Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 16-76 - ARC Deny - 34750 Spyder Circle - R.RicciardiCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DENYING THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE OF A NEW 5,280-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 34-750 SPYDER CIRCLE SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Robert Ricciardi Architects 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115 Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO: PP 16-76 DATE: September 8, 2016 CONTENTS: 1. Architectural Review Minutes dated July 26, 2016 2. Architectural Review Minutes dated July 12, 2016 3. Architectural Review Minutes dated June 14, 2016 Recommendation By Minute Motion, reaffirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) dated July 26, 2016 denying the proposed architecture for Precise Plan 16-76. Strategic Plan Obiectives There are no impacts to the Strategic Plan Objectives. Executive Summary On March 24, 2016, the applicant submitted Precise Plan 16-76 for a new 5,280-square-foot industrial warehouse building. The building architecture was presented and reviewed by the ARC at three (3) separate meetings (June 14, July 12, and July 26, 2016). At all three meetings, the ARC Commissioners commented that the architecture of the building does not meet the ARC findings of approval because the building design lacked articulation and design interest. The project applicant disagreed, and the Commission ultimately denied the project. The applicant met with the Mayor who called this item up for City Council review. Staff Report PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building Page 2 of 4 September 8, 2016 Background A. Property Description: The vacant 20,400-square-foot parcel is located along the east side of Spyder Circle and south of Dinah Shore Drive. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The property is designated Industrial -Business Park (I -BP) in the General Plan and is within the Service Industrial (S.I.) zoning district. C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: S.I. — Vacant land and South: S.I. — Vacant land and East: S.I. — Vacant land and West: S.I. — Vacant land and Discussion Industrial Buildings Industrial Buildings Industrial Buildings Industrial Buildings The item was on the June 14, 2016, ARC agenda for review. In review of the project, the applicant was unable to attend. The Commissioners agreed that the building lacked architecture and needed more creativity to break up the "box -like" appearance. The Commission stated that the building needed an architectural pattern and how it relates to the orientation of the building. The Commission made a motion to continue the item and allow staff to reiterate their comments to the project architect. On June 16, 2016, staff met with the applicant and stated the concerns of the Commissioners. The applicant stated that he disagreed with their comments and that the building was very attractive and similar to other buildings within the City. He also stated that he was not going to make any modifications and wanted to attend the next ARC meeting. At the July 12, 2016, ARC meeting, staff stated that the applicant did not make any modifications and is proposing the same building that was before them at the June 14, 2016 meeting. Staff stated to the applicant that the Commission could approve the building as presented today, the architect could make changes if suggested by the Commission, or the Commission could deny the proposed architectural design. The applicant presented the plans and stated that the proposed building was similar to other buildings along Cook Street that he has designed and have been previously approved by the ARC. The applicant stated that the building is an industrial building; therefore, one must create something nice while keeping the cost down. He stated a tilted -up building of this size would be too expensive and that is why he chose split -face block. The applicant then presented the Commission with photos of other buildings within the City that are similar to what he was proposing. He asked the Commission G Planning Kam Swartz \ford Precise Plane PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building PP 16-16 Ricciardi ARC .Appeal doc Staff Report PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building Page 3 of 4 September 8, 2016 to approve the project as presented, because it is in an area that is not on a main street, will be good for the area, as well as for small business owners. Commissioner Van Vilet stated that the north and south elevations will be visible and those elevations have no articulation at all. Commissioner Lambell expressed the same concern and stated the City is raising the bar from previous approvals and are looking for a design that makes the building stand out. The applicant stated that it is a nice looking building and will stand out. Commissioner McAuliffe stated that he understood that it is an industrial building and building a shoebox is by far the most efficient shape for the price point. He also stated there is an opportunity as an architect to add additional character to the building whether it is joint work, larger regions of texture, or adding additional fluted texture. He pointed out that the band at the top of the building works. However, the band that runs around the middle gives a lot more opportunity to create something there, possibly by extending portions of that band to the ground to help define the entrance. He then suggested taking the fluted texture and wrapping the corner so that it continues to the ground to create a mass. The