Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-28 i--��-� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 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 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 19 2 Kristi Hanson X 19 2 Chris Van Vliet X 19 2 John Vuksic X 21 Ray Lopez X 18 3 Karen Oppenheim X 21 Karel Lambell X 20 1 Also Present Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 14, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet noted changes to the minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, approving the November 14, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: C 06-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH, 73-061 El Paseo, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of remodel of exterior storefront and improvements to rear elevations. LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. David Fletcher, representative indicated he would be making a presentation for both the North and South El Paseo Collection. At the last meeting, there were some issues regarding the back of the building, so their architect added some variations to the back. On the North Collection, they added insets, awning treatments and landscaping on the walls with trellis' and plants. Mr. Drell asked if there was room for those things and asked how big the planter was. Mr. Fletcher indicated it was about a foot and a half to two (2) feet. Mr. Drell asked if there was a footing on the building and asked if it went out into that foot and a half to two (2) feet. Mr. Fletcher indicated there was a footing but it did not extend out and about 10 feet of sidewalk. He indicated he would bring back the hardscape and landscape plans and stated everything under the arch area would be done by the tenant and would come back for separate approval. They were trying to get some independent individuality and breakup on the building with the ability for the tenant to do their own situation yet still have some kind of consistency. He indicated those were the main changes on this building, but they also added a tile roof structure, which is not shown on the plans so they would be submitting a revised roof plan. Mr. Fletcher then presented Collection South and indicated this was the same situation as the north building. He pointed out that this was where the Daily Grill and St. John were located. He indicated the area on the color elevation they would be demolishing and rebuilding. The main issue from the last meeting was the back of the building, so the architect made some changes by breaking it up and adding louvers and doors. Mr. Fletcher discussed the elevation of the lowered sidewalks in the back and pointed out Page 2 of 15 _ r ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION Vve MINUTES November 28, 2006 where the doors would be located. Commissioner Hanson asked if they would have to go down further in order to be at the grade level of the street. Mr. Fletcher indicated the existing parking lot was about six (6) feet above the slab level at Daily Grill; it gets up to about four (4) feet with a two (2) foot grade change. The lowered sidewalk would be re-done and a slab would be re-poured for those two spaces so the two spaces could be combined at any time. The front doors would be even with the sidewalks and the sidewalk at the back will slope down as you go from space to space. There would be a ramp section or stairwell with a straight shot into the backdoors. Commissioner Hanson asked for clarification on the demolition. Mr. Fletcher stated they would be demolishing to the ground everything from the edge of St. John to the edge of Daily Grill. He stated the first time they remodeled they left the stairs out front; but with the caliber of tenants they are bringing to the buildings now, they will not lease the space with stairs in front of their stores. They had the same issue when they brought in Daily Grill. They shored up the building, dropped the floor, extended all the posts and it worked. So on their first round with this building, they looked at doing the same thing; but they couldn't get the ceiling heights with the second floor so they went back to the demo. Actually, demolishing the building would be less expensive than shoring it up and lowering the floor. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the mechanical equipment heights relative to the parapets. Mr. Fletcher indicated he did not have the cross section, but indicated he would bring one in. He stated they were still toying with the exact height of the roof, but it was running somewhere around 20 to 22 feet. They were trying to get about 16 feet of clear height from the bottom of the steel and all the mechanicals. They would make sure the parapet would be high enough to screen all the ceiling air conditioning. Mr. Fletcher discussed the returns on the buildings and Commissioner Vuksic asked about the rear one. Mr. Fletcher indicated they brought it back about 25 to 30 feet on each side. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the front return they were returning the lower step and because it is an architectural fin, it doesn't necessarily need to go back too far, but the top little knob needs to go back to complete the form. Mr. Fletcher indicated the architect returned that back about four (4) feet. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the lower one was returning back about 12 to 15 feet. Mr. Fletcher stated they were trying to make them look Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 like little columns sticking up. Commissioner Vuksic stated they were losing the lower portion because it was making a wall out of it and it was really a column. Commissioner Hanson pointed out on the drawings what could be done. Commissioner Vuksic agreed in order not to lose the column effect. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the shutter elements where set in from the face of the building. Mr. Fletcher indicated they were set in either eight (8) inches or a foot. They would be looking to see if they could make that deeper, however there was a limit on how far they could move the wall back and not lose parking spaces. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof access. Mr. Fletcher indicated they have an existing room with roof access. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson granted preliminary approval subject to submitting working drawings and details of roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: PP 05-08/CUP 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELGADO/RODRIQUEZ, 73-703 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of final working drawings for Casuelas Cafe. LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lambell by minute motion to grant approval subject to: 1) addressing issues related to roof-mounted equipment; and, 2) landscape review by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 3. CASE NO: SA 06-176 APPLICANT: BARBARA COHEN, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & SIGNS, 2950 Palisades Drive, Corona, CA 92880 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of freestanding signage for The Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-891 Cook Street ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lambell by minute motion to grant approval, subject to wall height being a maximum of four (4) feet. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: CASE NO: C 06-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RJ VENTURES, LLC., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of construction for a new bank building; Citibank. LOCATION: 34-140 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated he spoke with Jose Alvarez, the architect to see what had been changed since the last meeting because he didn't notice much of a difference. On the north elevation they added a wall and a lantern, as was discussed at that meeting. Mr. Bagato stated they were using the same color patterns they used on the buildings they designed for Petsmart and Office Depot. He thought they should use a different color or some kind of tile pattern and mentioned that the architect indicated he made a portion of elevation deeper; but looking at the old, it looks the same. Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RENEW COMMISSION NWO MINUTES November 28, 2006 Mr. Yenn Lam, Project Manager indicated they recessed the entry door about six (6) inches, added a light and popped out a vertical element about six (6) inches from the rest of the building and moved some palm trees. Mr. Bagato stated there was a landscape plan and he received comments from Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Specialist indicating that it needed work and something to help screen the drive-through. Commissioner Hanson asked if this was the building that was right on the bank. Mr. Drell indicated that was correct and stated the issue with the wall hadn't been addressed. The plans showed a three (3) foot wall and it probably should be at least four (4) and a half feet with trees and substantial light landscaping on the bank below it. Commissioner Hanson asked why the building had to be rectangle. She stated instead of doing a square punch out, they could do an octagon. Mr. Lam stated it was rectangle because of space usage and for energy efficiency. He indicated he could manipulate the elevations with different elements. Commissioner Hanson stated with the exception of the wall addition and one light fixture, this was the same elevation they reviewed at the last meeting. At that meeting several suggestions had been made but nothing had been changed. Commissioner Lambell gave Mr. Lam a copy of the minutes for his review. Commissioner Van Vliet stated the sign on the north elevation shows a pop out above it, but it looked like they were all on the same plane. Mr. Lam stated they were popped out about six (6) inches and they wouldn't be able to go beyond that because of the curb. Commissioner Hanson stated there should be a little more variation with color and different elements that would jazz it up a bit. She felt their client would want something more unique and stated that a signature element was needed with more detail and color. Commissioner Vuksic wasn't clear on what the Commission was asking the architects to do. Commissioner Gregory stated they needed to come up with something that had more quality and a feeling of special architecture, not the same cookie cutter architecture. Mr. Bagato stated what he recalled from the general Page 6 of 15 r .• ARCHITECTURAL RMIEW COMMISSION w.e MINUTES November 28, 2006 discussion was that they wanted a little more detail and color. Commissioner Gregory said that looking at the past minutes there were a lot of different things listed, but they only did one or two. Mr. Bagato stated that when he talked to the architect on the phone he told the architect they didn't do enough, but the architect felt the general architecture, the pop outs and the design of the arches were ok. Commissioner Hanson stated even though this is very traditional architecture, instead of doing a pitched roof that goes back 15 feet they could come in with a curved element that would resemble missionary architecture. Examples of that are found in Carver's book with elements that would tie into their Citibank logo, which would make their elements different from everything else. She suggested giving Mr. Lam a copy of the Design Guidelines Manual. Commissioner Vuksic stated he was concerned because last time the forms were basically ok and he doubted the architect would come back and nail it with this broader scope of things to look at and redo. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could email or fax ideas to Staff in between. Commission and Staff agreed. Commissioner Hanson stated if they had taken the ideas and some of the suggestions that was given and incorporated them; they would not be in this position. They chose not to do that and came back with essentially the same building. Commissioner Vuksic agreed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue Case No. C 06-14 to allow the applicant to: 1) add one signature architectural feature; 2) add detail and color; 3) review design guideline manual for element ideas; and, 4) submit design samples via email/fax for Staff review. Motion carried 7-0. Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 2. CASE NO: C/Z 06-06 / PP 06-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OLEN PROPERTIES CORP/DALE LYON, 7 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval architecture for a 748 unit apartment project; Palm Hills Apartments. LOCATION: 35-250 Dinah Shore ZONE: S.I. Mr. Bagato presented this complex that would be located near the future interchange at Portola. It was previously zoned industrial and changed during the general plan amendment. The applicant came forward with a retention area of about 40 acres. There are 748 units that consist of three different types of buildings. Building A and B are both two-story designs and Building C is a three (3)- story design. There are two major recreation areas, one with a clubhouse with a larger pool and basketball court. The other one has a pool house with a small pool and spa, tot lot, basketball court and a putting green. They incorporated pedestrian walkways that would be connected to the city bike path. Mr. Sun Kim, Humphrey's and Partners Architects, made a correction on the number of units from 748 to 782. He stated that when they started to design the fagade, their intent was to respect the original desert architectural style; low profile with more horizontalities and verticalities with simple massing, detail and color. He stated that their buildings are massed-produced and not custom. Type A building is what they internally call a Big House. The idea with the Big House is that they were trying to bring the lifestyle of single-family homes to a multi-family complex, such as a direct access garage to every unit. They wouldn't have direct access for two (2) of the one (1) bedroom units that.,would be sandwiched between the corner units. Otherwise, every unit whether they are ground level or upper level would get direct access garages. The idea on the exterior fagade for the Big House project is that on the shorter side of building, which will be the elevation that is exposed all along Dinah Shore Drive, will mimic the elevation of a big mansion home; with a three (3) car garage, a Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 country door, a big opening along with massing and color. This would be their main elevation of the project facing out to Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Kim indicated that the second building they have was another big house, but this would be a little higher density product with no garages on the ground level. Basically it has the same second floor as type one (1), but they would have to surface park. They tried to make every building different, but by the nature of the individual units they would be very similar in massing and would try to differentiate the two (2) with colors and materials. Their concentration on both two (2) story buildings was to maintain the horizontalities throughout the buildings especially on the ground level where it will be more pedestrian oriented. These were not typical cookie-cutter developer buildings, where there is only a front elevation and the rest of the sides would be plain walls. He pointed out that because of the ins and outs on the buildings it kind of naturally develops a better product. Mr. Kim presented the Type C building, which was a three (3) story building with no garages. There would be units lined up on both sides with stairs on both ends and off the central hallway. On the three (3) story it would be a little more difficult to deal with the horizontalities due to the sheer height of the building. To the top of the parapet it would be 34 feet, and basically have nine (9) foot one (1) plates. Again, their main intent would be to maintain the desert architecture. There would be stone walls, trellises, awnings and patios for the downstairs units. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Kim for an explanation of why he was describing the project as horizontal architecture. Mr. Kim stated that their intent was to illustrate the horizontalities in the fagade design rather than the verticalilities. Commissioner Vuksic asked how he was emphasizing the horizontality. Mr. Kim indicated that they weren't too concerned with the horizontality because the two (2) story as is, is pretty low profile as an elongated building. Their concern was with the three (3) story where they would be going 10 to 12 feet taller and trying to band the buildings going across with the same color and materials; so visually they would have the horizontal banding all around the building on the ground level. Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION w MINUTES November 28, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the most powerful way to create horizontality would be the architecture; with the forms and elements. He stated that all the architectural lines shown on the plans were vertical and asked if that was something that was discussed when they decided to create horizontalities in their buildings. Mr. Kim stated that this project had a group of building footprints to work with which are driven by the individual unit plan and by the nature of the building footprints would be somewhat vertical. Our challenge was how to break down that verticality. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was fascinated by his description. He stated that it sounded good, but didn't see it. He suggested architectural elements that would cross over different elements; whether they are eyebrows or thickened walls. He pointed out on the plans what he was describing; fairly simple ways to lower the appearance of the building or make it more horizontality. Mr. Kim indicated that he would investigate the suggestion and create more horizontal bays enhancing the horizontality along the low roof. Commissioner Hanson stated that when she looks at the plans she sees a bunch of row houses that stack up together. She felt they did a great job with several ins and outs, but everything reads vertical. She stated that it was interesting that he described the building's horizontal aspect, yet the buildings tend to be low slung and everything was vertical. She pointed out that the window elements tend to be very vertical. They were very tall, thin elements as opposed to wider, longer and shallower that would reinforce the horizontality. Mr. Kim stated that when you look at a design you have to look at the overall picture. He agreed that when you look at each and every segment of the building break they were generally vertical. Commissioner Hanson pointed out several vertical elements and stated that she didn't see this as horizontal at all. The Commission asked Mr. Kim to take the term horizontality out of the description because it was deceiving. Commissioner Hanson stated that there was a mixture of styles and recommended that they choose one style; for instance contemporary or traditional. She suggested they lean to the contemporary. They could soften contemporary with color; using deep, rich colors making it feel warm and inviting. Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION *410, MINUTES November 28, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic referred to the renderings and stated that it looked like a suburban street scene; a classic styled building with shops below and residences above. With this the details would have to be really well done and didn't feel they would want to go to that expense. Commissioner Hanson stated that when you get into the more traditional architecture, there would have to be very specific things for them to work. Whereas if you go to contemporary, you could get away with a lot more for a lot less and still have it look good. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they didn't want to dictate style but whichever direction they go it has to be done to a standard. Commission reviewed and discussed the roof plan and mentioned to Mr. Kim to pay more attention to the roof plan with plane breaks and how things return. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the mechanical equipment was on the roof. Mr. Kim indicated that it was. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the mechanicals would have to be below the parapets and encouraged Mr. Kim to create an architectural element further within the roof to screen the equipment. Commission reviewed and discussed the carports. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned about the number of carports around the interior perimeter. He felt that this would be a very dominant experience. Mr. Drell asked them for a prospective that would show the interior street views, a rendering and details that would adequately communicate what the carports would look like. Mr. Dale Lyon, representative stated that the carports were a necessary element and they didn't want them to be an architectural element. They wanted them to be bland to de-emphasize them as what they are. He indicated that they would certainly embellish the standard carport, but they would like them to be simple vs. hiding it. It would be a bought-out piece of carport, but they would add to it. Commissioner reviewed and discussed the roof access. Mr. Kim indicated they would create a stair tower on both corners of the roof with an internal roof hatch. Commission reviewed and discussed the clubhouse. Commission felt that the architecture needed to tie in with the architecture of the rest of the buildings. They suggested incorporating some of the elements of the clubhouse into the apartments or going with a more modern style. Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case No. C/Z 06-06/PP 06-14 to allow the applicant to: 1) create an architectural element further within roof to screen roof-mounted equipment; 2) increase architecture to clubhouse and incorporate clubhouse elements into apartments; 3) submit color board; 4) submit prospective of interior street views and carport details. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 3. CASE NO: C 06-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS), RJ VENTURES, LLC., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of construction for a Kohl's Department Store. LOCATION: 34-940 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Drell presented this project and stated that there was an architectural challenge of having two identical entrances with a blank wall in the middle with a sign on it. He asked the representative if both of those entrances had to be identical. Mr. Vasilis Papadatos, AIA, stated that Kohl's wanted to go with their upgraded proto-type, which was slightly modern with not much happening with the roofline. The challenge was to bring in architecture that existed there and make the building look like it belonged there by introducing roof tiles, arched elements, shading and loggias on either side of the building. The Kohl's branding is two (2) symmetrical entries with a sign element between with a functional space behind. The idea is that they want to have the twin entries sandwiched with the Kohl's sign because that was their branding. They would be willing to do anything else other than disturbing the gates, as they call them. They brought the gates out from the building, freestanding and connected with a canopy that goes all the way inside the store. They incorporated the tile roofs on the sides to create loggia and shade and echoed Ashley's with a corner tower, which repeats and turns itself on the east elevation. The arched elements on the entry elements were not part of the original Kohl's design and they tired to match what existed already Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2006 by duplicating Wal-Mart and Sam's. The actual materials being used for the sign and entry gates are all high-end materials along with additional vision glass on either side of the entries. The lighting at night creates a halo effect around the two entry elements. Commissioner Hanson had concerns with the landscape. Looking at the landscape plan all you see were plants that are small against a building that is huge. She suggested a couple of great palm trees and something artistic to reinforce that element. She mentioned that the roof was too steep and stated that typically they don't do anything more than a four (4) and twelve recommended adjusting. She suggested stoning the entire wall and make it read like an element and change the colors up a little and depending on what you did there you might not have to put that material all the way behind it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the vertical columns that go nowhere are somehow tying elements together and if there were more tile it would carry across and then it might work. The columns looked unfinished and too weak for such a long wall. Commissioner Hanson suggested removing the row of parking so it would give you room for pop-outs and landscaping. If they wanted to be creative for their employees they could pull the building elements out to get covered parking on that side that could be a roofed area that would be interesting and it would have purpose. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thought the entrance should be more asymmetrical. He didn't like the forms behind the archways, they looked like two gymnasiums with a big Kohl's sign in between them. Mr. Papadatos stated that this was taken from a Spanish-Caribbean type of architecture where there are elements just in front of the plane. Commission suggested reviewing the design guideline manual for other style details. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the forms that they create are going to need to go back substantially on the buildings so they look like actual structures and not just a fagade. Reviewing the roof plan they were pretty shallow. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the entrances and thought they would look better if they were different because the idea is to break up the massiveness of the building by creating all these little Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RI MEW COMMISSION *"Of MINUTES November 28, 2006 pieces. He didn't see why they couldn't do that by keeping the entrances where they are, but not making them identical. Most importantly, don't make the large box forms above them identical to each other. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case No. C 06-15 to allow the applicant to: 1) vary pitch of roof; 2) create artistic element on blank wall; 3) review design guideline manual for element ideas; and, 4) submit design samples via email/fax for Staff review. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: CASE NO: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 6503 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of roof mounted equipment on two (2) two-story buildings. LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Smith presented this project and stated that the mock-ups had been completed. Mr. George Baker, Developer/Owner stated that they satisfied the neighbor, moved the air conditioners back and lowered the parapets. They did a couple of site lines things with Mr. Riccardi and Mr. Pratt was satisfied. They had Mr. Pratt out to the project and he looked from the second story to see that we couldn't see into his back yard. The Commission suggested a couple of shades darker on the color for the upper banding. It was decided to go 25% darker than the main body of the building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve subject to upper band being 25% darker than main body of building. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION rrr MINUTES November 28, 2006 D. Comments: Mr. Smith indicated the meeting on December 26, 2006 would not be held. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. ST E SMITH PLANNING MANAGER Page 15 of 15