The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-04-28 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesN CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 2020 (VIRTUAL MEETING) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chris Van Wet, Chair Karel Lambell, Vice Chair Allan Levin Michael McAuliffe Jim McIntosh Jim Schmid John Vuksic Current Meeting Present Absent X X X X X X X Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II Pedro Rodriguez, Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting: 12124119, 3110/20, 3124/20, 4/14120, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 25, 2020 Year to Date Present Absent 4 1 4 1 5 5 4 1 4 1 5 Action: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve the February 25, 2020 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES. ARCHITECTURAL REl►,eW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2020 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SARC 20-0003 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Architectural Design & Sign, 1160 Railroad Street, Corona, CA 92882 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve modification of an existing fuel pricing monument sign and new canopy signage; Sam's Club #6609. LOCATION: 34220 Monterey Ave ZONE: P.C.-3 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal to modify an existing monument sign at the Sam's Club gas station located on Dinah Shore Avenue (Dinah Shore) and Monterey Avenue. He presented a site plan to show the location of the signage which includes modifying one (1) existing monument sign located at the drive entry off Dinah Shore and two (2) canopy signs that will be located on the north and south elevation of the existing canopy. He presented details for the monument sign and said they will only be adding the changeable copy for the station's pricing information to the existing enclosure and no other changes are being proposed. He presented details of the canopy signs and said the existing signage on the canopy will be replaced with some digital pricing signage, as well as a new wall sign that reads "Sam's Club". He presented details of the fuel pricing signs that will go on the fascia band. Mr. Melloni recommended approving the proposed changes to the gas pricing monument that are consistent with other gas station signs approved throughout the City in the past and recommending denial of the changes to the canopy signs with respect to the addition of the digital pricing. Because the changeable digital copy is prohibited by the code in general there isn't a precedent established for those where we have allowed that kind of signage on the fascia band. Mr. Robert "Robin" Bell, Architectural Design and Sign, said a few words about the city being agreeable to the monument and wondered if an ordinance amendment was possible to allow digital signage by right since they've been around for at least ten (10) years. He felt that the signage on the canopy was justified since it was a large station and would be difficult for cars to see the pricing information. GAPIannirtgVanineJudylAACMMinut9$\2020%200428mIn.dau Page 2 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REQ� W COMMISSION 0 MINUTES April 28, 2020 Commissioner Lambed was concerned with the digital pricing and felt that since Sam's Club was a membership only gas station, customers getting gas at the station would be less concerned about knowing the price before they made the purchase. Commissioner Levin didn't mind the pricing on the south side of the canopy, but saw no need for pricing on the north side of the canopy. He also referred to an example of a monument sign in Bermuda Dunes. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about the aesthetic of having that info so high off the ground, ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve the monument sign as presented and deny the proposed digital pricing signs on the fuel canopy structure. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAullffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0010 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CHRISTIAN & BRETTE MACLEAN, 74420 Covered Wagon Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a roof height exception at 17'-4". LOCATION: 74-420 Covered Wagon Trail ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a roof height exception at 17'-4" for a single family residence located on Covered Wagon Trail, as well as an addition of a garage, laundry room and a guest bathroom. He said this was previously approved over the counter at 15'. The applicant is now requesting an additional height on the garage to accommodate a boat. He presented elevations and a floor plan for review. MR. JUAN PEREZ, Perez Collaborative, said the owner is requesting the height to accommodate the boat. He said architecturally the garage doesn't look right at 15' and it would be harder for contractors to make it work to adapt to the existing roof line. MR. BRETTE MACLEAN, owner, said they want to accommodate the boat and would like the additional roof height and taller garage doors. GAPIanningUenine Judy%AFC%lMinutes%20261200428min d= Page 3 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REb .,cW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2020 Commissioner Lambell was concerned with how the master closet was bumping out by 2' and said if the area is being changed, then this must be pointed out on the plans. Mr. PEREZ said they bumped out the master closet that will be underneath the existing roofline. Chair Van Vliet said from the street this is not a visual area of the house. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the mechanical closet on the plans and pointed out the roof with a large vent coming out. He said looking at the house he understands it's not a real visual area but as he reviewed the existing pictures of the house he suggested they restudy the roof to make it more aesthetically appealing and consider vents that will create an architectural feature that are chimney -like. Commissioner Vuksic had some concerns about the articulation of the garage and said there is a lot of room for some creative articulation of roof so you can get the height where you need it for the boat and some lower areas where you don't need the height for the cars. He suggested to nestle the higher piece into the house to avoid a pyramid at one end of the home. Commissioner McIntosh thought there were guidelines for this type of discussion to give guidance as a committee on what can be considered for a height variance. He also thought the guidelines will help the applicant with a design solution and see if this meets that criteria. Mr. Swartz said there has to be some architectural merit to justify the height increase and blend with the architectural style of the home. Commissioner McIntosh said this stands out as a different roof line and a different mass than the existing house. Commissioner Vuksic referred back to the elevation and understands why they need this extra height for the boat but they don't need it for the whole 40' of that width of the addition. He said they can articulate the mass differently and maybe the taller mass has a 10' or 12' wide door and the lower mass has a 16' wide door and different roof lines that are lower and more in keeping with the height of the existing house. This is a start to try and break this down to make it look like it belongs with the existing house. MR. PEREZ was concerned with the cost of construction and all the suggested changes and said if they end up dividing the garage in half to accommodate one area for the boat and one area for the cars, then the cost will go up. Chair Van Vliet pointed out that Commissioner Vuksic's comments were suggestions and not dictating any specific architectural solutions. He is well aware of this house and drives by it all the time. However, when he GAPIanningVanineJudylARMIMinules120201200429min,do" Page 4 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REV ,ZW COMMISSION O MINUTES April 28, 2020 first saw the plans he thought the garage was way oversized and took away the nice architecture of the house. He also thought the fascia detail looks thin and totally different than the original house. He asked if the fascia was identical to the original house. MR. PEREZ answered no and stated this was a drafting error. He said the fascia will match the existing. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they study this further from a design standpoint and break down the mass so that it matches the existing home better than it does now. Commissioner McAuliffe said he doesn't think anyone is pushing back against what the applicants fundamentally want to do for the home. Everybody is in agreement with the improvements they are making. What is at issue is how the garage as a mass relates to the size and scale of the existing home. The garage right now, including the doors, visually overwhelms the scale of the existing house. Tempering the scale of it and how it transitions from the existing house into the garage is what needs to be revisited. It doesn't necessarily mean the footprint or the interior function of the garage itself but he thinks what everybody is saying is how to get the garage to transition into the existing house in a way where it feels integrated. As it is now, it's going to feel like this garage was simply pushed up against the existing house and at the end of the day it's not what the applicants want to experience either. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the second bay backing out of the garage and asked how much space they had out of the garage. He and the designer discussed the maneuvering clearances out of the second bay. MR. MACLEAN said the plans didn't look to scale and explained the turning radius as it is now. Commissioner McAuliffe suggested they restudy this and said typical maneuvering space for pulling into a driveway like that is a minimum of 24' otherwise you will be doing a 27- point turn to get out of the garage. MR. MACLEAN said the driveway is wide enough now and thought that the drawings were tight. Commissioner Lambell suggested revising the drawings so everything is accurate and to scale. Commissioner Levin was concerned about the size of the garage doors. The Commission and the applicant discussed the size and height of the doors. Commissioner McIntosh said given the criteria in the code that allows the Commission to grant the height exception, they can summarize what the issues are and the applicant can return with a design that meets that criteria to justify the height exception. GAPianningUanineJudy4ARC11Minules120205200428min.dom Page 5 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2020 ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to continued Case No. MISC 20-0010 subject to: 1) building height needs more articulation in the elevation to justify the height; 2) look at breaking up the mass of the roof by providing different planes; 3) the garage doors in height and design need to be studied as they appear too large for the scale of the home; 4) the addition and roof height must blend into the existing architecture of the home. It cannot look like an afterthought; 5) the new fascia needs to match the existing fascia; 6) drawings need to be to scale and correct; and 7) review the access driveway and turning radius to make sure that there is enough clearance for all types of vehicles. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McAuliffe moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission virtual meeting at 2:40 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLA SECRETARY 0RE JUD 9RDING SECRETARY G'.PianningUaninoJudMRC%lMinutes1202U120042Bmin.docx Page 6 of 6