Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-28 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 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 17 1 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 16 2 Karel Lambell X 17 1 Pam Touschner X 13 5 Allan Levin X 17 1 Ken Stendell X 17 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 14, 2010 Action: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to approve the September 14, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 2 of 9 A. Final Drawings: 1. 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. Bagato presented the project and stated that this came before the Commission previously and is back with revisions as recommended by the Commission. Mr. Juan Perez, representative stated that he followed the Commission’s recommendations from the previous meeting and the structure is now stucco all the way around. He pointed out that at the last meeting Commissioner Vuksic recommended 2 x 2 members on the inside of the carport, but the owner wants to see it from the street. He also stated that the header beam will be straight and not arched. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they didn’t want to approve something when the plans are not drawn correctly. He expressed that there was a lack of details on the drawings and suggested that a more detailed drawing be submitted. The Commission felt that there was inadequate room to back up and discussed the turning radius. They pointed out that the revisions in the concrete as recommended at the last meeting were not shown on the drawings. Commissioner Stendell stated that what was drawn on the floor plans and the elevations does not correspond to what the representative has stated. Commissioner Lambell stated that she had concerns with the 2 x 2s on the trellis and said that the Commission does not approve 2 x 2s because they tweak and twist. She also had trouble with the carport being side-loaded and not being able to see the backup space and the turn-around space on the plans. The Commission felt that there was not enough room to swing a car around there for ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 3 of 9 the side-loaded entry. The plans need to show the backup space which is 20’. Commissioner Gregory suggested increasing the trellis members, show the concrete revisions on the drawings and the plans need to show the full details. Commissioner Touschner suggested showing the center of the carport on the plans, show how deep the carport is from the wall to the inside space of the column, and show actual dimensions from the column back to the sidewalk to show the space available. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded to continue subject to: 1) submit plans showing full sections and details; 2) show concrete revisions as recommended at previous meeting; 3) show actual dimensions from the column back to the sidewalk to show the space available; 4) show how deep the carport is from the wall to the inside space of the column; 5) center carport on plans; and 6) increase trellis members. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-291 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EGG & DART, LTD, Steven Love, 74-050 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a façade renovation, architectural improvements for Egg & Dart, Ltd. LOCATION: 74-05- Highway 111 ZONE: O.P. Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was an approval of a façade renovation. He stated that the remodel will not change the foot print of the building. The applicant is trying to redesign the building to increase the volume. It will increase the height from 18’ to 30’ high and does comply with the height requirements. Commissioner Levin expressed his dissatisfaction with the plans and stated that the elevations were not in the correct orientation and the roof plan does not reflect the roof design. He recommended that the plans be cleaned up and resubmitted to the ARC. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 4 of 9 The Commission reviewed photos of the project and discussed the power pole on the north side of the building, which was not shown on the drawings. Mr. Steven Love, architect stated that they have asked Edison to relocate the power pole and Edison is currently studying the situation. Commissioner Levin agrees that what is out there now is an eye sore and understands they will improve it, but before the Commission will approve more information is needed. The Commission reviewed the roof and the A/C units on the north half of the building. They asked how they would hide the mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Love stated there would be new A/C units with a 3’ parapet wall all the way around. The Commission suggested that it wasn’t high enough to hide all the equipment and recommended that the applicant submit a cut sheet on the A/C units. The Commission reviewed and discussed available parking and the trash enclosures. Commissioner Levin asked about the grading plan. Mr. Love stated that they didn’t think they had to do a grading plan because they were not doing any upgrades to the existing hardscape. Public Works asked them to put a sidewalk in the back of the building which they have submitted to CVWD to see if they can move the water meter in that location. Mr. Love stated that the original concept was to barrel vault the roof in the second story part and the reason they didn’t change the plans is because they are still waiting for the final contract for the bids to come in, but they think it will be too cost prohibitive. So they went ahead and drew it as a flat roof on the roof plans. Commissioner Stendell stated that the perspective is the only thing that is shown on the elevations. Commissioner Lambell stated that she has trouble with approving the concept until they are aware if the existing building will support the second story. The Commission reviewed the roof plans and Commissioner Stendell stated that they are lacking a credible set of plans they can approve in a manner befitting this Commission. The Commission continued to review the plans and Commissioner Levin asked the applicant to provide dimensions on the parapet. Commissioner Stendell wanted to make sure there was enough parking. They discussed handicap parking and Commissioner Levin asked them to review the ADA path of travel for the trash enclosure. Commissioner Touschner referred to the front elevation and stated that she didn’t think it was an integrated elevation. It is two layers and they need to think of it as a whole. Commissioner Van Vliet ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 5 of 9 recommended they meet with a structural engineer before they do anymore design work. He asked them to look at the footings, wall structures, and really see what they can do because if they add another second story they will have to remove the existing footings, take it all down and start all over. Commissioner Touschner stated that when you use architectural components to make an elevation it has to be well thought out. She encouraged the applicant to think about the architectural elements. Classical architectural is all about proportions and symmetry and they are not quite there yet. She also asked that they study the storefront entrance along the parking lot. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Levin seconded to continue subject to: 1) providing accurate architectural plans; 2) submit details of A/C units on roof; 3) submit cut sheets; 4) provide dimensions on parapet; 5) show ADA path of travel for trash enclosures; and 6) study storefront entrance along the parking lot. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. . 