Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-13 ` ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 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 1 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 1 Paul Clark X 1 Gene Colombini X 1 Allan Levin X 1 Michael McAuliffe X 1 Jim Mclntosh X 1 John Vuksic X 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 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 9, 2014 & December 23, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the December 9, 2014 and December 23, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Chair Van Vliet and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and ` Vuksic voting YES and Lambell abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MIbNUTES January 13, 2015 V'. CASES: A. Final Drawings: None B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-434 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AP PALM DESERT VILLAGE LLC, 1856 Old Reston Avenue, Reston, VA 20190 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminary approve two new office/retail buildings (15,247 sq. ft. and 16,814 sq. ft): University Village Office Park. LOCATION: 36-963 & 36-927 Cook Street ZONE: P.C.D. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal for two new office/retail buildings within University Village. He said in 2003 the City Council approved retail, office, and hotel in this area. He presented a PowerPoint of this property and pointed out Parcels 5 and 6 and said the property is currently in escrow. The staff report stated that this would be a two story building with retail on the ground floor; however going through the entitlement process the applicant is now proposing single story office buildings. Staff was concerned with losing the retail aspect and suggested they design the buildings to attract both retail and office. He pointed out that the applicant is mimicking the office and retail buildings currently in the complex. Commissioner Lambell was concerned that the design for office/retail didn't have enough personality for this complex. She said the architecture of the Cold Stone building and the two story fa�ade at the corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street is unique and attention is drawn to it. These buildings have varying heights and personality and she is not seeing that in their proposal. The Commission and staff discussed the architecture of the complex. Commissioner Mclntosh asked if there was a design theme as part of the approval process. Mr. Swartz said there wasn't a design theme. Commissioner Vuksic said his group designed some of the buildings in this complex and on the retail portion there was an architectural design theme that the developer wanted to carry through. However, on the office portion it was thought of as a separate animal as you can see since the architecture is so different from the retail portion. G�Planning,JanineJudy�ARCNMinutes�2015\t50113min.docx Page 2 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2015 Commissioner Mclntosh said with the way Parcel 5 and Parcel 6 is laid out, it is one of the main entries into the complex and visually the site demands something more architecturally significant. MR. GABRIEL LUJAN, project designer, said there are two different projects in one; the retail and the professional office buildings. Commissioner Mclntosh said there are two blank walls as you drive through the buildings and there is a real opportunity to do something that would contribute to the circulation and experience as you come into the center. MR. CHARLES CROOKALL, Shaw Properties, said the buyer of these two lots own a good portion of the office condos and if this was all retail, he would not buy these two lots. The applicant doesn't want to discourage retail but he didn't see this as being a real retail winner. Mr. Swartz said staff was okay with them going to single story for professional offices only, but staff wants the exterior of the building to lend itself to retail in case a retail tenant wanted to come in. Commissioner Mclntosh said everyone has the right to make their property economically successful, but he thinks the elevation facing Cook Street needs to lend itself to more retail. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission can require the applicant to put more architecture into this building regardless of the usage. Commissioner Mclntosh said this site could have some great designs with a nice play of massing, articulation, color and texture that would make this a successful project on this corner. This entire corner is the entrance to Palm Desert and if it starts getting diluted it will be a disaster. He suggested they do something in character with the existing development on the corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street. MR. LUJAN said they envisioned this to be the start of the office buildings and that is why they mimicked the architecture in the complex. MR. COORKALL said the owner is interested in more office space which apparently there is a demand for it at this location. They are sensitive to the look and will think about jazzing it up on the corners of the entry. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission is not dictating that this has to be retail it just needs more architecture. Commissioner McAuliffe said ultimately the City wants to see this project be as successful as it can be; be it retail or office. The issue is not that this Commission is trying to dictate one direction or another it is that the applicant has an opportunity to raise the bar with these two building because of the approximate location to the front door. He suggested they not mimic literally what else has been done already. There is a great opportunity to do something that makes these buildings even more special than what has been proposed today. He suggested they take a look at the width between the two buildings. He understands that this is where the property lines are set up for these two buildings, but no matter what the architectural style is it will be perceived as a wall. If there were an opportunity for those two buildings to breathe a bit between each other, then it will be a much nicer experience. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150113min.docx Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION I�iNUTES January 13, 2015 Commissioner Vuksic discussed changes in elevations and how to carry that through as three-dimensional forms and not all on one wall plane. He also mentioned the mechanical screens and making them an engaging piece of geometry. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 14-434 subject to: 1) adding more articulation on the main drive aisle elevation; 2) review design of mechanical screening; 3) review spacing between the two buildings; 4) break up the long plane of the buildings by using architectural elements; 5) don't mimic the existing office buildings and try to incorporate some of the existing retail building architecture; and 6) submit a rendering showing both buildings in total length from Cook Street. 