Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-28 , • � �'� � � � � CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 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 2 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 2 Paul Clark X 2 Gene Colombini X 2 Allan Levin X 2 Michael McAuliffe X 2 Jim Mclntosh X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Monica O'Reilly, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: 12/24/13, III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 14, 2014 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved to approve the January 14, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. �RC�iITECTURAL RE�`�'W COMMISSION � • . �tINUITES �'` `�''' January 28, 2014 �l', CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: GPA/CZ/PP 11-200 and TPM 36363 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73510 Fred Waring, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Carlos Ortega Villas. LOCATION: Washington and Avenue of the States ZONE: P.C.-(2), R-1, C-OP Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, presented construction drawings for the Carlos Ortega Villas. He presented the plans for review and stated that since the last review there have been some minor changes. One of the changes went from two double doors to two single doors on the end elevations to the utility closets and the other change was to the windows. Another change was on Elevation C with the removal of the trellises on three of the buildings because of long term maintenance and cost. The Commission and the representative discussed the trellises and the side yards. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: RV 13-298 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOUGLAS AUER, 43-005 Connecticut Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a sailboat stored in a front yard carport. LOCATION: 43-005 Connecticut Street ZONE: R-1 G`,I"I:nning\.anineJudy\ARC\1Minules\2014N40128min.docx Page 2 of 13 , . . .ARCHITECTURAL RE�"�W COMMISSION MINUTES � °"� January 28, 2014 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this request was continued from a previous meeting. This property is located inside the Palm Desert Country Club and the applicant is proposing to store a sailboat in an existing carport in a front yard. At the previous meeting, staff recommended a fully enclosed carport as required by the RV Ordinance. The case was continued to allow the applicant to come up with alternate screening devices. At this time, the applicant is proposing to screen the sailboat with a wood fence that will go all the way across. However, wood is not a permitted material for the front yard and does not meet the RV ordinance. The applicant was not in attendance but is aware that staff is recommending denial of this screening device and that the applicant either encloses the carport or removes the sailboat within 30 days. One of the reasons the applicant does not want to fully enclose the carport is because the kitehen window is located within the carport and it would have to be removed, which would then make the house dark. The Commission discussed the proposal and Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant can appeal to the City Council if this is denied. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to deny Case RV 13-298. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, and Clark absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 14-29 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: UNDERWOOD PARTNERS, LLC, 180 Newport Center Drive, Suite #230, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exterior paint color change from beige to Arabian Red. LOCATION: 42-697 Timothy Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said the applicant bought this home last year and the previous owner had painted it Arabian Red without approval. The applicant is now requesting approval of the Arabian Red. Mr. Swartz presented a photo of the original color which was beige and said that the applicant could not attend the meeting and is aware that staff is recommending denial. Staff recommends that the applicant propose a new color scheme or revert back to the previous color. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\20141140128min.docx Page 3 of 13 �RCIiITECTURAL RE�""W COMMISSION • . N�INI�TES �` � January 28, 2014 The Commission reviewed and discussed the paint color. ACTION: Commissioner Mclntosh moved to deny MISC 14-29. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 4. CASE NO: MISC 13-320 APPLICANT AND ADRESS: BRYAN RANGEL, 12439 Magnolia Blvd #185, Valley Village, CA 91607 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exterior building modification to an existing commercial building. LOCATION: 72-221 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-(3) S.P. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this is for the Las Sambras Shopping Center and was previously considered at a previous meeting. The applicant is proposing to do a building color change and to also remove an existing wooden trellis from the back of the building. The applicant has resubmitted color renderings for consideration. The applicant explained that when they bought the property a few years back, they did a high dollar remodel. They re-painted and did other modifications to the building, but yet the trellis remained the same. The problem they have when they try renting the property is that prospective tenants say there isn't enough signage location and feel like this is more like an office building as opposed to a retail center. The trellis is dated and it hinders the ability to put any signage on the building. They were actually able to get two national tenants; Buffalo Cafe and Fat Burger and are currently in the process of working through their construction drawings to open up the unit. After the last meeting, they went back to the tenants informing them that the removal of the trellis was rejected and both restaurants responded in a letter that they agreed to the removal of the trellis. The Commission reviewed the renderings and discussed the trellis and the railings with the applicant. The Commission was concerned that there would be no shade once the trellis was removed. The applicant stated if there was outdoor dining for those two restaurants he would not have a problem redoing the trellises for outdoor