Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-26 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2020 (VIRTUAL MEETING) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chris Van Vliet, 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 Mellon!, Assistant Planner Russell Grance, Director Building & Safety Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting: 1=4/19, 3110120, 3124/20. 4/14120 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 2020 Year to Date Present Absent 6 1 6 1 7 6 1 6 1 6 1 5 2 Action- Commissioner Lambell moved to approve the May 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh Schmid, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: May 25, 2020 CASE NO: MISC 20-0011 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SEAN AND KIM SMITH, 47-817 Sun Corral Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new side -entry carport 16' from curb. LOCATION: 47-817 Sun Corral Trail ZONE: R-1, 10,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission a request for a new side -entry carport 16' from curb came before them on May 12, 2020. He presented the revised elevations to show the existing canopy structure, the existing bench on the east elevation, and the windows on the carport that were reduced in height. The design and scale of the proposed carport is compatible with the existing home and will not impact the existing on -site circulation. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with a condition to preserve as much existing landscaping as possible. The Commission was concerned with the existing landscape and felt that since this was such a sensitive issue a landscape plan should be required. Mr. Swartz said before the applicant receives a final on the building, a complete landscape plan and palette will have to be submitted. He also said the applicant must preserve as much landscape as possible, as well as adding additional mature landscaping. Commissioner McIntosh said this is critical because it is so close to the street. Chair Van Vliet asked where the roof drainage channel was located. Mr. Swartz said staff will work this out with the designer and he will make sure there are no scuppers on the outside. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1) submittal of a roof plan showing locations of roof drains; and 2) submittal of a landscape plant prior to removal of existing landscape material. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. Ya:%PlanningUaninaJudy%ARC%Wnulas120=G052&Mn.docx Page 2 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 Commissioner McIntosh recused himself from the following item and remained in the Zoom virtual meeting. 2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0012 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GREGORY AND JENNIFER SPATES, 73- 695 O'Keefe Way, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a height exception to construct a 17'-0" single family residence. LOCATION: 77-730 Mountain View ZONE: RE Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission that this request for a height exception came before them on May 12, 2020. The Commission had some comments about breaking up the design of the roof line, adding some articulation to the eastern wall of the kitchen, recessing the garage doors, introducing additional color, and revising the site plan. He said the applicant redesigned the roof line by breaking up the main gable into multiple adjoining hipped roofs, the exterior color palette has remained the same from the first submittal, and the large wall expanse along the eastern elevation has been reduced slightly by the new roof shape and is obscured by the wall enclosing the rear yard. Lastly, the garage doors have been recessed with the use of double -framed walls. Additionally, the applicant has revised the wall placement to conform with the fence and wall ordinance by increasing the setback, adding pilasters and additional landscaping. Staff is recommending approval of the home and granting the exception as proposed. MR. GABRIEL RIOS, designer, stated that the color was originally pure white and is now more of an off white color. Commissioner Vuksic and the designer discussed the location of the gables. MR. RIOS stated the only gables will be on the north elevation. ACTION: Chair Van Wet moved to approve with comments. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, McIntosh abstaining and McAuliffe absent. GARanningUanine JudMRCISMinutes120201200526min.daa: Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 3. CASE NO: MISC 19-0030 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WOOD INVESTMENTS COMPANIES, 2950 Airway Avenue, Unit A-9, Costa Mesa CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Facade update to existing Palms to Pines Shopping Center_ LOCATION: 72-655 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-(3) SP Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify the facade of the existing Palms to Pines shopping center located between Highway 111 and El Paseo. The proposal also includes landscaping modifications which will remove all existing turf along the property's Highway 111 and El Paseo frontages and replace it with desert native plant species. The facade modification will focus on the multi -tenant building located towards the central and southern portion of the site. The building is currently anchored by Smart and Final and several independent restaurants. The existing architecture is characterized by Spanish inspired sloped terra-cotta roofs, tan stucco, and a long horizontal form with multiple breaks in the building mass. Changes to the building include repainting the entire exterior, addition of a cornice to the parapet, expansion of the tenant's fascia band to allow for larger wall signage, and expansion of the main entry facade for Smart and Final. Staff is supportive of the overall changes and recommends the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the proposed building modifications. As a part of the motion for approval, staff recommends the ARC work with staff to revise the landscape plan to provide shade trees throughout the parking area and to replace trees which have been damaged or removed over the years. Chair Van Vliet was concerned with the reflective white paint and wanted to know if it was an accent color or the main body of the building. Mr. Melloni said it appears on the plans as being on the main body and used on the bulk of the building. Chair Van Vliet was concerned that it was very bright and very hot and suggested they restudy that. Chair Van Vliet asked how tall the fascia height was for the signage. MR. MATTHEW BUSH, applicant, said the sign application will be submitted after receiving approval for the design review. Typically in other shopping centers they have channel letters but in this case it is G,.