Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-11 i mow► MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION July 11, 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 12 1 Kristi Hanson X 12 1 Chris Van Wet X 11 2 John Vuksic X 13 Ray Lopez X 11 2 Karen Oppenheim X 13 Karel Lambell X 12 1 Also Present Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 27, 2006 Commissioner Van Wet noted that motion was missing on Case TT 33935 & TT 34391. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the June 27, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES `err► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NOS.: SA 06-94 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of new signage and revised color scheme for the Tony Roma's restaurant. LOCATION: 73-155 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell described the proposed signage proposal. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NOS.: SA 06-95 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE ARTINGER/CONTINENTAL SIGNS, INC., 7541 Santa Rita Circle, Unit D, Stanton, CA 90680. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of new signage for Trader Joe's. LOCATION: 44-250 Town Center Way, Suite C6 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Stendell described the proposed signage proposal. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR000711.min.DOC 2 MINUTES 140r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 3. CASE NOS.: MISC 06-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROGER WHIN/SHANNON GARISON, 74-196 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for final approval of a new carport 20 feet from the curb. LOCATION: 74-196 Chicory Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was seeking approval of a new carport. He stated that the code allows them to build 20' from the curb. All neighbors within 300' were notified and no comments received. Staff recommends approval of the carport. Mr. Hal Rover, neighbor at 45-657 Quail Brush expressed concern with the carport setback and felt this is not consistent with the neighborhood. He also noticed that an unapproved shed exists in the side yard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that these revised codes were established to allow older homes to create covered parking. Commissioner Gregory asked if the carport conforms to code for this specific location. Staff indicated that the carport does conform to code, but requires approval through this process. The other item regarding a shed could be a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Van Wet indicated that he didn't understand the architecture of the building and how it ties in. Commissioner Gregory asked Shannon Garison, the homeowner, to comment on the home's roof since it looks like the roof is going over the existing roof and asked if it was all on one plane from the back of the house to the front. Ms. Garison stated that it was. She stated that they would like to add on a second room and a second bath, but in order to do so they would like to pull the existing carport out, use existing materials and enclose it. Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Garison if this was the same carport. Ms. Garison stated that the existing carport would be made into a room. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was their intent to leave the side yard shed there. Ms. Garison didn't realize it was an issue and was using it for storage. He asked if it showed on the elevation. After reviewing plans it was noted that it was on the front and rear elevation. Mr. Rover asked what the City's position was on the shed as far as it being on the lot line. Mr. Smith stated that he didn't know if it was permitted or not, but that it could be investigated. Commissioner Van Wet stated that it should be a condition that if the City did not approve it that the shed be removed. Mr. Bagato stated that it would be a code enforcement issue and something they would have to research. The code indicates we would have to look at the carport on its merits and if it matches the house or if it's something that would be detrimental to the neighborhood; and we are talking about the carport in that sense not the shed. The shed is a separate matter. If it is a problem on the property line, we will look at it separately with code enforcement. Commissioner Vuksic indicated he did not have a problem with the carport idea and feels that a lot of thought went into the whole adjustment to the ordinance; however, he did have some problems with how it has been executed. In the overall architecture it looks like the homeowner has not finished the idea. The shed roof over the home seems to be intertwined with their existing roof, and then there's another structure in the back that doesn't really work together. The requirement to come before this Commission to allow a new carport implies that the applicant show a certain level of architecture and attention to quality of the design. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Mr. Smith informed the committee that the applicant indicated that her architect was unavailable for today's meeting and suggested that the matter be continued. Staff will contact the architect and try to convey the impressions of Commission. At that time, the architect can either choose to defend his design or he can start some revisions. Staff will also research the shed with code enforcement and report back to the Commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue MISC 06-26 to allow the applicant to convey G:\FlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 4 MINUTES %W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 concerns to architect regarding attention to quality and design and to review side-yard shed for possible code violations. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NOS.: MISC 06-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALLADEO/CODY BARTOSH, 900 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for final approval of store remodel for Vons. LOCATION: 72-675 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato described the proposed remodel. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NOS.: TT 31490 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3398. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of perimeter walls for The Gallery. LOCATION: 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive (northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford) ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato presented the request for final approval of perimeter walls for The Gallery. Ponderosa Homes would like to go with a darker color than what Dolce is using on the columns. Mr. Jason Vance, representative from Ponderosa Homes indicated they are proposing a half pilaster design because it doesn't line up correctly when adding full columns in the back of the rear yards. There is no way to get a consistent column pattern with the arrangement of the lots. G:\Flanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.D0C 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 Commission reviewed the plans, lot sizes and discussed the wall caps being flush with the wall and alternating the design. Mr. Smith noted that given the extensive setback (42 feet from curb) the wall design will be obscured by landscaping in a short time as occurred along the north side of Fred Waring east of San Pascual. It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the wall with stone on all of the half pilasters and that the top of the pilaster be at the same level as the top of the wall. Motion failed 2-5. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a full pilaster could be done by putting them on the property lines and if there were areas of the property with longer spots, you would then put one in the middle and the spacing would be close enough. Mr. Vance stated that due to the elevation differences of the lots you would be placing a column on the backside in various points and it would then look chopped up from the backside. In those instances you would have a column at one end, a column at the other end and one in the middle. Commissioner Gregory stated that there would be significant stepping to the wall and some of the stepping would occur at the pilaster. If the pilaster is above the wall it's an opportunity to have stepping occur at a logical point instead of just random. This is good logic for having a pilaster that is complete. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the request, subject to 1) pilasters being 8" above the wall; 2) 24" deep x 24" wide, centered on walls; 3) all four sides to have stone veneer; 4) pilasters are to be located at the intersection of the property lines, the side property lines to the rear and in cases where those lots are in excess of 150' there needs to be another pilaster in the middle. Motion carried 7-0. C:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11. 2006 B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NOS.: PP/CUP 06-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, Attn: Francisco J. Urrutia, 165 Luring Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of three (3) buildings, including two (2) drive- thru restaurants. LOCATION: 75-096 Gerald Ford ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Mr. Bagato presented the preliminary design of three buildings. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, by minute motion to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NOS.: CUP 06-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM AND BRIGITTE HOWARD, 77-682 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of a detached 18-foot high accessory structure with a 25-foot rear yard setback to be used for a pool, cabana and recreational vehicle garage. LOCATION: 77-682 Robin Road ZONE: RE 40,000 Mr. Stendell presented the request for approval of a detached accessory unit on Robin Road. He indicated that for the most part it is on par with what has been approved except more architectural detail is required for the south and east elevation. Mr. Stendell recommended the detail be carried over to the east elevation to dress it up. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR06071 Lmin.DOC 7 MINUTES r.r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11. 2006 Commissioner Lambell asked about the north side. Mr. Stendell stated that they could add more detail there as well, but the east side is an 18-foot flat wall all the way across and needs to be dressed up. Commissioner Lambell asked how far back into the property this was. Mr. Stendell indicated it was 25 feet back from the rear property line and 18 feet in from the side, which meets the code for a building of this height. Commissioner Hanson stated that the homeowner's have a wonderfully designed back yard and asked why they would want to look at these huge garage doors. Mr. Howard indicated that it was his intent to keep the RV indoors and would need a pretty good size structure. Commissioner Vuksic asked if this was normal for the area. Mr. Stendell indicated that it was. He said that the south elevation was probably a bit better than what has been done for that area, but for the last several requests on the 18-foot size, they have been asking for glass blocks or stucco banding to help that side. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Howard if he would consider doing some reorienting. He stated that at the end of the structure there was a huge door and another door that wasn't as tall moving towards the cabana, he indicated that if they reversed those two doors they could probably lower the roof structure on that part. Then there would be a smaller mass that's kind of nestled in there instead of putting it at the end of the building. Commissioner Vuksic also stated that if they reversed the two doors they could tile the roof and lower the garage door and create an end to the building instead of having your neighbor look at this huge blank wall. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hanson's remarks about this beautiful house. Why would they want to put this huge stucco box on the property and try to justify that it matches the house when they could actually be a lot more sensitive in their execution and make their estate much more pleasing. Mr. Howard responded that their intent was to come straight down the driveway with the motorhome and not have to turn it. If they offset the garage door they would have to turn it. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 8 MINUTES **W N"W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2Q Commissioner Hanson stated that if the right side of the building facing it is lower in height then it could actually be moved closer to the setback, and they could actually shift it over about 3 feet. Discussion took place regarding the setback. Mr. Howard stated that they still could not get the motorhome in without tearing out the trees. Commissioner Van Wet indicated that it was a tough problem since they obviously needed the height for the motorhome and then it raises the question of how they could get the structure to look good and be more in line with the house. Mr. Maurer, the designer indicated that they used stepping in the front to give it additional detail on the south elevation and the recesses above the smaller door actually match a part of the house. Commissioner Gregory stated that in this area the Commission has seen these requests come through before and understands the applicant's desire to have a large straight path to the garage. He asked if the Commission was asking more from the homeowner in making this thing more stylized when so many other people are doing the same thing. Mr. Smith responded that this Commission has required previous applicants to alter the edges to create less of an impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Hanson stated that when the Commission looks at plans they are looking at varying degrees of architecture and felt that Mr. Howard's home is nicely done and any advice the Commission gives will only enhance the value as opposed to detracting from it. Mr. Maurer responded that with the west and south elevation they tried to maintain the consistency of the detail all the way around the roof, which is consistent with the main residence and the only area that they had to struggle with was how to get a 14-foot high sectional roll-up door within the confines of a 15-foot setback and had to move it over 18 feet. Mr. Maurer also informed the Commission that if they were looking for additional detail to break up the large 18-foot wall, inserts could be incorporated that would match the remainder of the building and GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 9 MINUTES N ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 possibly put a small parapet on the top to maintain the fascia. As far as the 14-foot high door coming from the face of the street he didn't think there was a way around that. Commissioner Vuksic described how they could get the taller element more nestled into the building, wrap smaller elements around it and angle it so they wouldn't have to change the existing pool deck. This would then create more tile roofs and one parapet element, which is ok because now there is a hierarchy of forms. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could break up the high section with a little roof overhang across the front like they have over the cabana, which would then break it up from the pool area as well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they would also be angling the big roll-up door away from the pool area, which would be better for the homeowner. Mr. Howard responded that it would be a little bit harder trying to pull a 40-foot motorhome in that garage and would have to swing it out and swing it back in. He indicated he understood what the Commission was suggesting regarding the angle, but to keep in mind they were talking about a 40-foot motorhome that has to get in between a 24-foot sliding gate opening and down the side of the house and then wheeled around to pull it into an 15-foot offset. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't agree with that explanation and said that the Commission does write-ups all the time for 75-foot semi's with a much tighter radius than that. Commissioner Gregory stated that the major problem is the impact on the neighbor and what the homeowner wants to do in his or her own yard, which is hidden from the street is ok, but he cares about the impact on the neighbor. The drawing as submitted, the east elevation on the neighbor's side, is about as insensitive as it can get. If there is a way that this can be handled, whether by turning the building or creating less of an impact would be more important. Mr. Howard indicated that he could certainly dress it up. Commissioner Hanson stated that the way the neighbors have their pool oriented, they would be looking directly at that. It would take more than just dressing up. GAPlanning\Janine Jndy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.DOC 10 r MINUTES law ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 11, 2006 Mr. Maurer explained that there are 20-foot trees on the property line that are pretty dense and someone in the pool would have to look through 18 to 20 foot dense foliage trees to identify if there was a wall or a garage there. He indicated that they were trying to create some additional architecture, but the fact is there is a considerable amount of trees that are hiding the structure and felt that the resident was not planning on cutting those trees down. He also felt that the neighbor would not have an objection from their property point of view because of the trees. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the best thing at this time would be for the Commission to continue this item and allow the homeowner to come back with some options; whether it's reorientation of the building or changing the architecture some what, rather than having the Commission dictate and control it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue Case No. CUP 06-08. Motion carried 7-0. B. Miscellaneous Items None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. S EVE -SMITIT PLANNING MANAGER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060711.min.D0C 11