dining. G:1f9�aning\„anineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014N40128min.docx Page 4 of 13 �•ARCHITECTURAL RE�''^W COMMISSION MINUTES '� � January 28, 2014 Commissioner Lambell said she was reading the Notice of Action from the previous meeting and it was requested that the applicant restudy design solutions related to removing the wood trellis. However, she didn't see any design solutions on the current proposal. The applicant said this building has been vacant for five years and they finally have been able to get some people who have some interest in it. He wanted to know the reason why they needed the trellis. He pointed out that none of the other adjacent businesses have trellises on their property. Commissioner Vuksic said if they are removing the trellis, which adds a layer to the architecture, you need to look at other design solutions that would keep the building with the same architectural value that it has now. The applicant said that the aesthetic look of the building makes it look like an office building so they are trying to take it from an office building to a retail center. Commissioner Levin felt that it looks more like an apartment building than a retail center. The applicant explained how they would be making the change to a retail center. He said this trellis is obtrusive, it's huge and iYs really a maintenance problem. He would rather not have anything, but suggested the possibility of adding an eyebrow trellis on top of that elevation; maybe 3' cantilevered out from the building. The Commission and the applicant discussed his suggestion and they asked for more detail of the changes. It was suggested that the applicant meet with staff to go over his ideas. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant to show more consistency in the plans and asked for a landscape plan. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principle Planner said staff informed the applicant that these plans were not detailed enough and wasn't being offered anything further. The applicant said he will supply staff with the complete construction documents. Mr. Bagato said the design submittal needs to have an architectural submittal that is a preliminary design and the design concept that is desired. He informed the applicant to have his architect come up with some plans and have them submit to staff for review. Commissioner Vuksic said the design professional should submit a complete set of documents conveying what their design intentions are. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 13-320. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRCNMinutes\20141140128min.docx Page 5 of 13 /�RCHITECTURAL RE�"-'W COMMISSION - •� •. I�INI�iTES � � January 28, 2014 5. CASE NO: SA 14-06 APPLICANT AND ADRESS: THE BEST OF LA dba Mic & Moe's, P.O. Box 6157, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of awnings; Mic � Moe's. LOCATION: 37-011 Cook Street, Suite 101 ZONE: P.C.-(3) Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this proposal for finro awnings was presented at the last meeting. The Commission requested to see a new drawing where the lettering was removed and the front awning narrowed down so it doesn't encroach into the adjacent tenant space and to show consistency between the two awnings. The applicant has made those changes and revised the drawings for the Commission's consideration. The Commission asked if an awning fabric sample was provided. Mr. Ceja said the applicant did not provide a sample, however it would be a Sunbrella product. Commissioner Lambell asked if part of the south facing awning was still encroaching on the adjacent tenant. The Commission reviewed the awning and found that it stops right at the middle of the wall between the two tenant spaces. Mr. Ceja said the overall length of the awning has been reduced by 3' on each side. Commissioner Mclntosh made a motion to approve and Commissioner McAuliffe made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic said he's not excited about the way the south facing awning looks so different from the awning on the east side. He wasn't crazy about it being steep on the sides and shallow on the front and wondered if there wasn't a more cohesive solution that ties the two together. It's hard to imagine another awning going next door and wondered how it will tie in the way it is now. Commissioner Mclntosh said it should have been handled in the original building design so now it's a tough position. He understands that the two don't match on either side but the building efevation is different and wondered if it really needs to match. MR. BOB SIPOVAC, representative, said if they do the hip design on the east side will that answer his concerns. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. SIPOVAC discussed other design G:\fLar.ninglJ3nineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140128min.docx Page 6 of 13 ''ARCHITECTURAL RE� 'W COMMISSION MINUTES `"'` � January 28, 2014 options. Commissioner Vuksic suggested something simpier and not a standard awning. ACTION: Commissioner Mclntosh moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 7-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh and Van Vliet voting YES, and Vuksic voting NO. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 13-421 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: TOMA STOIANOVICI, 40-462 Corte Placitas, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape and architectural design for a new duplex. LOCATION: 45-855 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-2 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this duplex was presented at the last Commission meeting and the Commission suggested adding some additional architectural relief to the front of the home, removing one of the walls back so that the utility has access to the panels, and adding a decorative block wall in place of a wood fence. The applicant has complied with the Commission's requests by making changes to the side yard gates, updating the front elevation to include arches and pillars, and adding eyebrows and arches above the windows on all elevations. Chair Van Vliet and the applicant discussed the off sets between the arches and the back face, the eyebrows above the windows, and the detail between the windows. Commissioner Mclntosh said it was hard to judge this because they didn't have a plan to see some of the relationships and wanted to see some pop outs and depth. Commissioner Levin had