Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-14 ARC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2020 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 Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 1 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 1 Allan Levin X 1 Michael McAuliffe X 1 Jim McIntosh X 1 Jim Schmid X 1 John Vuksic X 1 Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Alex Vasquez, Code Compliance Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting: 12/24/19, III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October, 22, November 12, and December 10, 2019 Action: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve meeting minutes for October 22, 2019, November 12, 2019 and December 10, 2019 with minor changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmid and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 2 of 17 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0042 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT, c/o William Swank, 74895 Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration for a denial of an exterior renovation; Courtyard by Marriott LOCATION: 74-895 Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: P.R.-5 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify the façade of the existing three-story Courtyard by Marriott. The changes include the addition of a new tower element on the north elevation to accent the primary entrance along with the replacement of the existing porte- cochere. No design changes are proposed for the remaining elevations; these will undergo a paint color change from the existing tan to shades of gray. He presented renderings of the proposed changes and said this is a standard model that Courtyard’s corporate branding has adopted and introducing to all locations. However, with these new forms staff is concerned that the scope of the changes do not relate to the design of the existing hotel and pointed out that the new tower forms and porte-cochere on the north elevation are contemporary in nature and the flat roof of the towers clash with the pitched tile roof used on the existing building. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed façade changes. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that this proposed style might be approved in other locations and asked if there are hotels that have the sloped roofs, as well as the façade pieces on them. MR. BILL SWANK, owner’s representative, answered no and explained that this is a Marriott brand requirement for hotels that are 18 years or older across the nation. This is their architecture vernacular they would like deployed across the country with some minor variations. He said the ownership thinks this is not the right look or the right product for this community and is feeling forced by Marriott to push this through. He said this is not a business hotel; it is 95% is tourism related. Commissioner Vuksic said there is an architectural industry term for this design; half -baked. He stated there are some contemporary elements that are not done well on a building that is not contemporary at all. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 3 of 17 Commissioner Levin asked about the colors. Commissioner Vuksic said colors are a detail. It is the basic bones of what is being proposed that is not acceptable. Commissioner McIntosh said it is not well thought out and not sensitive to the existing building and moved to deny. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to deny the request due to the poor integration of the proposed façade elements with the existing building architecture, lack of design cohesion, and total lack of compatibility with the existing building and neighboring structures within the project vicinity. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmid and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. Commissioner McAuliffe recused himself from this project and left the conference room. 2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GRAZIADIO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, Attn: Bill Lang, 149 Palos Verdes Blvd. #E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve façade modification; Jensen’s Shopping Center. LOCATION: 73-547 Highway 111 ZONE: D.O. Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify the approved façade for the Jensen’s Shopping Center (Jensen’s). He presented the originally approved façade drawings from August, 2018 to establish context and ran through a slideshow. He said back in August, 2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) preliminarily approved the elevation, which was then approved by staff and the building department. He stated that Jensen’s has been undergoing construction since that time and is nearing completion. Mr. Melloni said staff visited the site and noticed details that were not completed per the approved plans and elevations. At that time, staff provided a correction to the contractor and relayed to the owner that corrections needed to be completed per approved plans. He explained to the Commission that the uncompleted work was for the cornice details that are applied on six (6) total areas on Buildings D, E and F. He presented a form provided by the applicant and pointed out the elevations that were approved August, 2019 that clearly shows the detail on the buildings. He pointed out on the original approval the roof that slopes forward with a 6” overhang with a cornice detail wrapping at the corner of the elevation. He stated that the as-built has a roof with a rake tile edge. He showed the detail ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 4 of 17 on Building F and how it returns. This was submitted to the ARC and made a part of the original approval. He also presented a rendering that was submitted as part of the proposed modifications specifically to the roof-top screening that was not officially approved by the ARC but shows in a 3-D context that the return was intended as a part of the overall design. He presented a photo taken prior to today’s meeting showing the existing condition where the cornice detail was not included and neither was the overhang. He pointed out that the cornice terminates without wrapping. He presented photos of the other instances where this occurs. The next photo he presented was taken when staff did the original site visit back in November, 2019 and said this photo is intended to show the overall intent of the design and the ARC approval was to include that cornice and without it, it is an incomplete element. Mr. Melloni said the applicant has requested this application before the ARC to modify the original approved elevations and keep the existing as- built condition citing the overall Spanish architecture. Staff would recommend denying the request for the proposed modification directing them to construct what was originally approved or continuing it to allow the applicant an alternative re-design if the original design with the 6” overhang and the cornice return isn’t possible. He presented an exhibit provided by the applicant showing the as-built with a rake tile edge. Commissioner Levin pointed out that they were able to do it on the tower element and Mr. Melloni said yes but it is slightly different. Commissioner McIntosh said this is a rake condition verses an eave condition. Commissioner Vuksic said this can be done. MR. BILL LANG, project manager, wanted to clarify that they are not requesting approval of a façade modification. He is appealing the zoning administrator’s final decision. Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development, said the zoning administrator does not have the purview of this decision. This Body (ARC) is the one who approved the construction documents and they understand that you are requesting a modification to an approved set of plans. MR. LANG said no. His contention is they built it per plan. Mr. Stendell said staff has researched the case file and the plan does not match the approved set of plans that were approved by this Body, and Mr. Ceja’s confirmation as the zoning administrator is confirmation of what was approved by the ARC. It would probably be more productive to talk about what we can do than what’s … (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said he wants to make it clear what he is doing here today. He is happy to discuss and see if we can reach a conclusion, but at the end of the day our position is that it is built per plan. His whole point is that he is not asking for a plan modification. Commissioner McIntosh asked why this is a gray area. Either it’s built per plan or it’s not. Mr. Stendell said it isn’t built per plan in his opinion. MR. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 5 of 17 LANG referred to the plan documents and explained the cornice at the eave that they had originally. Commissioner McIntosh said this wasn’t an eave detail and Commissioner Vuksic said this is a rake if you look at the roof tiles. Mr. Lang said this is for the pediment over “Jensen’s” that was originally proposed and denied by the ARC. That’s the only reason this is here. If he did a pediment, he could do what ARC is suggesting but you can’t do it on a rake. There is absolutely no way you can put a cornice up the rake. Commissioner McIntosh said he could and referred to the roof plan. The Commission reviewed the roof plan and Mr. Melloni directed them to Building F that calls out that dimension. Chair Van Vliet said they should be able to see an elevation of it and MR. LANG said there are no elevations included that shows that rake condition. Chair Van Vliet said then this is an incomplete plan. Commissioner Vuksic referred to one area and said that is why it doesn’t match the plan. MR. LANG asked the Commission if they were saying that the overall plan is not substantially compliant for this major modification. Mr. Melloni said there is an overhang where you can see the line of the underlying tower and all that is being dimensioned on the rendering. MR. LANG said these are elevations and not construction drawings. This is an impression of what the construction is going to be and there are minor deviations when you are building an existing condition. MR. LANG reminded the Commission that he did not build this from the ground up. Commissioner McIntosh said the applicant built the whole roof section up and MR. LANG said he didn’t and pointed out that this is the existing roof structure which was not modified at all. Commissioner McIntosh said the detail is an applied detail. MR. LANG said this can’t be designed the way the Commission is suggesting. Commissioner McIntosh said he wasn’t asking. He is saying it’s the way it was presented to the Commission. MR. LANG said he didn’t present it that way. Commissioner McIntosh said he just showed them a drawing. MR. LANG said those drawings were for the roof screen and they did that at the last minute to show the ARC the roof screen when it was being discussed. The guy who drew that up made that error but