Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-14 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 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 16 1 Chris Van Vliet X 16 1 John Vuksic X 16 1 Karel Lambell X 16 1 Pam Touschner X 12 5 Allan Levin X 16 1 Ken Stendell X 16 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 24, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the August 24, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 2 of 13 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-256 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JUAN PEREZ, 82204 Hwy 111 Ste C PMB 151, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a studio conversion/carport patio. LOCATION: 74-774 Gary Avenue ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner stated that 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. Staff has not received any comments in opposition or in favor at this time. The proposed carport is designed as a side entry carport. In order to meet the standards for turning radius additional concrete will be added and, 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 above 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. Section 25.16.090, C encourages older homes to provide shaded parking spaces. Mr. Juan Perez, contractor presented two different designs on the carport. The first design is wood and will be painted to match the house and the second design could be stucco. Commissioner ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 3 of 13 Vuksic asked why it wasn’t centered on the gable element and he didn’t see a reason why it couldn’t be and the windows from the house would be visible in the bays. Mr. Perez stated there wouldn’t be enough room to enter because of the turning radius in off the street. He thought that if it was shifted over the applicant would have to add some concrete on the right side. Commissioner Vuksic thought it would be worth it then it would be balanced on the existing house elevation. He suggested shifting it over about two to three feet; whatever it is to center it on the gable. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested removing some of the concrete on the left side and adding grey concrete to the right side. Commissioner Gregory recommended that the carport be closed so it would be in keeping with the eaves of the house and look more finished. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could go with the wood structure but they would need to make some alterations so that it has more architecture; thicker members, hidden or decorative connectors, eliminate the blocking and have some detail to the rafters; instead of just cutting them off; crisscrossed with detail. The other option is plaster. He thought it would look better if there was a simple column coming down without all the detail. He suggested creating a heavy arched mass, taking it all the way up to the top of the trellis where there is a thick stucco wall in front, then let your trellis members die into it behind it or they could have the trellis members poking through the wall. Commissioner Touschner suggested that he frame the members where you will see the windows when there isn’t a car parked there and have it align with the windows. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the beams need to be thicker; 3X or 4X and structural grade without any knots so that it doesn’t twist. The Commission recommended that the applicant redraw the design and resubmit to the Commission for review. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case MISC 10-256 subject to: 1) shifting the structure 2’ to 3’ and center on the gable; 2) extend driveway on the right side by adding gray concrete; and 3) reduce concrete on left side of driveway. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 4 of 13 2. CASE NO: SA 10-282 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, 1550 Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two wall signs; Grand Prix Car Wash. LOCATION: 72-880 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C. (3) FCOZ Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner stated that the applicant is requesting to remove an existing wall sign for Grand Prix Car Wash and replace it with illuminated acrylic faced channel letters on a raceway for Car Wash-Detail, located on the back side of the building facing Dinah Shore Drive. The applicant has submitted two options in regards to color of the raceway. Option A is a checkered pattern painted black and white and Option B is a checkered pattern painted grey and white. The proposed sign meets all development standards and is an improvement over the existing wall sign. The proposed sign is creative and is more in keeping with the name of the business. Staff believes the raceway is well designed into the building and recommends Option A; checkered pattern painted black and white. The Commission discussed the two color options for the raceway; one black and white and the other grey and white. Commissioner Vuksic felt that if the race way is black and white it will relate better to the checkered flags on the ends. The Commission discussed the color options. Commissioner Touschner suggested increasing the checkered flags 2” to 4” to pop out on the fascia piece. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve the signage with the black and white background and increasing the checkered flags 2” to 4” and it be proportionate within the fascia piece. Commissioner Van Vliet made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the border at the top and bottom of the flag be a minimum of 6.5” from the top and bottom. Commissioner Touschner agreed to amend the motion. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 5 of 13 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval of the black and white background subject to: 1) increasing the size of the checkered flags 2” to 4” and proportionate within the fascia piece; and 2) border at the top and bottom of the checkered flag shall be a minimum of 6”. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-278 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT WINGS, LLC, 5700 Cahe Wright Drive, Suite 103, Norfolk, VA 23502 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of façade renovation, architectural improvements, wall signage, and a dining patio; Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar. LOCATION: 72-920 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-3 Ms. Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner presented the project and summarized the staff report. This façade enhancement is proposed to replicate the restaurant chain’s branding image at the old Macaroni Grill location. Parapet walls have been raised to help create a more modern design and changing the aesthetic of the previous business that occupied the space. Several different types of lights and light fixtures are shown on the rendered drawings, but specific cut sheets were not provided and must be included to determine compliance with the decorative lighting code. All light fixtures and awning structure supports are shown in a metallic finish to match the front entry overhang structure. Actual awnings will consist of a black awning fabric with black and yellow squares painted onto the black fabric. A signage package has been included for final review. Staff thinks the window signage on the front door is appropriate, but the continual line of graphics along the front south elevation patio space appears cluttered. Staff recommends either reducing the size or reducing the quantity of these window signs for a more clean appearance. Awnings enhance the visual character of the building and staff does not propose any alterations to these fixtures. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 6 of 13 Mr. Gary Kerr, architect, presented new elevations illustrating an exterior paint scheme using two different colors and actual paint samples as staff suggested. He stated that the stripes shown on the standing seam metal awnings represent the ridges in the standing seam roof; an artistic touch and they are not actual stripes. To address the mortar on the block, what is shown on the rendering is accurate; it is a natural grey mortar and not a tone of red. Commissioner Levin asked about the mini logos on every single pane. Ms. Grisa stated they are allowed 25% of temporary window signage and thought it looked alright on the front doors, but is a little cluttered with the window decals going along the south side that faces Highway 111. Commissioner Stendell suggested sandblasting or etching the logo into a laminate and not adding color. Commissioner Vuksic suggested lighting the edges of the glass to make it look soft at night. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was approving the signage and the lighting or was that coming back. Ms. Grisa stated that they will have to reduce the size of the sign and the lighting will have to come back because the applicant did not submit enough documentation for review. The Commission discussed the massing and the architecture of the building. Commissioner Gregory wondered if a touch of effort could be applied to the north facing elevation. Ms. Grisa stated this is not shown correctly in the rendering but the paint color and the fascia color is painted on the metal door and gate. Mr. Kerr presented an alternate that was prepared for the two color stucco introducing the lighter stucco on some of the elevations. He said that it was suggested to them that they go with the lighter color around the trash enclosure and the gates will be painted with Enduring Bronze. Commissioner Gregory thought that with the mass of this building and the location that the landscape plan be particularly important and suggested that a serious effort be made with serious sized plant material on this building. Mr. Kerr stated that he has spent a lot of time with the Landscape Specialists to make sure that they put in what the City wants to see. They will be upgrading the landscape and will move towards xeriscape. Commissioner Vuksic thought that if the cornice detail on the parapet on the north side of the existing building was removed it ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 7 of 13 would look like the other side. Mr. Kerr stated that they will be providing some Palo Brea where the transition will occur to soften the transition pull. He said that between that and changing the parapet enough to match the front of the building it will help quite a bit. Commissioner Stendell pointed out the existing irrigation maintenance of the mall and asked if that area would be incorporated into a revised landscaping. Mr. Kerr stated that they are in negotiations with the mall and it will be something that will all be tied together. Commissioner Touschner mentioned the trash containers and asked if the beige walls were new and Mr. Kerr stated that those walls are existing, as well as the metal gate and will be painted with the new color pallet of the building. The trellis above is existing and will require some repair work. Mr. Kerr stated that they are modifying the trash enclosure slightly by bumping it out a little. They will need to provide accessibility in the trash enclosure for engineering requirements and to get the ramp dimension back there. Commissioner Touschner wondered why one of the caps on the columns were different. Mr. Kerr stated that they could put a cap on that column to match the other columns. Commissioner Touschner asked if the two colors on the south facing element could be switched creating a transition from one to the other element which will indicate a change in the architecture. Mr. Kerr suggested going with the lighter color on the entire façade because he doesn’t like the skinniness of the dark brown legs on the other side and would make a nice transition. The Commission and the applicant discussed the color samples   ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, subject to: 1) removing and replacing cornice detail on the north side of building with a detail in keeping with the new façade remodel; 2) use multi color option on entire façade; 3) on the west elevation use a single lighter color on the identified element; 4) glass signage shall be sandblasted or etched and frosted; 5) on the north side elevation add same detail to columns that are missing caps; 6) signage reduced in size to meet code; and 7) submit proper documentation illustrating compliance with decorative outdoor lighting codes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 8 of 13 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-273 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDUL SALEHI, 10 Andalucia, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a façade renovation and loading dock expansion; Best Buy LOCATION: 72-369 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-3 Ms. Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is seeking to remodel the façade of a vacant business space located within the Desert Crossings development for the relocation of Best Buy. The proposal consists of removing the major entry tower element along with the protruding canopies flanking either side of it; shading the walkways. A smaller trellis would be added to the left of the new entry façade to match the existing trellis located on the other side. New concrete benches would be located on either side of the entry. A smaller glass entry system adjacent the front entry would be removed and replaced with a small exit door. New decorative bollards are proposed immediately in front of the main entry door and the adjacent exit door on the front façade. On the back of the building, facing Painters Path, the loading dock would be expanded to fit two loading docks and relocate an exit door. The general design of the façade and signage is appropriate for the branding typical of a Best Buy. Staff has general concerns of how this façade renovation will fit within the overall center. A major remodel of this space is removing a good portion of the detailing and design that is predominant throughout Desert Crossings as a whole. By removing the canopies and adding the trellis features, the design was definitely enhanced returning the visual balance that was removed and adding existing elements to maintain the design. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the façade enhancement for Best Buy subject to commissioner comments and staff recommended conditions within the staff report. Commissioner Gregory stated that when this project was first built everyone liked to pick on it because it had such massive parking in front, but there is no question about its success. One of the things that they did in the original development was to go for the details and ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 9 of 13 the controversial domes, which they went through a lot of trouble to get approved; with a lot of interesting detail. His concern with looking at these proposed changes is that the applicant has converted a building that has some architectural interest into a big box with the type of trellis work that is just a stick-on typical thing we see everywhere; the detailing is gone. What he wanted to make is clear is that he doesn’t mind the Best Buy shape with some serious modification and suggested that could maybe use tile for example. He said that this center has quality architecture. From his prospective he did not want them to turn this into a big box. Mr. Abdul Salehi, Architect stated that they are keeping all the trellis’ and duplicating them on the left side so there is a balance on both sides. On the corner of the building they have added molding inserts and will be copying that element. His goal was to be less intrusive and not add any new elements to the front. Another goal they had was to widen the entrance because currently it is only 14’ and they feel that is not wide enough for a 45,000 sq. ft. building; they are proposing 32’. They are keeping the existing location of the entrance but just widening it and wrapping the blue in the front around the sides. They will be putting up 4’ x 8’ panels and adding lighting on the eaves which will be concealed. It will give that area a contemporary look similar to Old Navy. Commissioner Levin asked if this was all in one plane so there is no shade and Mr. Salehi stated that the blue wedge will come out about 12” on the front. Commissioner Touschner suggested they submit a three dimensional rendering of the project and Commissioner Vuksic agreed. The Commission discussed the trellis’ and the benches on each side of the building. The Commission discussed the moldings and Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that it is better to have three parts with simpler lines to the building rather than four parts. Commissioner Gregory stated that the design appears to be acceptable but there are some nuances that need a little more attention. He said that the Commission would like to see more articulation and more depth between parallel planes to give it more relief. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed the blue element to get it farther away from the storefront. Mr. Dwayne Shmel, Project Manager stated that the original design for the wedge got too complicated so they are keeping the essence of their current brand element with an updated look. He stated that they used to put big ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 10 of 13 flood lights out in the parking to shine on the blue wedge illuminating it at night. So rather than illuminating the wedge they want to accentuate the edges so at nighttime you see their brand identity without excessive use of energy. That is why the wedge is only 12” because it creates a cove and if they bring it out it will wash out the light because the light only projects far enough to illuminate the perimeter. He stated that they do have some 3-D renderings that they will submit for review. Commissioner Gregory suggested approving it subject to submitting a 3-D rendering to show the articulation. He wanted to make it really clear that there would be a caveat to the approval and wanted to help them move forward. Commissioner Stendell stated that he would like to see more relief of depth of the entry storefront greater than 12” for the blue element, something to give it three dimensions. Commissioner Stendell asked if the signs were a part of this approval and Ms. Grisa stated that they are. She stated that the front signage has to be approved by ARC due to the size. She mentioned that the yellow background has to be opaque because only the letters should light up. Commissioner Stendell made a motion to approve preliminary architecture subject to: 1) bringing the signage back for approval; and 2) submitting a 3-D rendering to show greater relief on the storefront entry. Commissioner Touschner stated that the signage can be approved at this time. Commissioner Stendell amended his motion to approve signage as shown. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they didn’t want to see this late in working drawings and they need to get it back to the Commission as soon as they can to review the 3-D rendering. He said at that time the Commissioners will probably have some comments on the renderings. He stressed to the applicant to take seriously what has been said and recess the entry. After a review by the Commissioners they may be pushing on that entry and they wouldn’t want to do that when the drawings are all done. The Commission discussed continuing the item or giving preliminary approval. Mr. Salehi pointed out that none of the existing buildings in the complex have recessed windows. For this project they structurally have to maintain the existing sheer wall and in the middle they will have to remove the column. These are some of the issues they looked into before submitting this proposal. Commissioner Gregory stated that all the other stores in the complex have the illusion of a ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 11 of 13 tremendous recess. He understands that the applicant wants to change to a contemporary design but there are certain elements of the old design that the Commission likes which makes sense in this environment. The Commission and the applicants discussed creating some depth in the storefront. Commissioner Stendell restated his motion and Commissioner Vuksic made the second. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Stendell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) signage approved with illuminated letters and opaque background; 2) provide a 3-D rendering of entry design with either a recessed entry or protruded box; 3) storefront entry relief shall be more than 12”; and 4) remove molding frames. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent 5. CASE NO: SA 10-275 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Frederic Raffenne / Hayman Summers, 3850 Greenhill Road, Pasadena, CA 91107 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new awning signage and window signage; Hayman & Summers. LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Ms. Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant has proposed recovering an existing framework with a new awning fabric in the color red, with a white border. The main business signage “Hayman & Summers” is shown located on the front façade as well as the east and west façade. Below the awning, the storefront contains a combination of arched windows and replicated arched forms within the wall. The applicant is proposing to fill these arched wall openings with a permanent display of merchandise images as displayed on the drawings. A border within this alcove would be painted red to match the awning above. The signage located on the awning depicts the height in the submittal, but not the square footage and lineal suite length for the north, east, and west sides where signage is located. This information needs to be provided for a complete review. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 12 of 13 Commission approve the awning, signage, and outdoor display as suggested in the staff report including commissioner comments, returning to staff for final review and approval. Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, applicant stated in reference to the red awning that there was another red awning in the general vicinity. He pointed out that there are ten open windows that are stuccoed that needs updating and discussed the red border around the windows. He presented several photos of merchandise that can be placed in the merchandise display windows. Ms. Grisa wanted to clarify that the signage would not be illuminated and Mr. Farzaneh stated that was correct. He stated that they would not be changing any of the existing lighting or any of the lights under the canopy that light the windows. The Commission discussed the proposed red awning color. Commissioner Touschner felt that because the awning is so large the red would overpower the building. The color is a bit too much and the white strip at the bottom makes it too busy with all the words on it. Commissioner Gregory stated that the existing awning is subtle and sophisticated because it blends with the color of the building and the lower valance is not a different color. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the colors for the awning and the size of the signage. Ms. Grisa stated that the applicant can be approved for all three signs; east, west and north facing. She stated that she will need the length to determine if the sign meets code. Based on the rendering the north facing signage fits well within the space of the awning, but the east and west signage elements are too large for the small space they are proposed. Commissioner Touschner suggested that the letters be a little smaller. She did have a concern with the red border around the display windows and felt that a colored bordered wasn’t necessary and suggested that the border match the building color. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to: 1) awnings shall be one color - terracotta with ivory letters; 2) eliminate lower lettering on valance; 3) signage on the east & west elevation adjusted or reduced in size; 4) no lighting in displays; 5) border on display frames shall match building color; and 6) provide suite lineal length and total signage square footage to ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100914min.doc Page 13 of 13 verify code compliance. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Stendell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSISTANT PLANNER