Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-23 , , `�w�'' � �1��__` CITY OF PALM DESERT -� � - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES MAY 23, 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 9 1 Kristi Hanson X 10 Chris Van Vliet X 8 2 John Vuksic X 10 Ray Lopez X $ 2 Karen Oppenheim X 10 Karel Lambel X 9 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Donna Evans, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 9, 2006 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of May 9, 2006. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. 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 revised monument sign for Jack-in-the-Box. LOCATION: 36-555 Cook Street ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval of option "A" for the monument sign by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: GPA 04-01, C/Z 04-03, PP 04-22, PMW 04-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TIM REEVES ASSOCIATES, 77-780 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of office complex. LOCATION: 42-955 Cook Street ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 06-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSZ CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, #204, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R060523.MIN 2 , �rr+'` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of an exterior remodel of an existing apartment building. LOCATION: 74-402 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP / CUP 05-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, TODD KOVALCIK, 14594 7th Street, Victorville, CA 92395 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of signage for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. LOCATION: 73-086 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 06-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE RHODES, 2101 Carrillo Privado, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised signage for Banco Popular on the Wal*Mart building. LOCATION: 34-500 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: PC G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060523.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approvat of perimeter walls for a 159-1ot single family subdivision. Dolce LOCATION: 35-758 Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that the block wall with front the street on Gerald Ford and the project next door will have a long block wall totaling 3,100 feet of wall. This request will be reviewed by the Landscape Beautification Committee as well as the Architectural Review Commission. Part of the discussion today should include the type of material being proposed and the columns, which are about every 80'. Commissioner Hanson asked if the walls could be staggered in and out so it's not so linear. Mr. Drell stated that the problem they have is that if they jog the wall back and forth, they actually take space out of peoples' backyards. Commissioner Hanson commented that they have a curving sidewalk so can't the wall curve with the sidewalk. Mr. Drell stated that then you would have a piece of common space in somebody's backyard. If you wanted to jog it back in forth, it's something that should've been thought about when the tract map was done. The location is on Gerald Ford, east of Lowe's Home Improvement. The Enclave doesn't have perimeter walls. Mr. Bagato stated that there are two residential projects along Gerald Ford that will have perimeter walls. Mr. Drell commented that this is the problem of putting residential projects along major arterials where they all have to back onto the street. In the old days, they put apartment buildings along arterials. Now there are miles of walls along major streets. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's a project to the west of Monterey on Gerald Ford, which is in Rancho Mirage, that's under G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060523.MIN 4 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES construction and their perimeter walls have pilasters that come out and batter down to the ground. They're long enough that they stagger the walls and die into them at different spots. You really notice it because it looks good and it's striking. It doesn't look like just a huge, long wall bordering a property. It looks like a pretty good standard. Mr. Drell suggested designing a variation on that design. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would like to see the same quality because you notice it and it looks good. The commission agreed that the proposed perimeter wall should be redesigned in a more creative style. It was suggested that the applicant look at the wall that's under construction to the west of Monterey on Gerald Ford for inspiration. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a more creative plan for the perimeter walls. Motion carried 3-0-1-3 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell 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 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Architectural approval of revised elevations for a 16-lot subdivision on Shepherd Lane. LOCATION: 37-900 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith commented that the commission was given revised plans in their packets and photos of various details were displayed during the meeting. Jim Thompson, representative for Palm Desert Partners, was present and stated that there had been some concern with the soffit detail. The soffit is a structural item and it sticks out from the house a couple of inches. There had been a suggestion at a previous meeting to paint a stripe on the house, but we don't do that. I took pictures of houses that I'm currently building in other cities to show the commission G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060523.MIN 5 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES the details. There had been a concern about the depth and detail of a small architectural element on the face of the houses with ironwork. I took pictures of what that would look like. There was an eave detail that was originally designed as a wood fascia, which the commission had felt was unacceptable. It will now be a plastered fascia. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's unfortunate that the footing doesn't go down to the ground and it looks like it's floating. Mr. Drell stated that this has been a landscaping challenge where there are stone veneers that are left floating above the ground. With desert landscaping, they end up being exposed. If they put in lush landscaping, the shrubs would grow up and cover up all the wonderful stone veneer. Commissioner Hanson suggested thickening the bottom part of the column. Commissioner Gregory commented that he thought that most people wouldn't see it. Maybe only architect-types would notice it. Commissioner Hanson stated that she can't help but notice it everywhere. Mr. Drell stated that they should make the effort to make it look nice. Mr. Thompson stated that what he doesn't understand is that iYs on a side of a house that would be built without any consideration for the soffit. The stucco walls comes down about 4" off the ground and then it returns back to the house. The dirt is below that about 4", which is to code. It drains at 2% away from the house. You don't want the wall of the house to touch the dirt. It's just going to create moisture and rot. I don't get that. Commissioner Hanson commented that they're not saying to make it go all the way to the dirt. Bring it down to the foundation level so it looks normal. The proposed plans show the stone veneer floating in mid-air. A plinth means that it's sitting on something solid. It doesn't mean that it's floating above it. Commissioner Gregory commented that these are production