that is not what they are saying. We talked about many things and we never talked about the cornice going up the rake. Plus it’s not an appropriate architectural element to run the cornice up the rake that way on that side. Commissioner McIntosh asked why is it shown that way. MR. LANG said that is just one elevation out of hundreds plus the construction drawings. Commissioner McIntosh said all the front elevations sort of imply that by the way it is coming out there. MR. LANG said he could tell the ARC what this implies and presented photos. He said these examples look terrible, but if the ARC insists he will comply. Commissioner McIntosh asked Mr. Stendell what the objective was today. Mr. Lang interrupted the Commissioner and presented photos of rake conditions. Commissioner McIntosh told the applicant he can’t show them ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 6 of 17 good pictures of bad examples. That is not how you do it. MR. LANG said the way to get that condition to look like that he has to go straight back. Commissioner McIntosh said he wouldn’t. MR. LANG insisted that he would. Commissioner Vuksic said years ago he had this same issue. He had some foam pieces with one that went horizontal and one that went angle and they matched them up. It was taken to the job site and placed up under the eave and it matched perfectly. MR. LANG said there is no way with it straight up and down 90 degrees that they can make that work. He stated that he brought foam pieces in to show staff why that would not work. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. LANG discussed the proportions of the angle piece and the horizontal piece and reviewed the cut-backs. MR. LANG said the details are clear in the construction drawings. Chair Van Vliet didn’t think it was clear at all. Commissioner McIntosh said that is the problem. MR. LANG asked the Commission if they were telling him that the project doesn’t look like the elevation. He said to stop focusing on just six (6) rakes that nobody’s going to see 18’ above the ground. He said to go back to the elevation that was approved and asked if this doesn’t substantially comply, which is the criteria used here at the ARC. Commissioner McIntosh said from Highway 111… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said standing as close as you want he asked the Commission where doesn’t it comply. Commissioner McIntosh asked staff if the Commission has to go through this exercise. Mr. Stendell said no. Commissioner McIntosh said he thinks this is going nowhere. There are two different opinions and he respects the applicant’s opinion, but the Commission and staff doesn’t agree with the applicant. Either we have to come up with some solutions or the applicant needs to go down another path. MR. LANG asked if the Commission has a solution that they want to see. If there was something he could have reasonably done, he would have done it. There is no solution. He thinks the current existing condition is the best solution. He said he’s not taking that cornice that is already applied and angle it out. Commissioner Vuksic disagreed with the applicant that this can’t be done and said it can be done. He agrees with the applicant that having no eave detail along the gable edge is very common in the architectural vernacular, but what draws attention to this design is that the eave detail on the face is a different color and it’s a lot more noticeable when you’re standing out there than as shown in the photo. It looks like something is wrong. Something that didn’t get thought out. MR. LANG said they did propose painting up the rake the same width and painted the same color. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it wouldn’t look very good. Commissioner McIntosh said if anything they should paint the building the same color and not have the accent color. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with not having ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 7 of 17 the accent color on the eave detail. MR. LANG said he is fine with that. Commissioner Vuksic said the unfortunate part about that is that it’s a pretty simple building as far as the architecture and the accent bands add some character to it. MR. LANG said pick your poison. If you leave it like that, nobody sees it unless you were out there looking at it because it’s not in any walkway, you don’t see it from a long view and when you walk underneath the canopy. The only one you can see is on the end in the back next to a trash enclosure. This is back of building. Commissioner McIntosh said there are other conditions. MR. LANG said honestly this looks just fine. Chair Van Vliet said it looks really odd breaking it on that outside corner. Commissioner Vuksic didn’t think it would need to come out 6” going up the slope. He said it would be fine if it came out a couple of inches. It could be a band of some kind with some lines to it. MR. LANG said the other problem is that the mansards don’t match in elevation. The Commission and the applicant reviewed how the cornice at the top comes in and dies into the top and sticks over. MR. LANG said if he were to run the cornice up to that, it would have a weird look. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said it wouldn’t match up cleanly. MR. LANG said how they did this is the appropriate way to finish that off and it’s such a small detail to the overall building. He asked again if the Commission feels that not having that detail ruins everything they have done. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission didn’t say that. MR. LANG again stated that they have substantially complied and for the sake of argument if this was included in the approved plans, it would be a minor modification. Chair Van Vliet said whatever you want to call it, this is a problem. He asked how they would rectify this because of the different heights. MR. LANG said when you start to fix it, you will create other problems that will look worse. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were other conditions where they have the cornice at the top. Mr. Melloni said all of them and presented the approved renderings showing the conditions. Chair Van Vliet pointed out that some die to the inside corner and Commissioner Vuksic pointed out some that wouldn’t be clean. Commissioner Levin said part of the problem is that the Commission gets presented with pretty pictures, which is the applicant’s representation of what they are going to build. The Commission reviews it and that is what is expected. Then the applicant comes back to ARC and tells us that someone drafted it wrong, that’s your problem not our problem. The Commission can only see what you give us to look at and if what we see shows that, then you have to go back to your people and tell them that they designed something that can’t be built. MR. LANG said he understands that he and the ARC disagree, but that is not what was presented to the Commission. Commissioner Levin asked what he means by saying that is not what was presented. MR. LANG said that is one picture out of several that doesn’t show every single rake. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 8 of 17 Chair Van Vliet said you can see how far out it extends and he would assume from a construction standpoint it would go up. Commissioner Levin said that is a mitred edge… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). Commissioner Schmid said the column detail does return… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said the column detail doesn’t go up a rake. Mr. Stendell agreed but said it goes four-sided. Commissioner Schmid said he understands but it is shown here and the Commission has the expectation that it returns. MR. LANG said if there was a misunderstanding it should have been caught when they submitted construction drawings. That clearly showed a rake. Mr. Stendell said when there is a discrepancy between a set of construction drawings and what you have seen in preliminary plans, staff will go back and see what was preliminarily approved by the ARC and use that as the interpreter of the final drawings. As many of you have mentioned, the construction set is just a guideline, but in this case you have the original preliminary design drawings and then a construction set. He feels the Commission has solid expectations... (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said if you want them to put that on there, they can apply it that way but it won’t run up the rake. He can make the building look exactly like that if the Commission wants them to. It will look terrible. Chair Van Vliet asked if he meant doing it horizontal. MR. LANG said he could do it horizontal, stop it, or go back somewhere else. Commissioner Van Vliet said that was ridiculous. MR. LANG said that is what he thinks as well. He said the Commission is saying that the cornice will run up the rake and he’s arguing that it won’t. Commissioner Levin referred to the photo and asked what that shows. MR. LANG said that was not presented. Commissioner Levin asked where the photo came from. Mr. Stendell said it is a part of the case file. MR. LANG said it was not presented to this Body. It was given to staff to prove to them that we would cover all of the roof-top equipment. The photo wasn’t a part of the submittal to the ARC. Mr. Melloni said this was the submittal that was approved by the ARC. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant why he thinks the designer drew it that way. MR. LANG said he didn’t know. Commissioner Vuksic said because it was the only solution based on what he or she was given. MR. LANG said that was not true. He said they did not talk about going up the rake. Mr. Melloni said the other rendering that was included was drawn by the same architect and presented here as it was reflected of the original rendering. MR. LANG said to show the roof screen not to show the rake. Mr. Melloni said overall… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said again that if they looked at the project, overall they have substantially complied. Chair Van Vliet said that is not what they are looking at here. We’re looking at detailing … (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said that is the criteria ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 9 of 17 for the ARC. One of the Commissioners said it is not. MR. LANG said it says so right in the application. Chair Van Vliet asked staff how many conditions are there that wouldn’t work if the applicant puts the angle cornice on the rake because it is above the other one coming into it. MR. LANG said he would have to remove the cornice on the front of the building and then go back and reapply it at an angle, which he believes that’s not what the Commission wants. Commissioner McIntosh said that’s not necessarily that bad. He said the reality is this condition has happened a thousand times. This isn’t unique and so the statement that this can’t happen is not quite true because it can. What has to happen is the proportions of