applicant stated that he would be glad to do that and requested the ARC to approve the project with that addition. Chair Van Vilet suggested that the applicant make the modifications and bring the revised renderings to the next meeting. The applicant agreed to revise the plans and present them at the next meeting. At the July 26, 2016 ARC meeting, the applicant presented revised plans to the Commission. The applicant stated that he added more of the fluted block texture to different sections of the building to create more interest. He stated that he believes he added quite a bit to the building based on the comments from the previous meeting. Commissioner Lambell stated she was concerned that this building design falls short of the City's expectations. The applicant disagreed and stated that it's a nice looking building and the added flute texture looks nice. Commissioner Clark stated that the buildings in the area have some definite architecture and that the proposed building would not blend with those buildings. Commissioner Van Vilet stated that just because it is an industrial building does not mean it should lack architectural design. The applicant stated that he has created a style in the industrial areas that has been in the desert for a while and many people like the design. Commissioner McAuliffe appreciated the effort made by the applicant, but the Commission is asking him to use his professional design experience to elevate this project. He stated that the form of the building is not what is at stake, it is the overall presentation. He wants the project to move forward while at the same time, hold the standard that Palm Desert has established as a priority. He offered to have a sidebar meeting with the applicant outside the context of the ARC meeting. The applicant stated that he believes the Commission's goal is indefinable and is all personal taste. 6 Planning Kex in SS arl/ Word Prmse Plans PP 16-16 Ricciardi Budding PP 16-76 Ricnardi ARC Appeal doc Staff Report PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building Page 4 of 4 September 8, 2016 Commissioner Clark suggested meeting with staff and other Commissioners outside the meeting. The applicant stated that he is getting rhetoric, which is indefinable because it is such a high level of extraction, you cannot define it. Chair Van Vilet stated that this item could either be continued to allow the applicant to meet with two or three Commissioners aside from the meeting to suggest improvements to the architecture, or deny the project and let the applicant appeal their decision to the City Council if he feels he has done the best he can with this project. The applicant agreed to have the Commission deny the project, so he could appeal their decision. Commissioner Lambell moved to deny the architectural design based on the applicant being unreceptive to the Commission's design comments. The motion carried by a 6-1-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Colombini voting No and Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. After the ARC's decision, the applicant met with the Mayor who agreed to call this item up for City Council's review. Staff agrees with the Commissioners decision that the proposed architecture needs articulation and improvements. If the City Council decides that the applicant needs to work with the ARC, staff will facilitate a meeting with two to three Commissioners for suggestions of architectural improvements to the building. The applicant can then present the revised architectural elevations to the ARC at a future meeting. Submitted By: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Department Head: yan Stendell, Director of Community Development Approval: J i McCarthy, Interim Cit nager G Plan mg Kc, in Swartz Nord Precise Plans PP 16-76 Ricciardi 6mldmg PP 16-76 Ricciardi ARC Appeal doc CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE C CT UP -A 4- 2EVI E VL' (Name of Determining Body) Case No. P f ILe 7& Date of Decision: Project Proponent: Qo BEP- T I,, I C cr i A IZ DI Address: 7��4-00 (�E2ALD Fc,2D DrzkVF_' ltl L� a& , JAI & Description of Application or Matter Considered: _cii-!!�r d er a..+i c,n r^ o� I i_�y� rya v G10Dr�cwa c.r dental V -flee ayctufifr_tc/%� r(F<�c,dl ci a nPu) I 1 �CtrPy�E� u 5 P_ btti (d r 6C,TI C CC��A a � 3 �+ 7 �� 1 `�J �'j e, U- `l N n v � "A�0 J M er f the City Council f-0. 0 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed: - r Received by: J Date of Consideration by City Council: i _P)- ' Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H:\rklassen\WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMS\cncl req for rev.wpd 6121/03 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF P, tLN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA JULY 26, 2016 12:30 P.M. — COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Please set your cell phones to silent mode I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 10, 2016 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the Commission at this point by stepping to the table and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Commission. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: PP 16-76 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval or denial of the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the July 12, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant has made changes and will discuss the new proposed building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION - AGENDA JULY 26, 2016 B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-178 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MARLORKAND LLC, 72960 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of a 20,000 square foot building, site plan, and landscape plans; Barkingham Palace. LOCATION: 73650 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I. 2. CASE NO: MISC 16-203 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LERAE BRITAIN MOELLER, P.O. Box 3775, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of residential paint color change from tan to light blue. LOCATION: 45653 Portola Avenue ZONE: R.2, S.P. 3. CASE NO: PP 16-180 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: TOWER ENERGY, 1983 W. 190tn Street, Torrance, CA 90504 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval to demolish the existing 76 gas station and replace with a new fuel island, canopy and market building; Tower Energy. LOCATION: 73801 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. G PlmnmgLmmcJu& ARC' kkcnnda '_016 Ohl,-]haeduc Page 2 of 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA JULY 26, 2016 C. Miscellaneous Items None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday — Friday, 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, 760/346-0611. Please contact the Planning Department, 760/346-0611, for ADA assistance the Monday prior to the meeting. Declaration of Posting I, Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant for the Department of Community Development of the City of Palm Desert, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION meeting of Tuesday, July 26, 2016 was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, July 22, 2016. Date: July 22, 2016 Janine Judy Recording Secretary (i Plwnme Janine Jud% ARC 11Gend,u _M 160- hag doe Page 3 of 3 Klassen, Rachelle From: Klassen, Rachelle Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:47 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; Swartz, Kevin Cc: O'Reilly, Monica; Judy, Janine Subject: Req for City Council Review of ARC Decis - Case No. PP 16-76 (Ricciardi) Attachments: Req 4 Council Review-ARC-Jul26-2016-Case No. PP 16-76-Ricciardi.pdf Attached for your information and appropriate action is Mayor Robert A. Spiegel's Request For Review of the subject case from Tuesday's ARC Meeting. Please let me know if you need a hard -copy of the attached or if you need any other assistance in this matter. Note, you will recall that Council is cancelling its August 11 regular meeting; the next will be held August 25. RaJ1e.U&D. Ida, n, MMC City Clerk, City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 PH: (760) 346-0611, Ext. 304 Fax: (760) 340-0574 e-mail: rklassen@citvofpalmdesert.org Klassen, Rachelle From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:17 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: Spiegel, Bob Subject: FW: Dill Industrial project Rachelle, Per the email below, the applicant has requested that the Council call-up item be heard at the September 8, 2016, meeting. Thanks Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Community Development Department kswartz(@citvofoalmdesert.orq P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Robert Ricciardi rmailto:robert(n)ricciardiarchitect.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:10 PM To: Swartz, Kevin Subject: Dill Industrial project Hi Kevin. Re: City Council Meeting on the 25th of August. Challenging the Palm Desert Architectural Review Board's denial of Brian Dills Industrial Bldg. on Spyder Circle. I will be out of the Desert on the 25th of August. So I'm requesting to be heard on the next City Council meeting on the 8th of September. Thank you for your help in this matter. 1 Robert H. Ricciardi Architect 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 T (760) 408-1208 F (760) 610-5037 Email javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'robert@ricciardiarchitect.com'); Website: RobertHRicciardi ARCHITECTURAL RE ZW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 Commissioner Columbini moved to approve the June 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet voting YES and Clark and Vuksic absent. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 16-76 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval or denial of the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the July 12, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant has made changes and will discuss the revised building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, said this project was continued from the June 14 and July 12, 2016 meetings. He reminded the Commission that this was a preliminary approval of architectural design for a new 5,280 square foot warehouse building. At the last meeting, the Commission suggested to the applicant to add different textures to give the building more articulation. The applicant is still proposing split faced block but has also added fluted concrete block to create different textures around the building. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, architect, said based on the comments received from the Commissioners at the July 12, 2016 meeting he has made the band larger and added more of the fluted block to create more interest especially on the front and sides of the building. He believes he has added quite a bit to the building based on their comments. Commissioner Lambell asked if the fluted concrete stands proud of the split face, and if so, by how much? G.\PlanningWnineJuaMRC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.dwx Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIC . COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 MR. RICCIARDI responded it was approximately one inch giving it a nice rough texture. Commissioner Levin asked about the three different materials on the east elevation and MR. RICCIARDI said it was glass, the frame for the glass, and two different concrete block colors. He and the Commission discussed the color of the door and MR. RICCIARDI said that it was in the back and would not be seen. Chair Van Vliet said it might be seen and MR. RICCIARDI said the door would be open most of the time. Commissioner Lambell said what encourages this Commission is to see how the vision of Palm Desert is being forecast, which is very encouraging and exciting. It's about breaking the barrier and moving outside the lines with something that invokes a reason why people want to come and spend their money in Palm Desert. She is concerned that this project comes up short of their expectations. She stated that this new submittal is certainly better than the previous one, but does not meet a higher standard. She understands that it is an industrial building and the back end may not be seen but believes there is a possibility that it will. MR. RICCIARDI said he has designed in a lot of industrial parks and is told how nice his buildings look and how good they look in the desert. He came to the desert in 1960 and was told that the City of Palm Desert wanted buildings to look like they belong in the desert. Now the City wants the architectural style of San Fernando and Los Angeles, which is not what the City was originally looking for. Buildings that reflect the original architecture are being torn down based on wanting to set a higher standard. The City wants good looking buildings, but in industrial parks the buildings need to rent for under a $1.00 per square foot, therefore, a lot of money cannot be spent on the design. This is an industrial building on a street that very few people travel or ever will see that will serve start up businesses, which will be great for the City's economy. Buildings that have been approved by this Commission, in the past, are all rented out because they look good. He understands that it is a different body of Commissioner's but feels his project meets the bar. Commissioner Clark said he drove down Spider Circle to get a sense of what was already there and thought this design was similar to the two buildings to the south and east. He felt those two buildings had some definite architecture to the fronts and that the applicant's building would probably blend into those two buildings. MR. RICCIARDI said those two buildings are 40,000 to 50,000 GAPIanningUanine Judy\HRC\t Minutes\2016\160726min dccx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL Rl� cW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 square foot boxes and his building is only a 5,000 square foot box. Commissioner Clark said he was impressed by the design of those two buildings and how the materials were used. Chair Van Vliet said just because the building is an industrial building and is smaller it shouldn't lack architectural design. He doesn't feel there is enough differential between the split face and the fluted since it is only one inch and the two colors look the same. MR. RICCIARDI said it won't be similar because the shadow created by the fluted block will produce a totally different texture. Chair Van Vliet pointed out that it is only one inch and MR. RICCIARDI said if it is made bigger, the cost will increase making it too expensive to build on the lot. In creating this lot, the City created the smallest industrial lot ever allowing only one driveway rather than two, making it unsalable and unbuildable. All because the City wants to see a Tajo Mahan here or something that is a lot nicer which doesn't lend itself to this lot. He has created a style, in the industrial areas, that has been in the desert for a while and many people like his designs. Commissioner McIntosh said this Commission doesn't ever rely on good examples of bad architecture. He also felt that the applicant's comments on economics were not an argument for this Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said if economics are not a good argument for this Commission, then the Commissioners don't really belong here because they don't understand that industrial buildings are a lot different than commercial buildings. If buildings are over 25,000 square feet they use tilt -up which is not affordable to the tenants, which is why concrete block is used. MR. RICCIARDI referred to his design of the Rancho Mirage fire station that also has concrete fluting. Commissioner McIntosh said it has a lot more articulation and detail than the building being proposed. MR. RICCIARDI said it is a fire station and Commissioner McIntosh asked him why he was using the building as a comparison. MR. RICCIARDI said because the buildings have the same materials. Commissioner McIntosh pointed out that the two buildings have different geometry and mass. He explained to the applicant that the Commission does not want him to spend more money on this building; it just needs a little more creativity. Commissioner McAuliffe appreciates the effort made by the applicant by responding to the Commissioner's comments from the last meeting and understands that the applicant has extensive experience. However, the Commission is asking him to use his GAPIanningUanine JudMR01 Minutes\2016\160726min docx Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVL . / COMMISSION MINUTES C July 26, 2016 professional design experience to elevate this project. There is an opportunity to simplify this and thinks the applicant could concentrate on the areas where the fluted block is. He appreciates that the applicant has added more fluted