Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-26 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT 61 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 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, Chair X 16 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 15 1 Paul Clark X 14 2 Gene Colombini X 15 1 Allan Levin X 14 2 Michael McAuliffe X 15 1 Jim McIntosh X 15 1 John Vuksic X 15 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 12, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the August 12, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 6- 0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Clark and Colombini absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 ,V CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 14-260 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MCKENTLY MALAK ARCHITECTS, Attn: Wallace Wong, 35 Hugus Alley, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91103, and DESERT CROSSING, 72-321 Painters Path, Suite B2, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three new monument signs; Desert Crossing. LOCATION: 72-355 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-(3) Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated this was a proposal for three new monument signs at Desert Crossing. These three signs will replace the current monument signs and pointed out that Sign A on Highway 111 will remain in the same location, and Sign B on Highway 111 and Sign C on the Fred Waring side will both be shifted over to provide better distant and line of site requirements. The applicant has been looking at incorporating new monument signs to meet their additional tenant requirements. If they do a new sign, they have a right of refusal from several of the current tenants. They have provided a design that staff has looked at closely and from an overall design prospective staff believes this is consistent with recent sign approvals in the area; for instance Whole Foods at 111 Town Center. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Levin asked if they vote within the center on who gets signage because obviously Target has the largest portion on the monument. Mr. Bagato said that is based on the lease agreement they have with Target. Target is required to have two spaces versus everyone else only having one. One of the reasons they have more panels on the signs is to accommodate all the tenants who have the right of refusal. Chair Van Vliet asked if they had direction on the number of tenant panels on a monument sign. Mr. Bagato said there was nothing in the code, but its how the design fits with the overall tenant space provided. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if these signs were double-sided and Mr. Bagato said they were. Sign A has different tenants versus Sign B; other than Target. The Commission and staff discussed the illumination of the panels. Mr. Bagato said at night it's just the letters that light up. G'Panning'Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.docx Page 2 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 Chair Van Vliet asked what the height of the existing monuments signs were and Mr. Bagato said 6', but they are very boxy without any architectural relief. Taller signs have been approved if they have architectural relief like the sign at the Staples shopping center. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the signs with Target on them would always have a larger tenant space along with smaller tenant spaces because it looks better the way it is shown. It is a much more pleasing composition with one large and several small ones. He asked if the Target store moved would this sign be potentially broken up into eight panels. Mr. Bagato said the Commission can condition the approval so that it is always a large panel. Commissioner Levin made a motion to approve with conditions and Commissioner Vuksic seconded. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, stated for the record that it is very unusual for staff to recommend in favor of a sign with this many tenant panels and we do not intend to set precedent. This is something that staff reviewed with an eye towards community development, which includes both architectural aesthetics and economic development. And because of the unique position that this center holds in our community and the specific leases that have negotiated over a period of 20 years, and the rights that the tenants have for signage, the development was backed into a corner. In order to accommodate any new users coming in and provide them with signage, they had to have a certain number of tenant panels on the signs. Staff worked with the applicant over a number of months requiring a better level of architecture and design than we ordinarily would until we felt that it merited the favorable recommendation from staff. She stressed that to anybody who might be looking in the future for a similar monument sign, not to count on it. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to approve subject to: 1) the space occupied by the Target sign shall remain as one panel for any future tenant; and 2) staff to review individual panel size when submitted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Clark & Colombini absent. GAPIanningWanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.docx Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 2. CASE NO: MISC 14-263 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MICHAEL & TRACY POPE, 77-877 Mountain View Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new single-family home at a proposed building height of 18'. LOCATION: 77-877 Mountain View Drive ZONE: R-E, 40,000 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, presented a new single-family home at a proposed building height of 18' with a lot of varying roof heights. The overall building height is below 15' and the only 18' element is in the middle of the home. He informed the Commission that adjacent property owners were noticed and then asked if anyone was in attendance who wanted to speak; there were none. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Vuksic complimented the architect on the articulation of the mass. He said this is nicely broken up and the only element that is high is nestled nicely in the middle of the house. His only concern is that the windows on the wall facing the street are in relatively thin walls. He feels the architect should thicken the walls in a couple of spots to be able to recess the windows to make them feel like they are in a more substantial structure. MR. ANTONIO SANTA MARIA, architect, said that is an option to have the walls on the street side to be thicker depending on the budget, but they can at least put foam with some plaster on the street side. Commissioner Vuksic said it needs something that matches the quality of the design. Chair Van Vliet asked how much recess the windows should have. Commissioner Vuksic said a good 6". Commissioner Levin and staff discussed the existing block wall on the property. Mr. Bagato said it will remain if permitted and they will have to submit a landscape plan to be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to a 6" recess on the windows for the front elevation, studio/TV room, and master bath. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Clark & Colombini absent. GAI'k.nning\anineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.docx Page 4 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 3. CASE NO: MISC 13-319 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a parking shade structure and awnings; Presage. LOCATION: 73-811 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Commissioner Vuksic abstained from this project and remained in the conference room. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a proposal of a parking shade structure and awnings for Presage. Last October Presage came before this Commission for approval of fagade changes to the previous Escada building. The graphics provided show the dimensions and the location of the structure. The parking shade structure is a 14' high fabric awning type structure and cantilevers 18' over the entire parking stall. The fabric will be white or ivory to match the exterior finish of the building. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission reviewed and discussed the structure, wheel stops, and color board. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to approve as submitted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES, Vuksic abstaining and Clark and Colombini absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 14-253 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ADAIR & SUSAN BROWN, 2825 N. Speer Blvd, Denver, CO 80211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new single-family home at a proposed building height of 16'-6". LOCATION: 73-285 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1, 20,000 Commissioner McAuliffe abstained from this project and remained in the conference room. GAPIanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.dou Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a new single-family home at a proposed building height of 16'-6". He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the plans and said this home is angled towards the street and not parallel and complies with all setback and development standards for this area. The majority of the home is 12'-3", but it has an architectural element at the front of the home that rises to 16'-6". He presented a materials board for review said the roof structure will be metal seam. Based on the quality of architecture and the overall design of the home staff felt an approval of the height exception works for this house and is recommending approval. He stated that the neighborhood was noticed and staff did not receive any letters in support or opposition. However, two neighbors came to the counter prior to this meeting to discuss the plans and they are here today. The Commission discussed the steel framed windows and the roof structure materials. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, opened up the meeting to public comments. MS. JUDY ARBINI, neighbor, has the property directly behind the proposed new home and had concerns with the height. She said she is elevated a bit, but that 16' is going to take away their view of the mountains. She was told that it will be 65' from the back of the property and hopes that it won't make too much of a difference. She was also concerned about the easement in the rear of the property and asked if they would be going all the way to the back of the property. She also asked about the public utilities. MR. MICHAEL MCAULIFFE, architect, said they can't do any development within that 10' easement area and all of the physical improvements will be within the property itself. Mr. Bagato said any new lines would be underground from the house to the pole. The Commission, staff, and the neighbor continued to discuss underground utilities. MS. ARBINI asked about lighting and thought this might be a concern. Commissioner Lambell said there will be some light but Palm Desert has a dark sky ordinance. Mr. Bagato encouraged her to speak with the planner regarding her concerns and said this commission is only looking at the height issue and the planner can tell you what ordinances we have regarding lighting and pool concerns. MS ARBINI said she is objecting to the height. Chair Van Vliet said that the majority of this house is substantially lower than 15' and it's only that one little section that is over 15'. MS. ARBINI said the way it was presented the small little section is really not so small and it is right in the center of the lot. GAIlk,nning\,anineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.dou Page 6 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2014 The Commission and the architect discussed the pad grade of the house and the homes behind it. MR. MCAULIFFE said they tried to be sensitive with the height of the building because they wanted to be respectful of the height. He said the softness of the upper shape will hopefully just disappear and not be a hard structure. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that this design is being respectful to the height. This Commission reviews a lot of homes that are pushed up to the 18' height with a much less sophisticated design. This design has a much higher sophistication and sensitivity than we normally see. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve as submitted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 5-0-1-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, McAuliffe abstaining and Clark and Colombini absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE (AIPP)— Commissioner John Vuksic Nothing to report at this time. VII. COMMENTS The Commission and staff discussed building heights. Vill. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 6-0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Clark and Colombini absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned a 1:25 p.m. TONY AGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER S R A Y J Con"N UD SECRETARY GAPIanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140826min.dxx Page 7 of 7