Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-11 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 11, 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 13 3 Chris Van Vliet X 15 1 John Vuksic X 13 3 Karel Lambell(left at 12:45 due to illness) X 16 Pam Touschner(.,Hved at 12:50pm) X 12 4 Allan Levin X 16 Ken Stendell X 15 1 Paul Clark X 8 Gene Colombini X 8 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Nale, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: 03/13/12 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 28, 2012 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved to approve the August 28, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2-1, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent and Chairman Gregory abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION *40 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 12-265 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BG'S ECLECTIC, 73-130 El Paseo, Suite 1, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint color; BG's Eclectic. LOCATION: 73-130 El Paseo ZONE: CA S-P Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant submitted a color change and is part of the Wessman project previously approved. She stated the applicant would like to relocate into this space now and add some definition to their space by differentiating the color. She presented a color board for the Commission's review. This is a temporary change but the applicant would like to make it a permanent color after construction has been completed for the entire project. The applicant will come back to ARC, for a sign permit separately. Commissioner Colombini asked if the color depicted on the other building was the same color that was located on this proposal. Ms. Nale said yes, but asked the Commission to keep in mind that this is a temporary color and once Mr. Wessman goes forward with his project, they will be moving forward with his color scheme. BG's just wants to add definition to their space right now because this entire project still has to go through the plan check process and Mr. Wessman hasn't submitted drawings yet. He is hoping to be open by next season for this whole fagade. Ms. Nale said BG's is going through tenant improvements and have already submitted those improvements. This proposal is just for the color change itself. NOTE: Commissioner Lambell excused herself from the meeting at 12:45 p.m., due to illness. G?PlanningUanine Judy Word Files\ARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012\121NH min.,Imx Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the walls were in the same plane and they are only making a paint differential for the line between the two suites. Ms. Nale said Trios occupies the whole space currently and the tenant improvement will subdivide that space so BG's will take over half that space. The Commission discussed the paint break and thought it was an odd spot for it. They suggested having a nail on or a band to make it less jarring to delineate the paint color change. MS. ELYSSA GOLDBERG, BG's Eclectic, was in agreement with his suggestion. She stated this is a full building, and because she's only taking half that space she wants to be able to distinguish her part of it until the whole fagade enhancement is done. She presented a picture of the shops across the street with the same color of orange. The Commission discussed a half column up against the wall that goes all the way to the cornice and adding a third color to define between the two. They also discussed whether or not the cornice should be painted. Ms. Nale pointed out that the applicant was not planning on wrapping the paint color around the cornice which this Commission typically likes to see. Chairman Gregory was concerned with how it wraps around the corner because typically you wouldn't have a color change on the outside corner because it looks odd. Commissioner Vuksic stated he wasn't bothered with it being on the cornice. He said it would be different if this was a large building and it was all this persimmon color, but this is a relatively small piece of plaster. Commissioner Vuksic said the one thing that jumps out at him and the other Commissioners is that narrow column in the middle. It's already narrow and now they are dividing it in half with two colors. He suggested making that thin column one solid element of a third color stopping it at the top of the awning and a vertical trim piece above it to divide the two colors. WPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesIARC Commisison\1Mindes\2012\120911 mind— Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE :W COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 Ms. Nale presented additional site photos and the Commission reviewed and discussed the color stopping at the corner. She said it would be a lot less orange if it stopped at the corner because the building is not orange. The Commission suggested leaving the tan cornice and stopping the orange at the corner. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) the narrow column in the center shall be painted a third color that shall stop at the top of the awnings; third color shall not match the awnings and reviewed by staff; 2) the orange color shall stop at the center of thin column; 3) cornice remains the current color and orange color only be on the front surface and not on the side. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 7-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. NOTE: Commissioner Touschner arrived at 12:50 p.m. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/DA 12-213 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PD GOLF OPERATIONS, LLC, 77200 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to construct maintenance building on existing site; Palm Desert Country Club. LOCATION: 77-200 California Drive ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, presented the project and stated this is a consideration and approval for construction of a maintenance building at the Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course. The previous owner of the golf course had a development agreement with the City and now that the previous owner has gone bankrupt, Palm Desert Golf Operations (PDGO) has taken over the maintenance of the golf course. PDGO received approval for a temporary maintenance facility that expired on June 9, 2012. On July 6, 2012, they submitted plans for a permanent maintenance facility. Ordinance 1068 required the relocation of a permanent golf course maintenance facility near tee box #14 adjacent to the city G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012\12091 I inn,k a Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REl�W COMMISSION 1%4W MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 Ms. Nale presented additional site photos and the Commission reviewed and discussed the color stopping at the corner. She said it would be a lot less orange if it stopped at the corner because the building is not orange. The Commission suggested leaving the tan cornice and stopping the orange at the corner. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) the narrow column in the center shall be painted a third color that shall stop at the top of the awnings; third color shall not match the awnings and reviewed by staff; 2) the orange color shall stop at the center of thin column; 3) cornice remains the current color and orange color only be on the front surface and not on the side. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 7-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. NOTE: Commissioner Touschner arrived at 12:50 p.m. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/DA 12-213 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PD GOLF OPERATIONS, LLC, 77200 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to construct maintenance building on existing site; Palm Desert County Club. LOCATION: 77-200 California Drive ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, presented the project and stated this is a consideration and approval for construction of a maintenance building at the Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course. The previous owner of the golf course had a development agreement with the City and now that the previous owner has gone bankrupt, Palm Desert Golf Operations (PDGO) has taken over the maintenance of the golf course. PDGO received approval for a temporary maintenance facility that expired on June 9, 2012. On July 6, 2012, they submitted plans for a permanent maintenance facility. Ordinance 1068 required the relocation of a permanent golf course maintenance facility near tee box #14 adjacent to the city G TlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Commisisonll Minutes\2012\120911min.dwn Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE :W COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 park and the routine movement of maintenance equipment be via a path system developed between the 13th and 14th fairways. To date, a permanent maintenance facility has not been constructed. The new submittal is a 50' x 85' steel building and the steel color is a dark green. She stated details for the window trim, garage doors and the color was not included in the proposal. Around the facility they are building a 6' high precision tan block wall. No dimensions were indicated on the wall so staff couldn't tell if it meets the undulation code of columns every 30'. She presented a slideshow of the location for the maintenance building and said it will need a lot of grading work. She pointed out the yellow berming and the temporary maintenance facility right behind it and said they would like to move from the previous location to this location as a permanent option. Employee parking was not illustrated in the original proposal, and staff requested they show a new plan showing the parking. She was concerned where the employee parking would be because this is in a fairway where houses are located and is visible to the residents. This has been a highly contentious issue with some of the residents in the area. PDGO has worked with the residents to try and develop a plan that works for everyone, but the employee parking on the most recent plan shows nine spots and when she was out there last week, there were 15 cars parked there. There are a number of Burrtec bins because they deal with the mulch and green waste that falls on site. When PDGO revised the plan, the parking reduced a large green waste area. She was concerned that the space would not be large enough to provide green waste inside the block walls. Public Works has required that the dirt road be paved all the way through to the maintenance facility. The applicant is also proposing to pave the whole area inside the block wall enclosure. Based on the square footage it will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Technically the plan cannot be approved today because they will have to submit the plan and receive preliminary approval from Public Works. The gate design was not included on the plans and staff asked that they submit that. She recommended that they provide an opaque background so the residents and people using the golf course can't see into the maintenance facility. She did receive preliminary comments on the landscaping and it appears that the berming is coming up to the wall again. One of staff's GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word FIIes1ARC CommisiwM1Minutes\2012\12091 Isnin.d— Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE' "W COMMISSION MINUTES *400+ � SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 comments was to keep the berming away from the wall so people can't get into the facility. Staff recommends continuance since they have to get the WQMP in before they can receive a discretionary approval and asked for the Commission's comments. The Commission discussed the previous location of the maintenance facility and the traffic coming in off California Drive for the new location in the middle of a residential area. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director Community Development, said this is subject to a public hearing because of all the issues with this maintenance facility. When their contract was approved years ago, there was a different location identified for the maintenance facility. Because they want to use on a permanent basis what has been the temporary location it will have to go back through the public hearing for all these issues. Commissioner Clark asked if staff has received comments from the Palm Desert Association on this project. Ms. Nale said no comments have been received from the association, but she has been dealing with a number of residential homeowners around the property. She has notified them that it will go through the architecture review process and is not required to be publicly noticed at this point, but she anticipates people coming to Planning Commission and City Council when the Development Agreement has to be amended. MR. MO SIHOTA, PD Golf Operations, stated the new owners purchased this property about a year ago and have discussed with staff about the removal of the blight on the landscape and to get approval of the temporary structure. In terms of the questions about the location, there are essentially two locations; the one you are looking at and one that is 50 yards away, which was once where the previous owners made a commitment to having it there. Either way, it will be located in a residential area. They looked at some sites that are away from the residential area which would be their preference. They talked with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) because they have surplus land adjacent to the golf course and from a pure planning point of view it would make more sense to have it there. However, CVWD is not willing to lease or dispose of their land. The issue that he anticipates is not going to G.