homes and he was wondering if we were "over-gilding the lily". Mr. Drell stated that the question is if it's really a big deal to bring the stone veneer or wainscot down to the foundation level. Commissioner Hanson stated that it isn't a big deal to do this. Be true to what the purpose of a plinth is which is to sit on concrete so it looks substantial and adds a base to the house. Having the facade come out an extra 1'/2" won't add a significant cost to the project and it does make a difference. It's only on the front of the house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they look very nice, but they need to come down to the foundation. Mr. Thompson stated that the proposal shows the way that they normally build a home. As I told everybody the last time I was here, that only a few months ago you approved these identical houses. Mr. Drell stated that some of them have been approved, but now we see them built and realize that we made a mistake and wondered why we would've approved it. One thing that we try to do is not make the same mistakes. The fact that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060523.MIN 6 �rrr+f `�''" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES we've made mistakes in the past, doesn't mean we should keep making them. Mr. Thompson stated that the requested change isn't important to the community. It isn't important to this subdivision and I think that you're off track. I'll do what you want, but it's just meaningless. People aren't going to see it. They're never going to go outside and wander around pointing out how high a door is off the carpet. Mr. Drell stated that a house is a cumulation of details. The little details make up the end result. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) the wainscot (plinth) foundation be brought out to be flush with the edge of the framing on that plinth, which, in most cases is 1'/2', and (2) the stucco on the wainscoting is to be brought down to meet code requirements. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PFF BANK & TRUST, ROBERT RICE, 550 North Indian Hill, Pomona, CA 91767 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PARTNERS, THE EVANS COMPANY, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 3,600 square foot PFF Bank. The Village at University Park LOCATION: 36-975 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 06-08 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R060523.MIN � , ''�wr►' '�'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES . APPLICANT LND ADDRESS): GUY DRIER DESIGNS, 41-995 Boardwalk, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a single-family residence in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. LOCATION: 642 Pinnacle, The Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 06-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SERENITY OF PALM DESERT, LLC., P.O. Box 1135, Poway, CA 92074 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for a six-lot subdivision. LOCATION: 45-900 Highway 74 ZONE: R-3 18,000 Mr. Urbina stated that previously the Architectural Review Commission wanted the front walls to have one foot of wrought iron on the top portion of a five-foot wall. The applicant is requesting approval of a solid wall at five feet in height and he's added what appears to be ceramic tile. Matthew Moiseve, representative for Serenity of the Desert, LLC., was present and stated that he would like to keep the five-foot-high wall solid because it's next to a busy road and it would create a buffer for the homeowners. The wall is 5' high and setback 15' so it's per code requirements. A discussion was held regarding a faux wall fountain. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't bother her. She suggested adding a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060523.MIN g , `�" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES planter with landscaping, instead of a bench. Also, adding tile to the inset was suggested to make it look more authentic. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there had been some discussion regarding moving the guest parking spaces. Mr. Moiseve commented that previously there were four guest parking spaces on site. They were all 9'/2'. The revised plans show that the corner plans were reduced by 10", which enabled them to stretch three of the spaces to 11' so that car doors could open without hitting and damaging the stucco walls and only one guest parking space would be moved onto the frontage road. Commissioner Gregory asked if the commission felt that the faux fountain would be appropriate to help add some interest to an otherwise blank wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be appropriate. Commissioner Gregory commented that he wouldn't mind seeing a bench in this area. Commissioner Hanson suggested possibly adding pots on top of the plinths on either side of the faux fountain. It was also suggested that instead of the faux fountain, it could be a BBQ area with a trellis over it. Mr. Drell stated that the development of this idea will be on the working drawings and it would be reviewed at that time. Spencer Knight stated that the applicant should bring the landscape plan back with the structural plans. In this particular project, it's integral. The two plans interface with each other so they should be reviewed together. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: C 06-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an exterior remodel of a commercial building. Maytag LOCATION: 74-124 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060523.MIN 9 . �"' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that a new pipe column is called out on the plans, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the drawings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's been taken out of the drawings. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the roof plan, a new ridge is being added but wondered how much it was going up and what the material was going to be. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's been talking to the property owner about using foam with a tan-colored granular finish. The ridge is just showing that the slope changes direction at '/4' per foot. Mr. Smith asked about sign location. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he'll come back with a signage package. He was originally doing this remodel because Maytag was moving out and the owner wanted to dress up the building because his plan is to buy the property next door and tear this building down and build a two-story building to maximize the land. Since he can't acquire the property next door for a while, he wants to dress up the building in the interim. Maytag has decided to stay in this location, therefore, they'll be coming back with a sign. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he felt that a good location for signage would be on the thin edge and put freestanding letters on top of it. Commissioner Hanson asked how the corrugated edge would be treated on the corners. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he'd like to see the metal ribs match up around the corner without being interrupted. Commissioner Hanson asked about the location of the roof ladder. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wasn't sure how they get up there now because there's no ladder. He didn't think that it needs a ladder because the roof is so low. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for preliminary approval. Motion carried 3-0-1-3 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Lopez, Lambell and Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060523.MIN 10 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 MINUTES STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR060523.MW 11