Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-27 � �,,r� � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES April 27, 2010 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 7 1 Chris Van Vliet X 8 John Vuksic X 8 Karel Lambell X 8 Pam Touschner X 7 1 Allan Levin X 8 Ken Stendell X 8 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 23, 2010 and April 13, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to approve the March 23, 2010 and April 13, 2010 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RE`�W COMMISSION �y � MINUTES April 27, 2010 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-143 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BETWEEN THE SHEETS, 17302 Daimler Street, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Finai approval of a tenant improvement for retail space including new storefront within existing building. LOCATION: 73-425 EI Paseo Suite 113 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato summarized the project and felt there wasn't enough variation in the building. He pointed out that a lot of the material shown on the materials board already exists on the shell. Decorative awnings with spheres is proposed and a change in color where their signage is located. Mr. Bagato was also concerned with the amount of signage; two on the building, two on the awnings and sign details on the windows. With the sign program the Commission could approve more than one sign if they thought it was decorative, but in his opinion he feels it is over signed. They can eliminate the awning signage, keep two on the buildings or go down to one on the building. He said that on the bottom of the window trim they are using stucco that matches the existing color of the shell. All other tenants have applied marble or granite or some kind of base in that area that is not on the shell. Commissioner Lambell stated that their current store uses a lot of bronze and browns and she pointed out that the old store looks more elegant than the new one. She said the new store looks average and they are anything but an average retailer. She also agrees that it is over signed; too busy and doesn't bespeak that building. The Commission discussed the placement and the number of signs on the building and awnings. Commissioner Touschner said it would be more elegant with the name on the glass and not the awnings. Commissioner Lambell suggested eliminating the wall signage on the left and keeping the signage on the right side over the door. The Commission discussed the color of the building and the color of the base underneath the windows. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2010�AR100427min.doc Page 2 of 9 ° ARCHITECTURAL F,,�,'IEW COMMISSION ,�r MINUTES April 27, 2010 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) large wall signage only occurring over the section with the door; 2) eliminate signage on the awning; and 3) stucco base underneath the windows a color to match the window frame. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi-family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood HoteL LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato stated that this project was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant to prepare some visual design studies. Mr. Dale Yonkin, Nadel, Inc., stated that there were two issues discussed at the last meeting and perspectives were requested. He presented perspectives and pointed out that one perspective shows the building in context of the immediate adjacent neighbors to the north and south. For the massing he explained how the building steps down towards Ocotillo giving it a sense of how little the building ends up near the Ocotillo property line, and how open the east side is because of the two large courtyards and car entry. For the context of the building they created two perspectives. One is looking south from the intersection of EI Paseo and Highway 74, which shows how minimal the impact is on Highway 74. The other perspective is looking north on Highway 74. There are three perspectives; one aerial and two ground level, plus the building elevation from Highway 74 that shows the buildings north and south in relationship to the hotel. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100427min.doc Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION ,,�a � MINUTES April 27, 2010 Mr. Bagato referred to the landscaping and expiained that the applicant will have to do a retention basin and a storage tank. After submitting the landscape plans the Landscape Specialist indicated that the roots would end up going into the storage tank which will be a problem, so they will have to redesign around the tank. The Commission asked Mr. Joblin to clarify the unit count since there was a discrepancy as stated in the newspaper. Mr. Matt Joblin, PDH Partners, Inc., answered that it was 72 units. It was originally 67 but because there was a revision in the square footage and other factors it changed to 72. Mr. Yonkin stated that one of the other issues from the last meeting were the size of the pylons at the entry. The pylons were reviewed and additional studies were presented to the Commission. He explained the relationship of the scale of the pylons to cars and people and said that they were reduced to 30' as opposed to 40' shown on the plans. He felt that the 30' works perfectly well, but would like the option of keeping them at 40'. If they go transparent then the higher pylon would be more effective; if going a little more solid then perhaps they would scale it down. Approval for the larger one would give them the option to study in real detail with the artist creating the pylon. Mr. Joblin stated that having some flexibility with additional height will create what they believe is the wow factor. Commissioner Touschner thought they didn't need to worry about the wow factor at any height and felt this was making a pretty bold statement. She brought up the height at the last meeting because she feels the pylons are two massive things. Mr. Bagato stated that it will move on to the Planning Commission and the City Council who can also change some of the building. Once the approval takes place the final construction drawings will come to Architectural Review during the building plan check process. Then at that time, the Commission can condition the approval that those two pieces be studied further as part of the construction process. Commissioner Touschner thought this should come back at design development; the concept works but bring it back when it is further developed. The Commission reviewed the height of the Amago Gallery and the hotel. Mr. Yonkin said that the height of the gallery is 35' and the height of their project closest to the gallery is 62' above grade. He stated that the elevation shows that the gallery while it's shorter is G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2010�AR100427min.doc Page 4 of 9 • ARCHITECTURAL F;,�;IEW COMMISSION �,,,�,r MINUTES April 27, 2010 setback nicely. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is hard to tell the scale because the distance between Amago and the structure on the north side is small. Mr. Yonkin stated that it is about 65'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far of a gap do they have between buildings. Mr. Yonkin answered 84'. Mr. Joblin stated that he met with Amago Gallery to present the project to them and they are verbally in support of the project and understand the sense of community and the value it is creating. They asked that as long as they screen the building with landscaping they would be very happy with the project. Mr. Bagato presented a letter he received via email from Norman Rickard, 1207 Sandpiper, regarding his concerns with the height of the project. Mr. Rickard asked that the Commission adhere to the current height limitation of 35'. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission's policy is not to approve the height exception because that would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He said that the Commission's role is to encourage development that is in harmony with the design character of the City and in conformance of the guidelines. He stated that they don't necessarily have to approve it based on the ordinance, but they can decide on the overall height based on the compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato invited the public in attendance to come forward and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Tom Rasmussin, 241 Sandpiper, stated that from his home he would look directly at this project. He said that he is amazed that this is even as far along as it is and no one has talked to Sandpiper. He pointed out that the Ocotillo side is much lower in value and has virtually or almost no architectural significant whatsoever; whereas the Sandpiper is probably the preeminent architectural asset of the town. This project will absolutely destroy what exists there. He feels that the height limit of 35' is the Commission's job to maintain. That is what the zoning ordinance requires and what the citizens count on. He suggested that someone come over and take photos from their view to get a different viewpoint on what is taking place. He also pointed out the noise factor from Highway 74 and said that putting a four-story hotel in front of Sandpiper will magnify the noise coming into Sandpiper. He asked that this be given a lot more consideration. He talked to several owners and none of them knew about this project or a few of them thought it would go down behind G:1PlanningGlanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2010WR100427min.doc Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION . MINUTES � April 27, 2010 The Gardens. He stated that he will definitely be in front of the City Council and asked if they should appear at the Planning Commission and Mr. Bagato stated that the Planning Commission would give a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rasmussin invited Mr. Joblin to visit them at Sandpiper. Commissioner Levin asked if there was notification to the community for this project. Mr. Bagato answered not at this time. The community will be notified when it goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Pearson Forbes, 252 Sandpiper, stated the contact that the developers have had with the Ocotillo residents, the rentals, and the businesses was all good, but pointed out that the first four circles in the Sandpiper units are right on Highway 74; which totals 96 homeowners. That is a lot of people that will be impacted from this development. This is a big deal for the Sandpiper. From an architectural standpoint he would like to focus on the mass, not just the height limit. The mass is incredible when compared to the Amago Gallery. He indicated that he can see the Gallery from his place and this development will be twice as high. This is such a massive structure that it deserves some architectural revision. He pointed out the 40' to 50' tall pine trees in the median that are good markers of how tall this structure will be at 65'. It will have an impact on reverberation of sound and could also have an impact on sunlight; it will be interesting to know how late the sun would hit the Sandpiper. He agrees that their units are architecturally significant and the residents need to be a part of the approval process and he looks forward to that. Ms. Pam Rasmussin, 241 Sandpiper, stated that out her living room window she has a 50 or 60 degree view of the mountains and from the north end to the south end this development will completely eliminate their views. She stated that there will be about 40 or 50 people who will totally lose their mountain views. She is sure that the developer felt the people on Ocotillo were important to talk to and who are happy with it, but to her knowledge no one has set foot on the Sandpiper property to see how difficult an issue this will be for them. Her understanding was that the City was always going to try and adhere to the 35' height. It's still going to impact them at 35', but that is what it is zoned for and that is what it supposed to be. She believes that if this development is not financially viable at 35' or less, then they should find a piece of property where it is G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20101AR100427min.doc Page 6 of 9 • ARCHITECTURAL R' EW COMMISSION MINUTES � � April 27, 2010 viable. She stated that she is incredibly disappointed and said that most of the owners left last week and know nothing of this project. Ms. Carol Fanelli, 182 Sandpiper stated that she bought in the Sandpiper because of the architecture and expressed that this development will be a big mistake. She wants to maintain their architectural significance in their community. Mr. Joblin apologized to the residents at Sandpiper for not coming to them and presenting the project. It was a mistake on his part and he didn't understand how effected they would be. He told them that he would come to them and present the project and explain everything at that time. He then explained to them about the 62' height and pointed out the 25' drop in the property. Even if they stayed within the zoning and didn't ask for the partial 4th floor the residents would still have a 52' height. The viewpoint from where they are is a difference of 10' and would be insignificant. He stated that by having that partial 4th story allows them to have a five-plus star property and would bring something to EI Paseo that benefits this community tremendously. He said there are many benefits overall to the City that will happen; not just money. The key here is moving forward to create a project that respects the environment, has open space, and lush landscaping. They wanted to create an anchor to the EI Paseo experience and provide benefits to the community. The residents and Mr. Joblin discussed the height of the building and the impact to the residents at Sandpiper. Mr. Rasmussin thanked Mr. Joblin for explaining the project and stated that there will be a problem meeting with the developers since most of the residents have left the area. He suggested that they will have to do this via email. Commissioner Gregory closed the public comments. Commissioner Gregory asked what has changed since the last meeting. Mr. Bagato said the massing of the buildings, the scaling of the art pieces in the entry way, and the landscaping plans. Commissioner Vuksic had a couple of concerns. He reminded the developers that the Commission at the last meeting asked for a three dimensional view of the project in context and thought the Commission was getting very guarded vantage points of this project. Upon reviewing the photos submitted to the Commission at the last meeting, he said the building looks no higher than the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100427min.doc Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � • MINUTES April 27, 2010 Amago Gallery and the new photo presented today looks higher; so he questioned which one was correct. The building is going to have to stand on its merits and he knows the developers are capable of showing the Commission what the City will get. Everyone needs to understand what this development is going to be instead of presenting snapshots to get it approved. Mr. Yonkin presented a better photo showing the height of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could see Amago much better in this photograph. The Commission and the devefopers discussed the photo and the height. Commissioner Vuksic said that the Commission needs to see this project in three dimensions and said that he will look at this for its architectural merit and the Planning Commission and the City Council will look at the height. He recommended that the developers submit aerials and a 3-D model of the project. He explained to the developers exactly what he was requesting. Commissioner Touschner expressed that this is beautiful architecture with a nice feel to it, but it's all about understanding the massing. She was concerned with what the sides look like. Her concern was on Ocotillo Drive because that is where you are going to see the scale even more because you are going down a smaller street and you are traveling at a lower speed. She didn't understand the whole massing or the layers of where the street is, the landscaping layers or the building edge. She said that the 3-D would allow them to start to see that. The Commission and the developers discussed the massing and layers. Commissioner Gregory stated that the architecture is very nice but he feels that the project will get slammed. He suggested to the developers to be really careful with respect to the massing because the massing really does not conform well to the low story neighborhood. He stated that getting through the Planning Commission and the City Council will be more difficult and he asked them to be sensitive to the concerns that were brought up. Commissioner Lambell asked to see a 3-D model and stated that it is imperative to understand what the massing will look like. Commissioner Vuksic said that he would like to see a 3-D rendering/model of the entire site and with enough context on the computer to show how it would look going up and coming down Highway 74, with enough architecture to understand what is solid. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100427min.doc Page 8 of 9 � ARCHITECTURAL G�/IEW COMMISSION ,,,�,,,a MINUTES April 27, 2010 Commissioner Lambell moved for a continuance to allow the developers to submit a 3-D model that includes the site context, second by Commissioner Levin. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Touschner stated that if the Commission approves of the architecture do they need the 3-D model to move it forward to the other reviews. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is needed because the height and the mass tie together with the architecture. Commissioner Levin said that as it moves forward to other reviews the Commission can say that the same package was reviewed. Mr. Bagato said that seeing the model would be important and stated that he had informed the developers he had concerns with the height of four stories in context of the street and wouldn't feel comfortable taking it to the Planning Commission without it. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case No. PP 09-507 subject to submitting a 3-D model to include site context. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Stendell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100427min.doc Page 9 of 9 '�Wr✓' � ,