Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-08 '+rr✓ '*rrr �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESER T ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2015 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 19 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 19 Paul Clark X 17 2 Gene Colombini X 18 1 Allan Levin X 17 2 Michael McAuliffe X 17 2 Jim McIntosh X 18 1 John Vuksic X 18 1 Also Present Tony Bagato, Acting Director, Community Development Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:03/10/15;08/11/15, 08/25/15, 11/10/15 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes for the November 24, 2015 meeting will be reviewed and approved at the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2015 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 15-346 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOSEPH CASAN & CATHY GALLETTA, 74-210 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a facade enhancement; Desert Business Interiors. LOCATION: 74-210 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, said this was a proposal for a facade enhancement for Desert Business Interiors and presented a PowerPoint exhibit of the existing building and described the changes. He explained that the applicant has requested facade enhancement assistance from the City and the Economic Development Director will calculate the funds available to the applicant. Staff is looking for a recommendation from the ARC to the City Council to allocate those funds. He pointed out that one portion of the building will increase in height from 17'-6" to 19' and another portion will increase from 17'-6" to 22'. He passed around the materials board for the Commission's review. MR. GLENN SCHMIDT, architect, described the elevation changes and discussed the materials being used on the building. The Commission and MR. SCHMIDT discussed encroachment into the right-of-way, the fascia, offsets between the elements, the depth of the parapets, and ADA access. They also reviewed and discussed the thickness of the parapets and requested a line-of-sight study, a roof plan, and the Commission recommended adding more relief and mass to break up the building. MR. JOSEPH CASAN, applicant, said they are moving their business from Rancho Mirage after 10 years and bringing five million plus in revenue. He explained to the Commission that he was on a tight budget and said at first they were only going to knock out the windows and paint the building. However, when he heard about the facade enhancement program they decided to submit their request for funds to spice up the block which is across from Manhattan of the Desert and Shogun. After talking with Mr. Alvarez in Economic Development and the Planning Department, they realized they needed to do more than what was planned to qualify for the funds. So he hired an architect and they are here today to get feedback Gi',P1=ning,J=ineJudy\ARC` Nlinutes`.2015`,151208min.docx Page 2 of 4 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2015 from the Commission. He realizes they may not be able to afford this full reconstruction and if they decide not to apply for the fagade enhancement, they will use their current budget to paint the building, put in new windows and open their business. However, he would like to make all the buildings contemporary and rich where people will come to shop. The Commission and the architect continued to review and discuss the plans and the Commission gave him direction. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 15-346 subject to: 1) submitting a detailed roof plan; 2) provide a rendering that shows both buildings to the east and west; 3) work with the City's Building and Safety Department on all ADA access; especially the ramp requirements; 4) review property line in relation to building location and make sure that the building pop-outs, which project into the public right-of-way, will be approved; 5) review the building offsets between the tenants; 6) all parapets must return a substantial amount with volume to complete the forms; 7) the wall behind the awnings, supported by cables, shall be smooth stucco; 8) look at the placement and geometry of all the windows and provide some relief, which will help break-up the building; 9) the r architectural plans need more details to fully understand the scope of work; 10) the property owner needs to identify the final construction budget so the architect can submit accurate plans; and 11) provide a line of sight showing building perspectives. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: SA 15-359 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICE PRECIADO, 80580 Apple Court, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a black awning; Mis Amore's. LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo, Suite 2 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for new awnings for the former Napas Tapas building and presented a PowerPoint exhibit of the building. He stated that the tenant improvement plans have 01 been submitted to Building and Safety. He pointed out where the awnings would be located and said the signage would be painted onto the awning. T�ingJmine, dyARCANlinutes`,2015`J51209min.aocx Page 3 of 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2015 W The Commission reviewed and discussed the awning's location, the lighting, and how the awning relates to the parapets. The Commission recommended Sunbrella or an equivalent. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved for approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Levin, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:27 p.m. ERIC CEJA SSOCIATE PLANNER SECRETAFtY A JUD E DING SECRETARY G:'TImning Janine Judy ARC,1 Minutes`;2015,.151208min.docx Page 4 of 4