Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-27 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 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 13 1 Chris Van Vliet X 13 1 John Vuksic X 13 1 Karel Lambell X 14 Pam Touschner X 9 5 Allan Levin X 14 Ken Stendell X 14 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to add Case No. MISC 10-238 to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 13, 2010 minutes to be approved at the next meeting. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 2 of 11 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 10-221 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN- A-RAMA, Chad Addington, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program for; The Vineyards Commercial Center LOCATION: 37-011, 37-017, 37-023 & 37-029 Cook Street ZONE: PC.2 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The sign program consists of wall signage for four separate buildings. The buildings illustrate a modern, commercial design with painted concrete walls and glass panels. The applicant is trying to keep signage to a minimum and encourage signs that compliment the style of the building. Signage specifications call out for standard face-illuminated channel letters, reverse halo-illuminated channel letters, 3” minimum depth, internally illuminated geometric shaped (not squared or rectangular) cabinets with push-thru dimensional copy. Letter styles and color will be approvable by the landlord and the City of Palm Desert. The landlord and the City reserve the right to require that the colors be muted. Secondary signage is proposed to be placed upon glass doors at each entrance with white vinyl lettering not to exceed 2 sq. ft. in area. Letters shall not exceed 3” in height and shall indicate business name or business logo, hours, and phone number. The information shall be in Helvetica or Helvetica bold font. Overall height of the wall signs fall roughly between 10’-6” to 16’ to the top of the single tenant sign location. All sign envelopes will not exceed the maximum height of 20'. Tenants will be permitted to place signage on glass doors at each entrance in white vinyl colored lettering not-to- exceed 2 sq. ft. in area. Letters shall not exceed 3” in height. Primary entrance glass doors will be permitted to show one copy of the address and unit number in 5” tall lettering. The site plan shows the locations of the two monument signs along Cook Street; however, the applicant is not proposing monument signs at this time. The applicant is seeking approval for the locations and will come back through Architectural Review Commission for design approval only. Staff is requesting that the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 3 of 11 monument sign for tenant identification is re-located on University Park. The proposed sign program overall is a well laid-out plan. Staff has reviewed the elevations and approves with the exception of a few minor changes. The applicant is proposing three types of signs. Standard face, illuminated channel letters, reverse halo- illuminated channel letters, and internally geometric shaped cabinets with push-thru letters. Sign programs are designed to create a uniform sign for each building and centers. Staff is recommending that the applicant chose one type of signage in order to keep the signage similar. The Commission discussed the amount of signage and the locations. Mr. Chad Addington, Sign-a-Rama stated that it was one sign per occupant, per side. Some of the buildings are tucked way back and there will only be one sign because there is no visibility; like Building A that faces the apartments. Buildings B, C, and D are allowing for signage on the front and the back. The Commission and the applicant discussed the two monument signs proposed on Cook. Mr. Swartz stated that one sign lists the tenants and the other is a center identification sign; however, you can’t have two signs on the same street, so this one will have to be removed on the University Park side. Mr. Bagato stated that the monument signs shouldn’t be discussed until they have the design proposal to review because they didn’t have enough information on the signs. Mr. Swartz stated that there was a change in the verbiage on page 6 of the plans and handed out the corrections to the Commission for their review. He pointed out that the trim cap and return color has been changed to dark bronze. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the letters on the signage and Mr. Swartz stated that they are proposing three different styles and staff was recommending that they use one; talking with the applicant they have decided to go with the standard. Commissioner Vuksic thought that for retail it is nice to have some variety and hopefully the storefronts will have different awnings and different kinds of signs to add a layer of spice to it. Commissioner Van Vliet wondered how many people will put up awnings and do a distinctive front. Commissioner Vuksic thought there would be very little happening as far as the storefronts and thought they sort of planned for that because there is some interest happening with the volumes of colors and the buildings themselves. Commissioner ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 4 of 11 Van Vliet was concerned because there is potential for a lot of signage there and thought it was important that they be fairly uniform. Commissioner Touschner also mentioned that the size, shapes and locations of the signs will be important as well. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that staff review the individual signs as they come in to determine that they fit into the different locations nicely. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission can add wording to the sign program for staff discussion regarding sign type and location relevant to the building to make sure it is architecturally compatible. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the amount of signage that is available and what it will end up looking like. At the very least, as these get approved this Commission needs to see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned with the shaped can signs and said that if it’s not done with good design ability it may not be done very well. Mr. Bagato said that the ordinance states that these are only approved through ARC, so wording can be added to the sign program that a decorative can sign may be permitted through the ARC process only. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) some sign locations to be adjusted and reviewed by staff; 2) the stylized box signs will return to ARC for review and approval; and 3) monument signs will return to ARC for separate approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-143 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BETWEEN THE SHEETS, 17302 Daimler Street, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a revised storefront; Between the Sheets. LOCATION: 73-425 El Paseo Suite 113 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that this applicant is coming in with a new design which staff feels is better and more contemporary than what was previously approved. Staff is recommending approval. