Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-28 r � ,,�,,; `�''� �-��---� CITY OF PALM DESERT �� - -_ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • � MINUTES MARCH 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 5 1 Kristi Hanson X 6 Chris Van Vliet X 5 1 John Vuksic X 6 Ray Lopez X 5 1 Karen Oppenheim X 6 Karel Lambel X 5 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Lirlda Taylor (for ponna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant) Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 14, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue to review the minutes of March 14, 2006 on the next Architectural Review Commission meeting to be held on April 11, 2006 . The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Chairman Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 , ``�` , � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. c/o Larry Kosmont, 601 Figueroa Street, Suite 3550, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 95 single-family homes on portions of existing 200-acre golf course, within Palm Desert Country Club. LOCATION: Palm Desert Country Club ZONE: OS A discussion was held regarding the 19' tower element. The applicant was asked to lower the element to 18'. It was suggested that a wing wall be added at the entrance on Model #1. Staff suggested that the request be approved with modifications. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for final approval subject to modifications suggested by staff: 1) Addition of wing wall over entrance on Model #1, and 2) Lower the height on tower from 19' to 18'. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SCANLAN KEMPER BARD COMPANIES, 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, Oregon 97204 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior remodel of shopping center. LOCATION: 73-091 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN 2 r � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the elevations have been revised since the last meeting. This is for the ends of the Bristol Farms building. Mr. Stendell stated that the veneer has been removed from the columns and the color has changed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there was another comment regarding the parts of the buildings to the right and left of Bristol Farms where the architectural elements that they added are nice, but the rest of it looked like the old strip center with things stuck onto it. Mr. Drell stated that they added the same cornice as Bristol Farms. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they lowered the columns, which helps. On Building A, the green element needs to be four-sided because you're going to be able to see the back of it because it's close to the end of the building and it needs to be two-thirds as deep as it is wide. It has to extend over the roof. The yellow element on Building A, architecturally it's the type of form that needs to be a really thick wall without those little parapet returns. It should be several feet thick like the one on Building C. It should be 4'-5' thick. We don't know what's happening when we turn the corner on these buildings. We don't know where the cornice detail ends. The detail should wrap around all sides of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could add a foam detail to the elevation that's shown in the photos of the existing building on the first page on the left side at the bottom. There's a step above that steps into the fascia. If they simply add a foam detail to make the transition between the top step down to the lower one, it would bring it back in in more of a natural way. Otherwise iYs going to look very contemporary and odd on the left and right side of Buildings A & B. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval subject to modifications to drawing plans as follows: 1) Building A: green element to return 2/3 the distance as the element is wide. The yellow element no returns, instead, make element thicker (5' thick). 2) Cornice details to wrap all the walls around buildings. 3) Building C: Make columns on this building match columns of buildings A & B. 4) All buildings (A, B & C): Find some sort of style appropriate to transition (possible from detail) between upper most element and lower element. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN 3 . � . `f�rr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 06-45 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE Jr. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, Ca. 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for the Fireside Pharmacy. LOCATION: 73-847 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell commented that several meetings ago, the applicant was asked to come back with permanent signage, at which time the old can sign would be removed. The applicant has returned with the proposed signs. They're using about 45 square feet of signage, which is a little bit over the allowable limit. Commissioner Hanson suggested using reverse channel letters. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the red- colored letters could be an issue. Mr. Drell stated that the whole composition of the signage looks contrived. Commissioner Hanson stated that the signage for the Fireside Pharmacy and N.Y. Deli have to be two different colors and they should be white halo-lit. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to using reverse-channel lettering illuminated with white neon. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 06-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE Jr. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, Ca. 92201 JOSEPHINE D'AMICO MIGLIORE TRUST, 386 Avenida Andura, Cathedral City, Ca. 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of (1) wall sign with neon illumination for Serenata Mexican Bar & Grill. LOCATION: 73-325 Highway 111 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R060328.MIN 4 . "w�ri' • � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant is taking over the Mirasol restaurant. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for an explanation of the sign. The applicant stated that the sign will be pegged off the roof and will use reverse-channel letters with an opaque yellow trim at night. It's one continuous reverse channel. The letters will become white at night and the yellow would disappear. Commissioner Hanson commented that because this building is sandwiched in between two large office buildings so you're going to have to do something special with the signage to make it stand out. The one thing that made the previous sign "pop" was the flower. Obviously, you want to change the style, but you're going to have to come up with something really creative because it's sort of tucked back in there. You're not doing yourself any favors with the current proposal. Mr. Drell asked why they would be abandoning the rather large sign on the building in place of a skinny spot above the canopy. Commissioner Hanson suggested that they use the same spot for signage. You need something that's really going to stand out because it's competing with the awning and the tile roof. Commissioner Hanson also recommended that the pinkish-red color that they're proposing is very similar to the color of the building to the left and at night it's going to read the same. The blue really works. IYs stands out, but if you use the reddish-pink color at night it's going to wash out and that's when you'll want your clients to come in. You really should consider a color that's different and won't wash out compared to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Drell commented that the previous sign really made the building nice. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant would be doing themselves a disservice because the building reads much bigger and by having the sign in the current location, you can have a larger sign that you can make more interesting rather than just a little space. Visually it makes your eye realize that iYs a larger restaurant. You really have to make yourselves feel bigger. It was highly recommended that they keep the sign in the current location and so something really spectacular with it because you're going to need it. The applicant stated that you can't see the sign at all when looking from the south on Highway 111. He asked if he could add neon tubing around the sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission would entertain it, but it needs to be nicely done. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN S . `�1�'' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES a more creative sign design. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 06-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARIEL ALEJANDRO DE LA ROSA, 27-070 Avenida Quintana, Cathedral City, Ca. 92234 JOSEPHINE D'AMICO MIGLIORE TRUST, 386 Avenida Andura, Cathedral City, Ca. 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of building color change (Serenata Mexican Bar and Grill) LOCATION: 73-325 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Hanson requested that the applicant return to the commission with a new creative sign proposal as well as the exterior color proposal so that everything goes together. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he likes the contrast of the blue color of the building against the building next door because it's not in the same family. Red is in the same family as pink and it does cause concern. Commissioner Hanson stated that the exterior needs more of a contrast from the pink or peach-colored building next door. It needs to be something completely opposite. Keep in mind at night that the buildings will wash out a lot so you're going to lose the contrast that you would've otherwise had. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with different color proposal. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060328.MIN 6 . ",�rrr , � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: MISC 06-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE M. OSOWSKI-DESERT CO. LLC., 44-499 St. Andrews PI., Indio, Ca. 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval for 18' rotunda for home on Shady View Dr. LOCATION: 48-751 Shady View Dr. 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 06-56 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS, 4530 Mission Gorge Place, San Diego, Ca. 92120 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of (8) signs with internal illumination: (3) Wall, (1) Monument, (2) Menu- Boards and (2) Directionals. LOCATION: Cook Street & Gerald Ford Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing a monument sign as well as attached wall signs. Staff is concerned that the design of the monument sign appears to be that of a can sign on a base. The stone base should wrap around the entire sign and staff asked for comments from the commission for their feelings about the type of sign construction. The wall signs also appear to be somewhat can-like, although the white letters will be raised 3/4" forward from the red background. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the whole sign lights up. The applicant stated that the white letters will light up. Commissioner Hanson asked if the red will light up. The applicant, Jennifer Jarret, stated that just the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN � , '",�v � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES white will light up. The red will not light up. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it just looks like a can sign stuck right on there. He asked if the red lights up on the monument sign. The applicant stated that the white will light up. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not offended by the sign being box-like because it appears to be an element. Architecturally, it seems to work on the building. The red should be opaque on the building sign. The base for the monument sign should have a larger base and have the sign sit in it like it's part of it. Use the architecture of the building and make it work. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of all signs except the monument, requesting applicant to: 1) present a new monument sign design, and 2) red color not to be illuminated, only white copy. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 8. CASE NO. : MISC 05-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRISTOL FARMS, JEFF DIERCK, 915 E. 230th. Street, Carson, Ca. 90745 NATURE OF PROJECT SOUGHT: Approval of final drawings of exterior remodel of Bristol Farms building. LOCATION: 73-101 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval to add Case No. SA 03-166. Motion carried 6- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgmiM,4R060328.MIN g . ''�' . � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: SA 03-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signs for Entrada del Paseo for the new Palm Desert Visitor's Center. LOCATION: Highway 111 and west EI Paseo ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the commission approved plans for the monument signs for Entrada del Paseo in 2003. The Redevelopment Agency revised the plans. Mr. Drell stated that they built the sign and the bottom portion was cut too high so the tenant sign at the bottom won't be visible unless they raise that portion up. Commissioner Hanson asked what they intend to put underneath that portion to raise it up. Mr. Drell stated that originally the sign was going to be 7'2" and it's now going to be about 8'6". The proportions have now been thrown off. It doesn't look as good. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it should be done correctly. It was a very nice sign originally. Commissioner Hanson stated that they can cut it with a laser cutter. They didn't follow the plans. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the building is beautiful so why would we settle for a mistake on the sign. Commissioner Hanson commented that this is an example of inferior execution of a great design. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to deny the request and re-affirm the originally approved monument sign in 2003. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 06-12 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� PALM DESERT PARTNERS, L.P. 2 Crooked Stitch Dr., Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060328.MIN � . � �r�': ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Architectural approval for 16 lot subdivision on Shepherd Lane LOCATION: University Pointe Ct.- TRACT 32498 ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell stated that a wing wall should be added to one of the plans. Mr. Drell stated that the three-garage architecture is pretty dreary. You have to do something with enough note in the front to draw the eye away from the three garages and there's not a whole lot there to draw the eye. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the fascia. The applicant stated that the fascia will be made of wood with rafter tails. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem with having a wood fascia is that with our weather the wood starts to twist and they break. Ultimately, they look terrible and if there's a way to plaster the fascia and wrap it in, it's a cleaner look and you would be giving the homeowner's a better product. It would look better long term because that's something that people don't take care of very well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the side yard setbacks. Mr. Stendell stated that most of them are 7' and 7'. Commissioner Hanson stated that in some sections, there are two houses next to each other with six garage doors in a row. The houses should be flipped, which would also allow for more landscaping between the houses. Mr. Drell suggested flipping #14 and #15 so you have a three-car and a two-car garage so you don't ever have consecutive three-car garages next to each other. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the houses have chimneys. The applicant stated that they do. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the details that are on the front elevations on house #2. What is the material? The applicant stated that it's stucco that's 3" deep with black wrought iron over them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the walls look pretty thick, except for the arched niche on the end. The windows and doors are recessed nicely. The arched niche should be a little deeper to about 6" because the walls are very thick. The arched niche to the right should also be a 2 x 6 wall and recess that to 5 '/z" because it looks like it would be too shallow. Commissioner Hanson suggested that he could add a wrought iron detail that comes away from the house to create a shadow line as another option. The G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN 1� , � �, ""� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES applicant asked if he could paint the background of the box the trim color to accent it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's unfortunate that all the wainscots are the same height. You could have a little more fun with that and create a lot more variety by varying the height. The plaster wainscot is shown as though it's actually out further than the main wall of the house and wondered if thaYs what's really going to happen. The foundation at the bottom looks dead even with the main wall so how are you getting it out several more inches like it's shown? The applicant stated that if the wall is framed flat, then the wainscot comes out with additional framing with a slight beveled edge on the top so water doesn't sit there. The applicant expressed that he was surprised by the changes that the commission requested. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're not asking for a lot. The applicant stated that this is the way that he builds houses. I've built 1,000 houses and I've done wainscots, put on roofs and done slabs. I'm not a detail person in terms of the exact nature of the structure from an engineering standpoint. I'm a very fine developer and I have a reputation and I think that this is standard for the industry. I'm surprised that you would look at these plans and say that you don't like them. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission has seen a lot of things that have not been executed well and we're not saying that you don't execute it well, but other people don't execute it well. If we can, in minute details, make the difference so that it can be executed well then we want to make those changes. Also, we learn as we're going things that we've missed on other projects so our comments may get a little more specific with regard to having all the garage doors in a row because we went to a project and saw that and realized that it was a very unsuccessful design solution. Our goal is to constantly make the projects that are done in Palm Desert better. I think that as the values of the homes continue to increase we likewise expect the architecture to follow. The applicant offered to take the commission on a field trip to one of his projects that's underway in La Quinta. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he could bring in photographs that are descriptive for the commission to review. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with modifications on elevations. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN 1 1 , ' �, `'�`` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 06-01, C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRA NOVA PLANNING AND RESEARCH, 400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of the revised drawings of the cantilevered balcony element design on residential elevations. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic reminded the commission that at the last meeting, the issue was the cantilevered elements and that they looked odd. This is their attempt to remedy that. Commissioner Hanson stated that they need to thicken the balcony elements. Commissioner Vuksic concurred and added that the bottom piece needs to become a different element. They need to add some kind of a post detail between the pairs of windows. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to thickening more of the balcony elements. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 06-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSL JEFFREY STITT, ARCH., 38-755 Vista Dr., Cathedral City, Ca. 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for roof ridge height of 16'-6" at "casita" currently under construction, due to error in fabrication. LOCATION: 44-805 San Benito Circle, Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that photos were included in the packets for the commission to review. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060328.MIN 12 , ' <� `'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 MINUTES Jeffrey Stitt, applicant, was present and stated that there was an error in fabrication of the trusses. The original intent was to have a three- portion roof with three separate hips that came together. With the error in fabrication, it was suggested by the contractor and the truss company that the roof could be one big hip and the smaller hips could be built on top of the main hip, which conceptually is okay. However, in this design, which was originally a 3:12 pitch with a 13' height but the owner wanted to maximize the height to 14'. In order to do that, the smaller portions would have an 8:12 pitch which would bring the roof height to 14'8". The center section, because it was a lot wider, would have to have a 5:12 pitch to keep it at that same height. Someone made a decision to change them all to 8:12, which essentially pushed the center ridge up higher than it was supposed to be. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that an 8:12 pitch is really steep in the desert. He asked about the pitch of the main house on the property. Mr. Stitt stated that it's about 2:12, which is really flat. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's steeper than anything around it. The project is already underway, but it's the truss companies' mistake. Commissioner Lambell stated that we would do you a great service if we denied the change because then you could take that "no" back to the truss company and tell them that they are responsible and have to fix it. Commissioner Hanson expressed her sympathy to the homeowner's position, but somebody made a mistake. A roof pitch of 8:12 is something that the commission would never approve. The truss company can remedy this problem. Mr. Stitt asked about the smaller hipped portion of the roof and the fact that they're at 8:12 and wanted to know if this was going to be a problem. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it's below the height limit, the commission has nothing to say about it. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request due to steepness in the roof. Error should be corrected. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060328.MIN 13