Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-23 � � �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2013 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 Chris Van Vliet X 7 1 Karel Lambell X 8 John Vuksic X 7 1 Allan Levin X 7 1 Paul Clark X 7 1 Gene Colombini X 8 Michael McAuliffe X 5 Jim Mclntosh X 5 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Nale, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 26, 2013 & April 9, 2013 ACTION: Commissioner Van Vliet moved to approve the March 26, 2013, meeting minutes with changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve the April 9, 2013 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote. ARCHITECTURAL RE�;W COMMISSION � MINUTES April 23, 2013 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None � V. NEW BUSINESS: Request for election of a new commission Chair and Vice Chair for the remainder of 2013 following the departure of former Chair Ron Gregory. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to nominate Commissioner Van Vliet. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. No other nominations were presented. Motion carried by a 7-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. ACTION: Chair Van Vliet moved to nominate Commissioner Lambell as Vice-Chair. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe. No other nominations were presented. Motion carried by a 7-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining. VI. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROGER AND KAREN TUCK, 42- 661 Hastings Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to allow 36.5% lot coverage for a residence. LOCATION: 42-661 Hastings Street ZONE: R-1 9,000 Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant is proposing to remodel a single-family residence damaged by fire and build two additions. A house fire damaged 1,110 sq. ft., and 1,245 sq. ft. of the house remains. Total building area will account for 2,851 sq. ft. covering nearly 36.5% of the lot. City protocol is that if less than 50% of a structure is damaged by fire, it can be rebuilt to the previously permitted standard. If 50% or more is damaged, the structure must meet current code. Since less than G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013\130423min.docx Page 2 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�,,,;�:W COMMISSION '� MINUTES April 23, 2013 50% was damaged by fire, the house will be rebuilt to the legal nonconforming height of 22'. The applicant proposes to rebuild the home to match existing colors and finishes. Staff is recommending approval. MR. CURTIS SHUPE, Architect, said there are other homes in the neighborhood in this model and style and the 22' height is typical of the neighborhood. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: MISC 12-222 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN WESSMAN, 555 S. Sunrise Way, Suite 200, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an architectural faCade enhancement. LOCATION: 73-520 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, stated the setback for the commercial zone is 5' from the property line, with the exception of the restaurant space, which was previously approved on the property line. Architectural projections in the front setback are allowed to project not more than 6' into the front required setback. Since the required front setback is only 5' in the General Commercial zone, architectural projections may extend to the property line, but not past it into the public right-of-way. All storefront entries must remain at 5' or 3' from the property line with an adjustment that may be approved by the Director or Principal Planner of Community Development. Setbacks shown are in compliance with the code. The wrought iron seating area in the public right-of-way may be approved separately by the Director of Community Development. The applicant will need to complete an Outdoor Seating Permit application. A color board of proposed materials was available for review. The dimensioned height illustrates a highest point at 23'-8", yet the steel entry feature extends up and beyond that measurement to 25'-2". Maximum building height in the General Commercial zone is 30'; the proposed building height is well under this maximum. Awnings that G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minules\2013\130423min.docx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REN'�V COMMISSION � . MINUTES April 23, 2013 extend into the public right-of-way will require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. Landscaping modifications will need to be addressed prior to receiving a final permit. Comments have been submitted to the applicant for incorporation into the revised drawings prior to the next plan check submittal. Staff recommends approval of the final construction drawings. She pointed out that the applicant made a change and was installing re-used "I" beams around the front restaurant windows, trying to further the old world look of the restaurant. Other changes were submitted to Planning within the last day. MR. JOHN WESSMAN, applicant, described the changes made since the project was last reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed the final cornice detail. The cornice will be plaster with an old world look to it. Commissioner Vuksic said he was glad that MR. WESSMAN was in attendance because the Commission didn't have time to absorb all the changes prior to the meeting. He wanted the commission to understand where things are in relation to each other, where things were recessing and how far it's recessing. MR. WESSMAN described those changes to the Commission. Ms. Nate asked the applicant if she could put up the new set of drawings she had received rather than the one he was referring to. The applicant said they hadn't change. She pointed out that the two drawings were significantly different. They still meet the setback, but they are different. MR. WESSMAN continued with his description of the changes and discussed the recessed door and panel next to the door. Ms. Nale again requested putting up the newest plans and MR. WESSMAN stated those were the old plans. She explained to him that these were the ones just received this past week. MR. WESSMAN said the plan he was referring to was the newest and it superseded the one she had received because the tenant had changed it. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the shape of the windows that are up high were detailed differently from the design drawings. They are rectangular and they have a header rather than a simple G:\PlanningWanineJudylWord Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130423min.docx Page 4 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�,,,:W COMMISSION ''�✓'' MINUTES April 23, 2013 punched opening with wrought iron. He asked the applicant to describe the header detail. MR. WESSMAN described the lime stone detail and the setback of the windows. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant how far back the stone is going on the highest element. MR. WESSMAN said it will wrap all the way around on both sides. Commissioner Lambell told the applicant that the Commission just got these plans this afternoon and didn't have a chance to look at them. She thought this should be continued to give the Commission a chance to review them. However, if the rest of the Commission is comfortable with what has been described she was okay with forging ahead. She told him next time they would like the plans sooner than an hour before the meeting. The Commission felt comfortable going forward. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if there will be drawings that will be updated and submitted so the Commission can have a baseline. MR. WESSMAN answered yes. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve as submitted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote. 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 a maintenance building on existing site; Palm Desert County Club. LOCATION: 77-200 California Drive ZONE: O.S. Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, said the new owners of the Palm Desert Country Club have proposed a new location for their G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes12 01 311 304 2 3min.docx Page 5 of 11 , ARCHITECTURAL REV�I'V COMMISSION v� . MINUTES April 23, 2013 golf course maintenance facility. The original location was potentially a better location, but the new owners have given staff some financial reasons why this is going to cost them more and why they can't put the facility in that location. The applicants will have to go back through Planning Commission and City Council for final approval in this revised location. She described the building, the 6' high precision tan block wall surrounding the facility, and the materials used. They still are not showing trash and recycling enclosures, which are required. Landscape still needs a little bit of work and staff has provided comments to the landscape architect. An area of concern was the staff parking. The revised plan shows 13 parking spaces for employees and staff went out last week and found 15 parked cars. At a minimum, they need to provide 15 spaces; otherwise they will be parking outside the facility or on the street. They need to provide adequate space to store the green waste within the yard area. There are concerns with the berming and suggested moving the berming out away from the wall and adding landscape on top of it. Staff's concern was the neighbor's comments regarding the views. Views are not a protected right; however staff is trying to minimize the views of this facility. Commissioner Clark asked if they were currently operating without benefit of permit. Ms. Nale answered yes. Commissioner Clark said this has been the case for about eight or nine months and asked if they were in any hurry to improve this site. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, said the applicant is not in as much of a hurry as the City would like for them to be, which is a point of contention. The Commission discussed the suitability of the site and the cooling system for the building. MR. TED. GENEREUX, Golf Course Superintendent, said the office and break room will be the only areas with air conditioning and the rest of the facility will have evaporative coolers. The Commission and the applicant discussed the approval by the Fire Marshall for the truck turn-around. The applicant pointed out the 30' gap in between the building site and the storage site. The G:\Planning\Janine JudylWord Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes�2013\130423min.docx Page 6 of 11 - ARCHITECTURAL RE�,�,,,;:W COMMISSION `r•+� MINUTES April 23, 2013 Commission asked if the building was fire sprinklered and the applicant stated it was sprinklered per code. The Commission discussed what would be going inside the building. MR. GENEREUX said it would be an office, break room, restroom, equipment storage, and a mechanics work bay. Chair Van Vliet thought this might be a little premature for this Commission to look at the building if it might be relocated to a different site. He thought the Planning Commission should be looking at this first to finalize the location. Commissioner Mclntosh said there are a lot of deficiencies in the design that haven't been thought through yet. The applicant is trying to shoe horn into a spot that may not accommodate all their needs. He asked where they will be washing the equipment as it comes off the golf course. MR. GENEREUX discussed the open space to the east of this building. He indicated they have about ten machines that are washed off. Commissioner Mclntosh and MR. GENEREUX discussed the issues with contaminated water because of the oil from these machines. Commissioner Mclntosh thought this would not be acceptable in the long term with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and ground water issues. He felt this revised spot will not accommodate everything they need to address. Sooner or later this will impact the community as a whole. They are also short on parking and will also have to accommodate for handicap parking. Another issue was green waste. He asked the applicant if that was in a roll-off with a ramp to dump into. MR. GENEREUX said they would heave it up and over the side. Commissioner Mclntosh asked where they were storing all the seed, fertilizer, and herbicides. MR. GENEREUX said that will be inside the building and said a separate entrance will be built for chemicals and safety storage. Commissioner Mclntosh was concerned that when all these things were accounted for it's not going to fit into this facility. Commissioner Levin asked where the trash can area was located. MR. GENEREUX said he didn't know. Commissioner Levin thought the applicant didn't have any business being here yet if they haven't thought through how they are going to operate and function with this facility. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2 01 311 30 4 2 3min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REV�V COMMISSION � . MINUTES April 23, 2013 MR. GENEREUX said he was confused and at a loss because he keeps hearing from staff that it's moving on to next stage and feels they are getting the run-around and can't make any traction on this. The Commission and the applicant discussed the experience of the designer, William Tomlinson from Wheeler Designs. Ms. Nale stated he was a landscape designer not a landscape architect. MR. GENEREUX said the building has nothing to do with us being here today. They can't design the building until they get approved for this location since it is a pre-fab building. Commissioner Mclntosh said this Commission is concerned that they have someone designing that doesn't have the experience to do a complete facility. This Commission can approve this, but it doesn't accommodate the needs of the facility. Commissioner Lambell asked staff what the Commission was approving today. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, said this is convoluted and almost a catch-22. The previous location was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for a maintenance building. Typically the maintenance building would then have to come back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for consideration of approval. Staff has tried very hard to get the developer to build in the approved location, which would be simpler. The applicant has labored over this decision long and hard and they would prefer to go through whatever they need to in order to get approved in an alternate location. The alternate location does need to go through Planning Commission and City Council and as part of that, staff would take to them the proposed building and the ARC's comments on the aesthetics of this tocation. Appropriate comments would include the concerns with the building height, the screening, berming and landscaping, and a lack of adequate parking. We also believe there are other functional needs that have not been addressed at this site that need to be addressed in order to make this location successful. Commissioner Levin asked if this will come back to ARC. Ms. Aylaian said if the Commission's recommendation was for it to go to the Planning Commission and City Council and the location was acceptable, one of the conditions today could say, "subject to plans returning to ARC for review of site layout, building design, G\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130423min.docx Page 8 �f �� � ARCHITECTURAL RE�,,:W COMMISSION `'�` MINUTES April 23, 2013 and landscape." If this location is not approved and it goes back to the other location, it would have to come back to this Commission because no details have been worked out for the other location. Commissioner Lambell praised the applicant for bringing the golf course back to life. However, she felt the applicant was opening themselves up to a keg of worms by moving on to Planning Commission and City Council in that they may see things this Commission didn't see. She expressed to the applicant that this was not an architecturally significant building and thought they would get some push back on it because it is a very utilitarian building. MR. GENEREUX pointed out that the other location was right beside the park, which they had concerns with and were trying to get it away from the park. Ms. Nale stated the new owners have tried to purchase some adjacent well sites from CVWD for the location of this facility. She pointed out there is a separation requirement at the location next to Joe Mann Park because of all the materials that are stored within this facility. She mentioned there were some financial hardships for this site and asked the applicant if he was familiar with that. MR. GENEREUX said it's because the site is excavated so everything they do has to be pumped and elevated. He apologized for taking so long and said this is the third site they have looked at. He wanted the Commission to understand that this location is located 3'/2 miles from the other end of the golf course and they have to deal with moving equipment and noise violations. As a business, they are trying to get open so they can get revenue in the door; logistically they are trying to find a more central location. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated after discussing this with Ms. Aylaian there was probabty an easier way for this Commission to handle this. If the Commission cannot come up with comments or conditions, they could recommend that staff take this to Planning Commission and City Council for the location. Today this Commission can make a motion that it will come back to the Architectural Review Commission after the location is approved for the full architectural site design. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to authorize staff to move forward to Planning Commission and City Council to consider revised location of maintenance facility; and plans shall return to G:\PlanningUanineJudy\Word Files\t ARC\1Minutes�2013\130423min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE COMMISSION � • . MINUTES April 23, 2013 ARC for review of site layout, building design, and landscape. Commissioner Colombini made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a constraint to the limits of this site. MR. GENEREUX said he asked Ms. Nale if they were limited to that size and she said no. The Commission and the applicant discussed the space needed for landscape screening and everything that will be stored inside this facility. They felt it may ultimately not fit here. MR. GENEREUX said in his opinion there is room to go west on the plan. Commissioner Levin asked if there would be space to expand what they have. Commissioner Lambell left at 1:50 p.m. MR. GENEREUX stated this was all zoned Open Space and wasn't sure what the constraints were. He asked Ms. Nale if there was a footprint space. Ms. Nale said this was open space and there was no size restriction. Obviously they want to make it as small as possible to decreasing the visual impact on the neighbors, but you do need adequate space to store everything. The Commission and the applicant discussed a satellite site and the financial impacts of having a secondary site. Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Hearing none he called for the vote. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to authorized staff to move forward to Planning Commission and City Council to consider revised location of maintenance facility; and plans shall return to ARC for review of site layout, building design, and landscape. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Lambell absent. G:\Planning\JanineJudylWord Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2 01 311 304 2 3min.docx Page 10 of 11 . , . ARCHITECTURAL RE� W COMMISSION MINUTES � `� April 23, 2013 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VII. COMMENTS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Clark, and a 7-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Lambell absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. KEVIN SWART , ASSISTANT PLANNER SECRETARY ,�eG� ,,—� i JA NE J DY RECORDWG SECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Filesl1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130423min.docx Page 11 of 11