that profile will slightly change to make the geometry work on the outside corner. That’s how it works. It’s that simple. Commissioner McIntosh and the applicant discussed ways to have the foam wire-cut from the factory to the proportions they need to make that happen. He said it’s not that bad. MR. LANG said it is that bad since the roof is already built. He would have to tear back the whole roof. Chair Van Vliet said he wouldn’t have to tear back the whole roof. MR. LANG said he would have to tear back a portion and pull it back for the cornice to make it match. He reminded the Commission that this isn’t a custom house. Commissioner McIntosh said it’s a chunk of foam with plaster on it. MR. LANG said which costs $4,000. It’s not going to work that way. It doesn’t work. Commissioner McIntosh asked Mr. Stendell for guidance. Mr. Stendell said in his opinion the best possible option would be that the Commission approve plans as designed or continue the item to allow the applicant to resubmit a different design solution. MR. LANG said this is their design choice and this is the way it is per plan. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to elaborate on Mr. Stendell’s comments. The Commission mentioned earlier that if the eave wasn’t a different color it would actually work. MR. LANG said he is willing to do that. Commissioner Vuksic said however then we’ve lost something because the banding with a different color is important to the overall look of the center. He thinks the applicant needs to propose something else that their designer could think about in lieu of that. MR. LANG asked what that would be. Commissioner Vuksic said adding some little detail to the façade. MR. LANG said he feels very strongly that they built this to plan. He’s happy to listen to ideas that won’t require tearing off the front fascia or tearing the roof back. If there’s something simple that they could do to fix it, that would be great. Commissioner McIntosh made a motion to continue and said as a member of the Commission, he would like to go out to the site and look at these conditions and give the applicant an opportunity to possibly come up with another solution. (Motion died due to lack of a second). MR. LANG said he has spent two months trying to figure out a solution since staff pointed this out. We have exhausted all our options. Chair Van Vliet asked the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 10 of 17 applicant if he would prefer that the Commission deny the request. MR. LANG said if the Commissioners want to go out and look at the conditions he’s okay with that, but he has no other solutions. Commissioner Vuksic said if the applicant has no other solutions then he thinks their designer hasn’t thought about it very hard. MR. LANG said they have. Commissioner Vuksic told the applicant that he is really focused on the rake edge and saying that it can’t be done. If you paint the eave detail the same color as the body, then you’re done with that. Then your designer needs to look at something else to add a little more character detail to the building. You can’t say there is no solution. MS. TIFFANY JOHNSON, said they didn’t know they were on the agenda until yesterday at 2:00 p.m., so their architect was not able to attend. She asked if the Commission was open to calling the architect and conference him in. Mr. Ceja said he didn’t know if they were set up to do that at this point. MS. JOHNSON said staff told her yesterday that it would be possible. Commissioner McIntosh asked if there was an urgency here. MR. LANG said yes because Building is holding up California Fish Grill from opening, which is costing him money. This is a big deal that he can’t get finaled. He stated again that what they are doing is just a small detail and for argument sake, they have substantially complied with the drawings that ARC approved. In the application it states that as the applicant they will substantially comply. Commissioner Levin said what the applicant believes to be substantial might not be what they consider… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG feels they have substantially complied. The Commission can disagree and deny it and then we’d move on to the next step. He said this is costing him a lot of money. Mr. Ceja recommended that the Commission table this item and move on through the agenda. At the end of the meeting, staff can get the architect on the phone. MR. LANG said the architect was available right now. Commissioner McIntosh wondered if they would then just sit here and design this to come up with a solution. He disagreed with this option and said it would be a waste of time. Mr. Stendell said his staff has been on the phone with the applicant about this issue for months and nothing good happens design-wise when we’re operating under pressure. He told the Commission that they have been more than reasonable and if they wish to entertain that phone call, they could table the item. If you don’t want to design under pressure, then a continuance would be the best possible outcome. Commissioner Vuksic said this is going to be continued regardless because the architect isn’t going to have a design solution that the Commission can review. Mr. Stendell said a continuance with comments is the best they can do today. Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue. Commissioner Vuksic made the second. He understands that the applicant is frustrated and didn’t think this was that big of a deal. MR. LANG said neither did he, but yet it’s costing ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 11 of 17 him money because the City won’t approve. He said if planning signs off he can get stuff done, then he will be more than happy to keep moving. He has been trying to reach a solution with staff that is reasonable that they can work with. He asked Ms. Johnson what was needed. MS. JOHNSON said they can’t get the Building final until Planning signs off. MR. LANG said which means they can’t get the utilities going until the building is finaled. Commissioner McIntosh asked staff if there was a conditional approval. Commissioner Levin felt they would lose all leverage. Mr. Melloni said they could allow the California Fish Grill to proceed however… (too many people talking at this time making it hard to transcribe the minutes). Commissioner Vuksic asked if the California Fish Grill was done. MR. LANG said they were almost done. However, the air conditioners haven’t been tested because there is no electricity. Commissioner Vuksic asked how soon they can be finished. MR. LANG said they will turn over in two (2) weeks and open by the end of February. He said they have to get the kitchen up and running, do dry run-throughs, and get the employees set up. Commissioner Levin told the applicant that he has three (3) options; the Commission can approve it, deny it or continue it. If you get a denial and take it to Council, that is a minimum of 30 days before anything happens. If this is continued, then you’ll be back before this Commission in two weeks. He asked the applicant if standing his ground by saying that he’ll take it to Council is worth 30 days. MR. LANG said he’s not standing his ground. He’s asking for some flexibility to get the job done for the tenants so they can open up. He’s willing to work with staff and the Commission to figure out a solution, but he has to get the store open. Once he gets the final, the utilities take two (2) to four (4) weeks to come out. Commissioner Vuksic asked if staff can hold occupancy. Mr. Stendell said they can do a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) and hold occupancy. Commissioner Vuksic asked it that would solve the issue of time and buy them enough time. MR. LANG said he is fine with that as long as it’s not California Fish Grill. Mr. Melloni said they had a discussion months ago where staff said California Fish Grill was okay to proceed. MR. LANG said he wanted to clarify that it would be for the other suites. Mr. Melloni said with the understanding that you would come back with a solution on this other portion, but California Fish Grill… (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes) has been okay to proceed. MR. LANG asked if he is getting the TCO so he can get the utilities set-up. Mr. Melloni said they can have flexibility for California Fish Grill so the tenant can move forward. but the eave detail will have to be resolved. He told the applicant they can discuss those details after the meeting. Mr. Stendell said the TCO will let you get utilities and also allows the City to come back and revoke occupancy. MR. LANG said he will meet with the architect and suggest they paint the eave the same color as the building and then come up with some other ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 12 of 17 detail. Commissioner Vuksic said he was sure the architect will come up with something and if you send the changes to staff before the next meeting that will help a lot. Chair Van Vliet reminded the Commission there was a motion for continuance. It was moved and seconded and the vote was taken. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue Case MISC 20-0002 to allow the applicant to submit an alternative design solution for the missing cornice details, which were shown on the approved plans and elevations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, McAuliffe abstaining and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0043 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LYNN HAWS, 73-109 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of a new single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 18’. LOCATION: 73-142 Crosby Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a height exception to build a new 3,598 square-foot single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 16’-8”, and architectural projections up to 18’. The property is located behind the gates of Ironwood Country Club (Ironwood), and sits on a flag lot. Per section 25.10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the maximum height for a structure in single-family residential zones is 18’. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may grant exceptions to allow a maximum roof height of 18’ based on design merit. The proposed home complies with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks. He presented renderings and described the architectural style. He pointed out that most of the roof height is 16’ with a portion, in a rectangular area, at 18’, as well as the chimneys, which are allowed. He said the HOA has approved this project. Staff is in favor of approving the proposed roofline of 16’-8”, and architectural projections at 18’ as the home is sufficiently setback from surrounding properties. In addition, the height provides variation in the rooflines and ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 13 of 17 adds architectural interests to the home. Mr. Swartz said staff is recommending approval. Mr. Swartz stated that staff received one letter from a neighbor opposing the project along with photos taken by the neighbor from various spots on their property. He explained that the neighbor’s argument is that they will lose their mountain views and reminded the Commission that the new home will be 4’ lower. The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the photos and the unprotected views. Commissioner Levin said most of the roof height is 16’ with a few areas at 18’. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the line-of-site and said it could be right “in your face” but this house, in terms of the mass, is set way back from the neighbor’s property. Commissioner Schmid asked for the code regarding roof height exceptions. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said there is no ordinance that protects someone’s view, however there is an ordinance that, at the Commission’s discretion, you can go above 15’ up to 18’ in height for this zone. Mr. Swartz pointed out that these lots have greater setbacks and this home will be 4’ below the neighboring home. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission looks at the architectural style of the house and where the height overage is located, and in this case most of the house is only 16’ high with a lot of open space. He liked the architecture of the house and said it was good-looking. MS. LYNN HAWS, property homeowner, said there is only one narrow element that is above the height limit which is the spine wall that hits the 18’, as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said the plans call out for a roof-top deck. Mr. Ceja said the prohibition of roof decks came about in 2011. Mr. Swartz said they had discussions with the applicant regarding this because the renderings show a stairwell which the applicant said would be used to access roof-top solar panels. Commissioner McIntosh said this would be a privacy issue with neighbors. Mr. Swartz stated that the stairs are only for access to the solar panels. Commissioner Vuksic wondered if the structural engineer was engineering this for a large load. Mr. Swartz stated that they will look into this but pointed out again that the City does not allow roof decks. Commissioner Schmid said from the profile of the neighbor, there is only a small projection at 18’, as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said it would have been helpful to have poles for the line-of-site study rather than the black line on the neighbors photos and didn’t see a problem with the building height. Commissioner Schmid made a motion to approve and Commissioner McIntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic was still concerned that the plans were designed to have a roof deck and does not state that this is for solar access. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 14 of 17 Mr. Ceja reminded the Commission that the code prohibits roof decks and today’s review is strictly on building height. He said staff will work this out with the applicant. Chair Van Vliet called for the vote. ACTION: Commissioner Schmid moved to approve with the exception of the roof deck as prohibited per code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NOS: PP 19-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JOSH & VIVIAN STOMEL, 74-218 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve converting an existing two-(2) unit apartment complex to a 7-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 74-218 Alessandro Drive ZONE: DE-O Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a new 7-unit apartment complex on Alessandro Drive. He said this is an existing 9,900 square-foot two-unit apartment complex with a pool and zoned Downtown Overlay. The applicant wanted to do something per the zone as the City is encouraging a little more density in this area with buildings closer to the street and access directly to the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to leave the pool in its current location, relocate the front parking to the back, add a two-story building with four units, rehab one existing building, and expand on another unit in the back. He presented renderings and explained the project. He pointed out an existing driveway that is currently 12’ wide that has now been expanded to 18’, which is the lowest amount that Fire and Public Works is willing to approve. The applicant tried to work with the neighbor to have a shared driveway but this was unsuccessful. The driveway will lead to seven (7) parking stalls. Each unit has one-bedroom and will range in size from 455 square feet to 628 square feet. He presented color renderings of the elevations and passed around the color board. He said this requires a Precise Plan and will move forward to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval. Chair Van Vliet referred to the 18’ wide drive aisle and said it was unfortunate because of all the hardscape that will be visible coming up against the wall on the left and the building on the right. He suggested having a planter in that area. Mr. Swartz stated that at one time, staff suggested 14’ with a planter. Mr. Swartz said from a safety standpoint there ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 15 of 17 was concern with a car pulling in and a car coming out and there not being enough room. He pointed out the location of the trash bins which will be up to the property owner to maintain and the Commission had questions regarding the location of the HVAC and the mechanicals. MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, designer, stated they have a mini-split system that will be in the same area as the trash bins. He said the unit has a 3’ clearance and the fire department has access to them from the driveway side. Commissioner McIntosh stated this is a nice design that has captured the character of the style. He felt this was in line with the general plan and architecturally it is done very nicely and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic said he would never have guessed about the driveway width and said this is unfortunate. Chair Van Vliet said it is unfortunate because having a couple of more feet would have really helped. Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development suggested they add to their motion to minimize unnecessary width in the drive aisle. Commissioner Vuksic said they have made drive aisles 14’ wide in residential properties in Palm Desert. Commissioner McIntosh agreed and said especially if there will be a lot of this type of development in the City. Mr. Stendell said extra feet could be used for a small landscape planter to soften that concrete corridor. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to preliminarily approve and recommended that both Fire and Public Works consider allowing a reduction of the driveway width to lessen the amount of concrete and add a landscape planter. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmid and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. Commissioner Vuksic left at 2:05 p.m. 3. CASE NOS: SP 18-0001 and TPM 37575 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AEGIS BUILDERS, INC, 22365 Barton Road, Suite 200, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve architecture and landscape plans for a self-storage facility (Parcel 1) as part of the proposed Landmark Specific Plan. LOCATION: Dinah Shore Drive and Key Largo Avenue (adjacent to the Costco Shopping Center). ZONE: PC-3, PCD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 16 of 17 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this project was continued from the meeting on December 18, 2019. This is preliminary approval of the architecture for storage facility on Key Largo. At that meeting, the main discussion was the wall facing the freeway on the north elevation. Mr. Swartz said the Commission wanted to see some depth between the wall and the columns, see a sample of wall and specs, how will the material hold up on the southern exposure. The applicant has now submitted a materials sample and the specs for the wall. He said this appears today for approval of the architectural design of the storage facility and the north elevation wall. MR. BRUCE JORDAN, architect, referred to the spec sheet that was submitted to staff and said the material is specifically made for southwestern exposures. They chose this material for the low maintenance and durability and passed around a sample of the product. He said they off-set the pilasters from the wall to create shadow line and in-filled the wall with a flat metal panel. Originally the shaded element was taller and they felt the proportions weren’t right so they lowered it but it has an increase over the long linear part of the wall to break up the long 1,200’ dimension. He pointed out that the vinyl material is set in the middle of the 8” block so it is 4” back from the face. Commissioner McIntosh asked why they chose vinyl instead of PVC as originally planned. MR. JORDAN said they did not want the expense of running block the entire 1,200’. They broke it up using the masonry pilasters, the stucco and the vinyl. Commissioner McIntosh asked if there was a cap that goes on top of the vinyl fencing. MR. JORDAN stated there was a horizontal piece made out of heavier gauge vinyl. He said this is structural support from the wind and carries the horizontal load to the pilasters. The Commission discussed the 255’ from the west boundary of the freeway to the face of the wall. Commissioner McIntosh pointed out that the vinyl fencing will not take a direct hit since it is on the north elevation. Commissioner McAuliffe said if the vinyl fencing fails to perform whether it’s a significant decolorization or deterioration then it shall be replaced with something suitable. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to preliminarily approve as proposed subject to: 1) if vinyl material proposed on the north elevation wall deteriorates over time, the applicant shall replace. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmid and carried by a 5-0-2 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet voting YES, Vuksic and Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 17 of 17 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE – Commissioner Vuksic In the absence of Commissioner Vuksic Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development presented an update on AIPP. The AIPP Commission and staff adjourned to a field trip to San Pablo to start looking at how art may work for this project. He suggested that sometime in the near future the ARC can also adjourn to San Pablo to look at Phase I and the active reuse of buildings. The Commission will review San Pablo’s vision as far as the difference between El Paseo with its polished nature, and San Pablo that desires to be a little more urban and funky in nature. He also mentioned a new façade enhancement program that will be presented at the next Council meeting. VII. COMMENTS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:50 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY