Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-27 t � � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 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 4 John Vuksic X 4 Ray Lopez X 4 Karen Oppenheim X 3 1 Karel Lambell X 3 1 Also Present Steve Smith, Acting Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Acting Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the February 13, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: 4 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC. 07-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHAWNA RISNES, 73-180 Catalina, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new carport 20 feet from the curb. LOCATION: 73-180 Catalina ZONE: R-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to grant a continuance. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 07-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARRY KRAMER, 1909 EI Camino Real, Redwood City, CA 94061 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of monument signage and landscaping for the Morgan Stanley Building. LOCATION: Highway 74 & Highway 111 ZONE: PC (3) SP Mr. Stendell stated that this 26-foot monument sign would be at the corner of Highway 111 and Highway 74. It was reviewed at the last meeting and the Commission wanted to see the sign in conjunction with this corner. Commissioner Gregory stated that the location of the monument sign was purposely set so far back that there wouldn't be any conflicts with Cal Trans right-of-way, set backs or line of sight. Mr. Stendell stated that the monument sign shown on Highway 74 and EI Paseo would not be permitted because of too many line of sight issues. Also at the last meeting there were issues relative to the number of signs that could be allowed, so a good compromise G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007�,4R070227.min.DOC Page 2 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL REoIEW COMMISSION ""� MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 would be to deny the one at the corner of Highway 74 and EI Paseo and approve the two at the entrance just west of Highway 74. Ms. Hollinger asked about the line of sight issues with the sign on Highway 74 and EI Paseo. The Commission reviewed and it was determined that there were no line of sight issues. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant final approval subject to: 1) two signs at the entrance west of Highway 74; 2) denial of monument signage at the corner of Highway 74 and EI Paseo; and 3) landscape review by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 3. CASE NO: MISC 07-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MCG ARCHITECTURE, WALLACE WONG, 1055 E. Colorado Blvd. #400, Pasadena, CA 94061 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of repainting exterior of buildings at Desert Crossing Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-351 Painters Path ZONE: P.C. 3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO: PP 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATEL ARCHITECTURE, 71-711 San Jacinto Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of carport structure; Oracle Plaza LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive, east of San Pablo ZONE: OP G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P,RC Minutes\2007\AR070227.min.DOC Page 3 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE�IEW COMMISSION "� MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 Mr. Bagato stated that this project was originally approved with a decorative stenciled type awning that would have similar structures on the building itself. The applicant recently came in and proposed standard carports, which are allowed in many areas, but are not visible from public view. He had concerns with changing the design and it being visible on Fred Waring for at least five to six spaces before you get to the apartment building that would screen the back of the lot. These structures are taller than the 6-foot high wall that they constructed and would be visible. He recommends they do a portion with what was originally approved or the applicant could propose something else decorative. Commissioner Hanson indicated that she reviewed the carports at Club IntraWest at Desert Willow and stated that they have some very nice carports that are very simple in design and have a fabric structure stretched over the top. Those would be a lot less expensive to build but would keep along the same theme with what they originally proposed. She urged the applicant to take a look at those carports. Mr. Bagato presented photos of the project next door. There were all hard surfaces and no landscaping against the block wall. These carport structures are going to be two feet or more above the block wall and would be highly visible with no landscaping. Ms. Eileen Bruner, representative stated that even if they put the other structures in they would still be taller than the wall and visible. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they would be decorative and would have a design that matches the building. Ms. Bruner agreed but stated that they would be five to six times more costly to build and that is their issue. It would be $50,000 compared to almost $200,000. She suggested putting landscaping between the wall and the structure. Mr. Bagato stated that he was only concerned with the first five or six stalls being done in a decorative fashion because the house screens the ones toward the back end. The rest of the parking spaces behind the building could be the original structure. Commissioner Hanson once again suggested that the applicant take a look at the carport structure at Intrawest. She thought they wouldn't be as expensive as the one proposed. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the applicant also take a look at the carport structure at an office park on the east side of Portola north of G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2007�,4R070227.min.DOC Page 4 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL RET/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 Country Club that is nice and not too expensive. He thought it would fit in well with this building. Ms. Bruner asked if they needed awning on the south and on the west side. Mr. Bagato said that she could look into different options but the major concern was the west side along the block wall. The west wall should be decorative and the south side could be standard carports. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant final approval subject to: 1) a decorative type structure on the west side, either the one proposed or an alternative to be reviewed and approved by Staff; and 2) approval of a structure on the south side as proposed or something similar, but less expensive to the applicant. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO: C 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID HIDALGO ARCHITECT, INC. 316 S. 1S Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of faCade renovation to existing 10,126 square foot restaurant/retail building. LOCATION: 72-990 EI Paseo ZONE: PC (3) SP Mr. Stendell stated that three of the four buildings at this center had already been approved. This building is keeping with what has been approved and new colors have been submitted as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Vuksic requested clarification regarding a couple of the tallest parapet elements because once they are built we don't expect to see the ends and the backs of parapets. On the east elevation there were a couple of parapet elements that were pretty tall and on the roof plan it looked like they didn't intend to take them back very far. He stated that they would need to go back quite a long ways so they look like complete forms. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070227.min.DOC Page 5 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE\71EW COMMISSION `'"�` MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 Mr. David Hidalgo, Architect stated that it could go back 8 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would have to go back farther than that. He stated that the existing parapet wraps around and creates a well and asked if the parapets were higher than that. Mr. Hidalgo stated that it currently covered the HVAC and he would make them higher so they wouldn't see anything. Commissioner Vuksic stated that right now it poses a problem because where would it stop and would you see it over the building from EI Paseo. Mr. Hidalgo stated that the corner tower would be blocking that element. Commissioner Hanson stated that if you are out on EI Paseo and you look back towards the building, you could actually see a lot of roof area. You would have to wrap them a long ways back, otherwise you would see the ends and the backsides of them. Commissioner Vuksic stated that unless you can demonstrate that we are not going to see the backs of these parapets they would have to be four-sided. These parapets would have to return back to the well and parapet the backside as well. Mr. Hidalgo stated that they would go back to the well. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the stone elements and stated that there was a lot of stone pillars and in some cases it looked like they needed to be wider than what is shown because they look weak. He saw a number of stone pillars on the east elevation right in the middle of the building and it really should be that whole center trunk. Mr. Hidalgo indicated a location on the plans and asked if they would like to have it there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that would be fine. He stated that there were also examples on the south and the north as well. Some of them make sense as pillars like at the tower, but there were others that looked like stonewalls. Mr. Hidalgo reviewed the plans with Commissioner Vuksic and stated that they could do that and indicated that it wouldn't impede in the storefront. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he noticed a metal roof on the southeast corner with no other metal roofing anywhere else on the building. He didn't see a compelling architectural reason for a statement like that and asked if they could get metal somewhere else on the building. Mr. Darren Slackman, representative stated that since it was the EI Paseo side they thought that a tower element with some metal roofing would look better and draw people into the center. Structurally speaking, by adding that roof they would have to disrupt the tenant and have them move out and the applicant G:1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes12007\AR070227.min.DOC Page 6 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION `"�` MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 wanted to keep the tenant's business during the construction process. Mr. Hidalgo stated that once you are in the center you see other roofs around which would create a great focal point between the buildings. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant preliminary approval subject to Staff review of revisions discussed at meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 6. CASE NO: MISC 07-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of installation of a microwave dish at 48' high and the removal of an existing microwave dish at 50' high. LOCATION: 39-105 Portola Avenue ZONE: PR 5 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO: MISC 07-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECTS INC., 71-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single family residence; Howie and Kathy Gillman LOCATION: 130 Tekis Place (lots 17 & 18) - Bighorn ZONE: PCD-D Mr. Stendell stated that this house was on the mountainside and exceeds the height exception. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007W,R070227.min.DOC Page 7 of 11 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION ``'� MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Hanson pointed out the area where this house would be located. It would be up in the mountains with two pretty good size houses right next door and a lot quite a ways above it. This lot would be situated down a very long driveway with a big hill right behind it. She stated that the views of the house below are not towards this lot but they have some windows that would impact the privacy of this lot because it sits quite a bit lower. The lot just above would look over the top of this lot so the one thing that they were trying to do was to create privacy. She presented an illustration that showed the relationship between lot 1 above and this lot stating that there would be absolutely no impact to them and that would be the only lot that would be affected by this set-up. Commissioner Gregory asked how much this house would exceed the 20-foot height limit. Mr. Stendell stated that most of the house was 21 feet 10 inches with the highest architectural element at 23 feet. Commissioner Hanson stated that a lot of the height happens in the back, which is hidden behind a stonewall element that snakes through and blends into the mountain. Commissioner Gregory asked if this had gone through the Review Committee at Bighorn and was it approved. Commissioner Hanson stated that it had been approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was a great looking composition of forms. Commissioner Lambell stated that she was not a big fan of going over the height exception, but she stated that Commissioner Hanson did a masterful job of tying it into the hillside. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant final approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070227.min.DOC Page 8 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION `""�' MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 8. CASE NO: SA 06-176 APPLICANT: BARBARA COHEN, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & SIGNS, 2950 Palisades Drive, Corona, CA 92880 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revision to monument sign for The Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-891 Cook Street ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant final approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 9. CASE NO: MISC. 06-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CV FOODSERVICES, INC., 73- 405 EI Paseo, Suite 33D, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of architectural review for new restaurant, La Spiga. LOCATION: 72-557 Hwy 111 ZONE: OP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant final approval by minute motion subject to: 1) parapet heights equal to or higher than roof mounted equipment; and 2) landscape review by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P.RC Minutes\2007�AR070227.min.DOC Page 9 of 11 ' . ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION `""'"`� MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 06-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevation and color for World Savings Bank/VVachovia. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission lowered the building height from 24 feet to 21 feet on this building, and that action has been called up for Council review next week. Staff wanted to advise Council that ARC had reviewed the third revision and that it was acceptable. He also mentioned that the color of the building changed from off white stucco to sage green. Commissioner Hanson stated that it should be communicated to the architect that this wasn't a good representation of what this building looks like because the only way you can really see it is on the model. She thought that they really needed to spend the time to do a good prospective in order to give a much better feel for what this would look like in reality. She stated that when you look at this it looked very stark and she knows that it's not how this building looks. Mr. Smith indicated that they gave us one photo simulation that wasn't done well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what they are up against is that they have redesigned this four times and it is expensive to do the 3-D representations. He agreed that this was a cool building and on elevation it would be very difficult to really explain what it is. Commissioner Vuksic noticed that they didn't put any signage on it. Mr. Smith stated that they wanted to start over with the signage. The earlier version had the signage on the roof over the entry and Planning Commission had an issue with that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked the building unless it becomes a billboard, so the signage has to be very understated. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes\2007WR070227.min.DOC Page 10 of 11 ' � Y ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION `�'�'"' MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 Commissioner Gregory asked the Commissioners how they liked the changes that were being proposed. Commissioner Hanson stated that she still liked the building. Mr. Smith stated that it still maintained the essential elements it was just lower. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he still didn't know how they would make the roof work. He was referring to where it went from a vertical face on the east side to a horizontal plane and there is no parapet and no slope. He stated that it looked great but he was worried that it would end up with flashing on it. Mr. Smith stated that would be covered in the working drawings. Commissioner Gregory asked if we could advise them in advance that flashing would not be allowed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was a huge horizontal and unless you have some kind of drip edge all that water that is on the surface will run over that face. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the roof plan it showed roof drains in the middle and it appears that they will do is a foam type system on it. If they did a metal detail on the face that had a little bit of a lip on it and the foam comes up to that, it would work and it would drain back toward the middle into the columns. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to grant preliminary approval of revised design subject to: 1) confirmation of colors; and 2) review and approval of signage. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. TONY BAGAT ACTING PLANNING MANAGER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW.RC Minutes\2007\AR070227.min.DOC Page 11 of 11