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 5 of 11 The Commission discussed the changes and stated that this new change looked classier. However, the letters for Between The Sheets are too close to the edge and suggested a little space. Mr. John Vuksic, representative stated that he would have the applicant bring in the actual template panel for staff review. Commissioner Levin asked if there would be a problem with the name being on every storefront window and Mr. Bagato stated that storefront window signage allows for it. It’s such a small amount and each window can have up to 25%. Commissioner Touschner noticed that there are new Carrier units on the roof and said that the plans indicate that they will be covered by roof screens; however, while the roof screen is drawn appropriately there is no dimension on the roof screen. Mr. Vuksic asked if she was talking about the metal screen on the shell building that is going up on the building now and she said yes. She said there are three units that are 3’-9” and wanted to make sure that the new units are properly screened. Mr. Bagato stated that there are general conditions through the whole project and staff will make sure that anything that goes up on the roof has to be screened or it will be modified. Commissioner Levin asked if they are approving the lettering on the windows. Mr. Bagato stated that the signage is a separate submittal and will be reviewed by staff and will not require a review by the ARC. Staff will review as part of the sign package. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval of storefront as presented subject to: 1) the lettering on the awning over the door is spaced such that the letters are not set at the edge of the awning; and 2) plans to be reviewed by staff. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 6 of 11 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-227 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELISO HERNANDEZ, 74-774 Gary Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to build a carport 20’ from face of curb. LOCATION: 74-774 Gary Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to build a carport in the front yard 20’ from face of curb and to convert an illegal studio unit back into a single car garage. The original home had a two-car garage that was converted into living quarters illegally. The applicant must provide two covered parking per Section 25.16.090, C. The Zoning Ordinance encourages rehabilitation of older dwelling units and provisions for shaded parking by allowing a carport structure 20’ from curb. In approving such a setback, a notice is sent to property owners within 300’ of the property and the ARC must make a determination that a reduced setback will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The proposed carport is designed as a side entry carport. In order to meet the standards for turning radius, an existing tree would have to be removed and relocated. The carport replicates a trellis at the top of the structure with three posts designed and painted to match the existing house. The trellis feature would be painted to match the fascia of the existing house. The carport is 10’ x 20’, with 4” x 4” posts and wood framed. The proposed carport meets standards and is consistent with the neighborhood. Converting one of the studios back into a single car garage and adding the carport will bring the applicants home into compliance. However, back in 2007 the applicant brought his home into compliance and knowingly illegally converted the garage for a second time into studio units. The house was originally built with a two-car garage and adding the carport will take away from the overall appearance of the home. Staff is recommending denial. Mr. Bagato stated that technically it is considered living space and is not a unit without a kitchen, but they can’t convert any part of a garage without having another covered space. The other concern is the shape of the garage and the remaining space is not the typical space for a garage; which is 20’ long. That is the reason ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 7 of 11 why they didn’t want to approve it the first time around. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was enough depth there and Mr. Bagato stated there was enough depth for a small vehicle. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans for the garage and carport. Commissioner Vuksic asked why the owner knowingly converted this back to a garage after he got caught and then knowingly converted it back to units again. Mr. Juan Perez, representative explained that the applicants family had lost their home two years ago and needed a place to stay, so they converted the garage. Secondly there was a language barrier with the process of paperwork. They were too confused and had no idea what they had to do. He is now helping the property owners with the process and they understand what needs to be done. He stated that the owners are willing to remove the second garage, refinish it and put in a window. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what was happening with the concrete driveway. He asked if it was being modified or torn out. Mr. Swartz said that it was being modified and the old one would remain. Commissioner Gregory felt that it would become a parking lot. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and said that there would be a tremendous amount of concrete out there. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would be a sea of concrete and much of it is not need for it. From a landscape perspective he would like to see the tree replaced. You don’t need all that concrete between the curb and the side of the carport. Mr. Perez suggested that they can saw cut some of it and add more sod and landscape. Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Christina Canales, Public Works, how wide a driveway can be on a single family resident and she said 30’. Commissioner Levin stated that his concern was leaving the bathroom in the garage. The owners are already 0 for 2 and leaving that bathroom in there we are lending ourselves to them turning it back into another living space. He asked if they were renting those units and Mr. Perez stated they are for family only. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed how this might work. Commissioner Stendell asked what would preclude them from converting this back to livable units. He said that this reeks of turning this whole piece into a full blown duplex in an R-1 residential area and the one car garage on the left will probably be ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 8 of 11 converted back into living space. Commissioner Gregory said it was likely but that was what Code Enforcement was here for. Commissioner Lambell stated that this Commission is charged with looking at this from an architectural standpoint. So from that standpoint a side loaded carport is not going to give the structure any credit and what they are trying to do doesn’t fit with the rest of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned if they could get a car in the carport. Commissioner Gregory stated that it wouldn’t work. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that they are just tacking something on to the front of the house to try and satisfy a code violation and it really looks bad. He feels this is an injustice to the house to put a carport in the front like that; everything is exposed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he noticed there were three other carports on the street that had nice designs and tied into the house; however, there were also a couple bad ones. He thought the applicant was complying more with the lower end with what is out there instead of doing something that is more in compliance with the better ones. The Commission discussed the design, size, and location of the carport. Commissioner Gregory stated that this should be designed so that it is more attractive from the street and something that ties in a better with the house. Commissioner Touschner said that if they are only going to need one garage it needs to be a decent garage that works. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he also had a concern that this is being set up as a multi-family dwelling and wasn’t fair to the neighbors. Commissioner Levin asked if the people have been asked to vacate the premises and Mr. Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer stated there wasn’t anyone living in the second unit, only in the larger unit. The Commission discussed what course of action to take and Commissioner Gregory asked staff why they were recommending denial. Mr. Bagato stated they were recommending denial because of the architectural compatibility. The proposal had insufficient parking area in the remaining garage, problems with a side-entry carport, and they would be cramming the space with too much concrete, which would impact the landscaping. The Commission continued to discuss the location of the carport and discussed ways that the applicant could make this work. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they can make this a part of the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 9 of 11 composition of the house and as a result create a garage space that really works, then they can defend their decision the next time somebody comes and wants to do this. Commissioner Levin stated that the other option would be for them to reconfigure this to have a two-car garage and they wouldn’t need a trellis and then they could convert the space on the left side. The Commission discussed their recommended course of action. Commissioner Stendell recommended a denial and the Commission discussed the difference between a denial and a continuance. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director Community Development stated that many times we do continue and ask the applicant to redesign their project. If denied it allows the applicant to come back and propose a different one. Normally what we are looking at is some tweaking and that is appropriate for a continuance. If you really want the applicant to know that what he has proposed is not acceptable and needs to be redesigned then it is appropriate to deny. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Stendell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to deny case MISC 10-227. Motion carried 7-0 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-238 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHERRY SIDNEY, 112 20th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of paint color for retail building. LOCATION: 73-760 – 73-790 El Paseo ZONE: C.1.SP Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that the property owner was not aware that the City had an ordinance to require approval of a significant color change to their building. He stated that staff did receive a complaint from a neighboring business owner. Mr. Richard Riccio, painting contractor presented samples of the actual colors of their building. Mr. Ray Dracoules, representative stated that the building was tired looking and they wanted to paint it ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 10 of 11 for their new tenants. He indicated that they researched other colors on El Paseo and that is how they chose their colors. They wanted to lighten the building to make it more conducive to more of a salon type atmosphere. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the building color before blended away and the new color is very radical. Commissioner Lambell stated that what the city tries to achieve is a desert pallet. She wasn’t sure that either of the colors presented were a desert pallet. Ms. Sherry Sidney, building owner presented photos of some of the buildings that have similar colors and stated that is how they chose their colors. Commission Gregory stated that the city for a long time has been trying to achieve the desert tone and the applicant has a color that is not considered a desert tone. Mr. Dracoules stated that El Paseo is a walk shop street with all the bright colors and pizzazz. They looked at all those colors and selected their colors because they matched the lighter colors up and down the street. Commissioner Touschner thought it was great that they wanted to paint their building because it was tired, but said that one of the colors they selected is an accent color. It isn’t a bad color, but it has become their primary color and felt that this building needed to be more than just one color. Commissioner Gregory expressed to the applicant that they didn’t think it was their job to pick the color for them. Mr. Dracoules feels that the Commission is telling them what won’t work and he asked what will work. Commissioner Gregory stated there is a big difference. If you look at the new developments in the valley they are all painted in some form of a desert color. The Commission discussed their course of action and informed the applicant that if this was denied the applicant could work with staff on a color choice and get approval. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to deny case MISC 10-238. Applicant to work with staff on an acceptable color. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100727min.doc Page 11 of 11 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER