Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-08 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 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 12 1 Kristi Hanson X 8 5 Chris Van Vliet X 13 John Vuksic X 12 1 Karel Lambell X 12 1 Nancy DeLuna X 11 2 Pam Touschner X 4 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 24, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the June 24 8, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LONGS DRUGS c/o Renata Tyler, 141 North Civic Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Longs Drugs. LOCATION: 74517 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion; does not include landscape or signage approval, and staff to review and approve interior lighting in floor space. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: TT 34943 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EAGLE 6.5 LLC, Attn: Kris Schulze, 84-001 Reserve Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of residential guidelines for 6 custom home sites to be located with Stone Eagle Development as part of a Tentative Tract Map 34943. LOCATION: 74-001 Reserve Drive ZONE: H.P.R.D. Mr. Bagato summarized the project. The applicant is seeking approval of residential design guidelines and landscape for custom home lots in the Stone Eagle Estates; which are located south of the existing Stone Eagle development. Six of these new lots are on the hillside and would have to go through Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that there has been some discussion whether or not they are on a ridgeline. They are proposing a 26- foot height limit which was approved for 19 homes of the existing GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 2 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 Stone Eagle. He had some concerns with approving these custom lots as a blanket without knowing case by case what they would look like. Otherwise, he felt that the material and colors presented were consistent with the Stone Eagle development. Mr. Kris Schultz, representative, stated that this was based on an extension of Stone Eagle. A tentative tract map in 1990 was approved on the same 7.7 acres for four lots and that map has subsequently expired. They basically modified that map and created six lots and incorporated that into their development agreement. These are custom home lots and may be sold on an individual case by case basis. So each property owner would have to come in with their own architectural drawings. They wanted to prepare a set of custom home guidelines that each individual owner would follow which will very closely follow the existing architectural, color scheme, and roof scheme that currently exists at Stone Eagle. He felt that they did a great job blending those units into the hillside with the colors, earth tones and tile height. Commissioner Del-una was concerned about giving a blanket approval without being able to control it on a case by case basis. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if these homes would come back through Architectural Review (ARC) on an individual basis. Mr. Bagato answered that the applicant's intent was to get approval today and not have to come back through the commission. He stated that since most homes in the City were 18 feet the Commission could recommend approval at 18 feet and attach a clause that a height of 26 feet may be approved subject to ARC approval and those homes would come back on a case by case basis. Commissioner Vuksic asked if homes over 18 feet at Big Horn come through ARC. Mr. Bagato stated that if they were on the hillside they would come through. The lots are approved at 20 feet, but anything over 18 has to come through. Some of the higher lots or lots on the canyon side that are in the hillside zone would have to go to Council because they can be seen off the property; same as the lots in Stone Eagle. Commissioner Touschner stated that it would be consistent by treating the two developments the same. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 3 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Schultz how large do they anticipate the homes to be on the custom lots. Mr. Schultz stated that their guidelines have a 3,000 square foot minimum and the pads are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the reason he was asking was because it would be very difficult to make them only 18 feet tall and compose the masses properly. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to limiting the height to 18 feet with approval up to 26 feet on an individual case by case basis. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 08-258 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of single-side illuminated cabinet monument; American Mini Storage. LOCATION: 39-700 Garand ZONE: S.I. FCOZ Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. He stated that the building frontage for the elevation is 50 linear feet, allowing the applicant 50 square feet of sign area. The applicant is proposing 37 square feet of sign area that will incorporate an existing raceway that will be painted to match the building. The proposed sign consist of two lines with the first line "American Mini" with lettering height of 15.5", and the second line "Storage" with lettering height of 18". The sign is internally illuminated acrylic faced individual channel letters, with red faces and trim. He also stated that the monument sign meets the development standards and staff worked with the applicant to beef up and thicken the top. However, staff feels that the cabinet should be thickened a little more. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 4 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION tire MINUTES July 8, 2008 Mr. John Calhoun, Sign-A-Rama, stated that the raceway is basically a box to hold the letters up against the wall. They would only be replacing "American Mini" and "Storage" would basically remain the same size. He felt that if they put a larger raceway it would look like a giant box with the letters looking like they were stuck up against it. He stated that the raceway will be painted the same color as the building. The Commission reviewed and discussed the raceway. They expressed concern that the letters looked tacked on and stated that the sign needs to look like it is supposed to be there as opposed to just being tacked on. They recommended taking a look at the architecture of the building and incorporate something from that to make it interesting. They also suggested not filling up the entire space up towards the eaves with the raceway. Mr. Ed Landen, Sign-A-Rama stated that they were just trying to keep it as simple as possible by using the existing raceway without having to rebuild a whole new one for the client. The Commission asked if the American Flag on the monument sign was illuminated and Mr. Landen indicated that it was and said that wherever there is color it would be illuminated; the American flag, "American Mini Storage", and the address. He described how the sign would be designed and would be internally illuminated sign with push through lettering. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign needed to look like it belonged to the building and suggested giving the sign a little more meat and more identity by taking advantage of the arch detail of the building and create a nice border for a simple sign. He presented a sketch of his ideas to the representative. Mr. Swartz stated that the monument sign was in a landscaped area and mentioned that any landscaping that is removed will have to be replaced and get it approved by the Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Touschner had some comments about the color of the signs. She stated that the monument sign has two colors; blue and red, and the sign on the building is all red. She questioned why they were not treated the same. The applicant answered that both signs had the corporate logos and explained that for plain building signage they use the simple red "American Mini" signage, but for a monument sign they typically like to spruce it up with the American flag and mix up the color scheme which varies from region to region. &TIanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 5 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RMEW COMMISSION Nr.r' MINUTES July 8, 2008 The Commission also recommended that the frame on the monument sign be a stucco texture. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue subject to: 1) raceway to be designed to correspond to the architecture of the building; and 2) redesign the monument sign to correspond to the architecture of the building with a textured finish on the base. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO: SA 08-260 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: 75-189 Gerald Ford, Bldg A & B ZONE: PCD Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that the applicant is requesting reconsideration for signage located on the rear of the building facing the freeway. The applicant is proposing that each sign is two feet tall and twelve feet long, non-illuminated with two-inch thick foam; painted colors optional. On May 16, 2008 the Architecture Review Committee (ARC) denied the applicant's request allowing signage viewable from the freeway. The Commission granted approval for the Sign Program subject to relocating tenant signs to the side of the man door and constrained to fit into the space six inches on either side no higher than the man door. The applicant argued that the signs were reduced from 24 inches to 12 inches, but the Commissioner's didn't want signs facing the freeway. However, they didn't mind that there were some identification signs next to the doors. The Commissioner's also stated that the signs should be oriented towards someone in their car or truck in the parking lot and not from the freeway. Currently the City has existing signs facing the freeway that have been permitted and the applicant is making the case that the proposed signs would be smaller. Staff agrees with the applicant that other businesses have signs facing the freeway and would request that the ARC take that into consideration. G1Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES July 8, 2008 Mr. Ed Landen, Sign-A-Rama, stated that the biggest discussion from the last meeting was that they had proposed to put a directive sign outside the entry; which has now been moved to the inside. They had asked for 24 inches in height, two lines with a maximum letter height of 14 inches on the front of the building and on the backside they were asking for 24-inch by 12 feet just like most of the buildings that have a visibly from Interstate-10 (1-10). The intent was to have people see the signs on the back of the building from I- 10, just as several other developments have in that area. The Commission reviewed the photos submitted by Mr. Landen showing the signage on other buildings in that area. They asked the representative about the size of the lettering. Mr. Landen stated that the lettering would be a maximum of two feet tall. Commissioner The Commission reviewed the photos of the surrounding developments and discussed the size and lengths of those signs. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she couldn't see a compelling reason to reverse the decision that was made previously by the Commission. At the time of the first submittal, the Commission turned down twelve inches and now the applicant is requesting the possibility of twice the letter height. Mr. Landen stated that unfortunately the first submittal was not presented properly and stated that the purpose of the signage would be for visibility from the freeway. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the Commission wasn't opposed to signage in the back, but they are trying to prevent clutter; where every sign is different and junks up the entire area. Mr. Landen again referred the Commission to the photos he presented showing signs from the surrounding buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated that overall she didn't see the need for all the signage visible from the freeway. Mr. Landen stated that the business owners in this day and age are trying every which way to get clients into their stores and signage is needed. At the time that sales started going down, the City told all the developments to remove their flags and take down the banners. He stated that when people go to look for a new home they look for flags or banners to guide them, but the City took them all down. He felt that we need to do something to let people make a living and right now that is hard to do. Mr. Bagato stated that from a general standpoint you can't blame a city for a decline in sales and mentioned the subprime mortgages. He also mentioned that there GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR080708.min.doc Page 7 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 is a lot of square footage in inventory out there for people to choose from and giving people bigger and brighter signs that destroy the architecture is not in the City's best interest. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there should be some kind of standard where they wouldn't allow a sign every thirty feet on a building because it would look overwhelming, you lose the intent of the signage and the building becomes a billboard. Mr. Landen stated that the building on the back side has the same footage as the front and they are allowed to place signage every thirty feet on the front for each tenant; one sign for each street side per code. The Commission asked if they can regulate the number of signs. Mr. Bagato explained to the Commission that the buildings are allowed by code to have signs on the frontage, but the City can regulate where they go and how big they are. Commissioner Van Vliet made a motion to deny based on the fact that the signage is a maximum 24-inch in height and a maximum of 12 feet in length, that it will clutter the building and hurt the architecture. If the applicant wants to put in lower man door signage that would be fine. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to deny request for rear building signs facing the freeway due to size and cluttering; recommended lowering signage closer to the man doors. Motion 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO: CUP 08-266 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC, 12900 Park Plaza Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wireless mono-palm. LOCATION: 76002 Honeysuckle ZONE: PR-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 8 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *40� MINUTES July 8, 2008 6. CASE NO: SA 08-249 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: Pointe Monterey LOCATION: 34-100 to 34-500 Gateway Drive ZONE: S.I Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue per applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 08-241 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RON HENDERSON & MICHAEL JOHNSTON, 73708 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of conversion of an existing single family structure to an office building: Farmer's Insurance Building. LOCATION: 74-426 Alessandro ZONE: R3 (4) Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval to convert an existing single family resident into an office building for Farmers Insurance. The R-3 zone allows professional offices, provided property to be developed is abutting or across the street, or across an alley from commercially zoned property subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed height would not adversely impact neighboring properties since the roof is a rectilinear flat roof. The existing home incorporated some rock and staff would like to see the building GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 9 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 incorporate stone or river rock. Final landscape plans have not been reviewed by the City's landscape specialist and would require final approval prior to resolving the overall design of the new structures. Mr. Michael Johnston, applicant, stated that he and his partner Mr. Ron Henderson will be merging agencies and will need a larger office. They had considered tearing the building down, but then their architect came up with an idea to remodel with a desert contemporary design. He feels that remodeling this building would be an asset to the area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the HVAC equipment would be located. Mr. Johnston answered that there would be regular A/C units with the FAUs inside the building and the equipment would be on a corner of the roof with the duct work located in the ceiling. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the flat roof sections and if there would be a parapet. Mr. Johnston stated that there would be a 30-inch parapet. He indicated that the existing roof will stay and a wall would be placed around it. The Commission reviewed the roof plan and discussed the HVAC unit. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it would be very noisy in the office because the A/C units would be in the closets; one being in a closet with a louvered door. He asked that the applicants take that into consideration and suggested that they position those closets where they can have the doors on the outside and double frame the walls. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked their idea for the remodel and thought the site plan of the existing house looked really interesting. However, he felt that the proposed design needs to be better. He didn't want to get in depth critiquing it and wanted to keep it pretty general. He stated that the forms were a little clunky and the windows could become more of an integral part of the architecture. Right now the drawings are inconsistent and hard to follow and the roof plan was hard to read. Some of the forms don't go back very far onto the existing roof and are open on the back side. They need to look like completed forms. He suggested that the applicants take a look around at some of the better buildings in the area that have the desert contemporary design and look at how the components are put together. He felt that they could do it better without having to spend more money. He said that the next GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 10 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RETi'IEW COMMISSION r.r� MINUTES July 8, 2008 submittal should be a package that reads easily and is consistent. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the plans and changes with the applicant and made suggestions on what could be done. He again stated that he liked the idea and that it was great that they were doing this. Mr. Skip Lynch, Architect, stated that this building is a masonry building which causes some problems from a cost standpoint. They were trying to improve the building to some extent and avoid having to tear it down completely. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to take what they have and enhance it a little more effectively. Commissioner Touschner added that they could look at layering color on top of it. The color of this building currently adds to the construction imperfection. She suggested using color as an accent. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to continue subject to: 1) enhancing the windows to be an integral part of the architecture; 2) use colors that work together to accent; and 3) review contemporary buildings in the city as a reference. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: PP/TPM 08-191 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUNDSTROM & ASSOCIATES, 1764 San Diego Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92110 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural design for 144 affordable apartment units. LOCATION: 73-500 35th Avenue ZONE: PCD Ms. Schrader presented the project and summarized the staff report. Architectural design approval for the construction of 144 affordable units, amenities and landscape would allow the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to recommend that the applicant proceed with the request before the Planning Commission for the subdivision of lots on a Tentative Parcel Map and Precise GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008 AR080708.min.doc Page 11 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 Plan for the housing development on Lot 2 and future Childcare site on Lot 1. This affordable housing project needs to have at least 144 units for it to be fully funded so density is a part of the presentation and would need to stay that density in order for it to move forward. Mr. Mark Irving, Urban Housing Communities, LLC, stated that they initially met with staff in January 2008 which got them on their way to develop the site as well as the architecture. In late May, they met up with Staff again to review the site plan. He stated that the site itself is a little over ten acres; not including the day care. The zoning is a higher density but between the slopes on the site and the fact that it is important to have open space is why they are at a density of 144 units on the site. He stated that they understand that the City would like to see more in terms of the density, but in terms of arranging it and getting the parking that they have on the site was why there are 144 units. In terms of the landscaping, they were given a lot of insight and helpful information from the initial meeting. He indicated that they do have working drawings on the plant pallets. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the grade changes from building to building. Mr. David Dietterle, Lundstrom and Associates, explained how they were addressing that and stated that the site would actually step its way down and across. He indicated that the landscape specialist has tried to make extensive use on the sloped area with a desert pallet to try and soften those slopes to make it look as natural as possible. Commissioner Touschner stated that because it is so flat and horizontal she would like to see a site section to add a little more dimension to the project. She hoped that they would keep the amount of trees shown on the plans to help add texture and depth. Mr. Irving stated that the number of trees and shrubs shown would be what they would be coming in with in terms of their construction documents. Commissioner Touschner asked how someone would move across their site. Mr. Irving stated they could walk from one side of the project to the other by walkways. However, because of the slopes you would have to take a long way around. He also indicated that there would be some stairways. Commissioner Touschner also had a concern with the entrances to the buildings and stated that they were hidden. She felt that there wasn't anything to celebrate GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\NR080708.min.doc Page 12 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION `rrr MINUTES July 8, 2008 those entrances and suggested that there be something to focus on the entry. Commissioner Hanson suggested a metal trellis element at the entrances that might create the portico into the entry way. Commissioner Hanson had a concern with the 175-foot roof and thought there may be something to mitigate it. She suggested doing a half step in the building to break it up. Mr. Irving stated that by breaking it up they probably would lose density on the site. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wasn't suggesting to break the buildings apart just for them to change the grade between the two. The Commission and the applicants discussed the length of the roof and the grading issues. The Commission reviewed and discussed the mechanical units and the air conditioning units on the buildings. Mr. Irving stated that the air conditioning units would be located outside and the heating units would be located in the ceilings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the style of the building was fine but felt that it was too stripped down and suggested incorporating some of the details from the recreation building into the other buildings. The Commission discussed shading and suggested a shading study. Mr. Keith Labus, KTGY Group, Inc. felt that they could take care of this issue by using dual-paned windows and shades on the inside to take care of the heat. Commissioner Hanson stated that the summertime heat impact on the south facing buildings is a big deal and the heat will transfer its way through, whether you have a shade or not. Commissioner Touschner asked if there was some connection between this community and the future day care center. Mr. Dietterle stated that at this point they have just shown a sidewalk pathway that terminates right at the fence of the daycare. More than likely there will be a gate for the residents that will allow them to come into the day care facility. Commissioner Touschner suggested whether they are parents or not you would want them to come in on the public side of the building verses the private side. The playground should be the private safe zone and you would really want to control that area. If there is a gate there, then it should be locked. She suggested moving the gate down. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 13 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2008 Commissioner Vuksic stated that their floor plan didn't show the offsets that appear to be in the elevations. He and the applicant discussed the front rear elevation and the wainscot on the building. Commissioner Hanson suggested color blocking the buildings to give them some identity and to break them up. Commissioner Touschner encouraged the applicants that the sign mimic and be an extension of the architecture. The Commission discussed the electric meters and the air conditioning condenser locations. Mr. Bagato stated that the Landscape Specialist would need a copy of the revised site plan to match the landscape plan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to continue with Commission's comments. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes\2008\AR080708.min.doc Page 14 of 14