Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-08 , . :�, Yiwrrl�` ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES MAY 8, 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 8 1 Kristi Hanson X 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 9 John Vuksic X 9 Ray Lopez X 8 1 Karel Lambell X 6 3 Also Present Laurie Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Acting Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the April 24, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: 4 ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 07-55 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIK R. WILLIAMS, CONTRACTING, 39-610 Entrepreneur Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signage; Monica Tile and Stone Fabrication. LOCATION: 39-610 Entrepreneur Lane ZONE: S.I. Mr. Stendell stated that this was continued from the last meeting to obtain additional details from the applicant. The Commission felt that the sign was.a little crowded and recommended removing the line "Cabinets, Remodels and Custom Framing", and relocating the address numbers to the side of the sign. They also had concerns regarding the ledge stone. Mr. Erik Williams, the applicant asked if he removed the one line could he keep the address at the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic stated that as long as the overall massing was worked out he felt that it would be okay. He asked the applicant if the word "Fabrication" was part of the business name and if not could it be removed. Mr. Williams stated that he could eliminate "Fabrication" from the sign. Mr. Williams presented a sample of the ledge stone to be used on the monument as well as a photo of the same sign used at another location. Commissioner Vuksic felt that the stone application looked odd, but that it added texture to the sign. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval subject to eliminating the line "Cabinets, Remodels, Custom Framing" and "Fabrication" from signage. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 2 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVI W COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 2. CASE NO: MISC 07-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NAOMI KOBRIN, 73-559 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, CA 92235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of metal fencing material and a reduction in the required setback to allow the gate to be 12 feet 6 inches from the curb. LOCATION: 73-559 Joshua Tree Street ZONE: R-1 12,000 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was requesting approval of gate materials and a reduction in the required setbacks. The gate was 5 feet high and 12.5 feet from the curb and code requires 15 feet from curb. He had explained to the applicant that the Commission was concerned with the construction of the gate and that it appeared out of place. Ms. Naomi Kobrin, the applicant stated that she was working on additional details for the gate and indicated that there would be posts that would be cut down and pieces that would go on the sides of the gate. She asked the Commission what their concerns were regarding the drive gate. Commissioner Gregory stated that the small entry gate appeared supported by the columns on either side and it looked comfortable, however the driveway gate looked almost propped up. The larger gate didn't have the feeling of substance and was closer to the curb than the norm. He explained that if requesting an approval to the setback requirement the gate should be well constructed. Ms. Kobrin stated that when the gate was open the two panels on either side of the opening were equal so there was some symmetry in that aspect. She explained that she was trying to keep the lean horizontal quality to the gate because the architectural features of the house was a lot of horizontals. She stated that she would make some changes to the columns by making them more horizontal or linear and present a drawing to the Commission for their review. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans for the gate. Commissioner Gregory asked how much the gate was encroaching into the setback and Mr. Bagato stated that it was 2.5 feet. Mr. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 3 of 13 � ARCHITECTURAL REV� COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 Bagato stated that she might have spoken with Public Works who informed her that the right of way was 12 feet and she may have misunderstood. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if she had plans for additional fencing. The applicant felt that additional fencing would not be needed and explained that she had erected chain link fencing and ficus trees to create a solid impenetrable wall. Mr. Bagato stated that his initial concern was that the trees would screen the house so you wouldn't notice that the gate matched the house; it would just appear like it was sticking out of the shrubs. Ms. Kobrin stated that she would keep the shrubs trimmed at six feet because she wanted them more as a break in the front. Commissioner Gregory understood that she was trying to do something that was commensurate with the architectural design of the house. As mentioned earlier, as a way to get it approved, she would have to give it that special quality that would enable the Commission to make an easy decision. He indicated that the small entry gate was a good example because it looked structured. The larger gate just didn't look substantial. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with having a ficus fence at six feet high and asked how that would be policed. He appreciated the design effort of the gate, however to anchor it he suggested a composition of walls in front of the house. The applicant stated that she didn't want to put walls in front of the house because she wanted to have a sense of an oasis. Ms. Kobrin stated that she would develop another option and present at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant a continuance to allow applicant to submit another option. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 4 of 13 ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 3. CASE NO: MISC 07-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JACOB YOUSEF, 43960 Joshua Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a solid 9' combination retaining wall on a rear yard. LOCATION: 43-960 Joshua Road ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the City constructed an eight to nine foot retaining wall that comes all the way down adjacent to the existing neighborhoad. It then turns the corner about three to four feet further north and becomes a retaining combination wall. The photos presented show that on the wash side the wall is approximately four to five feet high, but from the inside it was six feet high. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant started construction without permits because of security reasons, and Staff recently received a letter from the neighbor directly to the north in opposition to the height because of the views. Mr. Jacob Yousef, applicant stated that Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has an access gate at that location, and from the top of the post it was only 10 inches from the top of the existing part of the old wall. The CVWD gate is not closed and kids going to and from school and transients travel that road at all times. He also stated that people throw trash in his yard and tease his dog on a daily basis. He also stated that he caught someone climbing over his wall by using the post as a step stool. Commissioner Hanson asked if according to the code you were allowed from the top of the highest property six feet above it. Mr. Stendell stated that they would allow combo walls up to a total of nine feet, but it specifies that the top two feet should be of an open material. This is where this would fit in, but it would still be fairly open from the wash side. Commissioner Hanson stated that from the wash property it was six feet which was a fairly normal thing between properties and allows someone privacy. Mr. Yousef stated that the land on the north side of his wall was about one and a half feet shorter than the land on G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 5 of 13 . ARCHITECTURAL REVIE'W COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 the far east side; the wash side. Mr. Stendell stated that what they would end up doing is asking for approval from both neighbors to get six feet. Commissioner Hanson stated that if there were people walking by the applicant should be allowed at least a six-foot high wall from the highest property to give him privacy and security. Mr. Stendell discussed taking the wall back a bit so that it wouldn't be so intrusive on the neighbor and indicated on the drawings where the old wall was and where it would be extended. The Commission reviewed the photos and discussed changes to the wall. Mr. Yousef stated that on the east end of the wall there was an electricity pole that goes down between the two houses with about a five to six foot separation where the manhole for the electric power and the main generator are located. The neighbor also has massive palm trees on her property that block her views. The Commission reviewed the photos showing the pole and trees. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if he had permits for the wall. Mr. Yousef answered that he didn't obtain permits because he misunderstood the information received from Staff. He thought that it was okay to go ahead and start the wall and then bring the plans in for review. Commissioner Van Vliet didn't think Building would issue a permit because of the footing size or steel for the wall. Mr. Stendell stated that Building had given the applicant the information he would need and if Commission approved the height exception the applicant would have to get a civil engineer to come out and review the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that starting the step down at twenty feet from the original step down seemed reasonable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to raising wall to six feet above the highest grade and stepping wall down at the CVWD service gate along the wash road. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007�AR070508.min.DOC Page 6 of 13 � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 4. CASE NO: MISC 07-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of parking design including walls and landscaping; Alessandro Alley. LOCATION: Alessandro Alley from Las Palmas to 300' east of Monterey ZONE: Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 07-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE VILLAGE GREEN OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, C/O J&W Management, P.O. Box 1398, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6' high block wall 7' from the curb. LOCATION: 45-411 —45-453 Sunrise ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that these were condominium units that were open on both sides and the garage/carport units were exposed to the street. Oleanders have been used to screen the property from the street, however they are now dying and there have been problems with rodents. There have also been issues with people coming into the complex. He expressed that this was a unique situation where the actual right of way for both streets was only five feet. If they intend to put in a five-foot sidewalk, there would be an impact on future landscaping with the wall being that close. If they were to get any kind of a wall around the perimeter, he felt there would have to be some compromises. He stated that there was currently a shed on the corner with some parking that they would G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutesl2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 7 of 13 � ARCHITECTURAL REVI�-'�111 COMMISSION '`� MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 be willing to lose a portion of. He thought that the only opportunity they would have to get the wall further back and around the corners would be to consider stepping it inside a little to create enough driveway lane and beef up the landscaping around the corners. Mr. Bagato stated that the Association had agreed to beef up the landscaping with desert materials to screen the block wall. In closing, he stated that the City typically doesn't like six-foot high walls that close to the street, but this was a unique circumstance and no one would be impacted. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans for the height of the walls and adding landscaping. Commissioner Gregory stated that there could be an opportunity to make an interesting wall and asked the applicant to submit a plan indicating how they intend to articulate the wall and how it would come together. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant a continuance to allow applicant to submit site plan and landscaping plans. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 6. CASE NO: SA 07-63 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE, 3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92637 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new signage to replace existing signage; First Team Real Estate. LOCATION: 72-171 Highway 111 ZONE: C-I Mr. Bagato stated that this request was for a new monument sign at this location, replacing the existing monument and changing the stone on the building to slate. This sign would include a water feature and matching slate from the building. Mr. Bagato asked the representative if this monument was the same length as the existing monument. Mr. Tridon Freelene, representative stated that it was slightly longer, but from the curbs edge it was still within the 11 foot setback. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007�AR070508.min.DOC Page 8 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 Commissioner Hanson recommended they make the sign a little less symmetrical since it appeared odd being that close to the windows and suggested reducing the length of the sign. Instead of having the water feature on both ends, she recommended having it only on the end closest to the street. She thought that having it on both ends would be irrelevant since it would be shoved up against the building and you wouldn't really see the water on the other end. Commission discussed the equipment for the water feature, landscaping and paint colors for the building. They requested that the applicant submit a color board, site plan and landscaping plans. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant a continuance subject to 1) reducing the length of the signage and removing one water feature; 2) submit site plan and color board for Staff review; and, 3) submit landscaping plan for review by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 7. CASE NO: MISC 06-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WEA PALM DESERT, LP, c/o Michael Turner, Westfield, LLC, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90025. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exterior remodel; Westfield Palm Desert LOCATION: 72-810 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2007�AR070508.min.DOC Page 9 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 8. CASE NO: C 06-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a multi-tenant building for Pad 20; Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-240 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. NOTE: Mr. Bagato presented Case C 06-07 PetSmart Store, which he requested to be added to the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to add this item to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 9. CASE NO: C 06-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORP., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a PetSmart Store. LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007�,4R070508.min.DOC Page 10 of 13 � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 06-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICK YANG, 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, CA 91776 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised plans for a four (4) story hotel, 88-unit hotel with restaurant and related amenities; Candlewood Hotel. LOCATION: 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Michael Song, Architect, stated that they made the changes suggested by the Commission at the last meeting and created additional horizontal elements. They also made smaller elements instead of repeating vertical elements and continued with the desert scape colors and introduced different materials. Mr. Stendell stated that the elevations looked good and felt that they were headed in the right direction, however while reviewing the plans he noticed that there were things on the elevations that could not be picked up on the roof plan and he informed Mr. Song that the details had to match. He also stated that it appeared that there were depth issues as well. Mr. Song explained that they wanted the Commission to check elevations and then they would go back and match the roof plan. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations looked good and it would require a lot of depth because they are big masses and would not be able to do it with six or eight inch offsets; it would take several feet of offsets. Mr. Song indicated that the Commission would see the depth in the revised roof plan. Commission reviewed and discussed the elevations and depth and stated that it should look like a mass and not a faCade. Mr. Stendell stated that the other concern the Commission had was that by building out they were losing valuable landscape area, which they didn't have in the first place. So this was something that the applicants would have to really work on. He stated that they needed to submit a new landscape plan and mentioned that Staff G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 11 of 13 � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 has had meetings with their landscape architect. They understand the direction Staff wants to go, but there is just not a lot of landscape area on this site and thickening up the building doesn't help. Mr. Song stated that they would be losing space in the building rather than the footprint. Mr. Stendell also stated that they wanted to see where the utilities would interact on this site because that would take away from landscape as well. Commissioner Gregory stated that the cupola on the hotel and restaurant didn't appear to be in proportion. It was recommended to extend the roof on the hotel tower and increase the width of the restaurant tower. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the same thing was happening with some of the parapeted elements on the restaurants and hotel, not just the pitched tile roof elements. There are pieces that are coming up higher and they don't return very far. He suggested using the 2/3's rule, i.e., if it's 21 feet wide it has to be a minimum of 14 feet deep. He also suggested going 1:1 on the tile roof so they wouldn't be changing the pitches to get the points on them. Commissioner Gregory stated that they have been successful in getting the large building to have the feeling of horizontality, but the smaller building still looked like they were fighting with the vertical aspect and it needed to pick up more queues from the larger building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it needed to be more asymmetrical. Commissioner Hanson wanted to express that the Commission was happy with the hotel and a little more work was needed on the restaurant to make it have more of the asymmetry that was created in the hotel with the massing. Commissioner Vuksic stated not just the asymmetry, but to simplify the masses making it not look so vertically stretched. He also asked them to provide details showing their intention for recessed windows. Ms. Diane Hollinger stated that a utility plan was needed to see where the fire hydrants, water meters, Edison vaults, etc., would be located, so that landscaping is not lost when the buildings have been built. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 12 of 13 � � ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � . MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant a continuance to allow applicant to: 1) submit roof plans consistent with hotel and restaurant floor plans; 2) extend roof on hotel tower and increase the width of restaurant tower; 3) make restaurant more asymmetrical and simplify the masses; and, 4) submit landscaping plans for review by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. TONY BAGATO ACTING PRWCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes\2007WR070508.min.DOC Page 13 of 13