Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-25 t ���T�� CITY OF PALM DESE � RT � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' ' MINUTES March 25, 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 6 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 5 1 Paui Clark X 6 Gene Colombini X 6 Allan Levin X 6 Michael McAuliffe X 5 1 Jim Mclntosh X 6 John Vuksic X 6 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary I11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 11, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the March 11, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. �RC�iITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � R��INUTES March 25, 2014 ''��, CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-81 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PEYTON MCELYEA, 77-750 Delaware P�ace, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Finai approval of a wall exception to allow a 6' high wood fence visible from the surrounding roadway. LOCATION: 77-750 Delaware Place ZONE: R-E, 40,000 Commissioner Mclntosh recused himself from this project and remained in the conference room. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner said the owner of this property recently constructed a pool. During the construction, the fence, which was rotten and run down, was damaged. The fence was removed and replaced with a new wood fence without a permit. In discussions with the contractor, staff informed him that wood is not an approved material when it is visible from the public right-of-way. This fence is not a typical wood fence but staff didn't feel there was an unusual hardship to allow the wood and is recommending denial of the material as proposed. MR. JOHN BARNETT explained that he was the owner's representative and would answer any questions the Commission may have in order to make a decision. Chair Van Vliet said wood is not an approved material for the City of Palm Desert and the only way this can be allowed is if there is an unusual circumstance. MR. BARNETT said the initial fence was 4'-6" and when the trees were removed for the pool, some of the trees came down on the fence and popped off a few boards. When they started to rebuild the fence, they were faced with a lot of rot so the homeowner decided to put up a new fence. Chair Van Vliet asked why he didn't put up a block wall. MR. BARNETT said the owner spent $4,000 on this fence and it is beautiful. Had the homeowner realized he couldn't have wood, he would have gone with a block wall since it was only $10 to $12 more a linear foot. If this request is not approved, the owner would want a continuance so he can come and talk with the Commission. (; �>Iannin3�JanineJudyWRCllMinutes\2014\140325min.docx Page 2 of 9 , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 2014 Commissioner Clark asked if there were any mitigating circumstances that the owner wishes to propose that might solve the problem. MR. BARNETT said possibly, but he would have to request a continuance. Mr. Bagato said there weren't any proposed changes so staff evaluated the fence and is recommending a denial, which the homeowner is aware of. It would be up to the Commission to grant a continuance. He said the neighborhood was notified and asked if anyone would like to step forward to speak on this matter. MR. JIM MCINTOSH, neighbor, said the zoning ordinance for block walls was put in place for a reason; because wood fences do not weather well here in the desert as exhibited in the pictures presented. This area of the city was once in the County of Riverside and walls were not enforced or they did not have the zoning ordinances that Palm Desert has so everyone in this area is hoping we receive the same attention and care as the rest of the City. Commissioner Levin said there were other homes on the street that have wood fences and they are looking pretty weathered. If any of those fences were to come down or were damaged, could they rebuild or would they be in the same position. Mr. Bagato said according to code you can repair and maintain existing fences but if it is a total rebuild it would have to be all new material; decorative block or wrought iron. Commissioner Vuksic said it would be dangerous to approve this fence because it would set precedence. It is pretty clear that wood is not allowed. Commissioner Colombini made a motion to deny and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Clark asked the applicant if he wanted a continuance and the applicant said yes. Commissioner Vuksic said he couldn't think what they could do to make the fence more acceptable. MR. BARNETT asked if they could put fiscus trees in front of the wall and Chair Van Vliet said landscaping is not acceptable. Commissioner Clark said the next step would be to appeal to the City Council. The vote was then called. ACTfON: Commissioner Colombini moved to deny Case MISC 14-81 as proposed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0-1-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, Mclntosh abstaining and McAuliffe absent. G:1Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2014\140325min.docx Page 3 of 9 �� AI�tCFRITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • NNINUTES March 25, 2014 2. CASE NO: MISC 14-99 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CHRISTIAN KNALL, 4224 La Salie, Culver City, CA 90232 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single-family home at a proposed height of 16'-10". LOCATION: 73-307 Tamarisk Street ZONE: R-1, 12,000 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner said this is a new home being built on a vacant lot with a contemporary Santa Fe style. It is box shaped with different levels and tiers. Most of the house is below the 15' requirement with a portion at 15'-6" and the main entry way at 16'-10". The neighbors were notified and staff received three responses in opposition. He went out the property and noticed that the lot is lower than the property to the south on Goldflower Street and also lower than the property that is directly to the west of it. He felt that with the pad being lower, it would not have much of an impact. He presented a slide presentation and pointed out the different heights of the roof. He believes the view would not be impacted even with removing the trees. There are palm trees at the neighbor's property and utility poles and you do see a little bit of the mountains through the existing trees, which would also be blocked by a 15' tall home. Commissioner Clark asked if there was a grading plan and Mr. Bagato said they did not have one yet so they don't know the exact pad height, but the pad cannot change more than 6" by code or it has to go to Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato said even though most of this neighborhood has lower homes, the majority of this house is in compliance with the 15' height requirement and only 8% is 16'-10". Staff is recommending approval. The Commission and Mr. Bagato discussed the roof plan. Commissioner Mclntosh wanted to know how high the roof parapet was on the back side. Mr. Bagato said the main roof was 14'-6" and closest to the west property line there is a 12' parapet. Commissioner Mclntosh pointed out that if the parapet is 12', the roof in that area has to be less than 12'. :'',PlanniiglJanineJudylARC\1Minutes\2014\140325min.docx Page 4 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES March 25, 2014 Commissioner Clark pointed out in order to grant the increase in height there would have to be some kind of architectural merit. Mr. Bagato said if an applicant does a stepped home or a hipped roof staff is okay with it. What staff tries to avoid is when a home is 18' tall causing a drastic impact on the neighborhood. This house is done in different tiers and it is only stepped right at the 16'-10", which is the main entrance. Commissioner Colombini felt that a line of sight from finished grade would be insignificant. Mr. Bagato agreed and said that was his position. Commissioner Levin pointed out that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. Mr. Bagato agreed and said that staff looks at the impact it would have on the adjacent homes from a massing standpoint. The Commission discussed the wing walls on the rear portion of the raised roof section. Commissioner Vuksic said based on the height of the parapet behind it and because the lot in the back is higher, you might see it. He suggested continuing the wall making the whole element a mass, as well as the lower elevation. He also recommended that the higher elements that have the higher wing walls, one by the main entrance and one by the window, should be deeper. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) the parapet at 16'-10" shall extend to chimney; 2) add another parapet running easUwest in line with the north boundary of the chimney to enclose the form; 3) the parapet at 15'- 6" shall be doubled in depth so that the north/south wing is extended to be twice that length and returns to die into the taller form. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. 3. CASE NO: ODP 13-210 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: CAFE DES BEAUX-ARTS, 73-640 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new awning: Cafe Des Beaux-Arts. LOCATION: 73-520 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this project came before the Commission on October 22, 2013 proposing outdoor dining on Larkspur Lane and EI Paseo. He presented the old exhibit showing G:\Planning\JanineJudylARCllMinutes12014\140325min.docx Page 5 of 9 a xrr�r AI�CHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION , I�'INUTES March 25, 2014 railings, umbrellas, and landscape. The owner has withdrawn that application and is now only proposing a new metal awning. He presented a slide presentation showing the removal of the existing green awning along EI Paseo and Larkspur Lane and the replacement awning. He passed around a sample piece of the new awning and said the new metal awning would be placed in the exact location as the existing one, with wrought iron under it for support. MR. SERGIO GARCIA, applicant, said they will be eliminating the outdoor dining along Larkspur Lane and EI Paseo and replacing the existing awning with a metal one that will have a wrought iron frame. The awning will be pitched at an angle and tied into the existing roof. The Commission and the applicant discussed the metal awning and how it will be attached. MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, applicant, said the patina finish will be on the front of the sheet metal with the gutter behind it. Commissioner Mclntosh said with metal roofing it is very important on how the front edge looks because the ends of a standing seam joint is all open. Commissioner Vuksic said the details are everything and suggested that the applicant submit a mock-up of the awning with the finish and how the seam and gutter will look, as well as details on the signage. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue subject to: 1) submit a section through the gutter; 2) submit plan details; and 3) submit a mock-up of the awning piece and finish showing seams and gutter. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Mctntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-20 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PANERA LLC, 3630 S. Geyer Road, Suite 100, Sunset Hills, MO 63127 NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape and architectural plans for a new Panera Bread with a drive-thru in the Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34180 Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.C.-(3) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this is a brand new 4,200 square foot Panera Bread (Panera) building with a drive-thru on the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue (Monterey) and Dinah Shore �:; Plannirg\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minules\2014\140325min.docx Page 6 of 9 , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 2014 Drive. He presented elevations of the site and pointed out where the Panera building would be located. Staff worked with the applicant on a couple of renderings because the City did not want the drive-thru facing Monterey Avenue. He explained that the top of the tower will be 33', which is well within the height limit of 35'. There will be an outdoor patio facing Monterey, the parking lot will be modified to open it up, and a new driveway will be created into the parking area. He passed around a materials board for review. He described the landscape for the project and said the plans have received preliminary approval by the City's Landscape Specialist. The roof plan was presented and all mechanical equipment will be screened. The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the internal circulation, trash enclosures, and the service entrance on the east elevation. The Commissior� asked how the delivery trucks would gain access to the building. MR. MONI DOSANJH, Director of Development, said deliveries will take place in the mornings on the east elevation with access through a man-door. The Commission and MR. DOSANJH discussed the color palette, the elevation from Monterey, a 6" raised curb in the drive-thru, and signage. Mr. Swartz stated he spoke with the sign company with concerns of the overall sizing and stacking, but the placement and type of signs are okay. Mr. Bagato said the signs stacked together look a little cluttered and suggested moving the drive-thru sign to a different part of the building to separate them. Mr. Swartz said if the Commission is okay with the signs as proposed they can recommend approval and staff will work with the applicant on resizing. The Commission and the applicant discussed the parapet heights in relationship to the roof deck and reviewed it for adequate screening of the roof top equipment. MR. DOSANJH said they did account for the curb of 4" to 6" and the parapets are at least 36" to 40" above the highest curb. Mr. Swartz said the construction drawings will come back to this Commission and staff will watch for that. The Commission was concerned with the trellis system over the outdoor patio and asked about the truncated shapes where the elements get longer and longer. They said using wood in the desert twists and weathers and suggested another type of material. G:1PlanninglJanineJudy�P,RC11Minutes\20141140325min.docx Page 7 of 9 �� ��2CNITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION , N1INUTES March 25, 2014 The Commission asked about the landscape screening around the electrical transformer and MR. DOSANJH directed the Commission to the landscape plans and pointed out the landscape in that area. He said they can beef that area up, however, they have to work with Edison to keep some clearance because Edison will come in and trim it down because of maintenance reasons. The Commission had concerns with the depth of the arches and suggested popping them out to 1' on the south, north, and east elevations. They pointed out inconsistencies in the roof plan and recommended submitting a full roof plan. They noticed an external roof ladder and said that is not an option and recommended an internal roof access. Mr. Bagato again stated there were discrepancies in the roof plan and pointed out they don't want to see the back ends of parapets, crickets, or wing walls. It needs to look like a mass and a form. The Commission discussed adding more depth to the glass in the entry tower opening and reviewed the imbedded window features on the south elevation. They also suggested something on the north elevation to break up that large surface area. Mr. Bagato showed the applicant examples of other buildings with stone that will help break up the building. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. MISC 14-20 based on Commissioners comments. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None �w►I. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported on the recent Art in Public Places meeting. A new exhibit, Student Art and Essay Contest...will be on display in the Palm Desert Community Gallery from April 24 through June 5. The 2014 Palm Desert Public Art Documentary Film Series concludes on April 17 and The Palm Springs Museum at Palm Desert is still hosting the First Friday cultural events on the first Friday of every month. ; 'Planni iglJanine Judy\P.RC\1Minutes\2014\140325min.docx Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 2014 VII. COMMENTS Staff and Commission discussed roof ladders, 3-D drawings, and submittal of Form 700. VI11. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambelt, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 7- 0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at :10 p.m. �� TONY BAGATO, INCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY 1, � 'JA I E JUD � RDING SECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRCllMinutes\2014\140325min.docx Page 9 of 9