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-293 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DON MCLEAN, P.O. Box 307, Camden, ME 04843 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an exception to install a driveway gate at a reduced setback. LOCATION: 48-285 Prairie Drive ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was an approval for a driveway gate. He stated that there is an existing wall and the applicant started to install two black columns, which may be in the right of way and may have to be moved. The request is to build a 32’ long wrought iron gate for more privacy. They are requesting to put it at the existing wall which would be 12’. To further meet the setback requirements, staff recommends that the applicant build out a wall on the south side of the site to match the existing wall on the north side of the driveway. Staff also recommends approval of the exception to install a vehicular access ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 6 of 9 gate at a setback of 15’ away from the face of the curb designed to match the general concept of the existing gates on-site. Mr. Michael Christiansen, representative stated that the applicant is willing to decrease the height from 6’ to 3’-6” to give it a 12’ setback and match the existing gate. Commissioner Levin asked what the distance was from the 12’ right of way to the face of the garage and Mr. Christiansen stated that it was about 19’. Commissioner Levin said it would be tight with a 16’ wide gate that swings in. The representative and the Commission discussed the access to the garage and the side gate. Commissioner Levin said there are no other homes in that neighborhood that have gates across the driveways. Mr. Bagato pointed out that by requesting a 3’-6” fence 12’ from the curb it would not come to ARC because it is what the code allows. Commissioner Gregory thought it would look absurd at 3’-6” at 32’ long and was concerned that if they remove the shape to the gate it would look like a cattle gate making it even less attractive. The Commission discussed the gate with the representative and expressed their concerns with the weight of the gate. They stated that it will have to sit high so that it doesn’t drag. Commissioner Lambell asked that the applicant submit an example of the materials they plan on using. Commissioner Stendell was concerned with putting gates and fences on the property lines, creating a tunnel effect in the neighborhood. He suggested putting a return wall to narrow the amount of gate so the gate will not be so intrusive to the man-gate on the side. Mr. Bagato said they could keep the basic design with a shorter span and be granted an exception for 12’ on the property line not the right of way. The Commission discussed the size of the gate and the setbacks and Commissioner Stendell suggested putting a column or steel post out from the side of the garage and a fence panel that at a later date could be converted to a gate, which would reduce the size the gates. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded to continue subject to: 1) design a gate without the tunnel effect; 2) resubmit proper site plan; 3) addition of landscape; and 4) photo showing front of house. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 7 of 9 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-289 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECTS, 72-185 Painters Path, Unit A, Palm Desert, CA 92250. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a single family home at a proposed height of 17’-6”. LOCATION: 73-600 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this is a new single family home with a proposed height of 17’-6”. Code requires anything above 15’ to 18’ max to be reviewed by Architectural Review. Staff notified the adjacent property owners and only one neighbor came in to review the plans and he didn’t have any concerns. Ms. Kristi Hanson, architect stated that the home will be 20’ back with a 6’ wall on the north side, which will be the most impacted. The house maintains a 12’ height and is quite far in before the 17’- 6” comes into play. She stated that most of the house is 12’ high with a couple sections at 17’-6”. ACTION: Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to approve. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-246 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SEPHORA USA, INC. 525 Market St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a storefront façade remodel; Sephora USA LOCATION: 73-545 El Paseo, Suite 1620 ZONE: C-1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 8 of 9 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this came before the Commission at a previous meeting and one of the conditions was to have no grout lines, however the construction plans shows them. Mr. Bagato presented the construction plans for review and discussion. Commissioner Lambell suggested approving the grout lines not to exceed 1/8” and with eased edges on all outside corners. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded to approve subject to: grout joint shall not exceed 1/8” as submitted; and 2) eased edges on the outside corners. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Stendell abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. . B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: ZOA 10-311 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Zoning ordinance amendment providing signage standards for illuminated window signage. Mr. Bagato summarized the staff report for illuminated signage. He stated that this is an amendment that was requested by City Council. They have directed staff to come back with standards for illuminated signage. He stated Palm Desert is still walking the line as being a resort community, as well as a regular business community. There is a concern to allow window signage on a permanent basis. He researched other communities as well as resort communities that have them. He stated that Cathedral City permits them in store windows and posted on the walls on sign boards, Coachella is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the code, Desert Hot Springs allows them with a permit, Indian Wells prohibit them, Indio is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the code, La Quinta is prohibited unless specifically approved as an major part of their identification sign, Palm Springs allows them in conjunction with food and restaurants, Rancho Mirage allows them in commercial districts, but not adjacent to residential areas. The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100928min.doc Page 9 of 9 standards that he has proposed are the ones he found in local and resort communities. The Commission reviewed and discussed the standards. One of the first modifications would be to allow illuminated signs, but they have to be turned off when the business is closed and when adjacent to residents. The Commission asked about exceptions and Mr. Bagato stated that in the sign ordinance people can asked for modifications. Commissioner Touschner was relatively okay with the proposal but had a concern with the term “retroactive” and thought old signs should also be considered. The Commission discussed “retroactive” signs. Mr. Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Officer stated they have a program that identifies window signage and Code Officers go out into the community to educate store owners regarding their signs. He informs them that from a law enforcement perspective the clutter in the windows can create a safety hazard if an officer on patrol cannot see inside the store. He also made a recommendation to Planning to set up a permit process for any new signs in order to regulate them. Having these control measures in place will benefit the City and help with what staff is trying to accomplish. The Commission discussed the number of signs allowed and grandfathering of signage. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded, to approve. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER