Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-27 Y w ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES , November 27, 2012 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 18 3 Chris Van Vliet X 20 1 John Vuksic X 18 3 Karel Lambell X 21 Pam Touschner X 16 5 Allan Levin X 21 Ken Stendell X 20 1 Paul Clark X 12 1 Gene Colombini X 12 1 Also Present Lauri, Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer 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: November 13, 2012 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the November 13, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by a 9-0 vote. ARCHITECTURAL RE COMMISSION 1 Y MINUTES November 27, 2012 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 12-356 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PINK CLUB, Attn: Pam, 73-725 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new awning: Pink Club. LOCATION: 73-225 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was approval of a pink awing for "Pink Club" located on El Paseo. He pointed out that the poles of the awning are located just behind the pavers, which is on the applicant's property. The awning projects 11'-07" off the building, and 4'-4" of the awning would project over the right of way. He presented a sample of the awning color and photos of the building. The applicant is trying to mimic the "Roberts" awning further down on the building. Staff's initial reaction was to have the awning cover the window and the door; however there is a landscape area that would be under the awning. The applicant has decided to have it right over the door. Commissioner Gregory asked if there used to be an ordinance allowing marquee awnings per building. He remembers there was a concern about the number of marquee awnings. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, wasn't aware of an official policy. For years staff has tried to discourage the marquee awnings because it can certainly be overused. Even though the poles technically are not in the right of way, they are out there where people are walking and can walk into them if they're not paying attention. They have a very pronounced look that probably should be used sparingly rather than liberally and so staff has tried to discourage them in general. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\)Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 Mr. Swartz stated that the previous business had the same type of awning that the applicant is proposing. MR. JIM SADLER, American Awning, said the two ends of this building had the marquee awnings on it and felt this would balance the look of the building. Commissioner Vuksic didn't see this balancing the building too much because the building is not symmetrical and would actually more interesting if the awnings are not the same. This awning is close to the end of the building where the roof comes way down so he thinks it will look quite different than the one that is currently out there. He was glad this has a contrasting color because the existing one is tan and the building is tan and feels that it doesn't work for a retail environment. Commissioner Levin asked if they needed an encroachment permit. Mr. Swartz said the applicant will have to obtain an encroachment permit and a hold harmless agreement prior to obtaining building permits. Commissioner Touschner indicated that besides the awning there is a wall sign and questioned why the applicant had to have "Pink Club" on the building when an arch away they have the same exact sign and a very prominent canopy. She feels this is a little too much for the building and the wall sign takes away because it is not close to the entry. She pointed out that the awning was coming right up against the wood framing holding up the roof, which is away from the building. She asked what the back of the canopy looked like. MR. SADLER said there is a wood beam header across the back. He also stated that if they receive the Commission's approval for the awning they will remove the wall sign. Commissioner Clark asked if the original awning was as far out as the proposed awning. MR. SADLER answered yes and said the legs will be back in the landscape area on the sidewalk. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RENVV COMMISSION *40 MINUTES November 27, 2012 The Commission discussed the height of the awning compared to the awning for "Roberts" and the location of the posts on the sidewalk. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to accept the canopy and. the placement of the posts as proposed and removal of the wall sign. Mr. Swartz also added subject to Public Works conditions and Commissioner Clark seconded. Commissioner Vuksic said that it would look better if the "Roberts" awning and the "Pink Club" awning were not the same height. The Commission discussed the height and said the "Pink Club" awning shall be a minimum of 8' high. Commissioner Touschner amended her motion to approve the design as proposed with the bottom of the canopy aligning with the existing beam. Commissioner Clark agreed to the amended motion. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved to approve the design as proposed subject to: 1) removing wall sign from proposed submittal; 2) the bottom of canopy shall align with existing beam; 3) the supporting poles for the awning shall not be located on the sidewalk; and 4) applicant must meet Public Work's conditions prior to obtaining a building permit. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 9-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: SA 10-221 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, Attn: Chad Addington 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new monument sign; The Vineyards Commercial Center. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cook Street and University Park Drive ZONE: P.C. 2 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this proposed monument sign for The Vineyards Commercial Center has returned from a previous meeting. He reminded the Commission that the first submittal (Plan A) had satin aluminum with ledge stone and a circular logo sign on top. On the second submittal, (Plan B), the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\t ARC\1 Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE\,..,W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 applicant has removed the satin aluminum on the columns and is proposing all ledge stone; he has reduced the number of tenants from four to three; changed the circular sign, "The Vineyards," to rectangular; and lowered the columns. By reducing the panels from four tenants to three tenants and lowering the columns, the sign is 14'-6" increasing the sign length wise. However, it now seems like a lot of dead space. The applicant has now revised this again and has submitted a third plan (Plan C), but it is still the same size and length. Commissioner Levin asked what the surface finish would be on top of the columns. MR. CHAD ADDINGTON, Sign-A-Rama, said they decided to do painted concrete instead of having a cap. Commissioner Vuksic said he was okay without the cap on the columns because it is a contemporary design and it wouldn't look good with a cap, but suggested that the columns be completely stoned. The Commission stated this was a very long sign and asked what was driving the length. MR. ADDINGTON said the location where the sign sits is on Cook Street and as the cars go by it is a little more difficult to see into that area and is kind of hidden. They are trying to bring it out a little more to make it more visible. The Commission discussed the three renderings; Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C. They thought Plan C was too busy and didn't think "The Vineyards" would be visible and suggested that it be larger. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said Plan A with the oval sign has some softness to the edges compared to the block style of Plan C, which is rectangular. However, the proportion looks a little odd and there is too much empty space around it and looks a little too small for what it is sitting on. When you look at the edges, the one that is easier on the eyes is the one with the rounded edges. The Commission reviewed the three elevations and discussed reducing the height of the columns and the overall sign width. They also discussed the sign panels and how the oval logo sign will be attached. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes\2012\1 21127min.docx Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE`4O W COMMISSION i MINUTES November 27, 2012 Commissioner Lambell suggested the applicant draw up the rendering with the Commission's suggestions and submit to staff for review and approval. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to approve subject to: 1) utilizing the oval backing of "The Vineyards" sign as depicted in Plan A; 2) column height shall be 60" high x 24" square as depicted in Plan C; 3) remove the horizontal brushed aluminum piece at the bottom; 4) overall sign width shall be 10' including columns; and 5) columns shall be completely wrapped in stone. Commissioner Colombini made the second. The Commission discussed the width of the oval at 76" and the applicant said they would make that proportionate to the 6' span. Commissioner Gregory was concerned that the columns wouldn't look right if they remain at 24" and wondered if they should be brought down proportionately as they bring down the width and length of the sign. Keeping the columns at 24" with only a 6' span between for the signage may look clunky when you look at the percentage of the sign to the percentage of column width. Commissioner Levin said rather than taking the columns down he would like to see the overall width go to 12' and that would leave the signage at 8'. Less than 24' will look spindly. Commissioner Touschner amended her motion to add that the final revisions be made and sent to staff for review. Commissioner Clark agreed. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Stendell didn't like the sign because there wasn't anything that was tying the sign together. He said "The Vineyards" should be something that locks the two columns together and the tenant panels follow down beneath it. The three components of the sign should have some continuity making it one sign. Commissioner Gregory said the materials tie it all together; the oval and the signage are the same and the brushed aluminum tie it together. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 6 of 11 w { ARCHITECTURAL REI ,W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 Commissioner Clark said the buildings themselves have aluminum and stone features and the aluminum on the sign works with the architecture of the building. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1) utilizing the oval backing of "The Vineyards" sign as depicted in Plan A; 2) column height shall be 60" high x 24" square as depicted in Plan C; 3) remove the horizontal brushed aluminum piece at the bottom; 4) overall sign width shall be 10' including columns; 5) columns shall be completely wrapped in stone; and 6) revisions shall return to staff for review and approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-1- 0-0 vote, with Commissioner Stendell voting NO. 3. CASE NO: MISC 12-260 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): YOLANDA ALKAWASS, 20276 Majestic Drive, Apple Valley, CA 92308 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an exception to build a carport at a reduced setback in the front yard and 45% lot coverage LOCATION: 77-058 California Drive ZONE: R-1 9,000 Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated this project has returned for the third time. At a previous meeting, the Commission had a number of concerns and suggestions. Some of those concerns have been addressed in this current submittal. One of the main concerns was the difference of roof material with the new addition having a bell shingle on it. It has now been revised to a single roof composite shingle and used over the entire roof. Another concern was the windows with different styles, which is still a concern with staff. There was also a concern that the HVAC system on the roof would be visible. She couldn't tell from the drawings if this will be completely screened. There was also a great deal of concern about the potential front fagade that didn't have enough depth to carry the massing of the building to look as though it belong on the structure. To a large extent, that issue has been corrected with this latest submittal. There was also a concern that the emphasis was drawn to the side of the house rather than the front entry. Also by putting a tower on one side of the house, it G1P1anning\JarineJudy\Word Files\t ARC\1 Minutes\2012\1 21127min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RErW COMMISSION i MINUTES November 27, 2012 was over-shadowing the neighbors who have lower properties and the idea was to move the tower to the center. Staff is also concerned with the south exterior front elevation. Standing from the street and looking at the house it still appears to have essentially three different architectural styles. She presented a Google Earth presentation showing the existing property and the style of architecture in the neighborhood. The neighborhood's architecture is consistent with a style of an earlier era which has much simpler, cleaner lines than what is being proposed. She said one of the things that staff asks the Commission to look at is the context in the neighborhood and how appropriately what is proposed reflects the neighborhood; not that we want everything to look alike. Staff encourages differences especially when people want to upgrade their home and properties. When you look at the proposed right side of the house, it reflects what is going on in the rest of the neighborhood. Then as you move into the front entry, they have kept the rectangular lines of the current doors, but have added some arches and some rafter tails. Finally, as you move to the far left of the front there is a new shape of windows with surrounds that work with that and the stone. Essentially this is a very contemporary design while the others seem to step back in age a little bit more. Staff is asking the Commission for their thoughts. Ms. Aylaian and the applicant MR. RUBEN LICEA, the applicant's representative, discussed the screening of the HVAC unit. Ms. Aylaian informed him that if you are coming in to renovate a home or property, the City has an ordinance that requires you to bring it up to current standards by screening roof top equipment. MR. LICEA explained this was his first time presenting to the Commission and said he was trying to see what the issues were. He is trying to see what they need to do to fix this and move on. The Commission and the applicant discussed the rafter tails. Commissioner Touschner said it looks like a rafter tail that is stuccoed and thought it was too fussy and didn't believe it was doing anything. She said the right side of the house has been upgraded in a way that is nice along with the entrance. However, the windows at the garage need to be downplayed a little. Those windows are going to be behind a car and should be treated the same as the windows on the right hand side. G1Planning\JanineJudy=ordFiles\1ARQ1Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE%,,,,;W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the applicant wanted this house to have a Spanish Mediterranean design, but it's not that type of a house. Even though they have changed parts of the house to make it look like that, it's really disjointed because most of the house isn't simply like that. They took some Spanish Mediterranean elements and stuck them on this house which doesn't even carry through to the roof. On the last proposal, they had Spanish clay tile on the front and the rest of it was the composition shingle. Now they have gone back to composition shingle to keep it consistent, but they are still trying to create a Spanish looking house. MR. LICEA asked if the house didn't match all the way through or was it because it didn't match the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic said personally he was okay if didn't match the neighborhood. He didn't think that all houses need to match, but this house needs to be cohesive as far as what its architectural style is. Right now you are fighting with the existing styles. Commissioner Gregory said these points were well taken. The comment about the house being cohesive is very important. He said the applicant has come a long way since the last submittal. The Commission discussed the style of the windows and suggested using the same style, but use rectangular windows. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that the Commission needs to be careful not to redesign this home for the applicant. The Commission needs to be careful with doing a "design by Committee" and keep it broad brush and let the applicant know what direction they need to make this house look really great. It has to do with keeping it all looking like it belongs to the same house. He liked what they are trying to do by upgrading and creating another layer to the house. He felt they are moving in the right direction. Commissioner Clark said it would be important to have the architect here. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to continue subject to developing a cohesive architectural style for the entire home. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVOM COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 MR. LICEA asked if the house should have a theme and if everything should match. Commissioner Vuksic said when it's done it shouldn't look like an addition; it should look like it was always there. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 12-260 subject to developing a cohesive architectural style for the entire home. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the agenda. The Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, adding Case No. MISC 12-376 to the agenda. Motion carried 9-0. 4. CASE NO: MISC 12-376 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DICK BAXLEY, 73-712 Alessandro Suite B-4, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of repainting front of building. LOCATION: 74-104 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated this proposal was for an exterior paint color change to an existing building. He presented a slideshow of the existing building and pointed out that the new tenant painted the building gray. Staff is okay with the color and explained that the applicant is dividing the building in two by using two different colors. Staff is recommending they paint over the gray on the top, underneath, on the frontage, and the band to match the existing cream color on the building so that it blends in better. The applicant was in agreement. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 9-0 vote. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Fi1es\1 ARC\1Minutes\2012\121127min.docx Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS Chairman, Ron Gregory discussed his concerns about "design by committee." This Commission tries to make an earnest effort to help designs, but when everyone starts venturing good opinions they end up confusing the applicant. The Commission has to be careful not to tear apart an honest and sincere effort on an applicant to present their design. They need to give the applicant ideas and let them work on it. There are no hard and fast rules. The Commission has to sense when something is going a little sideways and not try to finesse it too much. VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 9-0 vote, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Tl Wdd KEVIN S A Z, ASSISTANT PLANNER SECRETARY J E JU Y CORDING SECRETARY GAPlanning\JarineJudy\Word F11es\1 ARC\1 Minutes\2012\1 21127min.docx Page 11 of 11