Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-10 � � � �1 �� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' ' MINUTES May 10, 2011 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 6 1 Chris Van Vliet X 7 John Vuksic X 6 1 Karel Lambell X 6 1 Pam Touschner X 5 2 Allan Levin X 7 Ken Stendell X 7 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant 111. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 22, 2011 Action� Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to approve the March 22, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL �'IEW COMMISSION � • MINUTES May 10, 2011 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 11-149 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSEN ARCHITECTS, 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new single family home in Bighorn. LOCATION: 106 Tekis Court ZONE: PCD Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the project. The applicant is proposing a new single-family residence that would infill an otherwise vacant lot at The Mountains at Bighorn. The home is located on the hillside and will be seen from public view. The purpose of this review is to make sure the home design will blend into the hillside. The proposed new residential home fits well within the character of the existing, custom home neighborhood. The new residence has minimal roof structure that rises up above 18' and is orientated well within the site. The proposed architecture blends well within the natural terrain of the hillside in regards to view shed, topography, color, texture, and profile. The building pad has been previously approved and graded; therefore, the applicant is not disturbing the natural terrain. The applicant will need to submit a landscape plan, which will be approved by the Landscape Specialist. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Gregory asked if this design has been approved by Bighorn and Mr. Steve Corner, architect, said they do have land development approval from the HOA, but have not yet received final approval on construction drawings. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Swartz if there was any concern with seeing the home from Highway 74 and Mr. Swartz said no. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the veneer stone and Mr. Corner explained that it is real stone, 6" thick and has been used a few times up in this area. Commissioner Vuksic said this was a good choice for blending in. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2011\AR110510min.doc Page 2 of 7 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES May 10, 2011 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: CUP 11-161 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PIERO PIERATTONI, 73-705 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of restaurant fa�ade; Piero's PizzaVino. LOCATION: 73-722 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant submitted plans illustrating a tenant improvement and farade enfiancement for an existing building on EI Paseo that currently operates as an art gallery. The majority of the work involves tenant improvements inside the building, but the front fa�ade will be altered to include patio dining space. The canopy will be revised to include alucobond panels in an off-white color to cover the vertical portion of the mansard roof. The horizontal angled top will be covered in a matching off-white awning canvas; both sections will be trimmed in the similar grey material. The new building addition will be located at the property line, which is located 10' back from the face-of-curb. A minimum street frontage setback of 5' exists, but staff supports the applicant's proposal to create a patio area that would be allowed to encroach into this 5' setback as outdoor space. Overall, the proposed improvements are an upgrade in appearance compared to the existing building. The bottom of the building with fixed glass, and sliding, stackable windows finished in the anodized bronze and the adjacent grey stucco add an aesthetic significance to the space that was not there before. Additionally, it brings people to the street to create a more live streetscape. The top awning does not appear to have that same significance. No exterior lighting, signage, or landscaping is proposed as a part of this approval. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the fa�ade enhancement, subject to commissioner comments. G:1PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes12011WR110510min.doc Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL IEW COMMISSION �' ' MINUTES May 10, 2011 Commissioner Vuksic asked about the 5' setback and Ms. Grisa stated that the property line is located 10' back from the face of the curb and pointed out that most buildings on EI Paseo have a 5' setback beyond that. Commissioner Levin asked if the awning hangs beyond the setback. Ms. Christina Canales, Public Works, stated that if the awning was in the right-of-way they will allow it if they sign a Hold Harmless Agreement. Mr. Bagato stated that the restaurant has a CUP and one of the conditions is for the awning overhang. Commissioner Vuksic asked why they decided on the awning design and Mr. Stan Pollakusky, Engineer, stated they didn't like the batten look of the existing canopy and decided to go flush; that is the reason they chose the alucobond. He said with the awning being flatter it would be more indicative of a patio; similar to Vivant next door. Mr. Bagato said staff had some concerns with the 5' setback but pointed out that other buildings to the east went through ARC for approval. The applicant initially had plans that brought more of the building to the front, so staff worked with them to create a street scene. Staff can argue that the patio is in the setback, but it is consistent with other restaurants on EI Paseo; like Daily Grill. Commissioner Stendell pointed out that when the sliding windows are open there is patio seating, but if closed it is part of the building. He wondered if it should still be deemed a patio. Mr. Bagato answered yes because there are other restaurants on EI Paseo that are also enclosed and on the property line. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned with the 5' setback and said this can be called a patio, but it doesn't read as an open patio; it looks like a building extension. Mr. Bagato stated the applicant could ask for a variance because there are three buildings to the east that are right at the property line which have gone through ARC and received approval. He said the problem is some of the past approvals on EI Paseo created a zero setback, like all the new facades for the Village that are right on the property line. Staff is working with the applicant to meet the intent of the setback. Commissioner Vuksic liked all the windows and how they opened up. However, he said it was unfortunate that the bottom of it is so rich but the top seems to lose it. He asked the applicant why they felt the need to match the alucobond color with the awning color and the plaster matching the awning. Mr. Pollakusky said they wanted to stay with neutral colors. Commissioner Vuksic said there G:1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes1201 t1AR110510min.doc Page 4 of 7 '� ARCHITECTURAL RE�:W COMMISSION � MINUTES May 10, 2011 is a missed opportunity up top and felt they could do better. He said the Commission has to be careful about approving something just because it's better than what was there because once approved it will be there a while. He said he is disappointed that there wasn't a stronger design attempt made on the top level with something special and eye catching. Commissioner Gregory stated that it be more of an architectural solution instead of just cladding what is already there with an awning. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said they could do something more artful that would give them what they want out of the awning. Mr. Pollakusky said they could add a vertical element right over the door to announce the entrance a little better. Commissioner Vuksic recommended they look at this a little more to see if they can make it better. Commissioner Gregory said the building was architecturally weak to start with and unfortunately the approach the applicant has taken does nothing to enhance the architecture; it is just different. He didn't think the building had good bones and if they introduce a vertical element to give the building some character it would become an asset rather than just filler. Commissioner Levin was concerned with the windows being open to the entire restaurant and Mr. Pollakusky said they will be glassing in the cooking area. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to continue Case CUP 11-161 subject to a redesign of the mansard roof/awning element of the fa�ade enhancements. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-291 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EGG & DART, LTD, Steven Love, 74-050 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a fa�ade renovation, architectural improvements for Egg & Dart, Ltd. LOCATION: 74-05- Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and said this came before the ARC two previous times. He informed the Commission that the applicant is applying for redevelopment funds for the fa�ade G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2011WR110510min.doc Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION � ' MINUTES May 10, 2011 enhancement program. He presented drawings for the Commission's review and said the applicant is proposing to raise the center part of the building from 14'-6" to 18'. He pointed out � where the molding, awnings, lighting, signage, gate and trash enclosures will be located. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the parapets. Commissioner Van Vliet said the elevations compared to . the roof plan were totally inconsistent and asked the applicant if there were parapets all the way around. Mr. Steven Love, architect said there are parapets on the west, north and south side onfy. Commissioner Van Vliet informed the applicant that he would have to come up with a design to completely screen the air conditioning units. Commissioner Stendell stated they could condition this to take the parapet up to 12'-6" on the Ace Hardware side to compfetely screen all equipment. Mr. Love stated they can bring the parapet wall all the way around the top of the building. The Commission discussed the CMU wall, wheel stops in the parking area, and the sidewalk. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the cornice edge on the east side and recommended continuing the detail to the inside corner of the parapet. He said the columns on the front elevation were spindly and needed to be wider and recommended that these be widened to twice the width of the current design. He also recommended continuing the cornice detail at the southwest corner for a distance of 25' or until the landscape planter ends. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to grant approval with the following conditions: 1) continue parapet on the east wall to match existing 12'6" parapet; in the event it does not screen A/C units, then extend the parapet; 2) on the east side continue the cornice detail to an inside corner of the parapet; 3) widen the columns at the left and right side of the front entry element to twice the width of the current design; 4) continue cornice detail at the southwest corner for a distance of 25' or until the landscape planter ends; 5) on the west side use the same finish as the front running the same distance; and 6) subject to final landscape approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2011\AR110510min.doc Page 6 of 7 � ARCHITECTURAL R6�:W COMMISSION � MINUTES May 10, 2011 C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Bagato updated the Commission on the status of the Rosewood Hotel. The applicant has been working closely with the owner of the Amago Gallery on revisions to the hotel. The biggest deterrent for the gallery was the lack of visibility from the street. The applicant has agreed to tier back the hotel; about a 45 degree angle and reduce the height on the north side of the building. This involves about 10,000 square feet, which is eight units. Initially the applicant had requested a second driveway, but Public Works wanted them to utilize the opening in front of the gallery. However, the gallery owner had some concerns with having all the service vehicles passing in front of the gallery so Public Works agreed to one driveway with a longer ramp down into the building. This will now move forward to Planning Commission scheduled for June 21, 2011. VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-2-0, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\JanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes�2011WR110510min.doc Page 7 of 7