Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-09 . T " � � i---��---� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . , MINUTES JANUARY 9, 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 1 Kristi Hanson X 1 Chris Van Vliet X 1 John Vuksic X 1 Ray Lopez X 1 Karen Oppenheim X 1 Karel Lambell X 1 Also Present Steve Smith, Acting Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Acting Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 12, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, approving the December 12, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Vuksic and Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: 4 t ( � ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 06-05/TT 34626 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): W.L. HOMES, LLC., dba JOHN LAING HOMES, 255 E. Rincon Street, Suite 100, Corona, CA 92879 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 198 condominium units. LOCATION: 74-815 College Drive ZONE: PR Mr. Bagato stated that the preliminary plans showed S-tile, however the working drawings didn't indicate the roof material. The representative indicated that it would be S-tile. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) utilizing concrete S-tile; and, 2) review of landscape plan by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 05-05, CUP 05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval for a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval subject to: 1) changing copper metallic panels to silver metallic panels; 2) screening of roof mounted equipment; and, 3) review of landscape plan by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2007�AR070109.min.DOC Page 2 of 10 t • � ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 3. CASE NO: C 06-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION SOUTH, 73-061 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of remodel of exterior storefront. LOCATION: 73-061 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC. 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON, INC., 71-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of architecture for hillside home. LOCATION: 607 Rocky Creek ZONE: R1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to continue Case No. MISC 07-01. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning�.lanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007V1R070109.min.DOC Page 3 of 10 t �• ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION �' MINUTES JANUARY 9, 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: Revised preliminary approval of architecture for World Savings Bank. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the plan originally approved faltered at Planning Commission and stated that the architects were taking another pass at the design. The Commission asked why it faltered. Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission deemed it an important corner relative to visibility and thought it was too boxy and massive for this location. He stated that this item would appear on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting and Staff wanted this conceptual plan reviewed at ARC. Mr. Mike Burnett, AIC, presented handouts that included two (2) schemes. It still had the same open space with teller lines, desks and a smaller area in the back for the restrooms, workroom and kitchen area. The building would have smooth finish stucco with nice natural stone. Commission reviewed the rendering. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the offset of the lower element and the tall element appeared to be substantially greater in the model than it did on the drawing. Mr. Burnett stated that the model was a little more accurate. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minute5�2007�AR070109.min.DOC Page 4 of 10 � �• � ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION ""�"� MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Lopez stated that one of the Wachovia signs were standing up on its own and not against a backing and asked if they planned on doing that. Mr. Burnett stated that they did plan for that and stated that there were three (3) locations on this building for signage; one (1) coming from Highway 74, one (1) at the intersection and one (1) on the Highway 111 side. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they planned to drain the roof. Mr. Burnett stated that they would have a small parapet with roof drains coming back down through the building independently. Commissioner Hanson asked where the roof equipment would be located. Mr. Burnett stated there would be one (1) condenser behind the lower building, behind a berm with plenty of landscaping to screen it. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they would have vents on the lower roof. Mr. Burnett stated that he could see a potential for heat gain at the top of the volume, which would be handled with some kind of ventilation. He stated that nothing would be seen from the street level. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the material for the darker forms with the horizontal lines would be stone. Mr. Burnett indicated they would like to use some natural stone and earthy materials and stated that they would provide a color board at a later date. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could see this being a lot of different things and not necessarily stone. A nice split face block would be an appropriate choice, something textured to offset the smooth. Mr. Knight, Landscape Manager stated that he would like to see how the landscape would interface with this building. Mr. Bagato asked if the landscape plan had changed. Mr. Burnett stated that it did not, however now that they have a different design it would be important to revisit that plan. Mr. Smith stated that there were some concerns with the previous landscape plans and this would be a good time to revisit. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to grant a conceptual approval of Plan A, subject to landscape review by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez opposing and Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007W,R070109.min.DOC Page 5 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CASE NO: PP 05-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELLIOTT LANDER, 16 Villaggio Place, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. HOLT ARCHITECTS, 70-225 Highway 111, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary approval for revisions to elevations; Promontory Point. LOCATION: 73-650 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI John Holt, AIC stated that the client had decided to put the first phase as the East building. They felt that the previous work, which showed an arcade between the buildings, wasn't suitable for the first phase. They redesigned the entrance so they have an entrance more in keeping with the other sides. All of the plans previously submitted would come back for approval. Mr. Bagato asked if the green metal structure on the roof had been previously approved because it appeared more prominent on the revised plans. Mr. Holt stated that it did not change and that it was just the angle that made it appear more prominent. He stated that all roof-mounted equipment would be screened. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEITH SPARKMAN, 45-924 Abronia Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a six (6) foot decorative metal fence in a front and street side yard with a minimum setback of 10 feet from curb. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070109.min.DOC Page 6 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 LOCATION: 45-924 Abronia Drive ZONE: R1 Mr. Stendell stated that applicant had remodeled his house and was proposing corrugated metal fencing to enclose his front yard, with a large portion of his front yard being on the street side. Mr. Stendell stated that there were some large palms that were about 18 to 20 feet back and the applicant would like to put the wall on the outside of those palms. He requested a 10-foot setback along Fairway and a 12-foot setback along Abronia. A previous exception approved by the Commission was for a six (6) foot wall 17 feet from curb and a five (5) foot wall 12 feet from curb. The applicant proposed some landscaping with Ocotillos and Palms and it was suggested that the applicant work with the Landscape Manager for a little more landscaping detail. Commissioner Hanson stated that her initial reaction to the style of fencing was positive and that it was a great type of fencing, however what makes it great is the contemporary style of architectural shown in the photograph. While the applicant has done a nice job cleaning up this house, it was nowhere close to contemporary architecture. From that standpoint, the fencing would look a bit out of place and seem very industrial next to a fairly traditional style home. Mr. Sparkman stated that they were actually looking for a mid century modern look and thought this type of material would be appropriate. Commissioner Hanson stated that that their home was not modern and in order to make that particular style of fencing work they would have to be very specific about the type of architecture they used, otherwise it would look out of place. It's not an inappropriate material, but it is a bit inappropriate for this particular home. Commissioner Hanson stated that the 10-foot setback would not bother her because there was an existing wall there already. Mr. Stendell stated that there was a pre-existing wall, which basically closes off the rear yard from Fairway. The appticant's request would be to leave it on that line. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW,RC Minutes�2007WR070109.min.DOC Page 7 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION "� MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the metal fencing was an approved material. Mr. Stendell stated that it was not and that was one of the reasons it came to ARC. They had approved one in the past, but it was behind a hedge all the way around except for the entry gate and the sliding gate. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioner Hanson that there were a couple of issues they were dealing with; the setback issue and the fence material, as well as high visibility. He didn't mind the material, but felt it wasn't appropriate in that location. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if they intended to do more to the house to make it more mid century modern in appearance. The applicant stated that the interior was more mid century modern, more so than the outside, but they were planning to add a pool and a spa to the front courtyard area. That is why they want the additional space in the front because the back is long and very narrow and with it being a corner lot it takes up a lot of that property. Commissioner Hanson stated that this type of architecture in the photograph is so strong that it dominates over the fence. In order to make their house pop, she suggested simplifying the fence. Mr. Sparkman asked if they would suggest continuing the block wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that would be fine and suggested slump stone. Commission discussed the wall and the material to be used. To give the wall a more modern look an 8 X 8 block with a deep rake joint was suggested. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a precedent for the setback in that area. Mr. Stendell stated that the last wall exception given to a corner house north of this location was for a six (6) foot wall with a 17 foot setback or a five (5) foot wall with a 12 foot setback, that is the precedent we have set in that neighborhood which is less than what code requires. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2007WR070109.min.DOC Page 8 of 10 •� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION `� MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Hanson informed the applicant that every thirty feet they would have to break up the monotony of the wall in some manner and suggested a rectangle column in a couple of places or offset the walls. Mr. Knight asked how close the wall would come to the palm trees. Mr. Stendell stated that at five (5) feet it would not come close at all; you would be about six (6) feet within the tree. If they want the six (6) foot wall it would probably be three (3) feet. Mr. Knight stated that if they start encroaching two (2) feet into the trees you would significantly start to reduce the root zone on those trees. So you have a potential for failure of the trees. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case No. MISC 06-46 to allow the applicant to present revised plans to reflect changes as discussed by Commission. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 04-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD OLMEDO, 18111 Von Karman, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92612. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof mounted equipment for Bedrosian Tile. LOCATION: 73-550 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVlRC Minutes�2007�P,R070109.min.DOC Page 9 of 10 d e- ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 -----------------------------------------------------=-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of slope "rehab"; Desert Gateway. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey ZONE: PC-3 Action: No action was taken. Discussion purposes only. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. TONY BAGATO ACTING PLANNING MANAGER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P.RC Minutes�2007�,4R070109.min.DOC Page 10 of 10