Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-28 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 1. 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 12 3 Chris Van Vliet X 14 1 John Vuksic X 12 3 Karel Lambell X 15 Pam Touschner X 11 4 Allan Levin X 15 Ken Stendell X 14 1 Paul Clark X 7 Gene Colombini X 7 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: 03/13/12 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 14, 2012 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the August 14, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Van Vliet and carried by a 6- 0-1-2 vote with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. ARCHITECTURAL RE COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: CUP 10-292 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPECTRUM SURVEYING & ENGINEERING, 8390 Maple Place, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final review of construction drawings and color samples. LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue ZONE: P, D Public Institution with a Drainage, Flood Plains, and Watercourse zoning overlay district Ms. Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner, stated that on May 22, 2012, the ARC approved the new building addition and associated equipment shelter for the Verizon telecommunication facility located at the Living Desert. At that time, the conditions of approval that the applicant had to complete were; 1) white louvers shall match color on adjacent buildings; 2) provide a photo of modular structure behind the 10' block wall; 3) provide a materials board, and 4) changes to be reviewed by Commission prior to construction drawings. She presented the color board along with sheets illustrating an existing equipment shelter. She described the material samples for the block wall and provided a slide presentation of the existing site for the Commissioners review. Staff recommends approval. MR. BILL BOOTH, Architect, stated they appreciated the comments made by the Commission at the previous meeting and went back and researched materials that would meet with the Commission's approval. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-2-2 vote with Commissioners Colombini and Clark abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE :W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 2. CASE NO: SA 12-247 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGNARAMA, Attn: Ed Landen, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a revised sign program; Business Park of the Desert. LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner presented the project and summarized the staff report. This approval is for a revised sign program for the Business Park of the Desert. This center consists of smaller office buildings and one large building in the back. The first change is the addition of new signage to Building F and the end tenants of A, G, H, I, and J. The signs will be constructed of one (1)-inch thick, 21b. density, expanded polystyrene, closed-cell foam with bright or brushed silver anodized aluminum faces and the returns shall be texcoated silver. The second change will accommodate the new, smaller lettering being proposed on Building F, and the ends of buildings A, G, H, I, and J. The third change would be the removal of the three signs at the very top of the building and replacing them with up to seven smaller signs located on the middle of the building. The last change will be to provide smaller signs at the end of the buildings facing the street. The sign program complies with all City standards and staff recommends approval of the modified sign program as proposed. MR. ED LANDEN, Sign-a-Rama, said they are starting to see a little more activity in Building F, the two story building, and the prospective tenants are asking where they can put their signs. So with that in mind, they came up with revisions to the sign program. They are trying to keep the signs small, unobtrusive and not visible from the two main streets, but will give the tenants a place to put a small sign. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if all the fonts and colors were all the same except for the logos. MR. LANDEN said that was correct except for the color on some of the logos. On the small signs they have limited the size to 1' in height and 80% maximum width with a possibility of a colored logo attached to it. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIU COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Vice Chair Van Vliet was concerned that the signs would be double stacking and have too much signage, as well as a multitude of colors and different font styles. MR. LANDEN said there are very limited colored logos even with the larger letters on the existing buildings. On Building F, they will limit the size of the letters to 8". Commissioner Levin asked if there was any sort of lighting. MR. LANDEN said the signs will not have lighting. They will be foam letters adhered to the building. Commissioner Clark asked if there were signs being placed on the smaller units. Mr. Bagato said there would either be street frontage or the driveway entrance to the center for Buildings A through J, which are the ends of the buildings. He pointed out that according to the sign ordinance it is allowable for this square footage, but they want to make sure that on a multi-tenant building they are uniform. Logos are copyrighted and the City cannot regulate color, but we can regulate the size and make sure they are proportionate to the letter style. Commissioner Colombini pointed out that the size of the letters on the plans show the bottom floors at 8" and the top floors at 6". He asked if there was a reason for the different sizes. MR. LANDEN said they can change both floors to 8" if that would please the Commission. The Commission discussed the size of the lettering and recommended 7" top and bottom. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was anything in the language that limits the 1" thick signs to the smaller signs. For example, if a larger tenant took more space would they have a larger sign? Mr. Bagato said it would be based on the building. So for Building F, it would be 7" at 1" thick no matter how big their suite is. If they went to a building not identified, such as Building B, then they could go to a 2" thick sign. GAPIanning\JanineJudy\Word Fi1es\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE',,:W COMMISSION „r MINUTES August 28, 2012 Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to signs on Building F having 7" letters. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, informed the applicant that if they were planning on relocating any of the signs and if there was any landscape or trees in the way, landscape plans would have to come back for review and approval. MR. LANDEN said they do not intend to move any trees or landscape. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to signs on Building F having 7" letters. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 12-236 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Avenue, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three exterior canvas sign boards. LOCATION: 73-880 Ell Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner presented the project and stated the applicant is proposing to construct three black canvas sign boards; two facing El Paseo over the main entrances for each tenant, and one on the corner of the building. The two awnings facing El Paseo are 16' x 3' and projects 3'-2" off of the building wall. The corner awning is 13' x 3' and also projects 3'-2" off of the building wall. The awnings on El Paseo are located within the public right-of-way so the applicant will have to apply for a hold harmless agreement and an encroachment permit from Public Works. Signage is not proposed at this time and staff is recommending the signage be approved at staff level. Staff is recommending approval. G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REV#MoN COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Commissioner Stendell asked if there were three rentable spaces or is it construed as a corner and asked what was happening on the other side of the building. Mr. Swartz said it is considered a corner and nothing is proposed for the other end of the building. Commissioner Clark pointed out that as the awning elements come to the corner, it appears there is a gap and wondered if someone could see the frame work behind the awning. MR. EDDIE BROOKS, Palms to Pines Canvas, said the frame work will be visible and explained there will be about a 2" gap from the side awning to the front awning. He couldn't wrap it around because the two are separate and if he wrapped one around the corner, it will not look the same as the two front awnings. Commissioner Clark expressed his reservations on the visibility of the framing and supports. However, he did agree with a 2" gap. He pointed out that one drawing shows V-2" and the schematic shows that it is only a couple inches away. MR. BROOKS explained that it will come to the wall with a 2" gap. Commissioner Stendell suggested that they be held tight to the wall as much as possible. Commissioner Stendell made a motion to approve subject to: 1) all signage on awnings shall return for staff review; 2) the canvas awnings shall be held as close as possible to the fascia - 2" or no more than 4" — and structural permit process shall be revised accordingly; and, 3) applicant must comply with the attached conditions of approval from Public Works before issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Lambell seconded. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned at first with the long fagade with only two awnings because to him things look better when they are in three's. So what makes this okay is the one awning that wraps around the side making it the third awning. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 The motion carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to approve subject to: 1) all signage on awnings shall return for staff review; 2) the canvas awnings shall be held as close as possible to the fascia - 2" or no more than 4" — and structural permit process shall be revised accordingly; and, 3) applicant must comply with the attached conditions of approval from Public Works before issuance of a building permit. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO. TTM 36404 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, ATTN: Rudy Herrera, 73081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary review of architectural and landscape drawings for 72 units at Villa Portofino. LOCATION: 622-020-091; Country Club Drive & Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner presented the project and said this came before the Commission on March 27, 2012, for review and discussion of conceptual plans. The applicant is proposing 72 units; 6 buildings with 12 units per building. He presented two elevations; one with a regular elevation and one with roof decks. Currently the City Council has placed a moratorium on roof decks and staff will present to the City Council an ordinance or recommendation later in the year for roof decks. The applicant will have to ask for the exception at City Council. The existing units were built with carports and the change they are proposing would be the addition of tandem garages. He passed around the materials board and said the materials and colors are staying the same. He explained that landscaping was a part of the approval and will come back with the construction drawings for final approval. Staff is looking for comments from the Commission based on what currently exists. Staff wants to keep the changes GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVt*W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 consistent and recommends approval of the garages because it enhances the project. MR. VINCENT BARBATO, one of the principals of Family Development, said at the last review, there were four comments: the towers on the front elevation needed to be wider- they widened the towers to give them more substance; some of the windows looked utilitarian - they matched the windows to give them a more uniform and custom look; it was suggested the roof decks have tile roofs to tie into the building - they have proposed a clay tile treatment to give it a more enhanced look; and it was suggested to break up the garage door designs - they changed the door styles to create some alternation and articulation. He mentioned that the stucco, wrought iron treatments, and the clay tile will be the same as the existing building, which is compatible with the current architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated the garages were subtle, tasteful, and in keeping with the Tuscany architecture. On the towers, he was concerned that they might still look pretty thin for something that tall and recommended the legs to the tower elements at the front and rear elevations be deeper and increased to 2'. He also commented on the towers on the right and left elevation and suggested that instead of having the same darker wainscot element across the bottoms of the towers, to leave that layer of the base and let it become the whole bottom floor so the bottom windows are in a slightly thicker element and the top floor sits on top of it. Commissioner Vuksic said the roof deck structures look much better with the tile roof and suggested that instead of having the structures held up by columns, it would look better with more plaster, much like on the building elements below it so that it would look like a continuation of what is happening down below in the building. MR. BARBATO said the purpose of the roof structures was to create as much of a view area as possible and that is why they used a pillar instead, which is still compatible with the architecture and is a lot less obtrusive. Commissioner Vuksic suggested rafter tails on the structures instead of just a smooth plaster fascia. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word FilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE`*,,W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 MR. BARBATO said they were open to this suggestion and said the rafter tails would be a nicer look when trying to accomplish the view corridors while not blocking the views. The Commission discussed the continuous wall between the roof top and the roof decks. Commissioner Colombini commented that it seems like it's just sticking up there and felt it needed to have more to it. However, he agreed that the rafter tails will add a lot to the structure. Commissioner Lambell asked if there would be an attempt to screen the electrical equipment or gas meters and wanted to clarify that nothing would be mounted on the exterior of the building either for SCE or the gas company. She wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be any big cage, box, or metal eyesore that will be mounted on the outside of the building. MR. BARBATO said the electrical equipment would be behind a louvered door. The gas meters are on the exterior of the building and the switch gear is behind the doors. Commissioner Colombini had a concern with the top of the garage doors with some having arches and some being straight. He thought the right three should be arched as well, or the left three be straight, and interchanging all six of the centers. MR. BARBATO said they did this to break them up creating differentiation. He thought what would be preferred is to have different conditions to create a different look and not be so symmetrical looking. It's not to say that it can't be done another way, but they didn't want to do two different conditions within the pods. Doing it this way they felt it would be a positive, not a negative. Commissioner Lambell commented that what they have done with the front elevation with the roof decks is far superior to the elevation without the roof decks. This one has interest going, not only because of the garage doors, but because of the roof decks. It is a handsome looking building. The Commission reviewed and discussed the air conditioning units. Mr. Swartz presented a slide of the gas meters and stated that staff will work with the applicant to properly screen them. GAPlanning\JarineJudy\WordFilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REIV COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Commissioner Vuksic moved to grant preliminary approval subject to: 1) the legs to the tower elements at the front and rear elevations be deeper and increased to 2 feet; 2) the shade structures on the roof decks shall incorporate exposed rafter tails or have plaster columns and arches similar to other building details; 3) final construction plans shall be approved by ARC; and, 4) landscaping will come back under separate review. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 6-1-0-2 vote with Commissioner Colombini voting NO and Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked Commissioner Colombini if he would like to state the reason he was opposed. Commissioner Colombini stated he had a problem with the arches and the tops of the garage doors, as well as, the materials above the doors to the arch. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminary approve subject to: 1) the legs to the tower elements at the front and rear elevations shall be deeper and increased to 2 feet; 2) the shade structures on the roof decks shall incorporate exposed rafter tails or have plaster columns and arches similar to other building details; 3) final construction plans shall be approved by ARC; and, 4) landscaping will come back under separate review. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 6-1-0-2 vote with Commissioner Colombini voting NO and Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 12-234 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARIO'S ITALIAN CAFE, 78- 152 Varner Road, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of approval for a new awning, new signage, new paint colors, removal of an existing planter to create a new outdoor seating area, remove and install new windows, and new stamped concrete for a new Mario's Italian Cafe. LOCATION: 73-155 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE`,,, W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, presented the project and stated the applicant is asking for consideration of several things; a new awning, new signage, new paint colors, removal of an existing planter to create a new outdoor seating area, removal and installation of new windows, and new stamped concrete. He described the proposed changes and explained there is some existing stone on the building and the applicant will be adding more stone around the building and the remodel. They will be adding a Plexiglas railing, new white columns and painting the building white. He passed around the color board. He described the sign on the architectural drawings and said the signs are not proportionally correct. He stated the signs are smaller than that and has asked the applicant for a sign submittal as well, which was included in the Commissioner's packet. He explained that the applicant will be going for an Italian theme; new light fixtures on all the columns, and proposing a red awning, which is standard on all their locations. They will be carrying this theme around to the back of the building that faces the parking lot. MR. MARIO DELGUIDICE, Mario's Italian Cafes, said they are trying to create an Italian villa look which is in a lot of their stores. They have taken a 25 year lease and are not sparing any cost. He explained there would be stone balusters in front with stone around the whole bottom of the building, stone on the pillars, and a 4' strip of white smooth stucco, which will be the arch windows and lamps to create the villa look. Commissioner Levin asked if there was an entry to the restaurant from the back parking lot. MR. DELGUIDICE said he duplicated the front elevation in the rear, which will have an entry way into the restaurant. Everything will be duplicated; doors, windows, lanterns, stucco, and stone. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the quantity of white and the brightness of the white on the building that is being proposed. She suggested that the applicant restudy the color and choose a color that will not overwhelm the building. The Commission reviewed and discussed the awning's length and width. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if there was signage on the awning. He was concerned with the bright red of the awning and the size of the sign. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVV COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 MR. JEFF GRADY, Sign-A-Rama said the sign is within the square footage. The Commission reviewed the size of the sign and the height of the letters. The Commission was concerned with the brightness and thought the sign should be downsized. They suggested that the applicant work with staff on the brightness of lighting and the color and size of the sign. Mr. Bagato said staff will work with the applicant and take a look at the brightness of the lighting. If the Commission feels that it is not proportionate, they can ask that it be reduced even though it meets the square footage. He reminded the Commission that the awnings need ARC's approval. Commissioner Clark was concerned with the sign as well because it seems large and bright, with a lot of red. He asked if they needed all that red. MR. DELGUIDICE said they are trying to make it an even flow of beauty. He didn't want to start chopping it up and making it smaller because he wanted to show the magnitude of the restaurant. Commissioner Lambell was having trouble with the renderings in reference to the logo of the little Italian guy and said it looks out of proportion on two separate renderings. She recommended that they put some space in between the sign and the roof element. MR. JEFF GRADY, Sign-A-Rama, said they could come down 5%. Commissioner Stendell was concerned with the awning on the north elevation on the right side because it looks like it was hanging out there and it needs to wrap around the corner. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the design and said what is there now is actually better than what he is proposing. He said the whole package has a real "kitsch;" which are things that are calculated or contrived without real sophisticated consideration for what might be in better taste. In reference to the awning, he suggested doing it in pieces by carrying some elements from the entrance but not in one long continuance piece. He suggested that the applicant look at well-constructed awnings on El Paseo. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed samples of awnings in Palm Desert. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\ARC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE' ,,W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Commissioner Clark agreed with the Commissioner's comments and said he liked the outdoor seating area in the Bermuda Dunes location with the planters and suggested that might be something that might look better. Commissioner Clark liked the cut stone that is hidden behind the columns on the north elevation and suggested making the cut stone stand out rather than hiding behind the balusters. Commissioner Vuksic didn't want to dictate what needed to be done and said this will take some thoughtful review by the designer to get it right. Commissioner Lambell said rather than creating a space for outdoor dining, they might consider planters or something that is not as hard. The three things the Commission is worried about are the balusters, the awning that spans 65', and the scale of the signage. Commissioner Colombini suggested having the north elevation look the same as the south elevation which answers the question about the balusters. MR. DELGUIDICE agreed that you could see the stone on the rear entrance and said he could duplicate that for the front and put in some planters. Commissioner Colombini suggested instead of having one continuous canopy they could cut that into three or four segments. Commissioner Stendell understands the applicant is under the gun to get open and asked if any of the things that were to be approved today is stopping the applicant from proceeding with a grand opening exclusive of the awning and patio area. Mr. Bagato stated it would be easier to submit all the plans at once, but staff can work with the applicant on approving the reduction of the sign by 10% and the paint color. The sign will then come back to ARC for review and approval. Commissioner Stendell said a lot of what this Commission is concerned with are the balusters, the seating area, the size and mass of the awning, and downsizing the signage. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVi+W COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2012 Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to: 1) remove and replace balusters with planters or similar type of item; 2) awning shall be restudied; 3) reduce size of signage by 10% and redesign the sign to match the architectural drawings; 4) the color white shall be reviewed and approved by staff; and 5) review other options to reduce the intensity of the red in signage. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to discuss the signage and said "Italian Cafe" on the signage is really big and the letters are very thick. In fact, "Mario's" looks like an afterthought to the "Italian Cafe". He liked the proportions on the design drawings rather than the sign submittal. He was also concerned with the little Mario's logo, which appears understated and wasn't sure if it was an accurate depiction. It throws off the whole "Italian Cafe" and is off- centered. Commissioner Levin said they need to center "Italian Cafe" under "Mario's" irrespective of the logo. The Commission and Mr. Grady discussed the logo and the revisions to the sign. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve approval subject to: 1) remove and replace balusters with planters or similar type of item; 2) awning shall be restudied; 3) reduce size of signage by 10% and redesign the sign to match the architectural drawings; 4) the color white shall be reviewed and approved by staff; and 5) review other options to reduce the intensity of the red in signage. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None GAPlanning\Janine Judy\WordFilesWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 14 of 15 r ARCHITECTURAL RE`,,W COMMISSION **AW MINUTES August 28, 2012 VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Stendell, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 7-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. TONYA§AGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER JJINE U' Y ORDING SECRETARY GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordR1esWRC\1Minutes\2012\120828min.docx Page 15 of 15