The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-04-22 4 �'� � t / •� � � CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES April 22, 2008 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 Kristi Hanson X 6 2 Chris Van Vliet X 8 John Vuksic X 7 1 Karel Lambell X 7 1 Nancy DeLuna X 7 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic., to approve the April 8, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carri�d 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: , ARCHITECTURAL RE�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 08-170 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program; Desert Arches Business Center. LOCATION: 75-178 Gerald Ford, Bldg A&B ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell presented and summarized the project. Staff was okay with the location and size of the signs; however there is an issue with the free standing tenant directional sign because it looked a lot like a monument sign. Staff wanted to make sure that if it is an interior tenant directory sign that it be moved to the interior where that type of sign is typically found. Once it is interior, the sign code allows staff to approve such signs. Staff recommended approval with relocating the interior directional sign to a more interior location. The Representative from Sign-A-Rama stated that there weren't a lot of choices on the interior to relocate the sign. He explained that this is a very small complex and moving the sign to the interior would defeat the purpose of a directional sign. The Commission reviewed and discussed the location, size, and the purpose of the directional sign. Mr. Stendell stated that the municipal code doesn't allow nine tenants on a monument sign and since the arch says Desert Arches Business Center the public would know where to go. If the applicant feels that an interior directional sign was warranted, we would require that they talk with our landscape specialist about a landscaped area for the sign. The Representative stated that if the Commission was agreeable with the directory then they would be willing to move the sign to an interior planter to make it simpler. The Commission reviewed and discussed the large signage on the back side of the buildings. They were concerned that it was duplicating the signage that was all part of the same units; front and G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008�AR080422.min.doc Page 2 of 11 , ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 back. They felt that it was there more for advertising. The representative stated that it wasn't just for advertising, but also for the people who are not going inside the center itself and are going around the back to the roll up doors to the identified suite number. He also stated that some of the businesses use their warehouse with the roll up doors as their main entrance. The Commission felt that the signage was too large and too high on the building. They recommended the signage be pedestrian oriented as opposed to being all the way at the top and that it appear near the door. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant a continuance subject to relocating the external directory sign to the interior and reducing and lowering the signage facing Interstate 10, as discussed by the Commission. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 08-173 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARTELUCE ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES, 36 East 25 Street, New York, NY 10010 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront and signage: Burberry. LOCATION: 73-061 EI Paseo Suites 6 & 7 ZONE: C1 SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant an approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: PP 07-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOB & MARILYN FORD, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new 2,486 square foot two story office building. LOCATION: 73-061 EI Paseo Suites 6 & 7 ZONE: OP G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minules�2008�AR080422.min.doc Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant an approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO: MISC 08-118 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FLORA WILHELMI, 72-646 Skyward Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of to replace existing wood fence with a 6'0" high block wall located 10 feet from curb, requiring setback exception. LOCATION: 72-636 Skyward Way ZONE: R-1 10,000 Ms. Schrader presented and summarized the project. She stated that this six foot high wall has already been built on the Skyward Way side and has a four foot landscape parkway in front of it. This particular address operates as an assisted senior living home with a pool eleven feet from the wall in the front setback of the home. For them to have moved the wall closer to the pool might have been a little more difficult. An existing wood fence and an oleander hedge were removed along the Skyward Way frontage and the stucco wall was constructed providing security and privacy to the residents of the assisted living home. The wall on the frontage road side would be ten feet from the curb. The required setback would be fifteen feet. The wall on the Skyward Way side is constructed four feet from the curb and the required setback would be twenty feet. The appearance of the wall is an improvement and is compatible with its surroundings. Neighbors have written letters in favor of the wall. Adjacent neighbors in a complete radius surrounding the property have been notified of the Architectural Commission hearing and no negative responses received as of time of this meeting. She stated that Staff recommends approval and mentioned that it is not visible from Highway 74. Commissioner DeLuna asked if approval of this would set a precedent in this neighborhood. Ms. Schrader stated that this was an unusual situation as the pool and the patio are in the front setback and so close to Skyward Way. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there weren't any other properties like this one. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080422.min.doc Page 4 of 11 , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 The Commission reviewed the area between the wall and the house and questioned why the applicant couldn't have moved the wall back further. Ms. Schrader stated that the angle of the property was the problem. � The Commission reviewed and discussed the location of the new wall and an old existing wall and stated that the applicant could have moved the wall back and relocated the pool equipment. They requested that the applicant submit a more accurate drawing. Commissioner Hanson wondered if they couldn't come in a certain distance, leaving it where it is because it does break up nicely and then stepping it in; taking two panels out and then coming over. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested jogging the wall out to the pool equipment area, coming back a little bit and then going down. The Commission reviewed the area between the inside of the wall and the decking of the pool. They calculated that there was fifteen feet from the pool to the curb, so the wall could be twelve feet back from the curb, and still allow for landscape around the pool. It was suggested that the applicant work with staff to redesign the plans and bring it back for review. It was also suggested that they submit a landscape plan for review by the Landscape Specialist. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development addressed the applicants concern regarding a letter he received regarding obtaining permits. She stated that it was not unusual for a permit to be issued after the fact, it does happen when people construct without a permit. A permit is issued after the fact if the project would have been permitted had it gone through all the review channels first. If somebody comes in with a project that has the proper setbacks and the proper elevations, then we take them through the approval process and it does get approved and a building permit is issued. But if you come with a project that has already been constructed that is not something that would ordinarily be permitted, you go through a review process as if it had never been constructed and you only get a permit if it is something that would have been permitted. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008�AR080422.min.doc Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant a continuance subject to: 1) working with staff to revise wall and bring back to ARC for review; and, 2) submit a landscape plan for review. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO: SA 08-152 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS : SWAIN SIGN INC/GARY REZAC, 1384 E. 5 Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument sign: 76 Gas Station. LOCATION: 73-801 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. Staff feels that the monument sign doesn't incorporate the architecture of the building and that if approved that it be subject to the addition of stucco or stone at the aluminum base to incorporate the building architecture. The Commission reviewed photos of the building and recommended the addition of stone on the aluminum base in a color to match the stone on the side of the building which faces the Highway 111. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant an approval subject to the addition of stone at the base of the monument to match the building color on Highway 111 side. Motion carried 6-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P,RC Minutes�2008WR080422.min.doc Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, adding Case No. PP 07-08 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. CASE NO: PP 07-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): UNIVERSITY OFFICE PARK, LLC, GREG SHANNON, 74-596 Peppertree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 25,000 square foot one-story building. LOCATION: 75-072, 75-060, 75-108, 75-120 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD FCOZ Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant an approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-161 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRY WEINER, 73-670 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of fa�ade remodel to EI Paseo side of building: Leed's and Son. LOCATION: 73-670 EI Paseo ZONE: C1 SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, •to grant an approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008\AR080422.min.doc Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 2. CASE NO: MISC 08-111 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PET DRx CORPORATION DBA ELDORADO ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 215 Centerview Drive Suite 360, Brentwood, TN 37027 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a fa�ade enhancement and interior renovation of existing facility: Eldorado Animal Hospital. LOCATION: 74-320 Highway 111 ZONE: C.1 SP Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. This was continued from a previous ARC meeting where it was recommended that the applicant define the building style; use simpler, stronger elements; have stronger end caps; and submittal of a roof plan. The architect was in attendance to discuss the changes with the Commission. Mr. Randall Dover, Architect, indicated that they tried to go from some of the detailing they had before, which was the coping that the Commission felt was too classical and not quite right for the desert, to something that was more in line with the desert. He indicated that they changed the windows and the massing at the entry at either end; pilasters have been extended out from the building a little ways to add more depth across the front with a little more recess to the windows; they kept the stone at the bottom of the building to tie the front to the side to the back a little better; and they kept the windows from going all the way to the ground, except in the entry area. He reminded the Commission that the tenant is doing this for someone else's building and this is where they would like it to go. The Commission reviewed and discussed the roofing plan. Commissioner Vuksic was still concerned with how massive the element still was. Mr. Dover stated that what they were trying to do was to keep it up high enough to tie in cleanly to the roof behind it. They discussed the roof drainage and how it would run off the sides of the building and maintaining the runoff onsite. Mr. Dover stated that they will try to minimize it a bit and have it drain to the back. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080422.min.doc Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant an approval subject to landscape review by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: DA/PP/CUP 08-50 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD INVESTMENT GROUP INC., 3991 MacArthur Blvd. #340, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval to develop and construct 20 studio "senior citizen" apartments. LOCATION: 73-582 Catalina Way ZONE: R3 SO Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. This plan will eventually go for a conditional use permit to Planning Commission and to the Council. He indicated that the applicant had to change the site plan because they had only one entrance and the Fire Department wanted them to have two. The architect was in attendance to discuss the project with the Commission. Mr. Ken Bernard, Developer, stated that the only change that has been made from the previous plans, which were approved several years ago, was the addition of the elevator. The Commission reviewed and discussed the roof height, access to the roof, the safety of the roof ladder, the parapet heights, and the screening of the mechanical equipment. The Commission was concerned with the height of the ladder and suggested making the vertical element taller. They were also concerned with the mechanicals being visible from the second floors of neighboring properties and requested that the equipment be below the top of the parapet. Commissioner Vuksic felt that the architecture was marginal and expressed that if details like having units not properly screened or that are visible, then it's not an acceptable project. He stated that the Commission had to be comfortable with that aspect of the project. He indicated that they may have to extend the height of the parapets to cover the mechanicals. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080422.min.doc Page 9 of 11 , ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 Commissioner DeLuna felt that it didn't have a lot of relief and appeared almost like a railroad car; a motel more or less. Mr. Bernard stated that each unit was set back five feet from the other one. The Commission discussed the windows on the units and suggested having more attention to detail; more stonework and more interest. Commissioner Hanson discussed the plans with the architect, Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, and made several suggestions. The Commission reviewed what appeared to be little windows with glass block. Mr. Gonzalez indicated that they were foam punch-outs. Commissioner Hanson suggested that it be glass block so that there could be natural light coming into the closet area. Mr. Bernard discussed keeping the cost down on the units because these were affordable senior apartments. Commissioner Gregory stated that if they were going to have the pop outs that it be something that would have a feeling of purpose to it. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the floor plan with the applicant and stated that with the staggered floor plan each of these boxes were on their own to some extent, as far as shear; so you may need some of those walls to give you that shear resistance. Mr. Bernard stated that these were 600 square foot units with only 24 feet of wall and only eight feet of wall that is not sheared. Every other wall is double sheered in order for all of this to be structurally sound. Commissioner Vuksic stated they would have to have an understanding of what they would be getting into structurally to keep things economical. The challenge is trying to take the same basic materials and things, and arranging them in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant a continuance subject to comments made by the Commission. Motion carried 6-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minute5�2008�,4R080422.min.doc Page 10 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL RE'�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES APRIL 22, 2008 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. ;. -� -� -y;,' ` ��,.��`._:,- . , , ,, , �� f RYA ENDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minute5�2008WR080422.min.doc Page 11 of 11