Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-27 MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 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 11 1 Kristi Hanson X 11 1 Chris Van Vliet X 10 2 John Vuksic X 12 Ray Lopez X 10 2 Karen Oppenheim X 12 Karel Lambell X 11 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 13, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet requested removal of a redundant sentence on page five. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the June 13, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NOS: MISC 06-21 and VAR 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANNE SALERNO, 74-251 De Anza Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of a block wall with stucco finish ranging in height from 4' to 6' with a 10' setback from street curb, a 6' high sliding wrought iron gate across driveway with a 10' setback, a 9'4" high entry portico with a 12'4" setback, and review of a new carport. LOCATION: 74-251 De Anza Way ZONE: R-1 13,000 Mr. Urbina stated that the item had been continued since the last meeting. The purpose of the proposed 6-foot high wall with a 10-foot setback was to provide privacy, security, and to reduce noise from traffic on De Anza Way. The site plan was revised to show 6-inch to 24-inch high berming in front of the 6-foot high wall so that the wall's height from De Anza Way would appear to be 4 to 6 feet. The revised site plan showed the entry gate's setback increased from 10'-0" to 12'-6". The gate would be located underneath a 9'-4" rough sawn wood trellis structure. The 6-foot high block wall with stucco finish curves inward and increases to an 8-foot height on each side of the entry gate. The walkway and driveway would be resurfaced with paver stones. The proposed carport had changed from a solid roof to a wood trellis design. The applicant, Anne Salerno, stated that her front door is less than 30 feet from the street curb. The proposed wall at the front property line was needed to provide security and to reduce noise from traffic on De Anza Way. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the entry feature seemed too tall at 9'- 4". He still had a problem with the proposed wall's 10-foot setback. If everyone were to want a 6-foot high wall with a 10-foot setback, they would wind up with a walled community. G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 2 ` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27 2006 Commissioner Gregory concurred and expressed that approval of the proposed wall would set a precedent that could encourage other property owners to propose similar walls with the same 10-foot setback. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the wall's thickness needed to be increased next to the entry gate. He thought the proposed 6-foot high wall at the 10-foot setback should be lowered to 5 feet and that the wall's setback should be increased west of the house as it gets closer to the diagonal-shaped driveway. The applicant responded that she could do this as long as she did not have to remove an existing mature olive tree near the driveway. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was not completely opposed to the proposed wall with a 10-foot setback, but he thought it would be a good idea to increase the wall's setback west of the house. Mr. Drell stated that the plan's proposed landscaping in front of the wall would preclude installing a future sidewalk that might be needed for pedestrians along a busy street like De Anza Way. The proposed trees should be planted in a way that they would not have to be removed if a 5- foot wide sidewalk were to be constructed in the future. Ms. Salerno stated that if the City were to construct a sidewalk in the future, she would not object to removing any trees or other landscaping that might be in the way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to grant approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the wall shall be lowered from 6 feet to 5 feet. 2. The proposed berming shall continue to be incorporated into the project. 3. The entry structure with door shall be set back an additional 4 feet and the wall's thickness at the entry structure shall be increased to between 18 to 24 inches. 4. The proposed wall, west of the house, shall be angled back and curved around the existing olive tree so that the wall's setback is increased to 20 feet and intersects at a right angle with the driveway. G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 3 VOW MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 5. The proposed sliding wrought iron gate shall be changed to a swing-out type of gate(s) and shall be at a right angle to the driveway. 6. The revised project plans shall be reviewed by staff. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: SA 06-80 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS, 4530 Mission Gorge Place, San Diego, CA 92120 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of red LED signage border for the Del Taco restaurant building at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-540 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the item had been continued since the last meeting. He explained that Del Taco was requesting approval of red LED lighting around the top of the building. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the red LED lighting be installed around the top of the tower elements instead of the whole building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, granting approval of the red LED signage lighting border around the top of tower elements only. