roof height of 16'9". LOCATION: 77-305 California Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 06-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT STAR BUILDERS, INC., 74- 854 Velie Way, Suite 11, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 38% lot coverage and roof height of 15'4" on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 45-791 Edgehill ZONE: R-1 Commissioner Hanson stated that she had two concerns. First of all, what you're doing to the rooms in the main house when the casita is going to be only five feet away. You'll create an odd space that you won't know what to do with. You'll have an office/studio/casita that could be moved forward a little bit and take some square footage out of the casita and create more of a space that could be functional. Where do the doors go? I'm not sure how the connection is actually going to look. Wouldn't it be nicer if you could create a nice entrance off your existing walkway. It seems like you're pushing too hard to jam this G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN 3 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES building in and it's not going to come out as nice as it could. For the homeowner it would be important to make this change. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this was a very good observation and agreed with Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Gregory asked about lot coverage. Mr. Smith stated that 35% lot coverage is per code, and this property has 38% lot coverage. Code allows up to 50% lot coverage with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Gregory concurred with Commissioner Hanson and thought that it was a very sound suggestion. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet. absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 02-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOST HORSE MOUNTAIN, LLC., 45- 445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an 11,395 square foot commercial/retail building with a drive through for Starbuck's. LOCATION: 74-836 Technology Drive ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 06-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE, JR., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060228.MIN 4 ��r►` "�MI�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for the Fireside Pharmacy. LOCATION: 73-847 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant is asking for something that code does not allow. The suite would be allowed 20 square feet. The applicant is trying to add "Compounding Pharmacy" to the top parapet, which staff feels is too much. He's proposing double the square footage of what's allowed. "Palm Desert Florist" will be removed. The bagel store will be staying in it's current location. Jim Engle, applicant, was present to address the commission. Commissioner Lambell stated that seeing the words "Compounding Pharmacy" located over the bagel store looks disconcerting. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that "compounding pharmacy" is a term that's not really that known. It doesn't seem like it should be a headline or something that would be so predominant on a building. Really you're a pharmacy so I could see adding "compounding pharmacy" as a secondary sign and being much smaller. Commissioner Gregory commented that typically the name of the business would be on the main part of the signage. It was suggested that "Fireside Pharmacy" be switched with "Compounding Pharmacy". Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had a problem with this proposal. The "New York Bagel" sign looks lost. Mr. Smith stated that the bagel signage will have to be removed because the Fireside Pharmacy will take up all the allotted signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that Fireside Pharmacy can have one sign or the other, but they can't have both. It's not right to have the Fireside Pharmacy right in the middle because then you're overshadowing New York Bagel. It should be located on one side. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060228.MIN 5 �rr►' 'rrw�'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Oppenheim suggested putting "Fireside Pharmacy" on the building and then maybe do something inside the building behind the glass or on the glass with "Compounding Pharmacy". Commissioner Gregory suggested having both fascia-mounted signs removed and instead have signs on the parapet above the shed roof. Mr. Engle asked if he could temporarily put up a sign with a red and white face. The white would be opaque at night. Commissioner Hanson stated that that would be okay with the condition that this sign would come down when the others go up. Mr. Engle stated that if the bagel store wants a channel-letter sign, then I'll come back with that proposal. Commissioner Vuksic made it clear that the red on the sign should not light up. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of (1) Temporary sign in place of existing can sign for Palm Desert Florist that will read Fireside Pharmacy with white lettering and red background, the white lettering to be lit and be muted. (2) Approval of two new individual letter, through-the-face lit signs on the wall in the background, one reading Fireside Pharmacy and one reading New York Bagel at which time the can signs would come down. (No time limit was given for the temporary Fireside Pharmacy sign, but they have to come down when the others go up.) Total sign area not to exceed 39 square feet, (3) Use creative lettering styles on the signs. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 7. CASE NO.: PP 04-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RANCHO MIRAGE BUILDERS, INC., 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite U, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 1,820 square foot office building. LOCATION: 73-920 Alessandro Drive ZONE: OP Action: Continued to allow the applicant to be present. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: C 06-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4'h Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for a 50,000 square foot retail building. Ashley Furniture LOCATION: 34-750 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that Ashley Furniture is going to go in next to Wal*Mart. On the back side of the project is Gateway Drive and Falling Waters. My only concern is that there isn't enough architecture and doesn't follow the design guidelines. The rear elevation needs some work because it will be visible from the residential project. Mark Giles, architect, was present to answer questions from the commission. Mr. Giles stated that there's a 15' grade difference to Wal*Mart. The truck well is behind a 10' high wall so you won't see any trucks. There will be a 20' landscape buffer from the parking to the back curb. The design for the surrounding buildings are not completed at this point. Commissioner Hanson agreed that the back elevation needs work. The Wal*Mart overlooks industrial buildings, but this building backs up to a residential project. Could the back loading dock be popped up so that it's more of a tower element? Mr. Giles stated that he could do that. Commissioner Hanson suggested stepping it up or do something to break up the elevation. Mr. Drell stated that the landscape plan will have to be significant on the rear elevation. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the pop-out feature on the left side of the rear elevation could be more than 12". Mr. Giles stated that they could frame it out to 2'-3'. Those are the first things to get hit by trucks. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's such a large element that it should come out at least 2'. Mr. Drell stated that on the north elevation if there are insets, then something should go behind them. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding some sort of a grid pattern or tile. Shutters might work as well, however, Mr. Giles preferred not to. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a very large blank wall so you should do so'mething to add some relief. The glass in the windows should be recessed a minimum of 18". The tower element on the west elevation shows a recessed window and he wanted to know how much it was recessed. Mr. Giles stated that it's not recessed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it needs to be recessed at least 2' so that it looks right in that kind of architectural piece. On the tower on the right side of the west elevation, the stone columns look like they're pretty thin elements. They look nice if you're looking at them dead-on but if you see them from the side they're not very thick. It was suggested that he make the columns square. The inside corner of the tower has a parapet that continues behind it is in the same plane. If that's a tower, there needs to be a change in plane. Commissioner Hanson suggested making it a rectangular element. It has to be something so that you don't have a transition in height on a flat wall in the middle of an elevation. The applicant was also required to submit a sign proposal to scale with development drawings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant should include building sections that show the mechanical equipment and a floor plan of the upper part of the tower element so they can see the relationship of the planes with the design development drawings. Commissioner Oppenheim asked about the location of the roof access. Mr. Giles stated that it will have interior roof access. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to returning with design development drawings including building sections showing mechanical equipment and floor plans showing upper part of tower element on the west elevation. Applicant to submit sign proposal to scale with development drawings. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�AR060228.MIN $ � `� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 06-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, #204, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an exterior remodel of an existing apartment building. LOCATION: 74-402 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Chris McFadden, applicant, was present to address the commission. Mr. Drell commented that the elevations look like an attractive mini- warehouse. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the interior courtyard, but felt that it would be important that you pick up the detail in the white stucco portion. Mr. McFadden stated that there's an existing planter in that area so there will be some vertical elements. Mr. Drell stated that you shouldn't rely on a planter to hide the deficiency in the architecture. Mr. McFadden stated that the entire building is deficient when it comes to the architecture. Windows can be added in the front, but I don't know the floor plan and the owner doesn't want to displace the tenants while this is going on. A row of three windows could be added if they work with the interior space. If they don't, I'd like to do accent reveals, such as a depression in the walls. I don't know what's behind the wall. Mr. Drell suggested continuing this item so that the architect could study the interior space. It should look like a face and not the back of a head. Commissioner Hanson suggested using the step detail that he's done elsewhere so that at least the outside of the building will emulate what's on the inside. Mr. McFadden stated that he could do windows. Mr. Drell suggested windows, tile inset or colored glass inset. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding something away from the building that would have a square design that would be interesting. Mr. McFadden stated that he could add some lighting sconces. There are carports in front of this elevation so it's diminished significantly from view. The commission agreed that it won't be seen so the elevations will be sufficient. Commissioner Hanson commented that it would still be nice to add sconces or some type of lighting. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN 9 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 06-01, C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, 400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a 268-unit condominium community and a 41,476 square foot neighborhood commercial center. The Vineyards LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that this project was before the commission a couple of weeks ago. There were some suggestions from the commission. Commissioner Hanson passed along some additional suggestions. The applicant, Ryan Ogulnik, was present and stated that revised books were given to the commission for their review. Chinmaya Misra, architect for the commercial aspect, was present. Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks beautiful and liked the transition where they went back and softened the look so iYs a nice combination now. The only question she had was the size of the Vineyard sign. Mr. Smith stated that the signage doesn't comply with code because it's a roof sign, which is prohibited. Mr. Drell stated that it's part of the architecture and if it's part of the architecture, it's not necessarily a roof sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's very big. Ms. Misra stated that the idea was not to have a strip-mall feel, but to create a sign that would also hold the project's identity. Mr. Drell stated that it can be considered. If it's an architectural element then it's not a roof sign, but then it has to be justified as an architectural element in addition to something that also has signage. The question is that if it's really effective as a sign. How is it actually constructed? Ms. Misra stated that it will be made of steel with the words "The Vineyards" engraved in it. It will be a metal blade sign. Mr. Drell asked how it was going to be illuminated. Ms. Misra stated that they'll have an LED light under it so G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR060228.MIN 1� � � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES at night it lights up the whole structure. Mr. Drell asked if she had ever designed a sign like this. Ms. Misra commented that she has and they are readable at night. Mr. Drell stated that the question is if it works architecturally. Mr. Smith asked how it would be built into the building from a wind load perspective at 40' in height. Ms. Misra stated that the sign isn't 40' high. Mr. Smith stated that the top of the sign is at 40'. Mr. Drell commented that it's a tower element architecturally. Ms. Misra stated that they feel that the intersection of University Park Drive and Cook Street is a really important intersection and it needs project identity there which is integrated with the architecture. Commissioner Hanson commented that there were no height measurements on any of the plans in their packets. Roof equipment is a big concern of the commission and it must be screened from view. Ms. Misra stated that she could integrate the equipment screen into the architecture because they're using metal fins and they can make it look like part of the architecture. Commissioner Hanson stressed the importance of this and stated that the commission needs to see how it's going to look. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some concern about some areas where there are changes in height that could potentially look unfinished. Ms. Misra stated that they plan to change material whenever there's a height change or ins and outs. Commissioner Hanson stated that the roof plans and elevations need to match and have the heights called out on them. Indicate the roof equipment and how it's screened. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to see that the corners have been addressed where you might have varying heights of parapets. It'll help us verify that we can't see the mechanical equipment from certain vantage points. Roof plans should be included with the next submittal. Residential Comments: Commissioner Hanson stated that a lot of the comments that she made previously seemed to have been picked up as far as thickening the patio elements so they look like a column element. Arched windows that have to open have to have a reveal or they won't open. Commissioner Vuksic commented to Mr. Ogulnik that something that he should never do that's very dangerous is to take everything we say literally. We have a few seconds to talk about this. You have hours and days and weeks to think about it and design it. For you to come in G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060228.MIN 1 1 � � � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES and say that you suggested this and that and we did it so now we should get approved is a very bad approach. If all that you did was do what Commissioner Hanson said, then you didn't do a very good job because you had a lot of time to digest those suggestions, improve on them, expand on them and come back with a better design instead of going down the list of what Commissioner Hanson said. This is what you did and nothing more. That's what a developer does who's just trying to do the bare minimum to get an approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant should have his designer take another look at the residential portion of the project and improve the standard of architecture. Commissioner Lopez stated that he kind of likes the architecture but agrees with Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic in that the applicant should do more than what was suggested. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the designer can't take all the suggestions literally and should look at the project with a design eye. Mr. Smith stated that an issue that has not been discussed yet is that along College Drive, between Frank Sinatra and Berger, there's a considerable grade change. Mr. Drell stated that there's 18' of difference between the pad elevation and the sidewalk. Mr. Ogulnik stated that he has a solution. He plans on putting in a 12' retaining wall between the residential and commercial. They can move some of the dirt and raise the grade of the commercial. Commissioner Hanson commented that he should do some site sections. Mr. Drell stated that he's going to have to use a series of retaining walls along the street as you continue north. You're going to have to meet with the landscape architect and make it clear that this is a unique situation because it was landscaped as if it was flat. The landscaping didn't indicate that there was any different sort of solution than it was toward Frank Sinatra where it's almost at grade. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should do an elevation of Frank Sinatra with all the units on it or on College Drive and group those units together so we can see what that's going to look like. The buildings should vary in architecture. Commissioner Oppenheim suggested that the architect be present for the next meeting. Designers Chinmaya Misra and Apurva Pande were present. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060228.MIN 12 '�r�+: .�,' ' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations that show an improved standard of architecture on the residential units and roof plans for the commercial portion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Chairman Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 06-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEFFREY STITT, 38755 Vista Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of lot coverage that exceeds 35%. LOCATION: 44-805 San Benito ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van.Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: RV 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SHAUN M. HOWE, 77-400 Missouri Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store a boat behind a screen wall in the front yard of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 77-400 Missouri Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the boat is difficult to see behind the screen wall. Staff feels that the screening is sufficient with the addition of some landscaping in front of the wall to appease the neighbor who complained about it. There's a tower on the boat, which has been lowered so now the boat is barely visible. Ms. Howe, applicant, was G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN 13 � � ' ' ' ` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MINUTES present and stated that the wall was permitted and she had wanted it to be one foot higher, but it wasn't allowed. Mr. Stendell suggested that the applicant plant some vines and shrubs in front of the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was fine with that idea. Commissioner Gregory asked about screening the bow end of the boat. When you look at it from an oblique angle, you really see the boat and the wall doesn't really help from that perspective. Could they continue the wall? Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant has to be able to back the boat into this location. Commissioner Lopez stated that they could add a gate. Commissioner Gregory stated that the way the boat sits behind the wall is great but from the angle looking at the bow, iYs totally exposed and it looks "ramshackle". Mr. Smith asked how often is the driveway open. Ms. Howe stated that there's usually a car there that blocks the view of the boat. Commissioner Vuksic suggested extending the wall further. They could add a gate that's designed in keeping with the style of the house. Ms. Howe stated that it would have to be a double gate because there's no way to swing one gate all the way out on one rod. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was concerned that they could be creating more of a problem by adding a gate. Landscaping might work in lieu of a gate but it would have to be approved by the Landscape Manager. If some larger plant material were added it would probably work as well as a gate in blocking the boat from view. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 1 , ,�' G�'' _ ST E SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060228.MIN 14