\PlanninglJanine JudylWord Files\ARC Commisisonll Minutes\P012URN71 I min.d— Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL R%;W COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 be the color or design of the building. The real issue is satisfying the homeowners regarding their viewscapes looking towards the building and the degree to which they can camouflage it. The primary focus will be how they camouflage it with the foliage they will use, the height of the berm, the flowers placed around the berm, and the aesthetic look of the facility. It's those elements where he has been focusing on with the neighbors. He understands that you can't please all the neighbors all the time, but believes they have a high degree of consensus. They have not received any comments adverse or supportive of the design of the building. First they are trying to make it green so it blends in better than the white, secondly they will drop it down as low as they can so there is very little roof and wall visible, and thirdly they will try to reduce the pitch of the roof so that again it makes the building drop down as low as they can get it. Almost all the comments received to date have been in reference to the berming, flowers, trees, and plants they intend to put in. Commissioner Colombini said they have a 6' wall with a 16'-8" high building so a lot of the building will be exposed. He was concerned with the mechanical equipment and wondered where it would be located. MR. SIHOTA said there would be no mechanical equipment visible above that 16'-8" building. It is his understanding that it will be outside and down below; definitely not on the roof. Commissioner Touschner said this building is a little higher than the temporary structure. She asked if they could reduce the height of this at all. MR. SIHOTA said they looked at dropping it down further but they need the height because of the height of the equipment that will be going through there and also for safety requirements. The Commission discussed the building being the same color so it will blend in. Commissioner Clark said they will need some landscaping in depth away from the building in front of the walls to make it go away. He understands staffs concern that they don't want the berm to come right up to the wall for security, but how about pushing the berming back around the structure and put 24 to 36 box specimens on the berms to really screen them. G:1PlanningUanineJudyMord File91ARC Commisison\1M1nutes12012\121R111muul— Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE'.W COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 MR. SIHOTA was not adverse to that, in fact he made a similar proposition to the residents at the outset. Some objected because with more foliage on top of the berm it takes away their mountain views. The only other location is 50 yards away and the problem with that location is that it is near a playground which then you would run into liability issues in terms of fumes and pesticides. As much as he would like to have it located off the course, they are trapped by this location. Chairman Gregory agreed that having landscaping in depth away from the building would work. The berms will really mitigate the impact, not necessarily 100%, but you aren't going to hurt anyone's views beyond the peak of the building other than trees growing taller, which may have to be trimmed. The Commission discussed a single sloped roof to get the building down. It was suggested starting with 8' at the back and placing both of the access doors on the high side, which might drop it a little bit more. The Commission reviewed the amount of employee parking at the maintenance facility and suggested adding a couple more parking spots. The applicant was not adverse to expanding the footprint to accommodate additional parking. Ms. Nale said the interior space may have to be extended because some of the comments they received from Special Programs is they have to provide trash and recycling enclosures and those are not meeting the specifications currently. Chairman Gregory suggested this be continued and asked the applicant if he felt comfortable with the direction from staff and Commission. MR. SIHOTA was agreeable to the continuance and said he has enough direction from staff at this time. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if they have suggested to CVWD about swapping another piece of land for a site that is not so much in the middle. MR. SIHOTA said they did try, but CVWD is reluctant to dispose of any land. There is an old well that is not currently being used that WPlanningVanine JudylWord Flles\ARC Commisison\1Minutes12012\12119 I I min..d— Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REy W jW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 would be a second preferred location, but CVWD is not prepared to discuss it. He said they have exhausted all their options with CVW D. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to continue Case PP/DA 12-213 with suggested comments: 1) keep all building colors the same; 2) extend landscape away from building; 3) investigate a single slope roof to minimize building height; and 4) ensure adequate parking is available to all employees within the maintenance yard. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0-0-1 vote with Commissioner Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 12-234 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARIO'S ITALIAN CAFE, 78152 Varner Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of awning and entry way; Mario's Italian Cafe. LOCATION: 73-155 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Chairman Gregory recused himself and left the conference room. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, presented the project and stated this was continued from a previous meeting. He pointed out that the applicant changed the entry way, removed the balusters, re-did the awning, and reduced the signage by 10% per Commission's direction. Overall the changes look better than the original proposal. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked how wide the raised planter was at the entry. MR. MARIO DELGUIDICE, Mario's Italian Cafes, said the height was 32" with a cap, the width is 24", and the pilasters are 30". Commissioner Vuksic liked the composition of the sign. G1PlanningWanine JudylWord FilesWRC CommismMIMinutesQ012\12091 hnin.d— Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE%o,WW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 MR. DELGUIDICE also said they are going with a beige color for the building instead of the white which flows with the color of the stone and planters. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 7-0-1-1, with Chairman Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS The Commission discussed parking issues relating to maintenance facilities. Ms. Aylaian verified there wasn't an ordinance on parking at maintenance facilities. When the applicant comes back, staff will take a look at their recommendations for the parking counts. Mr. Pedro Rodriguez, Code Enforcement, said staff has been watching this facility and there have been complaints when the crew parks on city streets. The Commission discussed the possibility of a hotel coming to Palm Desert located on a vacant two acre site next to The Gardens, just north of El Paseo between Shadow Mountain and Larkspur. VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Stendell, and a 7-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Gregory and Lambell absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY vwa*4 JA INE JUD F� ORDING CRETARY GAPlanningWanineJudyMordFilesWRCCommisison\1Minules\2012\12091Imin.d— Page 10 of 10