Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-09 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 2020 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 (arrived 12:38) Jim McIntosh (arrived 1:01) 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 Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting- 12124/19, 3/10/20, 3/24/20, 4114/20 01:ZIIWd61T,I JillilCfL•ll�Ca��h� None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 26, 2020 Year to Date Present Absent 7 1 7 1 8 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the May 26, 2020 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 5-0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh and McAuliffe absent. (both arrived late) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC19-0030 June 9, 2020 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WOOD INVESTMENTS COMPANIES, 2950 Airway Avenue, Unit A-9, Costa Mesa CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL 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, reminded the Commission a request for a facade modification of the existing Palms to Pines shopping center located between Highway 111 and El Paseo came before them on May 26, 2020. The item was continued to allow the applicant to redesign the colonnade treatment at the northeast corner of the building and demonstrate how the fascia will be designed where the roofline changes to accommodate grade changes. The applicant is proposing two (2) different design choices which focus on the end of the colonnade and a change to the color palette. Previously the applicant was proposing a High Reflective White and will now incorporate creams, off-whites and tan elements. He presented the renderings and referred to the corner element at the end of the northeast portion of the building where the colonnade ends. The applicant is proposing design Option 1 to leave that as they previously presented or design Option 2 which features a decorative end. Staff is recommending approval of Option 2 and directing the applicant to add shade trees throughout the parking lot as previously discussed. Commissioner Lambell questioned the decorative corbel coming down on the northeast elevation and was concerned that it stands out. Mr. Melloni reminded the Commission of their concerns from the previous meeting and pointed out that the proposed redesign, Option 2, features a decorative rafter and corbel element to break up that piece. The colonnade is offset from the end of the fascia band and will continue as a solid element. This occurs on the northeast corner, as well as the southeast portion of the building at both ends of the colonnade. Commissioner Vuksic said the detail at the end on the run of columns didn't look thought through and was concerned with what it would look like in reality. He presented a sketch and suggested they consider putting two columns at the end and then cutting back the roof a little. By cutting the roof back and letting the beam jut out he thinks they could get a nice finish to this. He referred to the elevation and pointed out that the tops of the GTlanningUanineJudylARC%lMinutee1202(NOD&Mmin.d= Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 columns look weak and suggested making them beefier. MR. MATTHEW BUSH, applicant, said at the last meeting he suggested adding a column, however one of the Commissioners shot that down immediately. He suggested adding a column out at the edge of the glulam or the fascia and it would match all the other ends of colonnades in the shopping center. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the previous design on the northeast corner that didn't have the corbel detail on the left. He discussed the corner of the building and the end of a beam on the right and another end of a beam to the left. He and the applicant discussed adding a detail at the end of the beam that would end straight and the same thing would happen on the right side. He said the applicant is basically proposing to build up and plaster the existing beam and they can do whatever they want at the end of the beam because it's all new construction. It's important that they get this right because this will be here for several decades. MR. BUSH understands and said they also have budget concerns they have to take into account and when they start talking about cutting back the roof it worries him. He asked for guidance on exactly what the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Vuksic presented another sketch and explained that for the second column the roof remains exactly where it is and the beam would be extended past the roof a bit farther so there is a little detail to it and then incorporate those second columns where appropriate on either end of the line of columns. He felt this would be a much more pleasing way to finish that elevation than what is being proposed. MR. BUSH agreed with that suggestion. Commissioner Vuksic said the top of the columns look too weak and didn't think this was really thought out in terms of proportion. MR. BUSH asked what the Commission would like to see. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the drawing of the columns and said they look a little too small. MS. OLGA RUIZ, architect, said they have a height limitation and if they add a bigger cornice at the top of the columns they would be playing a bit with the scale making that finish floor to ceiling look a little bit lower than it is. However, they will restudy that again. Commissioner Vuksic said they have 8'-6" to the bottom of that beam where the signs will be located and that's low. He thinks they can add more detail on the column and didn't think it will change the bottom of the beam height at all. Getting the proportions right will be important and it's very simple in terms of the architecture. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed the color as presented. MS. RUIZ said there are two different colors for the main body and it now looks cleaner. Commissioner Vuksic said with the Zoom meetings, it's unfortunate that the Commission cannot see the actual color samples of the computer generated color board. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, stated that staff will deliver a color board to the Commissioners to review before this item returns. G.ManningUenineJudy'ARMIMinuteM202mz00609min.dots Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the construction documents return to the Commission to review the changes proposed, as well as a detail of what the ends of the reams will look like during the construction document process before the Commission sees the completed documents. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) adding an additional column to the ends of the colonnade on the east elevation which includes a decorative end that projects beyond the rake edge of the existing roof; 2) final construction drawings shall return to the ARC before building permit issuance; and 3) add additional trees to parking lot. 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. 2. CASE NO. MISC 20-0014 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DAZ DESIGN BUILD INC. Attn: Alberto Daza, 77-570 Springfield Lane #7, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a fronl yard setback exception to construct an attached patio cover/carport within the front yard. LOCATION: 42-741 Jacqueline Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request for a front yard setback exception to construct an attached patio cover/carport within the front yard of a single-family residence. The carport will extend up to 6' into the required 20' setback. The property is an irregular -shaped 6,543-square- foot lot developed with a 1,500-square-foot home. The home is characterized by pueblo -style architecture. The facade will be modified to feature more contemporary elements to better match the character of the patio cover/carport. The existing front yard landscaping will remain in place and no expansions to the existing driveway are proposed. Staff is recommending approval subject to a 20% encroachment for the carport (4' into 20' setback) as allowed by the code. Commissioner McAuliffe presented the applicant's renderings to the Commission showing highlighted areas that are exceeding the setbacks and asked staff if the rear encroachment was a part of this exception. Mr. Melloni said it can be approved without an exception as the code measures the setback from the posts and overhangs are allowed to encroach up to 2' into the required setback. Commissioner McAuliffe said the overall comment really has to do with the scale and height of this canopy. He said the architecture is being updated from the Santa Fe Pueblo to a more contemporary, that is fine, but thinks the issue he's seeing is why this GAFIanningUanineJudylMM1MinuWM20=0VMrNn.dock Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9T 2020 canopy is so high and is dwarfing the rest of the home. The overall size of the canopy is almost two thirds the size of the entire home and that's fine but it really seems very tall. He asked if an RV was being parked under this or what is the reason why it is 11' to the underside. Mr. Melloni said the applicant would have to weigh in on that but an RV would not be allowed to be parked in the front yard regardless if there was a carport there or not. Commissioner McAuliffe said this is really overpowering given that the garage door appears to be at 7' to the header. Also given just how close this is going to be to the adjoining property the top of the canopy is going to be at the ridgeline of the adjacent residence. Not only is it high but it's also very close. He thinks lowering it would help but didn't know that the front and side yard canopy necessarily need to be at the same elevation as the rear just to kind of modulate the scale of it. MR. ALBERTO DAZ, DAZ Design Build Inc., said they raised the canopy to accommodate two big trucks. The existing garage door is 7' and understands that the parapets with the door and the covered canopy will be out of scale. They are trying to continue the same line as it is now to save money. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if the canopy was projecting so far forward into the front yard to be able to cover the big trucks. MR. DAZ answered yes and explained that the front of the house faces east and they're trying to get more shade. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if there was a reason why the canopy projects that far in front of the garage. MR. DAZ said they are designing a 10-12' deep cover to ensure the vehicles get shade. He said he will talk with the homeowners regarding the rear side of the patio. Commissioner McAuliffe said it was worth taking a look at. The Commission and staff discussed the reasons for a taller carports to accommodate taller vehicles. They also discussed the RV ordinance and prohibiting commercial vehicles to park at the property. Chair Van Vliet informed the Commission that he drove by this property prior to the meeting and there was an RV parked along the side of the home and suspects that the height is needed for the RV. Mr. Ceja pointed out that the City's RV ordinance is very strict that the RV placement has to be behind the home which is maybe why they are extending the canopy along the side of the garage but even then it requires other screening improvements to the property to hide that RV. Commissioner Vuksic was also concerned with the height and added that the applicant has made the home look more contemporary which is fine but in the roof plan looks like there are parapets of varying heights that need to go back. He pointed out a parapet that is angled at the entry door and believes that the top of the parapet will be visible. It won't just be the ends of it but the tops as well. Commissioner McIntosh said the applicant is looking for an exception to the zoning ordinance, however the quality of the design is not well thought out for what they trying to achieve. They are pushing the limits and it is GPIanninpUanknaJ¢dylAFICkiMina1as120209DDSMnin.d= Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 compromising the overall design. There's some things they need to look at proportion -wise. He is aware that the applicant has commented on keeping things in a cost effective design solution but unfortunately the Commission cannot accept that as a good reason for a compromised design. They need to come back with something that ties together more cohesively with the whole building and study the proportions. Chair Van Wet agrees that this is not compatible with the house and it is too tall. He discussed the applicant's comments about trying to be cost effective and pointed out the materials being used are not cost effective at all. This is very expensive construction and suggested they review the materials and the design. Chair Van Wet called for a motion. Commissioner McAuliffe made a motion to continue and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for further comments. Commission Vuksic reiterated that the parapets need to be restudied in terms of the three-dimensional massing that's being created here. All sides of that massing need to be studied not just the front elevation ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to continue Case MISC 20-0014 subject to: 1) redesigning the height of the patio cover to proportionally fit the home; 2) redesigning new parapets on primary home to appear four-sided; 3) study design of the canopy; and 4) clarify what will be stored under the carport. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Wet, and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP 19-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T Smartlink, Attn: Chris Doheriy, 2033 San Elijo Avenue #600, Cardiff, CA 92007 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new 65' monopalm to include power generator, utility cabinets and 12 panel antennas_ LOCATION: 78-0005 Country Club Drive ZONE: P.C. Chair Van Wet recused himself from this project and remained in the zoom meeting. Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission a request for a preliminary design and site layout a proposed wireless telecommunication facility (WTF) came before them on February 25, 2020. GIPlanninyUanlneJudMRGIIMinutes5202MMS09mindocx Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 The project site is a 1.56-acre property, consisting of two (2) individual parcels, located at the southwest corner of Washington Street (Washington) and Country Club Drive (Country Club). The property is developed with a gas station, convenience store and carwash. The project applicant, AT&T Smartlink, is requesting approval to construct a 65' tall wireless telecommunications tower camouflaged as a palm tree at the corner of Washington and Country Club. At that meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to look into the possibility of co -locating on a vacant tower located 900' to the north. He reminded the Commission that a member of the public representing SBA spoke at the meeting saying the tower was vacant and they were open to the possibility having AT&T co - locate on it. The applicant has returned and has provided a letter that points out the reasons why they are not able to collocate on that tower. They also proposed some changes to the design which was basically incorporating more landscaping. He presented the previous site plan along with the changes made since the last meeting. The design of the tower has remained the same and the applicant has provided additional palm trees in the planter area along Washington. The applicant states they will replace all of the dead landscaping and plant two (2) 40' palm trees, as well as relocating other trees on the site as a means to help screen the tower. They have also installed some additional landscape hedging around the equipment enclosure along the street. Staff supports the proposed tower design and recommends approval to the Planning Commission as presented. Commissioner Levin referred to the letter sent to the Commissioners and asked if the applicant attempted to communicate with SBA in terms of co - locating on that existing tower. MS. ALEXIS DUNLOP, AT&T, stated that AT&T always looks to other co -location opportunities before they file applications with the City and there were multiple reasons why they felt this particular tower was not co -locatable. The first reason is that the mono - palm trees do not lend themselves aesthetically for co -location and based on the City's stringent standards they did not consider this as a valid option for co -location. The second reason they determined that this tower is not co -locatable is there is not an agreed upon national agreement between AT&T and SBA, therefore a lease agreement is not feasible between the two companies. The third reason they determined that this tower was not co -locatable is because according to the City's code it states, "in the event the use of any commercial communication tower has been discontinued for a period of 180 consecutive days, the tower shali be deemed to have been abandoned" She referred to a letter from Sprint to SBA stating they terminated their lease as of September 30, 2018. According to the City's code this tower has been deemed abandoned and is not available for co - location. She said both companies have been working together for a number of years attempting to come to an agreement but until that agreement is in place they do not consider this tower or any SBA tower in the Southern California area to be co -location opportunities. GAPIannlnoanineJudy AMIMinutea120201200MffM.d= Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 Commissioner Levin asked staff if there was any particular reason that SBA hasn't been notified of the 180 days and that they are supposed to be taking that tower down. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the City is not involved in cell tower leases or lease agreements and this is not something that the City is typically made aware of. However, now that we have knowledge of this we will work with the City Attorney regarding the City's procedures. Commissioner McIntosh said the applicant did a good job on improving the first submittal, as well as explaining why they are not able to use a different location. He stated that he didn't have a problem with this current proposal. Commissioner McAuliffe thinks that from an aesthetic standpoint the improvements proposed at the new location are consistent with what we would want to see as a Commission. With the matter of the co -location, this seems to be beyond this Commission's purview but as it was presented in the graphic exhibit in the co -location configuration that is not acceptable. MR. JOHN HENNING, SBA Attorney, said he is representing the entity that has the other tower on Washington. He explained that their tower is presently vacant and the equipment up there now will be coming down. If AT&T co -locates on their tower, they will be placed up where the fronds are. The SBA tower is a standard monopalm design very similar to the one that is being proposed. AT&T is unaware that this tower was actively leased until last November 2019. He pointed out that AT&T did not follow through on the Commission's request to seriously discuss co -location as an alternative to building a brand new 65' tower in the middle of a very visible district of the city. If they would have contacted SBA after the February ARC meeting, they would have been informed of this information. The claim made by the attorney that it is not feasible to locate on SBAs tower because of some concept of abandonment is preposterous. The City Attorney nor the Planning department has determined that this is an abandoned tower. The only grounds they have for telling this Commission the reasons they cannot co -locate on SBAs tower is a silly legal theory that the tower was abandoned and therefore is somehow unavailable. As one of the Commissioners said in the previous meeting, it is only in the most extreme of cases that the Commission generally recommends an exception be granted to the 1,000' buffer rule. He said there is no showing of extreme circumstances here. Mr. Ceja interrupted and explained that the Commission is the recommending body on this matter and this Conditional Use Permit would go before the Planning Commission where the issue regarding co -location is more appropriate. The Architectural Commission is looking strictly from an aesthetic standpoint and this monopalm is considered to be an acceptable design. GAPJanning\JanineJud)AAAMIMinutas12020120MMmin ibcz Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 MR. HENNING said there is nothing innovative about this palm design. This palm is an open cell tower styled design and it is very hard to conceal a tower design. Therefore, if the Commission is going to consider the aesthetics, consider that all you have are line drawings in an elevation form. And if you look closely it is really clear that there are unconcealed antenna arrays there. At the previous meeting, one of the Commissioners asked the applicant why they refused to consider a design where the tower is actually concealed within the trunk and the representative simply answered that it technically didn't fit their needs. What they are basically telling you is they're going to have a tower that will have panels. He then referred to the camouflage of the tower and said this monopalm is 65' tall, which is about 6 to 7 stories tall. Two California Fan Palms at 20 to 30' tall are currently on the property and will be relocated to the front of the tower. Then there will be two additional trees 35 to 40' tall placed 40 to 50' away from the thing they are trying to conceal. These new trees will be 25 to 30' shorter than the 65' tall tree and wondered how this conceals the monopalm. These trees grow at a rate of 6" a year and it will take 50 years before any of those trees reaches the height of the monopalm. Mr. Ceja interrupted and stated that the Commission has allotted five minutes for everyone wanting to speak on this item. He then asked the Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Vuksic said 30 to 40' trees is typically what the Commission accepts around a monopalm. From the line of sight looking up at the monopalm when you have other trees grouped around it and a little farther away, the line of sight blocks the monopalm even with a shorter tree. He remembers the Commission asking the applicant at the last meeting why AT&T can't put the antenna in the body of the trunk and we were told that it wouldn't work. When he hears something like that he doesn't know what to think because this Commission has to take them at their word because we don't know if that will work or not and it's a little frustrating. Commissioner Levin asked if they had the latitude of allowing this as an exception to the 1,000' buffer. Mr. Ceja said yes and reminded the Commission that they are making a recommendation to the Planning Commission who will ultimately make a decision. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve the design and recommended moving forward to the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, and Vuksic voting YES and Van Wet abstaining. C. Miscellaneous Items: None &TIanninoanineJudMRC11M1nytes120201200SMrnin.docx Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2020 VI. COMMENTS Commission and staff discussed roof -top equipment on Avenida Senior Living and the San Pablo project. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:00 p.m. r ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNFER SECRETARY AtL4�#_ J N JUDO R DING SECRETARY GNAanningUanineJudy%ARMIMinutes12D21N2o46o9min.docx Page 10 of 10