Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-10 � � � � �~ �� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' ' MINUTES January 10, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 1 Chris Van Vliet X 1 John Vuksic X � Karel Lambell X 1 Pam Touschner X 1 Allan Levin X 1 Ken Stendell X 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 13, 2011 Action• Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to approve the December 13, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Stendell abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION � ` MINUTES January 10, 2012 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE N0: CUP 10-292 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): REALCOM ASSOCIATES, LLC; Verizon Wireless, Attn Alexis Osborn, 27201 Puerta Real, Ste 240, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a telecommunication facility consisting of three sectors of four antennas for a total of twelve, two GPS antennas, and one parabolic antenna; Living Desert. LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue ZONE: P Ms. Wightman presented the project and summarized the staff report. She said this project started a little over a year ago as a monopalm at the Living Desert. The applicant asked to co-locate but were not able to do it, so they proposed a roof top addition to the building. It meets the height limitation, but it was continued at the last meeting. She said this most recent submittal was not much different from the last one; the height increased from 15' x 15' to 15' x 30', and windows were added as a panel strip along the addition to match the bottom strip on the base. The applicant was able to get in contact with the architect but he did not want to submit comments. She is recommending a continuance based on little change from the previous submittal. Mr. Todd Fisher, Spectrum/Verizon Wireless, said they contacted Rick Holden, with Holden and Johnson Architects, and they were not interested and didn't feel it was their job to comment on Verizon's project: Mr. Fisher said the design change went over to Verizon's RF engineers who said it was already lower than what it should be. He pointed out that the antennas are going to be mounted inside the screening and it will have to be down-tilted in order for them to work effectively. If they lower it any more, the signal will be shadowed by the roof. The palm trees were addressed and Verizon said they were not willing to entertain the cost of building two towers for basically one side to get coverage to a relatively small area. After discussing this with The Living Desert, they were not willing to enterfain two separate towers either. The only thing they could come up with was to make the roof top G:\PlanningGJanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012N20110.doc Page 2 of 10 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION "� MINUTES January 10, 2012 structure longer; 15' x 30' and the addition of four windows to match the building. Commissioner Lambell asked if this didn't get approved, what the alternative was. Mr. Fisher said at this point they are out of ideas and are hung up on how to get it to look any better. The alternative would be Verizon not getting coverage to the area. Ms. Wightman said realistically it could be achieved as a building addition. It's just not architecturally integrated to the existing design and may require a professional design team. Commissioner Lambell said it looks like one of two things; it's either hiding a swamp cooler or it's some sort of weird appendage or cooling tower. As you look at the long lean look of the building this thing pops up. It makes no sense and doesn't add architecturally to the building. Commissioner Touschner said the roof is not a habitable space and you wouldn't find windows up there and it's not an appropriate material. It actually draws your eyes to it versus making it go away. Mr. Fischer said they thought this might be something that might work and Commissioner Touschner said most of the time windows are better, but in this case it doesn't work. They need to have an architect take a look at it because it needs to be balanced so it is symmetrical and the materials need to work with what currently exists. Part of the problem is that it is all off-centered and she didn't know if it has to be in that location. She asked if this equipment has to go in the exact location as shown or could it be centered within this enclosure. Mr. Fischer stated the existing enclosure is already occupied by the air conditioning units and there is no space left. Commissioner Gregory asked if some of the air conditioning equipment could be relocated. Mr. Fischer thought it might be possible but thought everyone was concerned with the height of the structure. The Living Desert chose this location because the only place it is visible is from the parking lot and adjacent to the parking lot there is an open space where they will be putting the lion exhibit. So it is not visible from the street or anywhere else on the property. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that the original request was for a faux palm tree. Mr. Fischer said the original request was to house the antenna within the trunk of the palm which Verizon could not do because of the size and number of antennas. Mr. Bagato said the concern was that the initial design had the antennas on the outside. The structure being on top of the building would have G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2012\120110.doc Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION � ` MINUTES January 10, 2012 more of a significant impact than having a paim tree with the rays on the outside. Ms. Wightman said they tried to co-locate with the other carrier and could not do it. Commissioner Levin asked if it was for technical reasons and Mr. Fischer said T-Mobile was able to get the project approved with the antennas inside the trunk, which they do often. Commissioner Lambell asked if the antennas couldn't go inside the bulb and Mr. Fischer answered no and explained that the new antennas are two to three feet bigger than the basic antennas. The Commission reviewed the previous plans for a monopalm and compared the impact of the palm to the impact of the building's architecture. They discussed overbuilding the structure on top of the building, but Mr. Fischer indicated there was a glass piece on the opposite side of the roof for the atrium. Commissioner Van Vliet said even if it was shifted, the massing of it was not appropriate for the roof. Commissioner Lambell asked what was wrong with a monopalm and adding live palms around 'rt so it pretty much disappears. Ms. Wightman said the AT&T monopalm is located in that area as well. Mr. Fisher asked what their chances were of getting approval when the AT&T monopalm was just approved with the antennas enclosed and theirs would have a full ray screened only by the fronds. Mr. Bagato said from a design standpoint, the Architectural Review Commission is supposed to be the design approval body and the Planning Commission looks at the location. The Planning Commission will be waiving certain requirements because of the stealth design. If this Commission thinks the monopalm is better then staff would recommend it. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer something like this. He would hate to go back and change the plans again, but the reality of it is it's an easier build and makes more sense. Ms. Wightman said the Planning Commission has approved monopalms in the past with exposed antennas as long as it is screened with live palms. Commissioner Gregory asked if they went in that direction, could they incorporate the types of palms currently out there which are fan palms and Mr. Fisher agreed. Commissioner Touschner made a motion. Commissioner Touschner said the only other option would be to have a stand- alone building and not on top of one of the buildings because they are strong horizontal buildings. Mr. Fisher said they discussed a stand-alone with the Living Desert who rejected that proposal. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012\120110.dx Page 4 of 10 "' ARCHITECTURAL RE�wcW COMMISSION ``"'� MINUTES January 10, 2012 ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to continue Case CUP 10-292 subject to submitting plans for a monopalm. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent 2. CASE NO: MISC 11-447 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69- 640 Sugarloaf Avenue, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning detail; Canyon Bajo Building. LOCATION: 74-399 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Swartz presented the project and said the applicant, at a previous meeting, was approved for a fa�ade enhancement. The awnings proposed on the first floor are constructed as one awning, but it has a two-inch break in between each one that line up with the lights to give it some separation. The building is not fully occupied so any signage on the awning would have to come back for staff approval. He pointed out that this request is on the January 26, 2012, City Council agenda for fa�ade enhancement funds. Commissioner Lambell asked if there was a logo on the angled part of the awning. Mr. Martin Dolemo, Martec Investments LP, pointed out that the logo would only be on the angled part on the entrance of the building because they are trying to define the center with a courtyard. The rest of it would be 8" letters across the awning. He said he would bring in an application only when a new tenant moved in. The Commission discussed how the awning would look like at the ends of the building. Mr. Ernie Brooks, sign representative explained how the installation will work. Commissioner Touschner said it looks nice with one long color, which makes it look more elegant and dresses up the building. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012\120110.doc Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION '�" ,` MINUTES • January 10, 2012 ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 11-440 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Avenue, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of color change for 3 awnings from toasty beige and forest green to Regatta (blue); Grapevine Plaza. LOCATION: 73-640 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Swartz presented the project and said this request came back for approval of one single color instead of the three approved at the previous meeting; Toasty Beige, Regatta blue and Forest Green. However, the landlord wants all the awnings to be Regatta blue. Mr. Swartz indicated that staff is still recommending approval of what was originally approved at the previous meetings. Commissioner Toushcner said it was fine that the awnings were all one color and made a motion for approval. Commissioner Levin asked what the letter coloring would be and Mr. Swartz said it would be white lettering and suggested that it be added to the motion. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to grant approval of Regatta blue awnings and white lettering. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Stendell and Vuksic absent. G:\PlanningWani�e Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012\120110.doc Page 6 of 10 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION `"� MINUTES January 10, 2012 4. CASE NO: MISC 11-459 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SURESH SHAH, 40530 Morningstar Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of paint colors; Southwest Plaza. LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project for reconsideration of paint colors and passed around a color board. He explained to the applicant that the motion at the previous meeting was to deny this request and requested he submit a desert pallet selection. However, since the applicant was not present at that meeting, he wanted to be here today with his architect to explain the color choices. Ms. Eileen Dryden, representative, presented photos of their existing building and other buildings with similar colors along the Highway 111 corridor. She pointed out the yellows and greens in each of the photos presented. Mr. Naranda Patel, architect, said this building was 20 years old and over the years the color has deteriorated and his client wanted a fresh new look. His client didn't care for the brown colors and wanted to go in a different direction with greens and sage. In the desert, the seasons change and the blooms are yellow, greens and sage. He also pointed out the similar colors in the surrounding buildings. Commissioner Gregory said he didn't mind the colors but was concerned about the darkness of them. If the colors were lighter, it would be less impacting. Commissioner Lambell asked what the applicant was looking for and Mr. Bagato said the applicant is looking for approval of the existing colors. However, staff initially did not recommend approval. Even in the photos presented, the other buildings are much smaller and the tones are different. The applicant's colors are brighter yellows and brighter greens. He said that when Staples painted their building yellow and green it was the reason why the City adopted the ordinance. Staff did not recommend approval of the color and the previous motion was to deny it and have the applicant come back with desert appropriate colors. G.\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012\120110.doc Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION '� ` MINUTES January 10, 2012 Commissioner Stendell thought this shouid be an appeal since the applicant was resubmitting what was previously submitted. Mr. Bagato said the applicant was not properly notified of the previous meeting and staff decided to give him a reconsideration of the same colors. Mr. Suresh Shah, applicant, said these colors are the same as desert colors. He was tired of looking at the old colors for 20 years and felt it needed a fresh look. They did it because the buifding was half empty and people weren't looking at it because it was there forever. With the new look, they got two new tenants and the new look has brought some fresh interest in the Highway 111 corridor. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that the building was painted prior to approval. Mr. Shah said the season was coming and he needed to have tenants and since then has signed two new leases. He apologized, but he had it approved by his architect who originally designed the building; it is 20 years old and needs a new look. Commissioner Touschner commended him for painting the building and said it made it better. She didn't think all the colors were so bad. However, what she sees are two colors that are shouting for attention; the green and the yellow. She suggested choosing one and toning down the other. She said using the brown and green work really well with the color on the window frame. The goldenrod " color is found in the desert, but there is too much of it on this building. Commissioner Van Vliet said he didn't mind the goldenrod underneath because it dies away, but he has a problem with it as it turns the corner you see a big, flat wall of it and it becomes much more prominent. Mr. Shah indicated there were sections that were incvrrectly painted and pointed out the sections he was painting brown. Commissioner Stendell said the goldenrod on the corner of Lupine looks bright and suggested the applicant tone that done a little. Mr. Shah said they will be painting that section brown as well as the dome and stairwell. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve. Mr. Shah asked that they approve it subject to him painting it brown and Commissioner Lambell said the Commission wanted to see it G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2012\1201.t0.doc Page 8 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�viw�W COMMISSION � MINUTES January 10, 2012 painted before they approve it. Commissioner Gregory was concerned that if the Council calls it up, the applicant may have a serious problem since he painted it without prior approval and the Council may have him repaint the entire building. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to continue Case MISC 11-459 subject to applying the brown color to three sections on the building for Commission's site review. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 11-323 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SCM SOLUTIONS LLC, 1281 e. Magnolia, Unit 186, fort Collins, CO 80524 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Starbuck's LOCATION: 73-520 EI Paseo ZONE: P.C.-(3) S.P. Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated this came to the ARC previously and the Commission wanted to see the railing and how they were handling the grade. The Commission reviewed the plans. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to continued Case MISC 11-323 subject to: 1) show where the north edge of the patio stops; 2) submit a section through the sidewalk going east and west that shows the sidewalk and the new raised patio; and 3) show how railing returns on the rear of the building. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2012\120110.doc Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � ° MINUTES January 10, 2012 V1. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. ' l'2���: , ' J NINE � ECOR SECRETARY G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2012N201 t0.doc Page 1��I 1