Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-10 c 7 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JULY 10, 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 10 3 Kristi Hanson X 11 2 Chris Van Vliet X 13 John Vuksic X 13 Ray Lopez X 11 2 Karel Lambell X 9 4 Nancy DeLuna X 4 Also Present Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the June 26, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: *1000 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAM SPINELLO, 27 Las Plaza, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of store remodel; Palms to Pines Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-955 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO: CUP 07-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GREG COCKRILL, 77-602 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 1695 square foot guest house and detached garage. LOCATION: 77-602 Robin Road ZONE: RE Mr. Bagato stated that the required setback in this area was 50 feet from the rear and 15 on the side yards. He explained that there was a conditional use process in section 25.56 for detached structures that allows for submittal for 1:1 height ratio and the applicant was requesting that process. The applicant has the maximum height at 18 feet for the RV portion of the garage. It is located 20 feet from the rear, which is in compliance with the 1:1 ratio. Mr. Bagato informed the contractor that if the building were 18 feet high, it would have to be moved 3 feet on the side yard to remain 1:1. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070710.min.DOC Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 Mr. Bagato presented photos of the existing home and stated that the homeowner was trying to match architecture of the home and be consistent with the neighborhood. All neighbors around his home have done a similar project. Commissioner Vuksic stated that next to the property on the side yard there was a similar structure and asked if there was anything in the rear. Mr. Bagato stated there was another structure in the rear, which the County may have approved since it looked like it was 5 feet from the back. He stated that several of these properties were developed originally in the County before Palm Desert annexed in 1994 and the County allowed for 5-foot setbacks on these structures. He asked the contractor, Mr. Schuck with Schuck Construction, if this was 5 feet or more. The contractor stated that it was fairly new and was 5 or more feet. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant was agreeable to moving the building 3 feet. Mr. Bagato stated that he was agreeable. Commissioner Vuksic discussed his concerns with the structure and stated that the cornice needed additional work since it would be 18 feet high and people would see it. He stated that the cornice was a huge round element and recommended that it be sculpted a little more. He also stated that the roll-up door was very tall and needed to be thickened at least 18 inches to have some relief. The contractor stated that he could do a foam detail to break it up a bit. Commissioner Lopez asked where the air conditioning was located and the contractor stated that it would be in the attic over the lower portion of the garage. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) moving building 3' to be in compliance with setbacks; 2) thicken up roll-up garage door wall to 18"; and, 3) additional sculpting to cornice. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070710.min.DOC Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIECOMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 3. CASE NO: SA 07-108 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EVA DIEK, 39227 Seraphina Road, Murrieta, CA 92563 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new business signage; Ashley Furniture. LOCATION: 34-770 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC 3 Mr. Bagato referred to the construction plans to compare the proposed sign with the scale of the building. The building is located 600 feet away from Monterey and based on the square footage the front elevation is entitled to 125 square feet. The sign they are proposing is 125 square feet and they show an 8-foot box around the entry portion of the building. Proportionally the sign appears to be a good 7 feet, and works on the building and would be within the allowable square footage. He stated that sign B and C were also in the allowable square footage, however when scaled, he ran into some concerns as to how the signs would fit into the elements where they would be located. Sign B is proposed at 5 feet 9 inches which would leave only an inch and a half top and bottom from the detail that is located on the element. His recommendation was to approve this sign at 4 feet 9 inches, which is a foot smaller to give it more room spacing. Mr. Bagato stated that there was a conflict on the location for sign C and asked the representative if this was on the tower or the archway. Ms. Eva Diek, representative stated that she did not have the plans available. Mr. Bagato stated that on page 4 it shows the sign above the archway, but on page 5 it shows was on the back tower. Based on scale, sign C cannot be any larger than 3 feet to fit proportionally. Since it would be next to residential he was concerned with illumination if placed on the tower; but if placed on the archway, it would probably be low enough. Ms. Diek stated that it would not be on the tower. Commissioner Van Wet asked if both the red and yellow on the sign was fully illuminated through the face. Mr. Bagato stated that it would be. Commissioner Gregory asked if the back sign would be facing potential residential. Mr. Bagato stated that it would be, however with the sign located on the proper element it would not be GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070710.min.DOC Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 as high as before. On the backside of this property it would only be 50 feet from the street, which is Gateway Drive. Across from Gateway Drive is Falling Waters, a condominium project that will be two stories with lofts and the top units would have the potential of seeing the sign illumination. He thought reverse channel would be a better solution than fully illuminated through the face since it is so close to the street with residential behind it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the tower sign would be visual to other residential areas. Mr. Bagato stated that it faces north, which would face Walmart's delivery doors. Mr. Bagato stated that sign B should be 4 feet 9 inches and sign C should be 3 feet to be consistent with what is usually approved and sign C would be reverse channel letter. Commissioner Lambell asked that a color board be submitted with appropriate colors. The Commission asked if this was a federally trademarked logo and Mr. Bagato stated that even if it was he had concerns about the brightness of the colors and we could request that the colors be reduced. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case SA 07-108 to allow the applicant to: 1) reduce sign B to 4'9"; 2) sign C to have reverse sign lettering; 3) reducing sign C to 3'; and, 4) submit color chips for review. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 07-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUTHERLAND DESIGN AGENCY, 42-335 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of remodel of existing commercial building. LOCATION: 73-750 Alessandro Drive ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that this building was west on San Luis Rey on the south side of Alessandro, right next door to the Verizon building. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070710.min.DOC Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION r.r� MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some concerns with the appearance of the building and the finished product. Looking at the existing building it needed a fair amount of work and had the potential to come together as a clean design. He was concerned that the attempt to clean up this building with a modern design would make it look bad. He felt it wasn't a fully thought out idea and stated that it was looking like a contemporary modern building and just was not there. He suggested looking at some examples of modern architecture to complete the idea. Mr. Sutherland explained that he was taking an old dilapidated structure and giving it a very unique design flare. He stated that he had been looking for an old building to fuse the two styles together; it was very deliberate. He asked Commissioner Vuksic for his guidance. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he understood that they were trying to give it some design flare, but at this point he wasn't getting a warm fuzzy feeling looking at it. He liked the variety of textures, but the corrugated metal is a strong material and needs to be incorporated into a strong design to pull it off. Commissioner Gregory asked the designer to come up with something that has a little more design panache. He stated that they have the beginning of it, but it's just not quite there yet. Mr. Sutherland stated that this was a very old building that he would be renting and redesigning cost effectively. He stated that the finished product would be very clean without going into great detail. He explained that this was an out-of-pocket project for a building they would be leasing, and a conversion of something that is absolutely an eyesore to the city into something that is absolutely much better. He stated that he appreciated the candor of the Commission, however each time they add more flare to the building it is digging deeper into their own pocket. Commissioner Gregory indicated that he wasn't suggesting adding additional things to the building, but adding more articulation; a little more interest without raising the cost significantly. Mr. Sutherland stated that he fully understood and from their prospective it was the City's opportunity at his expense. He once again stated that he appreciated their input. He stated that with the things the Commission was pointing out he could see where there was the need for more flare. As a businessman he would have to examine the process and stated that to re-design each time would GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070710.min.DOC Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVINCOMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 cost them more money and they needed to be frugal and take the most economical approach. He also stated that there was no City funding on this. The Commission suggested talking with the Redevelopment Agency for the Facade Enhancement Program and Mr. Sutherland responded that they talked with them and funds were not available because the owner had already been issued funds for other projects. Commissioner Lopez asked if they would be required to have a landscape plan. Mr. Stendell indicated that the designer would be working on a plan with Mr. Knight. It had been determined that he would have to take out a considerable amount of the old driveway approach in order to have 8 to 10 feet of landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission would not impose a style on the applicant nor would they beat it to death from a critique standpoint. What the Commission was looking for was a good piece of architecture. Mr. Sutherland stated that he understood and explained that there were so many restrictions coming from Building and Code and he couldn't afford to fund the redevelopment of this street. He asked the Commission for a site review. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the Commission wasn't advocating a design change that would cost a lot of money, but he felt they could do something with the roof structure without increasing the cost and still get a different look. The Commission made a motion for continuance. Mr. Sutherland informed the committee that he would probably abandoned this project due to funding and the restrictions being placed on him by the City. He explained to the Commission that the plan for this building was to start a work experience program for the local high schools in the valley. Their goal was to have a very aggressive plan to implement young high schools students into the professional design work force, which has never been done in this industry. This was an attempt to open up a large facility to facilitate more workstations for youth. Commissioner Gregory suggested that he talk with people in the City who could assist them with this program; for instance City Council members. Mr. Bagato stated that if they felt really strong at what they were proposing they could ask for a decision and if it GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesVARC Minutes\2007\AR070710.min.DOC Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 didn't get approved it could be appealed to the City Council instead of withdrawing and abandoning the project. Mr. Sutherland stated that he had concerns with the funding and only so far they could go. He asked what would be needed if he resubmitted a design element for the next ARC meeting. Mr. Stendell stated that the new material would be needed by Wednesday, July 18 to be on the agenda for July 24 or another two weeks. Mr. Sutherland stated that he would get back to Ryan with his decision or submit a letter of withdrawal. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to continue Case MISC 07-21 to allow the applicant to submit a redesign. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME & TAMIRA DIOP, 72- 450 Manzanita Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of block wall. LOCATION: 72-450 Manzanita Drive ZONE: PR 5 Mr. Stendell stated that this was an interesting situation, one that required a lot of research. Reviewing the aerial, he stated that the existing wood fence sits 6 feet off the curb line and in from the fence another four feet was the edge of water line. Through his research he found that there was exactly 12 feet of right of way in that area. In 1980 the City permitted and finaled this pool in right- of-way. Talking with some of the City Engineers, this is a situation that we have allowed to occur. However we have ways to remedy this in-house with an encroachment permit and possibly look at a hold harmless agreement with what has been built in the right-of- way to protect the City from any further issues. He stated that the applicant would not be increasing anything; in fact they would be losing a little because they want a radius off the corner and lose a smidge of their yard. He asked if the Commission would rather GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070710.min.DOC Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 have a continually deteriorating wood fence or upgrade it to a 5-foot high block wall. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why they couldn't move the fence in closer to the pool. Mr. Stendell stated that they could go in a little, but they have a pool deck and he didn't know how far in they could go without disrupting the structural integrity of the pool. Ms. Tamira Diop, applicant, stated that the wall was erected prior to her purchasing the home and with the wind, the wall will not last much longer. She explained that her goal was to get a permit to rebuild with a block wall. The Commission reviewed the photos and discussed the right-of- way issues. They suggested a raised bond beam with a planter bed on both sides; a little on the inside and a little on the outside. The Commission discussed removing the sidewalk then they wouldn't have to push the wall in. It appeared that the neighbor's wall aligned with the wood fence. Mr. Stendell stated that it was probably done without a permit because under the old ordinance this would not have been allowed. The Commission discussed the non-compliance of the neighbor's wall. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager, discussed landscape issues. He suggested planting grates with landscaping that would have to be maintained by the applicant. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant has the ability to retrofit the landscaping in the front and by adding the radius it would add some interest to the wall, but it still leaves the question of what can be done with the side yard. The contractor was proposing a tan precision block wall with a 2 to 3 course split face decorative band running through it, which matches the wall that the City erected in that same area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they had a two-foot planter on the street side and if there pool were only 3 feet deep from the edge it would be easy for them to get the surcharge away from that pool. Commissioner Gregory stated that their hope was to simply replace the wood fence with a block wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated they could put in the block wall and move it in 2 feet by demolishing the decking. Mr. Stendell stated that they are requesting for more than double of what the code allows in the form of an exception. For a five-foot high wall in today's standards is 15 feet back from curb. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minules\2007\AR070710.min.DOC Page 9 of 10 Vol ARCHITECTURAL REVIE COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2007 Commissioner DeLuna asked why there couldn't be a block wall with three grates with vines coming out. Mr. Stendell stated that it could be done, but the owner did not want to go to that expense and didn't want the responsibility of landscape maintenance. Commissioner DeLuna stated that to allow a block wall to go against a sidewalk, which is not desirable along with right-of-way issues, the compromise would be for the grates and vines. Commissioner Gregory stated what would happen then would be three grates with dead vines. It was suggested to put up a new wooden fence. Mr. Stendell stated that they could repair it with new wood, but only small portions at a time. The applicant preferred a block wall and did not want to repair the fence. Ms. Diop stated that their goal was to improve their property and put in a more efficient wall on the existing location. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to continue to allow the Commission to allow ARC Commissioners to visit the site and recommend possible solutions. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commission Hanson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. LD - TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070710.min.DOC Page 10 of 10