Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-28 i= ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES October 28, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 16 4 Kristi Hanson X 14 6 Chris Van Vliet X 20 John Vuksic X 18 2 Karel Lambell X 18 2 Nancy DeLuna X 18 2 Pam Touschner X 9 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Hart Ponder, Manager, Code Compliance Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 14, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the October 14, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REV*W COMMISSION *40# MINUTES October 28, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-391 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GERALD C. RUPP, 249 Shepard Lane, Bishop, CA 93514 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a wood fence replacement on a side yard. LOCATION: 43-625 Buena Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was continued from the last meeting to allow the City to notify the neighbors per code. He presented photos of the new wooden fence and the neighbor's existing fence. The applicant had an old wood fence in need of repair so it was taken down not realizing that he needed a permit. Mr. Gerald Rupp, applicant, stated that what predicated this was the maintenance of the easement on the backside of the property. He stated that since he has managed the property he has always maintained and cleaned the easement, whether he was notified to do so or not. He was recently notified by Mr. Mike Adkins, Code Officer that he and his neighbor in the back needed to clean and maintain the rear easement. Mr. Adkins informed the applicant that the neighbor indicated that it wasn't her property and that she was not going to take care of it and the officer suggested that they extend the fence to the neighbor's fence so that the easement would now be in the backyard and easily maintained. He stated that there are five houses in that area that has their fencing going all the way through to the adjoining property. Mr. Rupp explained that while cleaning the area, he realized that the 20 to 30 year old fence needed to be repaired so he tried repairing the fence and it literally fell apart. At that point, he made the decision to replace it and put in a brand new fence that adjoins the neighbor's fence. After notification that he should have obtained a permit and was required to put up a block wall they received a bid of $9,000 to $10,000. He said that the owner would not spend that amount of money to put up a block wall when it's not new construction. He stated there were a couple of other neighbors that have been notified of their non-conforming fences and that they have been given violations, but the violations have GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION ``'ool MINUTES October 28, 2008 not solved the problems. He took it upon himself to improve the property to make it look good and make it safe for the tenants in the property, and put something there that adds value to the City and to the owner of the house. He felt that this was a win-win situation for everyone and if he is required to tear it down and put in a block wall he stated that he would put the old fence back up and do some minor repairs with new posts. Mr. Rupp stated that in reference to the easement, he did not intend to take anyone's property and if necessary they will put the fence back up and leave five feet in there for someone to maintain. He expressed that if that were the case, then he feels that there should be equal participation in the maintenance of the easement. He pointed out that the fence blends in with the neighbor's fence and the community and directed the Committee to take a look at the photos of the easements in that area. He referred to the city code of having a twenty foot setback and said that if they have five feet from the curb to the fence and nine feet from the fence to the house they would be behind the house. He asked the Committee to consider his request for an exception. Ms. Sharon Hammons, neighbor, stated that she has resided at 43610 Buena Circle since 1964 and recited her deed to the Committee that explains the easement behind her house. She stated that she never had to maintain the easement and didn't know if it was the City or the power companies that were maintaining it. At one point, she was told that she couldn't fill in that easement with a fence because it belonged to the power company. She stated that she didn't want to cause problems with the neighbors but she feels that it should not be legal for them to use her back fence as their back fence. It is her understanding that this is an easement issue and that the power companies need to have access to the power pole. She stated that no one in the neighborhood followed the letter of the law except her. She also stated that if she had known that a part of the property was hers she would have taken care of it, but thought that per the deed it was a public easement and not under her control. Mr. Bagato stated that these were two separate issues and that the Architectural Review Commission is only looking at the fence material and the setbacks on the street side. The easement is something that will be discussed with the applicant and Ms. Hammons. An easement is still someone's property and the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property and any debris. The City will have to clarify whose property it belongs to and then discussed outside this environment. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REV V COMMISSION * AO MINUTES October 28, 2008 Commissioner Hanson clarified that the Commission is not addressing where the wall is on the backside of the property, they were only concerned with the street side. Ms. Hammons stated that she hoped someone can work with her because she will go to court over this if it is her property. Mr. Bagato stated that they had to do more research outside this environment. Commissioner DeLuna asked Mr. Rupp that if he had been aware that a permit was needed and was told that a block wall was required, would he have changed the fence. Mr. Rupp answered that he would have just repaired the fence. He stated that in reference to the fence that separated the five feet he removed that at the request of the code officer because the officer said that if they were going to maintain it then it may as well be inside. He said that the officer came by several times during the construction of the fence but it wasn't until it was completed that the officer asked if he had a permit. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that he drove around the neighborhood and wood fences are still pretty common. Commissioner Hanson didn't see an issue with the wood fence particularly in that neighborhood and said that it is certainly a much nicer version of a fence than what was there. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it aligns with the neighbor's fence with the same material and if they were to put a block wall in that location it would look funny having two dissimilar materials in the same plane. Ms. Hammons stated that this neighborhood was a lower, middle class neighborhood and it's ridiculous to talk about putting up block walls. This is a very old neighborhood and the wood fences look nice. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to grant approval of a wood fence, reduction of street side setback and applicant to pull building permit. The issue of the rear easement will be handled separately. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION **moll MINUTES October 28, 2008 2. CASE NO: MISC 08-244 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RED CARPET CARWASH, 44- 440 Town Center Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new monument sign and repainting of exterior building; Red Carpet Carwash. LOCATION: 44-440 Town Center Way ZONE: PC 3 SP Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was a modification to the monument sign and color for the building. He presented a color sample of White Pine for the monument sign and for the building. He indicated that the letters will be routed out and the red letters will be illuminated, but not the background. He stated that staff is recommending approval and said that this is an improvement to what they currently have. The Commission reviewed and discussed the metallic material at the edge of the sign and recommended that it be a bronze color. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to grant approval subject to bronze color on pillars and the color White Pine on exterior building and signage. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 08-282 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FREDDIE DIAZ LANDSCAPE, 80-360 Ave 43, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a six-foot high tan slump block wall and a six-foot wide wrought iron gate; 13 feet from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-151 Balsam Lane ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting an exception to the setback for a slump block wall, wrought iron gate and thirteen feet from face of curb. Photos of the neighbor's seven-foot high slump block wall were presented as requested at the last meeting. The Commission also asked for a GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\N Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REV(t* COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2008 landscape plan at the last meeting, but it was not submitted at this time. The Commission reviewed and discussed the setback issue of six feet high setback twenty feet from curb. Commissioner Hanson expressed her concern regarding the setbacks for homes that are on a corner lot and felt that this was an undue hardship. She stated that the house is setback twenty feet so how could they set the wall back twenty feet; they would lose half their yard and be penalized on two sides. Commissioner Vuksic felt that would be a reason to approve it because the neighbor has the exact same condition. Mr. Bagato stated that at the last meeting the Commission wanted to tie it into the neighbors but photos were not available. Commissioner Vuksic felt that they had to be careful not to establish precedence on approving block walls and to look for some sort of reason to approve the exception. The Commission reviewed the pilasters and recommended adding one additional pilaster for three equal sections of wall and that the pilasters be six inches above the six-foot wall. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval of slump stone wall and landscape plan subject to adding one additional pilaster for three equal sections of wall and pilasters six inches above six foot wall. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO: SA 08-157 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a modification to an approved wall sign; Wachovia. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was the Wachovia building and the representative was seeking an approval of a modification to the approved wall sign. The sign is currently on the building as a non-illuminated channel letter set without the raceway. The electrical is on the roof, but it's not a big enough parapet to get the electrical access they need. They are using a GAPIanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\AR081028.min.doc Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL R&EW COMMISSION '`"ol� MINUTES October 28, 2008 wire way that is only three inches thick. He informed the applicant to put it up non-illuminated or come back through ARC for re- approval. Mr. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign, stated that the sign was already made and placed on the building and explained that this is an unusual situation where there is absolutely no access to get in there to penetrate those individual channel letters to work from behind. He asked if the Commission could give him a little of latitude. The Commission reviewed the plans for the raceway and discussed the height of the raceway and suggested that because the style of the building is modern that external lighting from below would look good. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign doesn't have to be illuminated. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a monument sign and Mr. Bagato stated that the monument sign is on Highway 111 near Baker's Square. The Commission reviewed all the signage on the building. Commissioner DeLuna made a motion for denial. Mr. Engle asked if he could submit plans for external lighting and the Commission agreed. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to deny request to modify sign. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 , with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO: P 06-01, C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SINATRA & COOK PROJECT, LLC. 828 North Ogden Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90046 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings for four commercial buildings; The Vineyards. LOCATION: 37-755 Cook (Northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval by minute motion subject to landscape approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVV COMMISSION *fto MINUTES October 28, 2008 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 08-308 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WARE MALCOMB ARCHITECT, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 6,474 square foot single story office building for The California Teachers' Association. LOCATION: 75-084 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Albert Barcelo, Ware Malcomb, distributed plans with last minute modifications that were different from what was in the packet. He stated that based on the previous comments received from the Commission at a prior meeting they took a step back and looked at the project overall to see what changes they needed to make and how to coordinate that with their clients, CTA. They came up with a new concept that changes the look of the building, supporting the architecture with what is going on here in the desert. They changed the architecture on the exterior elevations and made it more consistent. They made some adjustments to the package units located outside of the building by placing them on the roof where they are properly screened on the two high tower elements. One is dominant entry and one is a secondary feature. Mr. Barcelo stated they have taken note of the visibility of the units on the roof and went into detail of the roof, screening of the equipment and the parapets. He also presented a site plan that had a sectional view from the bridge and explained that they have taken that into consideration with how they properly screened the equipment. He presented a color materials board and described the colors. They addressed the shading elements over the windows and explained that they have built up the walls that project out over one foot-six inches to allow shading. In addition to that is a wall with stone around the windows with some of the glass recessed further back to allow additional shading rather than bringing on an awning that will take away some of the architecture. The landscape plan submitted at the previous meeting identified palm trees that were not quite coordinated. The current plans submitted show trees and elevations and how they relate to the structure. They have addressed the request for additional landscaping and made a shift in the parking and embellished the landscape as much as possible. G1PIanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2008 The building and site is somewhat small, but they have made some adjustments to increase the landscape coverage. They have incorporated clarity to the existing landscape that is identified on the site between their site and the existing perimeter landscape. The floor plans have slightly been modified to reflect the building elevations and everything has been properly coordinated and reviewed. In relationship to the exterior elevation all plans are matching so there is no variation between one tower element looking bigger or not matching to the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the equipment on the roof could be seen from the adjacent buildings. Mr. Barcelo stated if you are on a three-story building you may possibly be able to see the equipment and said that he couldn't recall if they had to screen the equipment entirely from a building at a much higher height than theirs. For the most part they do have the equipment screened from public view, however, if looking at the tallest building next to them that does create a little challenge. He explained that they could raise the screening or create some kind of fin that will give added screening that shouldn't be too much of impact to the structure. Ms. Grisa wanted to make sure that if they want their signage illuminated to remember to run electrical to it. Mr. Barcelo stated that they have underground and interior conduits that will be put in place to accommodate any exterior lighting on the building. Mr. Barcelo stated that on the previous submittal the color of the sign is dark in relationship to the colors selected. He explained that they are adding backlighting to bring out the signage. The Commission discussed the colors of the building. Mr. Barcelo explained that the white adds a nice blend to break up some of the tones and said that they can slightly change the color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there is an element on the roof mounted equipment that has glass up high and they are showing three mechanical units on top of it; he asked how that would fit up there. Mr. Barcelo explained that it was spandrel glass and an integral part of the wall itself and pointed out where that material would be placed. The Commission discussed the spandrel glass and its location. Commissioner Touschner pointed out that the walls needed to be taller than the units. Mr. Barcelo stated that they have a decent platform to put the equipment on top of. They will make sure that they have a little plus space to make minor adjustments on the screen wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the top of the wall need to be continuous and they need to have an GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR081028.min.doc Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVII COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2008 opening that is down below the top. Commissioner Touschner recommended that the openings be as far back on the interior of the roof as possible. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they had ducting up on the roof to get anything to the other side of the building. Mr. Barcelo answered that it was all internal and stated that they have a minimum of 24 inches of open web truss space there in order to duct under them. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the stone wall where they added a layer in front of it that looks tacked on. What they really need to do was to create a wall and punch the windows into that thicker wall and have another line up above it which would be layered back. This would give you the thickness around the windows. Mr. Barcelo felt that the stone really breaks it up and adds a unique flare to it and it's not completely taking away from the architecture. The stone in its context of how it's laid out is balanced and equally measured both horizontally and vertically and giving a break in plane. Commissioner Hanson suggested reversing the stone on the brown element. She felt the stone was a nice accent to the building and she wasn't opposed to the white on the building. The Commission and the applicant discussed the architecture. Commissioner Vuksic presented a sketch of the dark brown element coming out from the stone wall and made suggestion of punching the windows into a deeper wall and creating a substantial looking stone element with openings punched in it. Commissioner Touschner stated that every opening and window is framed, except towards the back, and they are competing. The stone is a very special element so either have that be the whole center or have it be the opening. The freestanding piece would be wonderful in stone and would make it special. The Commission discussed the handicap ramp and installing railing and the landscape plans. The Commission reviewed the lighting plans and recommended that given the massing of this building they should put the lighting on the elevations. Commissioner Touschner asked about the signage. Mr. Barcelo stated that there are two sign locations shown on the elevations, and a third sign will be added and submitted with the signage package. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION -401* MINUTES October 28, 2008 The Commission discussed their recommendations with the architect. Mr. Bagato stated that if they had revisions they can email Ms. Grisa with the changes and she could send them to a couple of the Commissioners to get their comments before the next meeting on November 12tn ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue subject to: 1) reduce framed features around windows; create a hierarchy of spaces/architectural elements; 2) make stone a more prominent feature; 3) incorporate conduit for signage; 4) complete HVAC screen wall element; openings 24" below parapet; 5); east elevation on right side needs additional work; 6) south elevation reverse stone and plaster and make wall thicker; 7) show exterior light fixtures; and 8) show third sign location. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008WR081028.min.doc Page 11 of 11 'Vow" VOW, -