some concerns with the columns and said it's really not a full column. It's just 3" framed out and stuccoed over. Chair Van Vliet pointed out a piece of horizontal trim and asked what happens to the trim on the corner of the garage as it turns the corner. MR. TOMA STOIANOVICI, applicant, said it goes down the side of the building. Chair Van Vliet said it is not shown on the elevation. It shows G:\PlanninglJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140128min.docx Page 7 of 13 ,r1.RC�HITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � � � �INIITES January 28, 2014 it as stopping at the outside edge. That is why this Commission is having difficulty with what the applicant is showing on the drawings. Chair Van Vliet also had a concern with the front entry roof and said the roof looks like the wrong elevation as you look at it from the street. The Commission and the applicant reviewed those elevations. Commissioner Clark asked if this could be addressed by staff. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said this is preliminary approval so the Commission will see construction drawings. A duplex does require a hearing and after the hearing usually the construction drawings come back, but if the Commission is still concerned with how this is being applied better preliminary plans would be needed before it is moved forward. Commissioner Mclntosh said at the last meeting the applicant presented kind of a blank slate and now the applicant is developing some architecture. He didn't think that meant gluing on an inch and a hatf of foam around the windows or making a colonnade 3" thick on the front and felt it doesn't give it enough relief. Having a 3" column and arch is not going to give it the shadow or relief that good architecture exhibits. Commissioner Clark said at the last meeting one of the requests to the applicant was to drive around and look at other duplexes in the city that were similar. Commissioner Vuksic said there is a lot of stuff that isn't very good in the city and asked the applicant not to look at those but to look at the better ones. Chair Van Vliet asked the Commission to give the applicant some direction. Mr. Bagato recommended that the applicant meet with staff so they can look at other duplexes that have been approved in the past. Commissioner Vuksic reminded the applicant that the Commission is looking for details that are more substantial. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to continue Case PP 13-421. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. G:\F'a•ning\J.inineJudy�.4RCNMinutes\2014N40728min.docx Page 8 of 13 ' ''ARCHITECTURAL RE�' `N COMMISSION MINUTES � � January 28, 2014 2. CASE NO: MISC 13-410 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SAXONY GROUP, Attn: Les Walgreens, 74-399 Highway 111, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and RAY ROOKER, 49410 Brian Court, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of exterior building modifications; JM Couture. LOCATION: 73-300 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this proposal to update the exterior of a building along EI Paseo was continued from finro previous meetings. The applicant previously proposed an all black building with gold trim and is now going with a white building and enhancing the columns and the base at the top of them. They have brought this project forward for Commission consideration. MR. RAY ROOKER, architect, said they have taken the Commission's previous comments and made a big departure from previous submittals. They have taken the building from a Spanish/Mediterranean style to something a little more contemporary by removing the cornice on the top, removing the heavy foam trim around the arches, and a few other subtle things. What they have attempted to do is to clean it up yet still have a very unique flavor of a JM Couture store. He presented a color board for the Commission's review. Commissioner Vuksic was surprised with how much different the building looked with the white compared to the black and liked the direction it is now going. He and MR. ROOKER discussed the removal of the cornice and the separation difference between the building on the left. Commissioner Vuksic said since this has been separated, it now becomes its own building, which is what was needed to make it work. He appreciates the simplicity and wondered if there needs to be a line or something to define the top just because it is such a large top. Mr. Bagato suggested a gold band to mimic the arch band. Commissioner Vuksic said that it would just be a control joint in the plaster that is down some distance from the top to create a subtle detail. The medallion might need to be lowered just a bit so that it hits the band properly. He likes the concept of the medallion now that it is simplified because G1Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140128min.docx Page 9 of 13 �►RCNi1TECTURAL RE;�W COMMISSION � '' ' 11�IN�ITES January 28, 2014 that now becomes the top of the building. The medallion needs to be something really special in material and the way it interlocks with the building; clean and elegant. MR. ROOKER said they are proposing metal letters with back lighting on them so it looks more special than Plexiglas. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the medallion interacts with the front of the building face. MR. ROOKER said the depth encompasses the existing parapet wall itself so the depth of that is about 12". The Commission and MR. ROOKER discussed the changes to the columns. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that on the rendering the arches are sitting on the columns. At this point, there were too many peop/e talking and the recording secretary had troub/e transcribing the minutes. The Commission and the applicants discussed the cornice and the north side of the building. MR. JIM MULLINS, CEO and founder, said it would follow the same design and pointed out that it is pretty flat in the back. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was an issue with moving the cornice on the back and tying it into the rest of the building. MR. ROOKER said there is no cornice in the back, it dies on the side. The back is flat and very plain. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a change in plane in the back. MR. ROOKER said he could not recall. The recording secretary cou/d not hear all of MR. ROOKER's comments. The Commission asked MR. ROOKER where the property line was in the front of the building and MR. ROOKER didn't know. Commissioner Mclntosh thought this would be critical on where they place the columns. Mr. Bagato said the minimum is a 5' setback, so this would be a problem if it didn't fit. Commissioner Mclntosh said this should be identified because it will be critical as far as the approval process goes and can't be approved if it is encroaching into that. Commissioner Mclntosh said what is troubling is that this is starting to look good but it doesn't reflect what is shown on the rendering. Mr. Bagato said the construction is based on the construction plans and unfortunately they are not correlating. Commissioner Levin said this looks like they have two different planes and one is farther from the street than the other one, but it isn't. They are all in one plane. MR. ROOKER said this is the best way they have found to tie the columns into the building. The Commission continued to discuss the columns and the inconsistencies with the plans. Commissioner Clark recalled from earlier meetings the comments made about the inconsistencies G:\F'lanning\J3nineJudyWRCllMinutes\2014\140128min.docx Page 10 of 13 � 'ARCHITECTURAL RE�;,W COMMISSION ,,�;r MINUTES January 28, 2014 between the drawings. When he sees plans that are inconsistent he doesn't know what he's approving. The Commission continued to discuss the property line issue. Commissioner McAuliffe said they have been substantially responsive and the direction it is headed is really quite positive and other than the detailing of the columns he felt they were close. He understands the complications and the financial complexity in pulling that whole fa�ade out. He feels they have come a long way to bring some refinement to this building and would hate to see them trip over the finish line. Commissioner Levin referred to the inconsistencies of the renderings regarding the columns. He also pointed out to the architect that this was the third time they have come back to this Commission and each time the Commission has requested details on the medallion and they refuse to submit the details. There are no dimensions on the renderings on what the Commission has received for review. MR. MULLINS pointed out the dimensions and Commissioner Levin said those are not the dimensions. MR. ROOKER directed the Commission to sheet 6 of the elevation and said they were 62". Commissioner Levin said he wasn't talking about how high the medallion is. He was talking about the thickness of it. He asked how they expect this Commission to make a decision on something if they don't have all the information. The Commission and MR. ROOKER reviewed the dimensions of the medallion. Commissioner Vuksic said the concept was good and they were on the right track. He recommended that the front faCade be built out so that it sits on the columns, to submit drawings for the rear of the building to show how it's going to marry back to the existing building next door, and submit details on everything about the medallion. MR. MULLINS said they were under a time constraint because they are the title sponsors for Fashion Week and wanted this to be a show piece so it was important to get this moved along. Commissioner Vuksic said the back of the building has to separate itself from the neighbor just like the front does and this Commission doesn't know if it does because we haven't seen it. The Commission and the applicant reviewed what was needed for the next review. Commissioner Vuksic explained that if they moved ahead with the construction drawings before the design review process was completed would be at their own risk. The applicant will need to get the drawings to match the renderings, submit G:\PlanninglJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\20141140128min.docx Page 11 of 13 ARCIHITECTURAL REs�W COMMISSION �i ` � �IINI.ITES January 28, 2014 details on the medallion, and the details on the property line boundaries. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that staff met with the applicant last week said it can't look like a fa�ade or like a cheap tack on. Basically that is what the architectural drawings would portray and what the Commission is trying to avoid. The rendering has more depth to it and more architectural merit. Commissioner Vuksic said what they show here is that they are going big and creating their own building and bringing that faCade out to sit on the columns is part of that. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 13-410. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. Nt�TE;: `�'taff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It �Nas moved by Chair Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, adding Case No. C:IJP °13-414 to the agenda. Motion carried 8-0, with Commissioners Clark, Colombini, L��mb«�II, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 3. CASE NO: CUP 13-414 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AT�T MOBILITY, 12900 Park Plaza Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of installation of a 75' monopalm. LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: Public Institution (P) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a request for a new monopalm at an existing site at St. Margaret's Church. He passed around photo sims of the location and said that the antennas will be concealed within the palm trunk. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and where the monopalm would be located. Mr. Swartz stated that an old Nextel monopalm has been removed and this new one will be in the same location. G:\fla�ninglJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes12014N40128min.docx Page 12 of 13 � � jARCHITECTURAL REV`�,,,:'V COMMISSION ,,�,,, MINUTES January 28, 2014 ACTION: Commissioner Mclntosh moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Nothing to report at this time. VII. COMMENTS Chair Van Vliet requested that staff work with all applicants to submit a better package for review so there is less frustration for both the Commission and the applicants. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Mclntosh, second by Commissioner Clark, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m. �_-------- TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY ��� .�J Q.�l! z,�� MONICA O'REILLY � RECORDING SECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRCllMinutes\2014\140128min.docx Page 13 of 13