Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-09 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES November 9, 2010 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 19 2 Chris Van Vliet X 20 1 John Vuksic X 19 2 Karel Lambell X 19 2 Pam Touschner X 14 7 Allan Levin X 20 1 Ken Stendell X 20 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 26, 2010 Action: Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to approve the October 26, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-356 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRISTOPHER MORGAN GALLERIES, INC. 4206 E. Cornwall Avenue, Orange, CA 92567 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a two new awnings with signage; Christopher Morgan Galleries, Inc. LOCATION: 73-375 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of two new awnings. These new awnings will go over an existing pop-out on the building that exists around each storefront, except for a small detail that would remain visible between the two awnings. Staff had a concern with this slight difference, which looks like an afterthought and not carefully planned out with how the awning fits over them. Staff is also concerned with one side being slightly higher than the other, so it likely will remain visible if left as proposed. Staff would like to see this addressed in a revised submittal so it does not look like an afterthought in design. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission continue the project to allow the applicant time to make the size reductions as conditioned by the Public Works Department and recommended actions by staff and the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Lambell expressed her concerns with losing the architectural detail above the windows, which will now be under the awning. With each awning along that building, they lose the personality of the building. Commissioner Gregory thought instead of proposing the dome shape they could have some trim detail that is reflective of the existing window detail. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out that the drawings were not to scale and was concerned with how it was going to look. Mr. Jim Sadler, representative pointed out that this is a multi-tenant building with the same details that are covered up by awnings. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a chance to incorporate this detailing on the awning; like trim. Mr. Sadler stated that they could, but when they add detail it gives places for birds to sit, dirt to collect and rain to settle on the table. Commissioner Gregory asked GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\2010\AR101109min.doc Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE _W COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 Mr. Sadler if he could make it slightly tilted so the water will flush off and make the ledge shorter so the birds won't have room to sit. Mr. Sadler agreed. Commissioner Gregory asked about the signage and Mr. Sadler said that the signage will be removed from the wall and placed on the awning. Ms. Grisa asked the applicant to submit renderings of the actual awnings with the color and signage. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to continue Case No. MISC 10-356 subject to: 1) reduce size to eliminate any encroachment into the public right-of-way; 2) add awning details to portray the architectural entry surrounds; and 3) submit rendering of actual awnings. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-256 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JUAN PEREZ, 82204 Hwy 111 Ste C PMB 151, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a studio conversion/carport patio. LOCATION: 74-774 Gary Avenue ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a studio conversion/carport patio. He reminded the Commission that this has been before them previously because the homeowner illegally converted a two-car garage into two living units. At previous meetings, several changes were recommended by the Commission and the applicant has returned with those changes. The Commission reviewed the plans and was concerned because the details were confusing. They discussed the details of the project with the representative, Mr. Juan Perez. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the lintel needs to be deeper and the 2 X 8's need to be increased to 3 x 8's. Mr. Perez was trying to keep the costs down for the owner and stated that he went by the minimum recommendations for the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Vuksic explained that those recommendations are given out by Building and Safety for structural requirements, which is totally GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR101109min.doc Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R, IEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 different from what the ARC looks at. This Commission looks at what is an acceptable standard aesthetically. Mr. Perez stated that the homeowner is willing to make the changes, but they can't afford to spend much more. Mr. Bagato reminded the representative that the applicant is requesting an exception to the setback which is not an over the counter permit where you design to building code. They are asking for an exception that doesn't meet the setbacks and ultimately the Commission will make a recommendation. If the owner doesn't agree with it, he can appeal to City Council. Commissioner Gregory asked what the Commission could do to achieve what should be done and move this along. He pointed out that the plaster beam spanning between the columns needs to look substantial. He suggested that the header beam be 14" deep matching the width of the column, increasing the rafters from 2 X 8's to 3 X 8's. Commissioner Vuksic suggested having no exposed hardware other than up against the house and painted to match. Commissioner Gregory made a motion to approve with a 14" deep beam without kickers. Commissioner Stendell suggested increasing the rafters to 4 X 8 thereby reducing the total number of rafters. Commissioner Vuksic repeated there shall be no exposed hardware except for against the wall of the house. ACTION: Commissioner Gregory moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to granted approval subject to: 1) increase depth of beam to 14" to match width of column; 2) increase rafters to 4 x 8; 3) constructed without kickers; and 3) no exposed hardware other than up against the house and painted to match. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-372 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICK KENNEDY, 71397 San Gorgonio Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 17'-8" roof height. LOCATION: 74-220 Ell Cortez ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 17'-8" roof height. The lot is zoned R-1 and the height in the R-1 zone is 18', but anything above 15' has to GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\201OW101109min.doc Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE` W COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 come before the Architectural Review Commission. He said this home will be a lot higher than other homes in that area and presented photos for the Commission's review. The footprint of the main house is a little over 1,500 square feet with an attached 400 square foot two-car garage. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Gregory stated that the 15' is an older ordinance which was at a time when the city was looking for flat-roofed homes that had a long horizontal look. He asked if the house clashes with the rest of the neighborhood and does it block views. He felt this home would be an asset to the street. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission looks at the compatibility with the neighborhood and making sure that the 18' is not right at the setback line; starting off lower and works its way up. The Commission was concerned that in this case it was 18' high right at the 5' setback. Commissioner Gregory thought that if this is a concern it could be hipped instead of gabled. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the roof pitch was and Mr. David Rodriguez, representative stated it was 5/12. He presented a photo of a home just east of this project which also had a high ridge. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a need for the 5/12 pitch and Mr. Rodriquez stated that there was a heater unit within the attic and the 5/12 is needed to get the proper clearance. Commissioner Stendell stated that on the sides of the house on narrow lots you have an 18' high ridge and the house towers in these little areas. He thought it would look better if it was hipped out. He thought that the applicant could take the maximum height of 18', mask it considerably bringing it more into the center of the lot, which allows you to cut down on the chimney height. For this narrow long lot it would look a lot better and attain the same height. This house could be great if it was gabled the depth of the lot and wouldn't be as obtrusive. Mr. Rodriquez explained that this house was selected by the applicant because it is an existing home plan at one of the senior housing projects in Yucca Valley, which has sold very well. Therefore, the applicant wanted to use the same floor plan, as well as the exterior elevation for this project and keeping the pitch at the 5/12. The applicant is aware that this is still under the height requirement. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR101109min.doc Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL F 'IEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 Mr. Rodriguez stated that a couple of things the applicant has going against him are the surrounding homes that have flat roofs. The applicant looked at other homes in this neighborhood and this plan is consistent with the property to the east and across the street. Secondly, the side yard setbacks is an issue. The applicant wants to add the patio on the side leaving 6'. Mr. Swartz asked if they could shrink the house a little and shift the house over a bit. Mr. Rodriguez discussed the top of curb elevation and said they wanted to get more room so they could provide a 2 to 1 slope. Mr. Bagato reminded the representative that 18' is discretionary and 15' is what staff approves at the counter. The City is particular about mountain views and the impact on adjacent neighbors because the homes are low story and the City Council requests that anything from 15' to 18' be reviewed by the Commission as discretionary. Mr. Rodriquez stated the applicant would be willing to move the structure further to the east to get this approved. Commissioner Gregory said he would hate to see that happen because he appreciates what the applicant is trying to do with the patio on the side of the house. He understands that the applicant wants to keep his costs down but if they hip the sides of the roof that will increase the cost. One of the ways they deal with in-fill homes in established neighborhoods is to bring the roof down on the sides adjacent to the existing homes; it makes it a lot easier to mitigate the increased height. The Commission discussed the options of reducing the height on the structure. Commissioner Lambell felt that the applicant was proposing this plan in a neighborhood without thinking about how it impacts the neighborhood and the views and felt that a little more care needs to be taken and the applicant needs to think about the alternatives. Mr. Rodriguez asked if this would this be approved if the roof height was 17' and Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission looks at the massing of the house and considers view sheds. When a house is pushing the height limit at a really small set back it gets the Commission's attention. The Commission likes houses to mass and get higher as they move further into the lot as opposed to right up against the edge. Commissioner Stendell suggested gabling the whole house from front to back. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR101109min.doc Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE, W COMMISSION / MINUTES November 9, 2010 The Commission discussed grading issues and recommended that this case be continued and suggested that the applicant talk with Public Works regarding grading issues. ACTION: Commissioner Gregory moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to continue Case No. MISC 10-372 subject to: 1) meeting with Public Works to determine pad height; and 2) consider sliding house to the east or reduce the 5/12 pitch closest to the west property. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-368 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RC PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION, INC. Attn Jeff Edwards, 8417 Washington Blvd Suite 140, Roseville, CA 95678 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a color change; Carl's Jr. LOCATION: 73125 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a color change for Carl's Jr. He presented color samples for review and stated that these colors are similar to other Carl's Jr. and Green Burritos and pointed out where the colors will be used. The Commission reviewed the colors but had difficulty reading the plans because the colors were not accurate. After reviewing the colors "Butternut" and "Golden Fleece" they stated these colors were not acceptable on the upper parapet. The colors on the upper parapet need to blend more with the other color pallet and not be so yellow. ACTION: Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to continue Case No. MISC 10-368 subject to: 1) submit clean drawings; 2) label colors correctly; and 3) submit colors on upper parapet that blend with other colors pallet — Butternut and Golden Fleece are not acceptable. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR101109min.doc Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R ;IEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-377 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RIGOBERTO GARCIA GONZALEZ, 73- 325 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint color; Fresh Agave. LOCATION: 73-325 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of exterior paint color for Agave Fresh. He presented photos of the existing building for the Commission's review. The Commission reviewed the colors and the location of the signage. Ms. Christina Garcia, owner pointed out where the colors and signage would be located on the building. Commissioner Gregory suggested approving this with the condition that the owner applies paint swatches to the back of the building for the Commission's review prior to the building being painted. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with the condition because even though this can be a great color with some punch he had some concerns with the choice. He believes the applicant may have to tweak it a bit. Commissioner Gregory agreed that it will be hard to make a determination based on such a small swatch, but it is better than painting the entire building and having it called up by Council. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to grant an approval subject to applying paint swatch to backside of the building for Commission's review. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010WR101109min.doc Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 10-302 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): THE MAGNON COMPANIES, 825 Marlborough Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside CA 92507 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 11,280 square foot building; Department of Motor Vehicles. LOCATION: 36-400 Technology Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting preliminary approval of a new 11,280 square foot building for the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Carter Redish, applicant explained the plans to the Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this was a good looking building and he liked the forms, but he had some concerns with the slopped roof and the water issue. Mr. Redish stated that they have a built in gutter at the bottom of the slopes that tie into a down spout that goes into the drain. It then ties into the area over the main entry that also has a drain and it all goes down inside the walls and then out. The Commission discussed the location of the signage and Mr. Douglas Magnon, applicant stated that the sign program has not been developed yet and it will come back for review at a later date. Commissioner Stendell stated that sheet metal gutters are good except the joints become a tremendous maintenance problems. He stated that hot mopping and water sealing the gutter before placing it down will greatly enhance the gutter. Commissioner Lambell asked about the roof access and Mr. Redish stated that the access area was inside in the electrical room. He mentioned there are three mechanical wells on the roof that will be behind a 6' parapet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the roof plan he saw one roof access into one of the mechanical wells, and asked how they were getting to the other two. Mr. Redish stated that the roof doesn't have a steep slope so it will be a matter of climbing over it. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with someone climbing up high since it was a 6' parapet. Mr. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\201TAR101109min.doc Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL F 'IEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2010 Bagato asked if the building permit would require a ladder or an opening through it. Mr. Redish stated they wouldn't be able to go through it because you would be going through the roof on the other side so you would have to have a ladder on both of the mechanical areas to get into it. Commissioner Vuksic said they would then have this beautiful building with hoops going over the tops of the parapets. Mr. Magnon stated they would probably drop the wall down and take the ladder up keeping it below the top of the parapet. Commissioner Stendell asked if there could be a couple more accesses and Mr. Redish stated they may be able to put an access in the front area. The Commission reviewed the materials being used. Commissioner Van Vliet and the applicant discussed the concrete tilt up walls. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to grant preliminary approval subject to staff reviewing working drawings for mechanical wells and roof access. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commission Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010WR101109min.doc Page 10 of 10