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet voting no. 3. CASE NO: PP 03-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOWARD HAIT, 44-650 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for final approval of a new 6,192 square foot two-story office building, Hearing Healthcare Services. G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 LOCATION: 44-630 Monterey Avenue ZONE: O.P. The proposed project was reviewed and found to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO: SA 06-89 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOLT ARCHITECTS, 70-225 Highway 111, Suite D, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of new signage for Kaiser Permanente. LOCATION: 75-036 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Bagato 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 Hansen, approving Case No. SA 06-89 as proposed. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO: MISC 06-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON, 72-185 Painters Path, Palm Desert, CA, 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of remodel and addition for Bighorn "The Market Place" LOCATION: 100 Netas Drive ZONE: PCD G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 Staff requested that this item be discussed later in the meeting. Commission concurred and continued Case No. MISC 06-25 to the end of the Agenda. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PP 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIPOVAC CONSTRUCTION, INC., 72-651 Theodora Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of a revised five-unit residential project. LOCATION: 74-360 Magnesia Falls Drive ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Bob Sipovac was present and distributed an updated color rendering of the project, a material sample board and details showing proposed eaves, gable ends and railing. Commission felt that the additional information made the project acceptable. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that 1) wall planes over the clerestory windows and upper level sliding glass doors be furred out seven inches; and 2) areas between transom windows and the lower windows be metal to match the window frames and incorporated into the working drawings. Commission concurred and moved for approval incorporating those items as conditions. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Chairperson Gregory, granting preliminary approval of Case No. PP 06-04 as conditioned. Motion carried 7-0. G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 2. CASE NO: MISC 06-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANDREW RATZSCH ARCHITECTS, 8111 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 305, Los Angeles, CA 90048. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of facade enhancement. LOCATION: 73-190 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 The Commission reviewed the proposed plans and elevations and found them to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, granting preliminary approval of Case No. Misc. 06-24. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: TT 33935 & TT 34391 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOLL BROTHERS INC., 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of architecture for eight single-family home model types ranging in height from 16'5" to 22'4". LOCATION: Kingston Court and Imperial Court located east and west of Shepherd Lane. ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant was seeking approval of eight one- story single family model types ranging in height from 16'-5" to 22'-4". Each model type would have two elevation styles. Four color schemes were proposed. Each color scheme would have two roof types - a flat concrete the and an "s" barrel tile. The roof colors range from brown G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27 2006 shades to red shades. Two types of stone veneer would be offered as options on all model types. The homes would be built on two adjacent approved tract maps with a total of 64 lots. Six of the eight models have heights above the 18-foot height limit specified in the tentative tract map conditions. He said the applicant will be seeking Planning Commission approval to amend the 18-foot height limit condition in each tract to allow a height up to 22'-4". The applicant's reasons for seeking approval of model types with height in excess of 18 feet: 1. Proposed roof pitches are 5:12 and 4:12. 2. Major living spaces feature 12-foot high ceilings. 3. Twelve-foot ceilings will permit 10-foot high windows to allow more natural light and increase views. 4. Entry towers give the homes an entry focal point and create foyers with a grand entry impact. 5. Tuscan roof pitches are typically steeper than other styles to accentuate roof outrigggers typical of this style. 6. All roof heights in excess of 18 feet occur toward the center of the mass of the homes. 7. Many of the roofs in excess of the 18-foot height restriction occur at the peaks of hip roofs far from the front and side setback lines. 8. The percentage of actual roof area exceeding the 18-foot height restriction is minimal, varying from 4% to 20%. Mr. Drell expressed concern that the architecture on the rear elevations of the proposed homes, like most other tract homes, did not look well. Commissioner Hansen stated that the proposed 5:12 roof pitches were unacceptable and the applicant should consider lowering roof pitches from 5:12 to 4 1/2:12, or to 4:12, and from 4:12 to 3 1/2:12, or 3:12. Mr. Joe Lisiewski, Toll Brothers Regional Architecture Manager, responded that roof pitches could not be lowered to less than 4:12 because it would affect roof runoff and roof warranties. The 12-foot ceiling heights were proposed partly to create a dramatic visual impact. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he did not have a problem with roof heights above 18 feet as long as a home is well designed and has quality G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27. 2006 architecture. He said roof pitches did not need to be as steep as proposed. Mr. Lisiewski stated that the proposed architecture was not anything less than what exists in the neighborhood. Toll Brothers would offer exterior materials upgrade options. Exterior walls would have 2x6 studs. All windows would be recessed two inches and the recess could be seen. Commissioner Hansen stated that the yellow and pink color schemes needed to be reworked. Light colors appear too bright with intense sunlight. The applicant needed to substitute darker colors. Most tract homes look too similar. The architectural appearance of the rear elevations needed to be upgraded. Wainscot was suggested to enhance the elevations of the proposed homes, but it needed to be done and terminated properly by bringing out a home's foundation to receive the wainscot at the bottom. Commissioner Hansen suggested that the applicant add wrought iron details and exterior window shutters to some windows. Exterior lighting details should be shown on elevations. Commissioner Vuksic stated thatthe tall tower-like element looked phony on the Santina Tuscan side elevations because the roof was not very deep. He did not object to some models exceeding the 35% base lot coverage as long as the City received quality architecture. Commissioner Hansen asked the applicant to provide a colored streetscape scene of homes with variation in elevation and model styles. Mr. Alan Euvard, Toll Brothers Division Vice President, responded that they will provide variety in architectural styles. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue TT 33935 and TT 34391 to allow the applicant to revise plans that incorporate architectural changes that address the concerns mentioned and to prepare a colored streetscape drawing. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 9 NW 1110 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27. 2006 1. CASE NO: MISC 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLEN BIXEN, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211; CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of revised elevations for a facade enhancement of Matsuri Restaurant, Pete Carlson's Golf & Tennis, and Chinese Antiques LOCATION: 73-741 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Charles Martin, the project architect, presented revised elevations. He stated that Pete Carlson Golf will have display windows with a three-foot deep shelf on the inside. The roof overhang will have an 11-foot height clearance to prevent damage from customers taking practice swings with golf clubs. He stated that the rear sidewalk would be replaced and that raised tree planters are proposed. Mr. Drell expressed concern that the proposed 4'x4' raised tree planters would be too small to accommodate trees. The size needs to be increased to meet the City's minimum standard of 48 square feet of soil area. He advised the applicant to take care in tree planter placement and tree selection so as not to block business signage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked the massing of the revised building elevations. Corner elements need to go back into the building the same distance as the width of the elements. He suggested that the architect prepare three-dimensional modeling to give the Architectural Review Commission a better idea of how the various architectural elements and building elevations will actually look like. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to grant conceptual approval of MISC Case 05-03 subject to the applicant's architect returning with three-dimensional modeling to illustrate facade construction detailing. G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 10 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 Staff requested that two additional items be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred and it was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, adding the following cases to the Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 06-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM RICE III, 46-149 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to allow a new 5'6" high block wall 10' from the curb, replacing an existing wood fence. LOCATION: 44-701 San Jose ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato explained that the item was continued from the last agenda to allow the applicant to be present. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was replacing an old wooden fence with a new block wall and landscaping. The property is a large corner lot. The applicant stated that he would like the wall closer to the curb than the code allows to have more room for the backyard and future pool. Action: It was motioned by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to allow a 5 foot 6 inch high wall 17 feet 6 inches from the curb. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: SA 06-91 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): TAN POPO c/o Eddie Kawagudti, 73-540 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of patio awning (no signage). LOCATION: 73-540 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR06 0627.MIN 11 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2006 The Commission reviewed the proposed awning plans which were found to be acceptable. Commission also felt the awning would help screen old roof-top equipment that was currently visible from Highway 111. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, granting final approval of Case No. SA 06-91. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. D. Continued Case (Final Drawings): 5. CASE NO: MISC 06-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON, 72-185 Painters Path, Palm Desert, CA, 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of remodel and addition for Bighorn "The Market Place" LOCATION: 100 Netas Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith briefly described the remodel and addition within Bighorn Country Club. Following a brief discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Van Wet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving Case No. MISC 06-25. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent and Commissioner Hanson abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. ST VE SMIT PLANNING MANAGER G:\Planning\DQ\wpdocs\AGMINWR06 0627.MIN 12