Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-22 � � � � ��'�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � - _ ,. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES February 22, 2011 L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent. Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 1 Chris Van Vliet X 4 John Vuksic X 3 1 Karel Lambell X 4 Pam Touschner X 3 1 Allan Levin X 4 Ken Stendell X 4 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 8, 2011 Action: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Vuksic seconded, to approve the February 8, 2011 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. V. CASES: � ARCHITECTURAL �JIEW COMMISSION �'` � MINUTES February 8, 2011 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: CUP 10-262 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AT&T MOBILITY, 12900 Park Plaza Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a wiretess telecommunications stealth boulder. LOCATION: 51-600 Highway 74 ZONE: PCD Mr. Swartz presented the project and said the subject property is located on the west side of Highway 74 south of Bighorn and he presented an aerial of the location. In a brief overview, he stated that in 2003 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow the existing Sprint mono-rock. AT&T Mobility is proposing two stealth boulders near Sprint's mono-rock. He stated that some of the - residents are concerned with the existing rock because it does not blend in with the natural hillside and staff also has the same concern with the addition of two new boulders next to it. He pointed out that a tree helps to screen the existing rock, but the proposed boulders do not have any screening. Staff is recommending denial of this design and suggests that the applicant redesign the boulders so they blend in with the surroundings or add landscaping around it. Mr. Tim Miller, representative said they ran into some issues with how they will provide coverage up and down the highway and to the residential areas. He pointed out that Sprint's location is a prime location and basically what AT&T will be doing is covering the surrounding service areas. The applicant will only have two locations for antennas that cannot interfere with Sprint's existing site, therefore the mono-rocks will either have to be the same height as Sprint's with a 20' separation horizontally or a 10' separation vertically. He stated this will be a hard design because they also work by line of site; whatever the antennas see that is where the coverage will be. He understands the concerns with the rocks and wants to address the Commission's concerns. He suggested making more indentations in � the rock and will do anything to disguise this to make it fit into the environment. G:\Ptanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2011\AR110222min.DOC Page 2 of 7 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE'b'�W COMMISSION � MINUTES February 8, 2011 Commissioner Stendell asked if there were comments from the HOA regarding the Sprint mono-rock and Mr. Bagato said no, but staff had a lot of problems internally with the first design because staff was shown a different rendering that got approved. The existing rock had to be modified after the fact to make it look less boxy. It was supposed to match the round boulders and not be this square. Commissioner Vuksic felt this was the minimum standard of how it should look, but you can definitely notice that it is not a natural rock. The photo sim of the proposed rocks do not look as good as the existing rock. He asked if anyone has objected to the location and said it just needs to blend into the crags of the natural terrain. Mr. Bagato stated that being next to Bighorn it requires an exception through Planning Commission based on self design and in his opinion, location and design go hand in hand. The existing rock has an advantage of the tree to mitigate it from the street view. He thought this would have to be a significant re-design to blend in or it should be placed in another location. Commissioner Vuksic asked the representative if the rock could be placed in a lower spot and Mr. Miller said as far as the one set of antennas they couldn't. He said they would not be opposed to add more to the rock to make it blend it in better. He also said there have already been problems with the location of their shelter in reference to the one set of antennas and how big it was. So they were trying to increase the mass any way they could. Commissioner Vuksic said that by decreasing the mass they are making it stand out and what really needs to happen is to re-build a whole ridge there and bury it all in what looks like a natural ridge. Commissioner Van Vliet said that it could be done, but it would be very expensive to do it. He felt they would be better off looking for a different location. Commissioner Gregory stated that if these were monopalms, people get distracted by the real palms and tend not to notice one that is a little different from the rest. However, in this case, the more rock you put in, the more it will be noticed because it starts becoming a feature in that area. The Commission reviewed the original plans for the Sprint mono-rock, which was stacked boulders. Commissioner Stendell stated that stacked boulders would look more realistic in this area and Mr. Bagato said the problem with that is they could not put the antennas in there because it had to have straight planes. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that Bighorn is not happy with the sprint rock as it stands so if they are not happy with that the proposed rocks are far more squared off. She agreed that the applicant would have to re-design it or find a different area. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2011\AF110222min.DOC Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL �r1/IEW COMMISSION � ' MINUTES February 8, 2011 Mr. Milier said the only other place would be on the west side of the highway across from the visitor center. He thought it woutd be a possible location but then again it will be difficult to get back up the highway. With the proposed location they could knock out more service areas and just have one site, but by trying to go down the hill a little bit they would have to have multiple sites. He said they have used cactus and palm trees in the past, but there are no other trees or cactus in this area. He suggested they could plant drought tolerant trees in front of the rocks to mitigate some of the impact from the road. He informed the Commission that he would take the Commission's concerns back to AT&T. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that to introduce a grove of trees would be difficult to do in the natural hillside which the City is trying to preserve. She called for a motion to continue. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to continue Case CUP 10-262 subject to selecting another location or submitting a different design. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 11-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KB HOME-COASTAL INC. 36310 Inland Valley Drive, Wildomar, CA 92595 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three new architectural single family homes; Kingston Court LOCATION: Kingston/Imperial Court TM 33935 & TM 34391 ZONE: P-R 5 Mr. Swartz presented the project and said the applicant is requesting to increase the square footage for two model homes for KB Home. Commissioner Vuksic asked why the models were being increased and Mr. Ron Fisher, representative said most of the traffic they've had has asked for larger plans to include casitas and double masters. He described the models to the Commission and explained that the floor plans were rearranged to accommodate the double master. Commissioner Vuksic asked if these were the same style and detail as before and Mr. Fisher said they replicated exactly what was built previously. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the older models didn't have the wainscoting going all the way around connecting to the eaves at G:\Planning�,lanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2011\AR110222min.DOC Page 4 of 7 � ARCHITECTURAL RE1`�W COMMISSION �+ MINUTES February 8, 2011 the return walls. Mr. Fisher said that all the wainscoting and the foam detailing around the soffit have to go back beyond the block wall which is by City ordinance. He also pointed out that on the preliminary site plans that they plotted all three of the models to show they will fit within the required perimeters. Mr. Fisher mentioned the landscape and said the footprint on the larger unit has not changed and will be a carryover design with only two new designs. He has submitted a conceptual design based on currently approved plans. The Commission reviewed and discussed the screen walls for the electrical and gas meters outside the side gates by the garage. Commissioner Vuksic noticed the fronts of the homes were going to be staggered along the streets and asked what the setbacks were. Mr. Fisher stated that they will be about 20' to 25'. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed the gabled ends. It was suggested that the Tuscan and Spanish style could both have the gabled ends or maybe the Spanish style could have a hip end. Mr. Fisher said they could break the corner on one of the elevations; either the Tuscan or Spanish plan. Commissioner Vuksic and Mr. Fisher discussed the fascia and the soffits. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they transition the exposed rafter tails to a more decorative rafter and fascia away from the street. Commissioner Stendell thought it was a good idea but felt that they wouldn't have to do it on every one. Mr. Fisher said they could do the decorative rafter tails that face the street on the smallest plans Commissioner Vuksic was thinking more of it being on the bottoms and running it back into the roof. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the A/C units and Mr. Fisher said the condensers sit either to the back or to the side of the house and the forced air units are in the attic. Commissioner Van Vliet mentioned the lack of architecture on the sides or the backs, and said the corner lots need to have the front architecture carried around to the sides. Commissioner Touschner pointed out that there will be a 6' wall on the side that will cover most of the windows. Commissioner Stendell stated that even with the fence the huge gabled ends will still be visible and thought a hip roof would be better situated on the corner lots. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\WordFiles�AMinutes�2071WR170222min.DOC Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION �' ' MINUTES February S, 2011 ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to grant approval subject to: 1) hip roofs on six corner homes; 2) provide a wainscot on Spanish style with different color and plane; 3) Dutch end on either the Spanish or Tuscan plan; 4) decorative rafter tail on Tuscan plan; 5) screening of electrical and gas meters; 6) if chimneys provided, they are to be decorative and approved by staff; and 7) landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, adding Case No. SA 10-380 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 3. CASE NO: SA 10-380 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, 610 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument and wall signage; Holiday Inn Express. LOCATION: 74675 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 Mr. Swartz stated this came before the Commission at the last meeting and the applicant has returned with changes to the Holiday Inn Express signage. At that time, the Commission recommended that the applicant reduce both signs to conform to the sign code and to show the monument sign in the correct location. The monument signage is 6' in height and the square footage is about 13'-7", both signs are now within the allowable square footage. Mr. Swartz spoke with Public Works who said it cannot be within the 40' triangle, which it wasn't. Public Works said it was fine but would like the City Council to approve it because it is in the right-of-way. He mentioned that the landscape plans have to be approved prior to the City Council meeting and recommended approval of the design and location. Commissioner Levin asked how the wall sign was illuminated and the sign representative said it was internal. She explained that the letter "H" lights up, the individual letters are white and individually lighted; same as the monument sign. G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2071WR110222min.DOC Page 6 of 7 • ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION ;,,� MINUTES February 8, 2011 Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist informed the applicant the landscape plans have to be approved prior to going to City Council. ACTION: Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to grant approval subject to: 1) only illuminated letters on wall sign and monument sign; and 2) landscape reviewed and approved prior to the City Council meeting. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Levin seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�,4 Minutes�2011\AR110222min.DOC Page 7 of 7 '"vr►' � .