Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-25 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 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 9 1 Chris Van Vliet X 10 John Vuksic X 9 1 Karel Lambell X 10 Pam Touschner X 7 3 Allan Levin X 10 Ken Stendell X 10 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 11, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the May 11, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 2 of 13 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-519 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II INC. Attn: Pamela Hardy, 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three new architectural and landscape plans to be built on 103 lots within tract 31490 and tract 31490-1. LOCATION: 75-400 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Grisa summarized the project and stated that this came before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on January 1, 2010 and at that time there were six conditions placed on the approval and staff has been reviewing them through the plan check process. Staff would like the Commission to review a couple of those conditions. Additional recess on the side windows was requested but the developers chose not to do it because at the last meeting it was conditioned “if possible”, so they deemed it not possible. They illustrated on the plans that the fireplaces were vented through the sidewalls but decided to vent through the roof. According to the new plans the fireplaces will be vented through the roof. Staff initially felt that a decorative cap would be required but the developers prefer not to do that. On three of the façades they have the curved windows at the top and previously they only had one mullion across the top, now another mullion has been added. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were surrounds on the chimney flues and Ms. Grisa stated that staff asked the applicant to provide a decorative chimney cap but the developers prefer not to have them. She pointed out that Building and Safety does not require them to have the cap. The Commission discussed the chimney and the decorative cap and the conditions placed on the previous approval. Commissioner Gregory stated that the chimney is substantial enough and should be made more attractive. He thought that it wouldn’t be that expensive to build some type of structure to make it look better. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 3 of 13 Commissioner Lambell asked why it was not possible to recess the windows on the sides. Ms. Grisa stated possibly for financial reasons. The Commission discussed the size of the recess. Commissioner Gregory stated that considering the market and that they are having a rough time he felt it would be fine as they were especially since the windows were on the sides. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to accept the revisions made subject to: 1) chimneys should architecturally enhance the aesthetics of the house; reviewed and approved by staff; and 2) subject to final landscape approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 10-176 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVIS STREET LAND CO/MIKE RADIS, 622 Davis Street Suite 200, Evanston, IL 60201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two wall signs and two monument signs; El Paseo Village. LOCATION: 73-405 / 73-425 / 73-445 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, SP Mr. Bagato presented a request for two walls signs and two monument signs at El Paseo Village. Two signs are being proposed over the two entry pass-thrus in between the buildings. He pointed out that the sign has a terracing structure that doesn’t have the ability to do the halo reverse so there will be a backing panel plate behind the letters. It will still be reverse channel but reflect off the backing panel. The two monument signs meet all the requirements and staff does not have any problem with the design. The approved site plan includes the grading plan that shows the sign location on the two side streets which will need to be verified that it is 12’ behind the right-of-way. If there is a change in the landscaping staff will want to review that and modify as needed. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Kim Sanson, sign representative stated that the monuments are in place on the landscaping plans he has reviewed. Commissioner Lambell asked if there was a line of site issue and Mr. Bagato stated there wasn’t. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 4 of 13 The Commission reviewed and discussed the letter height. Mr. Sanson stated that overall the size is 5’ 4”; the “L” is 3’ 11” and the “E” is 20”. Mr. Bagato said this is part of what the development agreement allows and the square footage is based on the tenant square footage and will identify the center. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. 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: 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 presented the preliminary approval of the Rosewood Hotel and stated that this has come before the ARC in two previous meetings and was continued. The Commission recommended that the developers work out some of the massing in context of the neighborhood and requested a 3-D model of the project. He stated that the applicant has photo sims of the project but did not bring the 3-D model with them. Mr. Matt Joblon, PDH Partners, Inc. stated that since the last meeting they met with the residents of Sandpiper and the people from the Amago Gallery. They went out to the site to do a balloon study at the Sandpiper. He explained that they placed the balloons at the proposed height versus the current height and put them on the northwest corner, center west corner, and the southwest corner of the site. They presented those photos to the Commission for their review. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 5 of 13 Mr. Joblon stated that they have compromised by reducing the building 7’ by lowering the residential and hotel units by a foot; which is dramatic and definitely takes away from the value. They also took a couple feet off the lobby height for the residential side and from the hotel. Commissioner Levin asked if the reduction in height resulted in a reduction in the number of rooms and Mr. Joblon answered no and said that they took the height out of each floor; still leaving four floors. Commissioner Stendell asked what they were at center and Mr. Joblon stated that it was 35’. Originally they came in asking for 52’ and they brought it down to 45’ and are now asking for an additional 10’. The highest corner on the north end is 59’ and before it was proposed at 66’. Mr. Richard Riveire, Architect presented 25 3-D photos of the site for the Commission’s review and explained the images to them. He then described the mass as it fits on the site to make this project work. He explained that the architecture is deliberately designed to reflect a desert vernacular, but not necessarily the vernacular that you tend to get in Palm Desert. From an architectural point of view they definitely want the horizontal appearance to it. Mr. Joblon referred back to the balloon study that showed the 35’, 49’ and 59’ heights. The project definitely has presence but the difference between the fourth story and the third story is not as material as everyone thinks it is. He believes having that additional 10’ doesn’t create that much additional impact. Mr. Bagato presented the Commission with two additional letters received for review. He stated that this is not the advertised public hearing but the ARC allows an opportunity for the public to speak and suggested opening up the meeting to the public. Commissioner Gregory asked what height restrictions or setbacks they were requesting in the sense of variances. Mr. Joblon stated that it was a height variance. Commissioner Gregory asked if determining the height is pursuant to city standards in a sense that it is measured from the center of the building and averaging it. Mr. Bagato stated that there is a section of the code that says when they measure the height of a structure you take in the average of the site and apply it over the general site. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the code addressed such a long large building on a slope situation such as this. Mr. Bagato didn’t know if the intent of the code addressed that, but pointed out that the average was used ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 6 of 13 on the Westfield mall which has a big slope on a huge parcel further away from the street, and terraced projects like Falling Waters and the Larkspur Hotel that have three stories on the front end and two stories on the back. Commissioner Gregory opened the hearing for public statement. Ms. Kathryn Cook - 473 Sandpiper. She referred to the balloon study and said it just shows more readily than any word or picture could that the building will completely obliterate the view of the mountains and the vistas along Highway 74. She said that the Sandpiper is regarded by many as a modern treasure on El Paseo and is visited by numbers of visitors who come to look at midcentury modern architecture. The architect’s design situated each condo so the residents could have a view of the wonderful desert and the vistas. She stated they are happy to share the view, but would be extremely disappointed to lose it. The way the hotel is situated they will see the back side of the hotel because everything is situated towards Ocotillo. It breaks her heart that such a lovely facility that they are designing has to impinge on its neighbors. Ms. Jan Hoffman - 363 Sandpiper. She expressed that a great deal of consideration, creativity, and energy has been put into this design. She thanked them for that energy but she couldn’t condone the project because it goes against all of her feelings and her love for Palm Desert. She mentioned that notices should have been sent to the taxpayers addresses so they could have participated in this earlier. She said that the massive look of the design being presented is too massive and too much of a straight line and an 85’ speck in the middle is not going to diminish the mass. She didn’t know if architectural enhancements could be done to the flatness on Highway 74 but suggested they break it up. On El Paseo the buildings are practically common walls, but if you look at them each store has its own individuality so there isn’t a massive look. She is also concerned with the hallway that faces Highway 74 that runs the length of the building. She said there would be a mass of lights running the whole length and wondered how the lighting would affect the Sandpiper at all hours of the night; 365 days a year. She also mentioned that she had a hard time listening to the developer’s say that the project will not work unless they get the full amount of square footage. She informed the applicants that the Sandpiper residents would like to see a little more consideration given to them. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 7 of 13 Ms. Margarite Stetson - 263 Sandpiper. She stated that she loves that at night it’s very dark which is nice because the residents can watch the stars. One of her biggest concerns is the fact that the entrance is going to be off Highway 74 and it is already a very busy highway with people coming down much too fast. Consequently she feels that it will be very dangerous to have an in and out from the hotel right on Highway 74. The traffic on El Paseo has increased noticeably in the last two years and it already takes three to five minutes to get out of gate F. She urged them to rethink the planning because it will be a major problem. Mr. Pearson Forbes - 252 Sandpiper. He stated that the hotel is an interesting site. It is 800’ long and on a slope so even building to code allows the building to be 49’ at the northern point. However, code isn’t the issue here; mass is. Some of the ways to mitigate the mass have been brought up by Mr. Riveire, but he focused on the Ocotillo side; stepping back the building, starting from a lower height and going to a higher height. Stepping the building back from the property line helps but they are doing the opposite on Highway 74. By using the frontage road the hotel property is actually moving 30’ closer to the Sandpiper, not further away. Another way to break up the mass would be to break up the building into smaller segments because these are two massive 300’ long walls. In reference to lighting, the Sandpiper residents look out at complete blackness at night and if this hotel is built as proposed, they will look at corridor after corridor of lights; 24-7. To conclude he quoted the Palm Desert code as it relates to the architectural commission Chapter 25.70, Architectural Commission Goals/Policy/Procedures, Section 