Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-28 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 28, 2020 (VIRTUAL ZOOM 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 Melloni, Assistant Planner Wayne Olson, Economic Dev. Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting 12124/19. 3/1W20, 3124120, 4114120 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 14, 2020 Year to Date Present Absent 9 2 10 1 11 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the July 14, 2020 meeting minutes with minor changes. 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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 18-0018 July 28, 2020 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AN OH, 73444 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request for a material and height exception for two existing wooden 5'- 10" gates, setback 14'-6" from the face of curb. LOCATION: 73444 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1, 20,000 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, informed the Commission that the applicant for this project was not present on the Zoom call and recommended a continuance. However, the Commission wanted to see changes since the last meeting in 2018. This request was for a material and height exception for two (2) existing wooden gates, setback 14'-6" from the face of curb. This item previously appeared before them on October 23, 2018, as a response to a code compliance case. The gates are 5'-10" tall constructed from tubular steel and finished with stained wood. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) believed the design was attractive and had strong architectural merit but ultimately continued the case citing height and compatibility concerns. The homeowner has made some changes to the exterior of the home; painting/repainting and replacing the entry door and are looking for an approval. The Commission recalled they had asked the applicant to tie the gate into the architecture of the house. However, they did not see any architectural changes to the home except for painting and changing the entry door. The entry door is not visible from the street and not compatible with the gate. They suggested the applicant incorporate details that would be visible from the street. Mr. Melloni said it may be challenging because the home is completely obstructed by the gate. So, applying the wood would not be as visible from the street unless the gate was open. The Commission discussed the setback issue. Mr. Melloni said from the previous meeting, the height and setback was the primary concern rather than the design and said gates of this height are a common feature in that area of south Palm Desert and felt it was interesting in that neighborhood. Mr. Melloni suggested they continue this to allow the applicant to be present. G IPIammngUanine JudyYAl WMmutesl2l)2GW0y26min dock Page 2 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue to allow applicant to be present at a future meeting. 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, B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PPICUP 20-0001 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WILLIAM MALEY & CARLA LUNDAHL, 74923 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of a two-story building with 12 condominium units on a vacant 13,125-square-foot lot located within the Downtown Edge Transition Overlay (DE-0) zone. LOCATION: 44-705 Deep Canyon Road ZONE: DE-0 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented preliminary plans for a precise plan/conditional use permit for a two-story building with 12 condominium units on a vacant 13,125-square-foot lot located within the Downtown Edge Transition Overlay (DE-0) zone on Deep Canyon Road (Deep Canyon). The project requires a recommendation from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for the project architecture and approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. This proposal is a modern architectural style that incorporates arched entryways, pitched roofs, recessed windows and doors, single car garages and guest parking spaces. All units are one -bedroom and range in size from 590 to 1,250 square feet. The building incorporates roof decks for open spaces and maintains an overall roof height of 29'-5". The landscaping design consists of a natural desert theme with native species requiring minimal water usage. The project as designed complies with all development standards, including parking, setbacks, density, lot coverage, land use compatibility, and building height (two -stories). The project also complies with the design guidelines of creating an urban development within the DE-0 Zone as outlined in the Development Code. Staff recommends approval of the project architecture, subject to any comments made by the Commission. The Commission felt the guest parking spaces were too tight and suggested they be reconfigured. They reviewed the handicap parking and MR. MORRIS, architect, said they had to take one of the condo units and designate it as handicap then modified one of the guest parking spaces to accommodate a handicap van. G %PlanningUanme Judy%AkC11Minutes120201200728mon d= Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 The Commission was concerned with how tight the driveway was and understands that the applicant is trying to maximize the site, but this may be maximized to a fault. They discussed the width of the parking spaces, how far they were from the wall and the landscape planter. They were concerned with how tight it would be turning in and out of the garages and said there was only a 9' turning radius and it should be 11'. The Commission suggested they review the driveway width for an accurate turning radius into the garages, as well as the guest parking spaces and consider widening the garages for better vehicular clearance. The Commission was concerned with taking the hardscape right to the property line along such a long linear driveway. They pointed out that the applicant provided a vine that would be planted in only 12" of soil in a narrow area and felt it wouldn't thrive on the surface of the wall. They asked the applicant to ensure there is sufficient room especially the landscape area adjacent to the last guest parking space, and the landscape area along the north wall. They also recommended they revise the landscape palette to incorporate plants that can thrive in the desert environment and review the footing issues with landscape planters adjacent to existing block walls to ensure they have the ability to grow plant material along that edge. The Commission discussed the number of trash containers placed on Deep Canyon every week for trash pickup and felt there were too many on such a small piece of land. They asked the applicant to review their trash pickup options with Burrtec and to consider a trash bin enclosure. The Commission reviewed the utility closet located on the front building fagade that will locate cable and electrical meters. The Commission suggested they reassess the location and the design of the utility closet, verify with the Fire Department regarding signage such as "Fire Risers" on the closet doors, and locating all utility meters and include them on the rendering. The Commission asked about the gas meters and the applicant explained they are 18" wide with the piping and are stacked three high. The Commission expressed concern with all the meters located in such a small alcove. They suggested including the stacked meters on the renderings to see how it affects the architecture as it may look industrial. The Commission questioned the gate on the east elevation which is a primary entrance into the property and close to one of the units. They suggested this area needs more interest to allow it to be a focal point of entry and diminish the importance of the central gate. This would allow for the southeasterly gate to become the primary entrance to the property, particularly for guests. The Commission reviewed the roof decks intended to be usable living space for the second -floor residents to give them some outdoor space. They asked the applicant to address any privacy issues for existing GTlanningQanineJudylARCllMinutes%202U120072Bmm.d= Page 4 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES ACTION: July 28, 2020 residential homes. They also had concerns with clutter on the patios and roof decks and inquired if this this could be avoided and enforced through the CC&Rs. They asked the applicant if they were providing drainage for the roof decks and Mr. Morris said there is an interior drain and an over flow drain to connect to the drainage system outside and down into the gravel. The Commission reviewed the tall vertical elements on the roof that were very thin given the proportions of the overall elevation. They suggested combining both into a simple gable and not chopping it up and thickening the gable elements to get a front gable appearance on all elevations. This will quiet down the importance of the front door for the lower unit on the east elevation so it becomes more of a building feature and not a feature for that entrance. On the south elevation, there is some nice breakup of the facade with gable roofs with forms that come down to the ground, however on the north elevation it's the same gable roofs, but they do not come down to the ground. It is just a big flat wall which will be very visible from the street, as well as the neighboring homes. It is important that all details are carried around the entire building so they are dealing with four-sided architecture, especially on the north elevation. The Commission discussed having deeper recesses on the garage doors by double framing the walls to create good shadow lines. They did not know if the project has the width to make that happen as the site is very tight, but these little details will transform the experience and quality of the project. In reference to the windows, they thought they needed additional depth and asked the applicant to use 2 x 2s on the windows to create 6" reveals. The Commission noticed that the office has a bigger floor space than the bedroom and questioned what would prevent that office from becoming a second bedroom. They suggested reviewing the dimensions of the office size compared to the bedroom size. The Commission is in favor of denser housing within the city but felt this site was tight and that it may be beyond the limit of what can be done there. They thought this building was too large for the site and suggested they look at removing a unit or two to provide enough room for architecture and site planning. Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. PP/CUP 20-0001 subject to: 1) review all landscaping areas to ensure that there is sufficient room. An example is the landscape area adjacent to the last guest parking space, and landscape area along the north wall; 2) review footing issues with landscape planters that are adjacent to existing block walls; 3) revise landscape palette to incorporate plants that can thrive in the desert environment; 4) review driveway width for vehicle turning radius into the garages and guest parking spaces; 5) deepen the garage doors to create strong shadow lines; 6) consider widening garages for better vehicular GWtanningUanineJudylARC%1MinutesQ02=00720min,d= Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 clearance; 7) guest parking spaces are too tight and need to be reconfigured; 8) verify with Fire Department the need of a turnaround for fire access; 9) review trash options with Burrtec Waste Management. Having 12 to 24 trash bins along Deep Canyon Drive is too many. Consider a trash enclosure; 10) locate all utility meters and apply them to the rendering, and locations shall have architectural merit; 11) re -assess the location and design of the utility closet on the front elevation. Verify with Fire Department regarding signage such as Fire Risers on utility closet doors; 12) the building architecture and elements needs to be carried around to all four -sides, especially to the north elevation; 13) review tightness of walkway between the building and A/C units on the west elevation; 14) consider relocating A/C unit on Unit 10, as it is too tight for the space; 15) the gate on the east elevation is the primary entrance into the property and needs more interest/emphasis to allow it to be a focal point of entry, and diminish the use of the central residential patio gate; 16) the architecture ridge lines are unsubtle. Consider vertical mass, and not chopping up the gable; 17) look at combining the tall thin vertical elements into a single gable; 18) thicken gable elements in order to get front gable appearance on all elevations; 18) gable needs to come down on the north elevation; 20) address any privacy issues from the roof decks for existing residential homes; 21) windows need additional depth. Consider using 2 x 2s on the windows to create 6" reveals; 22) submit rendering showing eave details; 23) materials board needs to reflect all exterior finishes, i.e. mechanical doors, mechanical screening, and gates;24) review dimensions of the office room sizes compared to the bedroom sizes. It appears easy to create a second bedroom; 25) consider what roof decks will look like with umbrellas and other objects. How to enforce them through CC&Rs to avoid patio clutter issues; 26) all sheets have inconsistencies and need to match from the grading plan to the site plan to the elevations. Provide the correct elevations, i.e. north, south, west, and east; 27) the building appears too large for the site. Look at removing a unit or two in order to provide enough room for architecture and site planning; and 28) consider building addresses and where those will be located. 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: PP 20-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1990 S. Bundy Drive, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90025 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve demolition of the existing Pizza Hut building within the Neighborhood Walmart shopping center, and construct a new 7,500- square-foot retail/restaurant building with four (4) tenant suites. LOCATION: 72-310 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-(3) G %PlanningVanine Judy%ARG11MinutesUO20=728min.do" Page 6 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a precise plan for a new 7,500-square-foot restaurant/retail pad on Highway 111 near Fred Waring Drive (Fred Waring) to replace the Pizza Hut building that will be demolished. The new building will mimic the building that went up last year near the gas station on Fred Waring by using similar materials and details. Conditions will be applied to the back of the building to have store- front glazing facing Highway 111 to open it up and make it more inviting. He said there will be some discussion on how the service doors on Highway 111 will be screened. The Commission discussed the problems they went through with the newer building near this pad, especially with getting the tower elements to look like they are four-sided and screening the signs on the utility doors that face Fred Waring. They reviewed the plans for the new building and questioned how the service doors on the back side of the building will be screened since it is on a major street. Since this building will have restaurants with several service doors facing Highway 111, this area will end up with mats and other things being stored there. They asked the design team to consider giving up a little square footage and create some niches in the back and recess the doors to screen it better, as well as coming up with some sort of an architectural screening wall for that area along with landscaping in front to create a layered effect. This layered effect will complement the architecture and improve the tidiness of the site and be an asset rather than a perpetual visual liability. The Commission reviewed and discussed the landscape plan and said that all the plant choices in the back of house area are very short and felt they wouldn't get two feet out of any of them. They suggested revising the plant palette to include taller plants. The Commission discussed the offsets on the building and suggested the tower elements have more offsets in the ground plane to have more offsets in the roof. They understand that the applicant is maximizing the building square footage, however it will be at the expense of the architecture. The Commission referred to the outdoor patio dining area and questioned the logic of how that looks out towards Walmart, as well as being adjacent to the trash enclosure. As the mountains are one of the biggest assets here in the valley, they suggested that the applicant consider rotating the building 90 degrees with the back of house facing the station. That way the outdoor patios would face southeast taking advantage of the mountains at the same time alleviating the problem with the back of house facing Highway 111. They discussed the footprint of the existing Pizza Hut building and what they were building within it. MR. DAVID ANDERSON, Nadel Architects, said they need more length than they do depth to maximize the square footage. The Commission was concerned that the design team was creating a potentially unsightly environment on the back G%PlanningUanineJudyIARC%Winutes%202=0072Bmind=x Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 of the building and thinks there are some fundamental design decisions that were made that is creating a lot of problems. The Commission and the applicant discussed the possibility of using the parking area to get the same length of building if they turn the building 90 degrees. MR. ANDERSON said this wouldn't be possible as part of this parking lot is a parcel that the ownership cannot purchase. MR. RALPH DEPPISCH_ development team, said they would also need approval by the association to build outside the internal property line. He said he would check to see how the arrangement was written and what they can do with the building footprint, the size, and dimensions of the building and how it can be oriented. MR. RON SKLEPKO, Civil Engineer, said to reorient the building they would have to do a lot line adjustment because of the shape of the parcel the current building sits in. The electrical and telephone lines will have to be relocated and the cost factor will have to be considered. The Commission feels that the applicant needs to give up some patio space to push that building back to create an architectural element along Highway 111. They understand there is an easement issue so the design team would have to configure the building a bit to give up some space in the northeast corner to push it up further so it's not right on that setback along Highway 111 with all the back of house services. Commissioner McIntosh felt the Commission was spending a lot of time trying to fix problems in this design. Given the amount of time they spent on the back of house of the sister building on Fred Waring they ended up getting something that was very disappointing. Highway 111 is more than a street, It is the boulevard entrance into the city and Palm Desert already has a chronic problem with buildings that back up into this visual experience as you come from Rancho Mirage into Palm Desert. ACTION: Chair Van Vliet moved to continue Case No. SARC 20-0005 subject to: 1) As Highway 111 (111) is a main corridor into the City consider reorienting the building so the front of the building faces 111 and not the parking lot. This would allow the restaurants to have patios facing the mountains and not the trash enclosure/parking lot. Consider the back of the building facing the gas station; 2) if the back of the building faces Hwy 111, then consider relocating the kitchens and reduce the building square footage. This would allow the patios to front Hwy 111 and allow for additional architectural features that will create interest from Hwy 111; 3) the service doors need to be screened better with additional layering. If the building were to rotate with the back facing the gas station, this would help; 4) the tower elements need more offsets, as well as the rectangular elements; 5) the towers need to be more pronounced; 6) the entire building needs additional offsets as well; 7) balance the trellis to awning ratios; 8) carry all building forms so they are four-sided; 9) revise plant palette to include taller plants in some areas; and 10) ensure that all kitchen equipment on roof is screened properly with parapets. 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. 0 %PianningUanine JudyMMiMinutes=20Q00728min dwx Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS July 28, 2020 The Commission and staff discussed setting a future study session/workshop focusing on the expectations for downtown infill developments, VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 3:10 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLA ER SECRETARY J IN J U DY-J R DING SECRETARY GWianningUanineJudy%ARC11Minutes=2=0072Bmind= Page 9 of 9