%AanninyUanlneJudMRMIMinLftM202D W526min.d=,, Page 4 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 designed for the letters to go directly onto the stucco. Commissioner Levin pointed out that the fascia was 3. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the end detail of the 3' fascia relative to the roof edge and suggested they restudy that. Commissioner Levin said the highest point is 26'-3" on the north elevation and asked what the existing height was. Mr. Melloni said they are not expanding it or making it any taller. They are just adding the cornice trim detail. The only real addition is the main entry. Commissioner Levin asked if everything was ADA compliant and pointed out the existing ramps on the exterior walkways. Mr. Melloni said the applicant can weigh in on that but said that will be handled at the building permit stage. Commissioner McIntosh believes that the Commission has never approved high reflective white (HRW) and it is not compatible with desert colors. He feels it wouldn't be acceptable to have a building this size with a majority of it painted HRW. Overall, the new frontage ties in with a lot of the existing architectural forms especially for the anchor tenant, Smart and Final. He is concerned with the comment made about the extended fascia underneath the tiled roofs and thinks this isn't in character with the rest of the building and is out of proportion. This should require a little more study, as well as a section through it and how it terminates at the end. Commissioner Levin asked if this center has a sign program and Mr. Melloni said he wasn't aware if there is and if so, it would be really outdated. This center was originally developed in the 80s and there isn't one they currently refer to. Staff just defers to the sign ordinance as it generally stands. Commissioner Levin asked if the proposed fascia signs were illuminated and Mr. Melloni said he would have to defer to the applicant on that. He thinks this will be handled more directly through the sign program where they will address the colors, allowed heights along the signage band, identify lighting standards, font styles, and sign locations. He also said the renderings are an approximation of where the signs will be placed. Commissioner Vuksic was intrigued by the fascia and said it was so deliberate and looks interesting in this particular case. This does need to be looked at a little more closely to make sure that it is properly proportioned and detailed at the end to pull this off. He said the northeast elevation where it is hanging over concerns him. He GAPlenningUerdneJudyLARCUMinutee12020%20052Bmin.dmx Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 suggested they restudy the columns on that elevation because it looks like it hasn't been thought out completely. All the proportions need to look good relative to the angled roof edge. Mr. Melloni felt the fascia band would look weird if it terminated or if the column was moved over and suggested they re -exam it specifically at this corner. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that they all need to be looked at to have a possibility of this working. MS. OLGA CANTRELL, architect, said because they are working on an existing building they are trying not to add a lot of weight to it. In areas where they think it looks aesthetically okay not to return the fascia they are trying not to return it. However, in specific locations they will start looking at the areas where there isn't a column at the corner. Commissioner McIntosh referred to the northeast elevation with the long cantilever that looked odd and wondered how they are going to make that height transition in such a way that will work because it looks like the fascia is coming into the side of that column. There are issues that need to be resolved for this to work. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the architects comment that this will return in some areas and not return in others. He and the applicants discussed the possibility to put a column at the end. MR. BUSH said their concern is that they are taking an old building and changing the structural elements of it. He is always hesitant to open up a can of worms like that if they don't have to. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. BUSH continued to discuss different options regarding the columns; having two (2) columns at the end or cutting the roof back so the beam or the fascia band ends at the column. Chair Van Vliet suggested this be continued to allow the applicants to re -study the fascia and bring it back so the Commission can get a clear picture of what is happening there. MR. BUSH asked if they could just add the column to the end of the fascia on the northeast elevation to avoid a continuance. Commissioner Lambell said they need to look at this in the total scope of the project so it doesn't end up having two (2) columns right next to each other. Chair Van Vliet called for a motion. Commissioner Lambell made the motion for a continuance and Commissioner Vuksic made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for further comments. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with the comment about the two columns that are a common element in architecture and the relationship of those columns is very important and needs to be restudied. He said after G:TlanningVanineJudyAARMIMinutas%202D200526min.d= Wage 6 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 making that fascia so huge it brings a lot more attention to that area. They continued to review and discuss the area where the two roofs tie together and how the one is tucked underneath the second one. Chair Van Vliet called for a vote. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. MISC 19-0030 subject to: 1) restudy color scheme; 2) study end detail of fascia relative to roof edge; 3) add additional trees to parking lot; 4) re -design end treatment of colonnade at northeast portion of the building; 5) provide cross-section details of the proposed colonnade, including details showing the design where the roofline changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 6-0-1, with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. B. Preliminary Plans Commissioner Levin recused himself from the following item and remained in the Zoom virtual meeting. 1. CASE NO: PP 19-0006 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KOLA OLATUNBOSUN, 73-360 Catalina Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a design for a new single -story residential duplex. LOCATION: 73-721 San Nicholas Way ZONE: R-2 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission a request to construct a 3,452-square-foot single -story residential duplex on a vacant lot at 73-271 San Nicholas Way came before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on October 22, 2019. At that meeting, the ARC raised design comments on the roof form, compatibility of the contemporary style carport with the traditional character of the main home, code issues with the floor plan and general articulation. The applicant has re -designed the roof by adding additional gables stacked upon the primary roof form, which has added to the total height of the structure. The contemporary flat roofed carports have been replaced with shed roof carports, which mimic the pitches used on the main home. The bedrooms, which did not meet building code egress requirements, have been removed from the floor plan. This falls within most of the development standards with the exception of the carport which would be applying for a 16' side -entry carport exemption allowed by the code. He said given the resubmittal, his recommendation GAPienringUenlneJudy%ARC11Minutes120201200526m1n.docx Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 would be to continue this to provide some clear direction to the applicant with what the ARC would like to see in terms of the roof form and moving this towards a more traditional roof style, as well as direction on the floor plan, street facing facade, carport structures and front yard landscaping. Chair Van Wet said he spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was going on here and didn't understand the drawings as they were very complex, very difficult to understand and confusing. He had an issue with the height and liked the earlier elevations better. He also had problems figuring out what was going on with the whole roof system and feels the drawings needed more work. MR. JERRY JONES, designer, explained that they originally had a gabled roof but the Commission suggested adding more architectural features on the roof instead of having a straight gable. They went back and added little shingles (sic) on the side elevation and broke up the roof to give it some character with different overlays on the roof. The carport had a flat roof and they revised that to a shed roof to conform to the main roof. MR. KOLA OLATUNBOSUN, applicant, said the bedrooms were removed due to the egress issues which then created extra space for the living room. MR. JONES said the way they revised the roof was expensive and would prefer the straight gable as previously submitted. Commissioner McIntosh said the challenge here is putting this duplex into an existing neighborhood and what he's seeing is something that looks very complex and expensive and not really in context with the neighborhood. He told the applicants they could probably find a solution between the straight gable and this complex design. He said even the carport structures look rather commercial in nature. For this to fit in with the neighborhood, instead of standing out, he suggested a roof design that wasn't so drastic but not just having a straight gable. MR. JONES explained that they could delete the taller gable that overlays the lower gable in the front of the north elevation and go back to a complete gable on that end. Commissioner McIntosh and the applicants continued to discuss the design changes. Commissioner McIntosh stated that the way it is designed now it feels very foreign to the neighborhood and is very complicated. Commissioner McIntosh and the applicants reviewed and discussed the shade structures. Commissioner McIntosh suggested integrating the shade structures into the architecture instead of having prefabricated type shade structures as they look very commercial. He suggested they step back and consider making it all part of the same design. Commissioner McIntosh asked where the air conditioning mechanicals were located. MR. JONES indicated they were in the rear corners of the lot. Commissioner McIntosh suggested they include that on the re -design as it will help drive their design. GAPIanningUanineJudyARMIMinutes)202=00526min.doer Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2020 Commissioner Vuksic said a lot of times in a superior building, the roof has something to do with what is happening below, but this design doesn't reflect what is happening below. He said this kind of looks like a church because they have this extremely powerful symmetry that is not needed. He said the first design solution was too simple and this one is too complicated and they need to find something in between. MR. JONES said they will probably get rid of the higher gable to start with and integrate the carport into the design of the main structure. Commissioner Vuksic was a little concerned that they were creating a list of list of things from this meeting and said this really needs to be looked at with a keen design eye so that it's an attractive composition of forms. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case No. PP 19-0006 subject to: 1) revise design of the roof; 2) consider revising the design of the primary facade; 3) consider incorporating the covered parking into the main structure; and 4) show the location and details of all utilities and mechanical equipment on plans. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Lambell, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, Levin abstaining and McAuliffe absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS Discussion on Palms to Pines III and reopening City Hall. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:40 p.m. e ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PL�" SECRETARY wtj�- JA IN J Y REC RDING SECRETARY GAPJanninpUanineJudyWRQ Minu1es1202=0052&n1ndocx Page 9 of 9