block to the project and said this Commission is appreciative and sensitive to financial constraints. He thinks the form of the building is not what's at stake, it's about presentation. The better this building presents itself the more rentable or salable it will be. The Commission wants this project to move forward while at the same time holding the standard that Palm Desert has established as a priority. He offered to have a sidebar with the applicant outside the context of the meeting. MR. RICCIARDI said he would be glad to talk with him but right now all he has received is rhetoric; rhetoric that doesn't tell him anything except that he hasn't met the Commission's goal. He feels the Commission's goal is indefinable and is all personal taste. Commissioner McAuliffe disagreed with that comment and said that is why this Commission is made up of professionals who are qualified by a governing body to sit on this Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said other cities are a lot easier to work with and this is the first time he has ever experienced this kind of rhetoric. Other cities tell him what needs to be done and then moves forward. With this Commission he doesn't receive a guide to go on other than he could do better. Commissioner McAuliffe said there is a fine line where they have to render their thoughts but at the same time... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said they were not professional thoughts. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to understand the conversation. Mr. Swartz said there are two options. One is to continue this item and the applicant could meet with two of the Commissioners, or... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said, as an architect, you have to have something to go on; garbage in, garbage out. If all he gets is rhetoric, which is indefinable because it's such a high level of extraction, you can't define it. Commissioner Clark suggested meeting with staff and other Commissioners to... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said he has met with staff and they haven't told him whether this project is good, bad, or indifferent. Chair Van Vliet said this could either be continued to allow the applicant to improve the architecture or to deny it and the applicant could appeal it to the City Council, which may be the better direction if the applicant feels he has done the best he can with this project. MR. RICCIARDI agreed with that and said because right now it's just words. G.\PIanningUanineJudMRC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.docx Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 Commissioner McAuliffe said the fire station the applicant built in Rancho Mirage is a very fine building and asked him if the level of design quality, given that's its two different projects with two different budgets... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said one project had a very low budget. Commissioner McAuliffe said that is when architects go to work. MR. RICCIARDI said some architects understand budgets, but very few do. Commissioner McAuliffe said he presumed that the applicant understands the budget which is the primary challenge. As an architect you have to ask yourself how you can make this work within the constraints you are given. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to deny the architectural design of a new 5,280 square foot warehouse building as presented. Commission provided architectural comments to the applicant, who was unreceptive. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-1-0-1 vote. A Roll Call vote was called: COMMISSIONERS I AYES NOES I ABSTAINED Clark x Colombini x I Lambell x Levin x McAuliffe x McIntosh x i Vuksic x Chair, Van Vliet x B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-178 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MARLORKAND LLC, 72960 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of a 20,000 square foot building, site plan, and landscape plans; Barkingham Palace. LOCATION: 73650 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. GAPlanningUanine Judy1ARC\1 Minutes\2016\160726min docx Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RL EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 16-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive #115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving or denying the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the June 14, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant did not make any changes and wants to discuss the proposed building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I., Service Industrial Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this item was continued from the June 14, 2016 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting for architectural modifications to a 5,280 square foot warehouse building. The Commissioner's comments were based on the proposed architectural style of a rectangular box building, and how they liked the split faced block, but suggested the applicant add more articulation. The architect was unable to attend the meeting on June 14, 2016 and staff notified the applicant after the meeting of the Commissioner's comments. The applicant met with staff and stated that he felt it was a good looking building and did not want to make the suggested modifications but wanted a chance to present the building plans to the Commission. Staff stated to the applicant that the Commission could approve it as presented today, the architect could make changes as suggested by the Commission, or the Commission could deny the proposed architectural design and the applicant could appeal to City Council. Commissioner Clark stated for the record that he was not present at the June 14, 2016 meeting, but since no action was taken on the item at that meeting, he asked if he would be able to participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz responded that Commissioner Clark may participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz stated that for today's meeting, the applicant has provided photos of other buildings similar to his building in and around the City. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, applicant, said he is G.\PlanningVanmeJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.dou Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIL COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 proposing building plans that is similar to his other buildings and approved by this Commission before with good architecture. It is an industrial building, therefore, you have to create something nice while at the same time keep costs down. He said tilt -up for a building of this size will be too expensive so he went with concrete split face block that has a nice look. He pointed out other existing buildings in the area and noted that all of the buildings, with the exception of three, were his. Those three buildings were approved by the City and all have higher heights and a lot more exposed building without any real articulation. He prefers his building design because it is all concrete block and looks like a desert building and regional in style. Therefore, he is asking the Commission to approve this project. He added that this type of building will be good for the City because start up businesses can go in at a lower cost. He pointed out that he is not asking the Commission to do something that they haven't done in the past. This building is in an area that isn't on the main street and most people won't see it from the street. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the large band on the building would be used for signage. Chair Van Vliet referred to the elevation that is exposed and said the other elevation could also potentially be exposed. MR. RICCIARDI said the building is built to the property line and referred to the building across the street that is also built up on the property line with no articulation at all. Chair Van Vliet said his point was that it could be a fully exposed building depending on when the future building was constructed. MR. RICCIARDI said that is why they have a rich wall and is well done. Commissioner Lambell had concerns with the south elevation because it has no articulation except for the color change with the band. MR. RICCIARDI said it is on the property line so you wouldn't get much articulation. Chair Van Vliet stated again that it may be exposed depending on how the future building is constructed. MR. RICCIARDI referred back to one of the other buildings approved by the Commission and stated it has no articulation and it is a lot higher than the one he's presenting and it was approved. Chair Van Wet pointed out that this Commission is only reviewing this building, not the others. MR. RICCIARDI said the wall will have rich landscaping that will add to it and will have split faced block that will compliment the landscaping. MR. RICCIARDI said this Commission needs to be consistent. Commissioner Levin said times have changed and this Commission doesn't have to be consistent with a decision that was GAPIanningUanlneJudMRC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RI .EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 made in the past. We are looking at this building with today's standards and what we feel is architecturally appropriate. MR. RICCIARDI said if we have something that is rich and everybody likes it and it's been used before, then why wouldn't it be approved. Commissioner Levin said if everybody likes it we wouldn't be having this conversation. MR. RICCIARDI said the last thing he wants to do is go to the City Council, as he has done in the past and even though it was successful it created a lot of problems. Commissioner Lambell said this Commission is trying to raise the level of what is expected from every applicant in the City of Palm Desert and we are asking for something that makes this building stand out. MR. RICCIARDI felt he has done that with this building; it is nice, good looking, and stands out. He has done a tremendous amount of nice industrial buildings in the city and he's never had anyone tell him that his industrial buildings were not nice looking. Industrial buildings have to be brought in for a certain price, therefore, you have to get tenants to spend a little less. We have to do things that are nice, good looking, and within budget. That's what industrial buildings and industrial parks are all about and that is why they are located in specific locations. Commissioner McAuliffe asked what the horizontal band material was and how many courses high. MR. RICCIARDI said it was concrete block and fluted and was two courses high per band. It will stick out somewhat to create a shadow line. Commissioner McAuliffe asked the applicant if he felt this building has the same level of architectural articulation or expression as the other buildings. MR. RICCIARDI said the articulation is in the texture of the material with a lot of ins and outs and shadows that create a lot of texture. The other buildings have no texture except for paint color. He stated that all the new buildings in the city are modern steel and aluminum buildings and he wants to bring the richness back to the City by doing regional architecture. MR. RICCIARDI said if the Commission wants more articulation, he would add another band or make the bands deeper. He is open to suggestions. Commissioner McAuliffe said that is what they were trying to communicate. Commissioner McAuliffe said he understands that this is an industrial building and building a shoebox is by far the most efficient shape and makes sense for the price point. He believes there is an opportunity as an architect to add additional character to the building; joint work, larger regions of texture, and additional fluted texture. MR. RICCIARDI said the Commission is asking him to do G\PlanningWnine JudyWRC\1Minuies\2016\160712min docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIL COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 something that he didn't quite understand and if they could make a recommendation then he would have a better understanding. Commissioner McAuliffe said within the two textures there is a potential to make the band wider. He referred to a masonry building in Indio that is a rectangular box and they used two different tile colors. He is not proposing the applicant to do that, but they used very simple materials that added character to something that was entirely utilitarian. Again MR. RICCIARDI said that he is asking the Commission to make a suggestion and tell him exactly what they want and approve the project. Commissioner McAuliffe said that staff has given him suggestions several times. He said the band at the top makes sense. However, the band that runs around the middle has a lot more opportunity to do something there, possibly by extending portions of that band all the way to the ground to help define the entrance. Commissioner McAuliffe said what the applicant has done on the building is far more visually appealing than the other buildings; however, he needs to raise the bar. MR. RICCIARDI said the 50,000 square foot building and the 5,000 square foot building are two different things. Commissioner McAuliffe said if it doesn't look good it doesn't matter how big or small it is. As a Commission, this is a standard we are held to. Commissioner McAuliffe suggested taking the fluted texture and wrapping the corner so that it reaches all the way to the ground to create a mass. MR. RICCIARDI said he would be glad to do that on the ends and asked for them to put that in a motion and get this project approved today. Chair Van Vliet said the best thing for the applicant to do is to make the necessary changes and bring them back to the Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said he wants an approval today because his client wants to move forward. Mr. Swartz said it appears that the Commission is suggesting a continuance to allow the applicant to review the Commissioner's comments and bring a revision back to the next ARC meeting. Chair Van Vliet concurred with Mr. Swartz and also stated that the project could be denied then the applicant could appeal it to the City Council. MR. RICCIARDI said an appeal would take a long time and preferred not to go in that direction. He said he would redraw the plans and bring it back to the next ARC meeting. Commissioner Clark encouraged the applicant to continue working with staff on the rough drawings. Mr. Swartz mentioned that if a couple of Commissioners were willing to meet with staff and the GAPlarnnngUanme Judy\ARC\1Mmutes\2016\160712mm docx Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RI .EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 applicant, it could be arranged. Chair Van Vliet agreed this could help move this project forward. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case PP 16-76 subject to applicant working with staff on the building design based on comments provided by the ARC Commissioners. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:50 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSOCIATE PLANNER SECRETARY JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY G\P!anningWnme JudytARCllMinutest20161160712mtn.docx Page 11 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 16-76 ACTION: June 14, 2016 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI ARCHITECT, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to review and make architectural comments for a new 5,280 square foot industrial building. LOCATION: 34-751 Spyder Circle (Vacant Lot) ZONE: S.I. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal to review and make architectural comments for a new 5,280 square foot industrial building The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and continued this item to allow the applicant to made additional changes to the building based on their comments. Commissioner Levin moved to continue Case PP-16-76 with comments from ARC that the applicant adds articulation to break up the massing of the building. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners Clark and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented for discussion only a building paint color change along San Pablo Avenue for Silver Fox Lounge and Bar. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and thought that the color change would look out of place. They suggested the applicant either replace existing awnings or be creative with their signage to identify their business. ACTION: No Action taken. Discussion Only. G:TlanningWnineJudy\ARC\1Minules\2016\160614min.docx Page 3 of 4 r m C 0 Z Ui m m K� i7 ry u x u ry � ........... m D r `-------------------' n r a Z g� v i o a sm �sm n m rn F- 2 � - � 3 CxuSEAS�MO DMT0PNPMCcr<SVMr pLL iMMrft %DACMG RLws 5 n I rn m r a.•-n• m C a J —4 Q = 0 fl] m m 1;3L C n d I �Aw wo