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. 2. 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' monopalm. LOCATION: 40-004 Cook Street ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated this was continued from a previous meeting for a 48' monopalm on Cook Street. The applicant looked on site to relocate the monopalm but since there isn't room along Country Club Drive they are still proposing the monopalm in the original location. In this area, they are proposing to relocate two palm trees currently in this location and adding additional live palms along with the monopalm. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, property owner, said the residents expressed a concern for the adjacent condominium that would be facing the monopalm and that is why he believes it would be better in the original location. He didn't see it impacting any view lines and the view line from the street wouldn't be impacted because it's not near the intersection. The Commission discussed the number of trees being removed and replaced. MR. MIKES HAYES, Verizon representative, said at the last meeting he was given direction to replace the live trees with shorter trees to provide more screening making it look more natural. He indicated there would be a total of six trees in this proposed location. The photo sim showing the location and the number of palm trees was confusing to the Commission so Commissioner Vuksic requested an updated photo sim showing the height, location, and actual number of all trees. Mr. Swartz G�4=lanning�JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150113min.docx Page 4 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2015 also suggested that the trunk and the fronds match the canary palms. MR. HAYES said he will correct Sheet L1 to reflect the correct number of trees and submit to staff for review and approval. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve a 48' monopalm and equipment shelter subject to: 1) submitting a photo sim to reflect Sheet L1; and 2) staff shall approve location, quantity and heights of palm trees as depicted on Sheet L1. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Mclntosh and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 3. CASE NO: MISC 14-402 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROBERT TUTTLE ARCHITECTS, 33533 Pebble Brook Circle, Temecula, CA 92592 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminary approve an exterior facade modification to the former Fairfield Inn by Marriott by converting it to a new Springhill Suites by Marriott. LOCATION: 72-322 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-4 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said the existing Fairfield Inn by Marriott, destroyed by fire last year, is now being replaced by Springhill Suites by Marriott. The applicant is proposing a modification to the architecture of the building. The height of the building will remain the same at 32'-9". The room count will be reduced from 113 rooms to 108 rooms because the rooms will be a slightly larger. He presented photos of the existing hotel and the layout and passed around the actual color samples for the Commissioner's review. He pointed out that the color indicated on the plans were not the same as the actual color samples. He also presented a landscape plan. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the additional massing and asked at what point the engineer will restructure the entire hotel. MR. RANDY SAWN, representative for Robert F. Tuttle Architects said the engineer is re-engineering all the lateral loads, the gravity loads, portion, and compression for the entire structure. MR. CLYDE KIM, architect, said the real challenge is that the current building does not meet current codes. This building was built around 1982 so the structural engineer is going through and making sure that it meets the current code. He said he met with Building and Safety who told them to make sure the building meets the current codes. They are scabbing onto the existing structure to increase the size of the rooms and upgrading to meet ADA requirements. MR. SAWN said since this is a fire G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150113min.docx Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION M�NUTES January 13, 2015 damaged building the insurance company is willing to pay for anything that is upgraded to meet today's code requirements. The Commission reviewed and discussed the south facing exterior walls on Highway 111 that were just painted stucco and suggested adding details and features with architectural interest to allow for relief. They also discussed the lack of shading on the windows on the west facing rooms. Commissioner Mclntosh said windows tend to be shaded dark relief and not in the plane of the wall. It would help the architecture if there was some sort of articulation in the openings and massing. He also suggested having differences in the stucco finishes and textures and to consider introducing another material other than plaster. . Commissioner Vuksic mentioned the roof plan and the parapet element not going back far enough and suggested connecting them to complete the form. He also discussed the putting green on the plans and said there are some synthetic grasses that look really good and some that don't. He asked them to pay attention to what kind of grass ends up on the specs. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 14-402 subject to: 1) review the side of the structure facing Highway 111 and the lack of shading for the windows in west facing rooms; 2) include additional details and features with architectural interest in some of the exterior walls that were found bland; 3) provide differences in stucco finishes and textures; 4) review window design for articulation in openings and massing; and 5) review parapet design to connect the form. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8- 0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: ZOA 14-421 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25.40.080 Fences and Walls. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented the Fences and Walls ordinance amendment. He described the proposed changes and mentioned that this will move on to the Planning Commission and the City Council for final review and approval. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. 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. G\!'IanningJanineJudy41RC\1Minutes\2015\150113min.docx Page 6 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2015 VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Mclntosh, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. �,' �,� TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY JA JUD R C DING ECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudy�.4RC\1Minutes\2015\150113min.docx Page 7 of 7