Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-25 �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES November 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 20 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 19 1 Paul Clark X 18 2 Gene Colombini X 19 1 Allan Levin X 18 2 Michael McAuliffe X 19 1 Jim McIntosh X 19 1 John Vuksic X 18 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings:09/23/14,11/14/14 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 14, 2014 and October 28, 2014 Action: Commissioner Clark moved to approve the October 14, 2014 and October 28, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 XF. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-350 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: NIDIA BARKER, 74-175 El Cortez Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a wall exception. LOCATION: 74-175 El Cortez Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal for a wall exception to extend a 6' high wall at 11'-5" back from curb. He explained that per code a 6' high wall should be located 20' back from curb; however that would put the wall right at the front of the house. There is an existing 6' high wall on the property along with a 3%2' high wall and the applicant is proposing to add 2'/2' onto that wall. The existing mature landscape and ficus hedge along the existing wall will remain to screen the wall. He explained that the homeowner was concerned that somebody could hop over the wall. He pointed out that the structural support for the 3'/2' wall will work for the height increase. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner McIntosh asked when the existing 6' wall was permitted and MR. MICHAEL HAGEDOIN, MH Construction, said the house was built in the late 70s and presumes the wall to be at least that old. Commissioner Clark asked if the new portion will be stucco covered and painted. MR. HAGEDOIN said the existing wall is gray block and all of it will be painted; new and old. Commissioner Lambell was concerned that the wall would be exposed if the ficus hedge would ever die. Mr. Swartz said the Commission can condition the approval to read that if the ficus hedge were ever to be removed the homeowner would be responsible to stucco and repaint the entire wall; both the existing and new portions. G\Flanninc\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 2 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve a 2'/2' extension to existing block wall subject to: 1) extension shall match existing wall; 2) entire wall shall be painted to match existing wail; and 3) should ficus hedge be removed in front of the wall, (new and existing portions), owner shall stucco and repaint the entire block wall. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 14-361 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ALLIED DISTRICT PROPERTIES, 180 n. Stetson Avenue, Suite 3240, Chicago, IL 60601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a sign program for El Paseo Square. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a sign program proposal and PowerPoint for El Paseo Square. This previously came before the Commission on September 9, 2014 for Fresh Market and other buildings in the center. He described the signage on the "Fresh Market" building stating the proposed letters are 42". Staff believes the letters are too tall and out of proportion with the architecture. He described the signage on the tower element stating that each sign is square in shape and is 12' x 12'. Staff believes the sizing should be reduced to 10' x 10' or 8' x 8'. He described the signage for suites D1, D2, and D3, Buildings E & F, and three monument signs. Staff has concerns with the overall design and height of the three monument signs. He said the monument sign on Highway 111 is 17' in length and should be reduced. He believes the center is over-signed and asked the Commission for their comments. The Commission reviewed and discussed the building and suite signs, the tower element, and the monument signs. Mr. Swartz stated that when this was presented to the Commission in September, the tower signage was not a part of that approval; the applicant was just showing the locations of the signs. At that meeting, the Commission made recommendations to reduce the tower signage to 8' x 8'. However, now that the applicant has formerly submitted the signage proposal, they did not reduce it per Commission recommendations. Commissioner McIntosh feels that it is too much sign on top of the tower and it is taking away from the architectural merit of the form and loses the intent of the approval. MR. JOHN CROSS, Best Signs, said GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 he wouldn't disagree that the sign on the tower may look better reduced. He then discussed the individual letter sizes on the tower element sign as well as the other signs. Commissioner McIntosh said taking into consideration the Commission's recommendation that the sign program be sensitive to the tower size, they feel they are in a position to request a smaller sign. MS. NICOLE CLINEO, Prest-Vuksic Architects, said when they submitted their entitlement package, the elevation that was presented was a 10' x 10' sign and what is shown is 12' by 12'. Commissioner McIntosh said when the Commission was looking at the 10' x 10' at the last meeting they thought it was too big. The Commission and MR. CROSS discussed the letter sizes and illumination of the wall signage and the height of the letters and overall geometry of the three monument signs. The Commission agreed with staff that the monument signs were too large in height and width, especially the one along Highway 111. The Commission had concerns that the monument signs would not fit within the proposed locations. The Commission requested the applicant to re-examine the design of the monument signs and to provide photo-sims showing the sign locations along Highway 111, Lupine Lane, and San Pablo Avenue. The Commission suggested continuing this item so the applicant can submit modifications to the sign program as recommended by the Commission. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case SA 14-361 subject to: 1) reducing the letters for "The Fresh Market" sign on the east elevation to 36"; 2) reducing "The Fresh Market" tower element signs to 8' x 8'; 3) reducing sign area for suites D1, D2, and D3; 4) reducing sign area for Buildings E & F and provide photo-sims of the signage on the buildings; 5) re-examine all three monument sign designs by lowering the height, reducing the overall length, reducing the amount of tenant spaces, and providing photo-sims along Highway 111, San Pablo Avenue, and Lupine Lane. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. G:P anning Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 4 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 3. CASE NO: SA 14-313 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JERRY MURDOCK, 9025 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve three (3) monument signs: Monterey Shore Plaza. LOCATION: 72-600 to 72-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C.(3) FZOZ Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said Monterey Shores at the Costco Center is proposing three monument signs; C1 at the main entrance along Dinah Shore Drive, C2 at the corner of Miriam Way and Dinah Shore Drive, and C3 on the corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. He pointed out that the monument sign on Monterey was approved back in 2007, but was never built. He described the design of the monument signs and had concerns with the style; he felt they were too plain. He pointed out that two of the monuments will have six tenants and one will have four. The applicant mentioned that there are five property owners at this location and he is having a problem with getting each property owner to sign off on the style. The applicant said they need more signage because they only have the one on the corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore. He said the applicant was not able to make the meeting and suggested continuing this item. Chair Van Vliet asked the Commission to consider continuing this with comments and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Clark referred to Sign C3 and asked who owns Parcel 3 at the corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore. Mr. Swartz said the County is deeding that parcel over to the City and the property owners won't build that monument sign until the City figures out what they will do with the property. The Commission and staff discussed the height, architecture and the number of tenants on each sign. Mr. Swartz said signs can be 6' in height and anything above that is architectural projection and didn't feel that this has architectural merit. Chair Van Wet felt they needed to reduce the height, add some design, and reduce the number of tenants per sign. Mr. Swartz reminded the Commission that two of the monuments will have six tenants and one will have four. Commissioner Clark said sign C3 along Monterey should have fewer tenants because people are not going to be able to read six tenants as you are traveling along Dinah Shore. Commissioner McAuliffe said sign C3 is an odd location for a GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 single-sided sign because it appears that the signage is facing towards the intersection and would only be visible as you were driving away from the center. He also pointed out that the back of the sign on Monterey would be blank for the south bound traffic; the visibility of this sign seems questionable. Commissioner Clark suggested that more thought go into the sign and the location. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case SA 14-313 subject to: 1) re- examining sign height and design merit; and 2) reducing number of tenants per sign. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 5-0-3 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and Lambell, McIntosh, and Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 14-395 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: FAST AUTO LOANS, INC. 8601 Dunwoody Place #406, Atlanta GA 30350 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of exterior color modification; Fast Auto Loans. LOCATION: 72-990 Monterey Avenue ZONE: CA S.P. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a request for a color change. Code Enforcement noticed a building undergoing a paint color change without obtaining color approval. The applicant is proposing to paint the trim yellow and red. Staff took a look at this over the counter and did not feel comfortable approving. From Staff's prospective the red and yellow stand out like a restaurant and the color clashes with the architecture of the building and the roof tile. Staff is not recommending approval. MS. SOCORRO GUTIERREZ, representative, said they didn't think the red and yellow would be approved by the Commission and suggested putting the building back to its original color and come back with another color scheme that is more subtle and desert appropriate. MS. LAURI AYLAIAN, Director of Community Development, asked the applicant if they are intending to restore the color back to its original color. MS. GUTIERREZ said if that is what is requested they will do that. MS. AYLAIAN asked the Commission to include that restoration to the original color be a part of their motion. G�Flanning,JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 6 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 14-395 subject to removing red and yellow paint from fascia and bringing fascia back to its original color. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO: SA 14-368 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ANGEL VIEW RESALE STORE, 73- 468 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of new signs; Angel View Resale Store. LOCATION: 73-468 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S-P Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a new sign for Angel View Retail Store (Angel View). This request is to repaint the awning structure and to add new channel letters. Staff took a look at this and felt that the sign itself is okay but that it contrasts with the overall existing awning. He said that most of the awning structures that come through Planning usually have pushed through letters so you don't see the whole channel; you just see the illumination through the awning itself. He also pointed out that the 4" channel letters proposed would look rather large on the existing awning structure. Staff had a conversation with the sign manufacturer who thought they could reduce the channel depth from 4" down to 2". He presented some examples that was provided by the applicant of other awnings with lit signs throughout Palm Desert and pointed out letters that were pushed through and illuminated. He mentioned that you don't typically see channel letters of any significant depth on the awning themselves. Staff is not recommending approval of this sign as proposed. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the individual letters and how they would be mounted. MR. RIO SCORE, Riofine Signs, said there are aluminum beams going through the awning with canvas on the outside. He referred to one of the photos he submitted of Starbucks on El Paseo that is mounted on a steel awning with channel letters. Commissioner Lambell asked how they get the paint to stick on a hot south facing exposure so that it doesn't flake, chip, or crack. MR. SCORE said it has been painted many times. MR. TRACY POWERS, Angel View, said their old awning was translucent so their sign was GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 7 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 lighted from the back. The landlord maintains the awnings and paints it as needed. The awning will be painted again before the new sign goes up. Commissioner Lambell said if the paint doesn't stand up with the heat and stress, it will become a code issue. MR. POWERS said as part of the Angel View name change they also trademarked a logo and has been submitted on this application. They have 17 stores and 6 of them have the new logo. This building is a challenge and he is open to suggestions. This store is their number one unit and they want to comply with the corporate program so it's all tied together. The Commission and MR. SCORE discussed the size of the 4" letters. MR. POWERS said the letters comply with the square footage required by the sign ordinance. MR. POWERS said there is 95' of frontage on Highway 111 and about 120' of frontage on San Pablo Avenue. Chair Van Vliet asked for the height of the awning and MR. SCORE said it was about 75'. Chair Van Vliet said he didn't have a problem with the height of the letters and asked the Commission if they liked the way the individual letters will be mounted on the front face of the awning. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if they would be able to thin the channels to 2" thick. MR. SCORE said they could do 2", however 3" would be better. Commissioner McAuliffe said it would help visually where they wouldn't look so chunky on the fabric awning with massive letters. Staff suggested painting "Resale Store" on the San Pablo side and moving the channel letters under a portion of the building in a location where channel letters normally go. MR. POWERS said the purpose of putting it on the awning on the San Pablo side is so that it is visible travelling west on Highway 111. The Commission continued to discuss the letters and thought this was a tough design solution with a lot of variables. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to letters being 2" thick and fixed to fabric of awning. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. Ct:>mmissioner McIntosh left at 1:50 p.m. G,F'anning,JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP 14-209 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LASMSALP dba Verizon Wireless, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bldg D, First Floor, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminary approve a new 48' mono-palm. LOCATION: 40-004 Cook Street ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal of a new 48' mono-palm on Cook Street and pointed out on the PowerPoint where the mono-palm would be located on the site. Mr. Swartz said the applicant is proposing three live palm trees to screen the mono- palm, but he doesn't see how they can install the mono-palm and the live palms in such a tight area. The equipment shelter would be a little further down the property. He thought that the mono-palm would be better placed in the area where the equipment shelter is proposed because there are live palm trees currently in that area and plenty of room to plant more. He pointed out that the property owner is proposing the original location because after talking with the homeowners, they informed him they would not be happy to have a mono-palm in the area where the equipment shelter is proposed. He said this will go forward to the Planning Commission and will be advertised within 300'. MR. MIKE HAYES, Spectrum Services, agreed that the original location might be tight to add additional palm trees. Mr. Swartz said the City likes to see a cluster of palm trees to provide screening for a mono-palm. MR. HAYES said with the proposed mono-palm there would only be room for one or two additional live palm trees. Mr. Swartz said that is why staff believes the site where the equipment shelter is being proposed would be a better location for the mono- palm, but the neighbors to the east are opposed. MR. HAYES said they already had to get a lot line adjustment because they weren't aware that their wall in that area belonged to the homeowners, and the lot line adjustment left just enough room for the equipment shelter. He believes the mono-palm along Cook Street is the best location for the site. The Commission discussed adding live trees that would be proportionate to the mono-palm and other possible locations on the property. Chair Van Vliet said the building is good looking with a nice GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 9 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 profile from the street and it would be a shame to put the mono-palm right in front of the building. He'd rather see it go in the back. The Commission asked about a lawn area on the northeast area of the aerial view. MR. HAYES said that area is heavily landscaped and includes three parking spaces. Commissioner Clark thought that could be an alternative spot for the mono-palm. Commissioner Lambell said they would have to do a grove because there weren't enough trees in that area. The Commission said this is such a busy corner and the area in the back would be better; however it will be close to the neighbors. Commissioner Lambell said approving these towers is tough and it's hard to keep the integrity of the building and the space. She agrees that the back of the property is better. The Commission discussed the areas suggested, removal of trees, and addition of live palm trees. Commissioner Lambell asked if it had to be on that corner and MR. HAYES said he asked Ralph's shopping center, the Marriott, and the tract of homes and nothing has come of that. Mr. Swartz said if the Commission doesn't feel comfortable recommending approval to the Planning Commission, they can recommend an alternative location on the site or continue it so the applicant can bring in an actual survey showing where the mono-palm will be located and how many live palm trees can be located there. ACTION:, - Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case CUP 14-209 subject to: 1) applicant to demonstrate that the proposed mono-palm with additional palm tree(s) will work in the area first proposed along Cook Street; 2) propose an alternative location onsite; 3) look at another property in the area to accommodate the mono-palm; and 4) provide a landscape proposal and photo-sims of the proposed areas. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent. Commissioner Lambell left at 2:20 p.m. GiIsIanninq\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 2. CASE NO: PP/CUP 14-228 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ABSOLUTE PARTNERS ONE, LLC. 45-800 Mohawk Circle, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminary approve a four unit condominium project totaling 7,666 square feet. LOCATION: 73-793 SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE ZONE: R-3, 13,000 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a four unit condominium project totaling 7,666 sq. ft; units will range from 1,075 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. The proposal includes on-site parking, new landscape, a single entry driveway, carport, and lighting. This project meets all the development standards for height and setbacks. The architectural style of this project is modern with a low, flat roof line, and is compatible with surrounding residential developments. Building height is proposed at 13'-2", which is below the building height maximum of 18' for that zone with a small.tower element in the middle that goes up to almost 14' in height. The area along Shadow Mountain Drive has condominiums and single story apartments so this project is compatible to the land use. The applicant is applying for a conditional use permit for an exception to the parking standards. Since the parking is greater for condominiums than apartment sites, they are proposing eight parking stalls which staff feels meets the intent of the parking ordinance. The front wall along Shadow Mountain Drive is shown as precision block and normally the City doesn't allow those unless it is painted or stuccoed over, however in this case it fits with the modernists design and the score lines are done in such a way that matches. Staff is recommending approval. The Committee reviewed and discussed the existing walls on the property and asked who maintains them. MR. MARTIN BRUNNER, Architect, said there is a 2'/2' easement for the use of this property that is a recorded easement. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if that gives him control of the easement and MR. BRUNNER said it gives them control of this piece of property; however he did not look into who maintains the wall and doesn't know where the property line is located. Commissioner Clark suggested that staff check this out prior to going to Planning Commission because there could be design issues in the future. GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.doa Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2014 The Commission and the applicants reviewed and discussed the landscape plans and MR. TOM DOCZI, TKD Landscape Architects, said they changed the trees on the landscape plan to higher branching trees as suggested by the City's Landscape Specialist. Chair Van Vliet asked if the HVAC condensers were on the side yards or were they package units on the roof. MR. BRUNNER said it will be split units in the back yard. The Commission discussed the exterior walls, carports, and future solar inverters. MR. BRUNNER said the carport is pitching away from the street facing south. ACTION: Commissioner McAuliff moved to approve as presented. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-3 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and Lambell, McIntosh, and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None Nfl. COMMENTS None V11. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Colombini, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 5-0-3 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES, and Lambell, McIntosh, and Vuksic absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. __. k,EVIN SWARTZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER SECRETARY r 4AN JE JU Y Ft;_ )RDING SECRETARY GdIVIannina\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141125min.docx Page 12 of 12