25.70.090 Action of the Commission states, “to approve an application the Commission shall find the following: Subsection B; that the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.” Subsection C states, “that the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 8 of 13 this title and the general plan of the city.” For this proposed development he believes that they cannot meet these findings. This project is a monstrosity imposing itself on single story residences on three adjacent sides; on the east, south and west. Ms. Tess Miller – 231 Sandpiper. She stated that the Sandpiper is a manmade development sitting in a natural environment and clearly this beautiful hotel belongs somewhere where it is burdened with other large buildings. It doesn’t belong in the desert environment and will dwarf everything; Sandpiper and El Paseo. It will block all the beautiful things about the desert; the view and the stars. She is also concerned that the city is not following the general plan that was established in 2004 that limited building height. She stated that the applicants need to design within the parameters in the natural environment and the plan admits that it can impose constraints but it can also lead to creativity. Building something two stories and terrace it down will create the same amount of building without the bulk. The general plan says to harmonize new land uses and developments within the existing built and natural environment. This project clearly does not fit within anything that was built in downtown Palm Desert. It is huge and doesn’t fit the desert architecture. Structures should be planned with integrated elements within the natural environment achieved by building scale and proportion in structure height. These structures should be similar in height and compatible with other buildings. She stated that they need to stick with the plan that was agreed upon. She stated that the Rosewood is beautiful, but they will be the only ones that will get the scenic vistas that belong to everyone. It will be a shame to lose the beautiful architecture of the Sandpiper and lose what we all deserve to have here. Ms. Heidi Hanskin – 211 Sandpiper. She stated that she appreciates the beautiful renderings of this lovely boutique hotel and can appreciate what it can contribute to Palm Desert; revenue and an influx of visitors. She grew up in the desert and the Sandpiper has been in her family for 25 years. She agrees with the concerns made regarding the scenery, lighting, and traffic. She has seen the traffic really escalate on El Paseo and it has become very problematic getting in and out and the noise level has escalated over the past few years as well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the 45’, which is 10’ above the code was measured from the center of the 800’ long property and is it one or two parcels and Mr. Joblon answered that it was measured ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 9 of 13 in the center and it is only one parcel. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the height was at the upper end. Mr. Joblon stated 21’ so stepping down from south to north is 21’, 45’ and 55’. The Commission reviewed the photos. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a hard time with this proposal. He stated that the architecture is very well designed but feels that the massing defies the spirit of the code and ordinances. When the Commission looks at residential design we look at things such as how the roof might be sloped so that if a house is taller than earlier codes we still try to respect the neighbors by having the houses at least conform somewhat to one another through some kind sensitivity to the existing homes. He realizes that Palm Desert is growing up and he doesn’t have a problem with a large development being built so long as it is massed sensitively on both sides. He thought they did a great job on the Ocotillo side, but as a lot of neighbors are complaining it’s obviously not a great job on Highway 74. Contrary to what was said earlier, if you remove some of the height and some of the massing you will lose some of the units and he understands how extremely detrimental that can be to the economic feasibility of the project. However, when the spirit of the ordinance is 35’ with the understanding that it might get a little bit higher or a little bit lower from one end or the other he didn’t think that was aimed towards something that had such a long axis that parallels the street with a gradient of Highway 74. So when you have a building at 59’ tall it is so far off from 35’, close to the street and to the neighborhood it doesn’t work with the spirit of the ordinance. He remembers when the Amago was built there was a huge negative reaction towards that building and now looking at various images that have been created the Amago looks dwarfed on the north end by this proposed building. He stated there are ways to mitigate it. If you did not follow the aesthetic of having that continuous horizontal line and worked with the grade that would help a lot, however he understands that that would take away from the architectural vision. What he sees is a beautiful building that right now is impacting the neighborhood and flies in the spirit of various ordinances. He stated to Mr. Joblon that based on his many years of experience this project will have difficulty getting through the Planning Commission and the City Council. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Lambell reviewed the photos and stated that there is much more of an impact from the Sandpiper side. She pointed out the photos that were the most glaring. She agrees that it needs to fit in better with the scale and scope of the property with a reminder that views are not protected. Commissioner Levin asked if Mr. Riveire could address the corridor lighting concerns and how that will impact out to the west. Mr. Riveire stated they would probably end up with a lot of indirect lighting with an approach to having more fixtures as opposed to overhead lights. The bright light is buried in the middle of the property where the lobby is located. Mr. Joblon pointed out that there will be a 6’ overhang, the shutters system 6’ back and then another 6’ there will be glass that will be glazed and then the hallway with different types of warm lights. He didn’t think the lights would ever be an issue. Commissioner Levin stated that at one time Mr. Bagato made a statement that height wasn’t within this Commission’s decision making parameters and asked him to clarify. Mr. Bagato stated that granting a height variance or the approval of the development agreement and any exceptions will ultimately come from the City Council. The ARC will make recommendations based on the architectural design and the massing in context of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission will approve the height, lighting and traffic. He stated that they could recommend approval for a three story or a terraced building. There are different roads they can go depending on what the applicant wants to do. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that the massing is a real problem and it needs to be revised down on one or both buildings, terraced and stair-stepped to make it more palatable to the neighborhood. Commissioner Stendell stated that the ARC’s task is to look at the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood and this hotel is an architectural feat that is very attractive. His only concern was the height and said that if they were within 10% of their limits he thought they would have a far greater opportunity of presenting it and possibly getting it approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council; but it’s 10’. The interior courtyards and the entrance have been given far more credits than making the hotel a compatible part of the community as a whole. He felt that it would ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 11 of 13 be difficult to get this approved through the Planning Commission and the City Council. He liked the architecture and would love to see a high end boutique hotel some place in the city, close in. It’s just a matter of making it work. Commissioner Gregory stated to Mr. Joblon that they needed to make a decision as to whether they might want a denial without malice so they can go on with their vision and planning and see where they end up, or they could choose to subscribe to the Commission’s comments and modify the design and continue this project. He thought it was something that could be the applicant’s choice because the Commission is encouraging the development of this plan and likes what they are proposing but there seems to be a concern with the big heavy massing. He asked the applicant if he had a feeling as to what direction he would like to go. Mr. Joblon stated that he didn’t know and said that he would like to take some time to think it through and to understand all their options. Commissioner Levin stated that they could continue it and then if they decide not to make the changes and wanted to take it on to Planning Commission then it would come back to ARC for a vote. Mr. Joblon wanted to clarify his options. He stated that they could get a continuance today to figure out what they wanted to do, then come back in two weeks and stay with it or take a little time to redesign to try to get an approval through ARC. He then decided on a continuance to the next meeting. Commissioner Levin made a motion to continue and Commissioner Lambell seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for any further comments. There being none the vote was called. Commissioner Gregory stated that he would love for them to redesign this project because he would like to see this move forward. Mr. Bagato asked if the Commission could give the applicant some instruction to help them along. Commissioner Gregory said that he wasn’t all that concerned about height but was concerned with overall height. He felt that if they show the same sensitivity to the Sandpiper as they did on Ocotillo and reorient the massing they will be on their way. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 12 of 13 Mr. Joblon asked to have some dialog. They started at point A with what they needed to do on this property to get a five-star resort experience. He thought everyone would agree that they would want to push the mass towards the most commercial part of the property, which is Highway 74. The other challenging thing is that no five-star operator will come in here with rooms facing Highway 74, which kills you because that is wasted space. They looked at this every way possible on how to diminish the mass. The Commission discussed stepping the buildings back. Mr. Joblon stated that the front façade when first presented was well received by the Commission. It has an accordion effect going on and is a pretty interesting façade for that type of length. Commissioner Lambell stated that this Commission will never tell them how to do it so the point being is that the mass is what they are concerned with and the applicant needs to digest that and see what comes back at them. If it is still this plan then it can always be appealed. The Commission is charged with looking at it from an architectural standpoint and does it fit into the neighborhood. Clearly at this moment it does not. Mr. Riveire stated that this is still the same volume regardless of how it is situated. Their approach was to take the side that was the least impactful and work the heck out of the façade to get it to a point where it had depth, rhythm, movement, and lighting. Then they put piles of trees in front of it. From an architectural point of view it made a lot of sense. Architects are problem solvers and that is what he plans to do. He will try to figure out how to manipulate the mass. He definitely doesn’t want to make it work in a way that just shifts the problem to someone else. Commissioner Gregory asked if the premise of a five-star hotel is reaching too far considering the limitations of the site. He wondered if they might have better luck thinking more four-star or maybe not offering so much in such a small package. Mr. Joblon explained that the money is truly made in the residential, plus there is an enormous amount of wealth in the desert in a two-hour drive to San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles County. The desert has the largest population of wealth in the United States and people don’t have any resorts to drive to. Commissioner Gregory believed that the support would be there for them to move forward with the project if they could mitigate some of the issues. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 13 of 13 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case PP 09-507. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER