Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-27 � � � ��'�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES January 27, 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 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 Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting: III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 13, 2015 Action: Chair Van Vliet moved to approve the January 13, 2015 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. ARCHITECTURAL REV�YV COMMISSION a MINUTES � January 27, 2015 �. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. 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 this project for three monument signs at the Monterey Shore Plaza at the Costco Center was continued from the November 25, 2014 meeting. He restated that they are proposing three monument signs; C1 at the main entrance along Dinah Shore Drive (Dinah Shore), C2 at the corner of Miriam Way and Dinah Shore Drive, and C3 on the corner of Monterey Avenue (Monterey) and Dinah Shore Drive. He pointed out that the monument sign on Monterey was approved back in 2007, but was never built. He presented a PowerPoint of photos pointing out the existing monument sign at the main entrance and the architecture of the center. Some of the concerns at the last meeting were the height of the sign at 10' and the style of the sign didn't meet the architectural merit of the code. There were also some comments that the sign wasn't wide enough and looked spindly. Two of the signs will have six tenant panels and one sign will have four tenant panels. The signs have been reduced from 10' to 9'-6" and stone has been added to the columns. He presented photo sims of the new design. The signs with six tenant panels have been widened from 1'-6" to 2'-4". Staff is still concerned that the monument signs are still too tall. Staff spoke with the applicant and they are willing to reduce the overall height to about 8'-6". He said there are eight different property owners and the applicant is having a problem getting all the property owners to agree on one design. Staff is recommending additional architectural merit and a reduction in height. G\f'lanninc\Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx PagG 2 OI �O � ARCHITECTURAL RE�aIV COMMISSION � MINUTES January 27, 2015 The Commission and the applicant discussed the total height of the signs and the number of tenant panels. Chair Van Vliet agreed that the signs were too tall and suggested that they reduce the height by at least 2' and reduce the number of tenant panels from six to four. The Commission discussed the height of the signs and the line of sight at the intersection. Mr. Swartz said staff would make sure that it meets the line of sight requirements. Commissioner Vuksic said he understands the need to be seen because it is a big center. He feels that the massing looks good and agrees with the suggestion to reduce the tenant panels to four so that it doesn't look cluttered. He also suggested that they make the name of the center, "Monterey Shore", a ` little larger because the tenant panels seem to dominate the sign. He recommended that the stone elements need to be offset more and doubled in thickness. MR. DANNY GRATHWOHL, Monterey Shore Plaza representative, said if they have to reduce the number of panels they are probably not going to be able to do this project. He explained that they have eight different owners in the center and some of them have as many as five tenants and in order for them to make it work they will need six panels on the two signs. There are two building owners that have superior sign rights and in order for them to agree to all this they are going to have to have the larger signs. That is why they did one with four panels and two with six. In reference to the line of sight issue, he feels that the sign at the corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore is set far enough back that if it gets too small it will be lost. The other two signs are closer to the driveways and he agrees those can be smaller. Commissioner Colombini recommended lowering and lengthening the two signs to allow six tenants in three pairs of two and by increasing the length they can add "Plaza" to the sign. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said the code requires 6' maximum to the sign area and if you are going above 6' it is only for architectural elements. He referred to the Desert Gateway sign and said it is no higher than 6' and the panels are smaller. It is architecturally designed to look like a mountain and only the mountain portions are above 6'. Commissioner Mclntosh asked if any of the tenants would want to have corporate identity through color or any unique graphics and MR. GRATHWOHL said there will be some. Commissioner Mclntosh said the presentation looks nice with the uniform tan background color and said the tenant's colors and graphics should play into the design. MR. GRATHWOHL said they will take a look at that. Commissioner Lambell asked for a photo sim with the tenant panels to include the beige background and colors. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REV`�IV COMMISSION MiNUTES � January 27, 2015 Commissioner Vuksic said he understands the need for six panels but at this point there isn't enough architectural merit to warrant six panels. He feels this needs additional interest and composition. MR. GRATHWOHL said they are willing to look for a solution because it is critical to get that number of panels. Commissioner McAuliffe pointed out that the temporary tenant font is substantially bigger than any of the other actual signs and feels there is a lot of space that isn't being utilized. He suggested taking a look at the proportions to get rid of the clutter effect. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. SA 14-313 subject to: 1) reducing the overall height of the signs by at least two feet; 2) consider lowering and lengthening the two signs to allow six tenants in three pairs of two; 3) stone elements shall have additional offsets and doubled in thickness; 4) color of tenant panels shall play into design; 5) submit photo sim with tenant panels to include beige background and tenant colors; and 6) signs need additional architectural merit. 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. 2. CASE NO: MISC 15-25 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JAC CONSTRUCTION, Attn: Jim Spitzig, 74-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve exterior paint for: Embassy Suites. LOCATION: 74-700 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-(4), N.S.P. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a paint color change for Embassy Suites. The existing color is a strong yellow and they are now proposing off white with brown trim. He passed around samples of the paint colors for the Commission's review and said staff is comfortable with the color and is recommending approval. MR. JIM SPITZIG, representative, explained that they bought the hotel about eight months ago and will be doing a total renovation. He said there will also be a landscape and signage renovation which will be brought back to the Commission for review. G,�Flanning�JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION '"'� MINUTES January 27, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic 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. 3. CASE NO: MISC 15-07 � APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: IRONWOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 43-100 Cook Street, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve Portola gate and landscape renovation project; Ironwood Country Club. LOCATION: 49-200 Mariposa Drive ZONE: P.R. 7 (public right-of-way) Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented a request for an entry gate and landscape renovation project for Ironwood Country Club. He said the entry gate is located on Mesa View Drive and Portola Avenue. They will be removing the turf along the perimeter and median and replacing it with desertscape. They are also doing some interior improvements to the country club and that design will continue out to the street and gate house. Staff is comfortable with the proposal and is recommending approval. Commissioner Mclntosh asked if there will be a submittal for the gate house building. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner said the gate house was approved over the counter because it is set further back, but when the landscape renovation plans came in he thought it should be brought to the Commission for review. MR. ROB PARKER, RGA Landscape Architects, said this gate house building is a smaller version of the main gate minus the porte-cochere. The Commission and the applicant discussed the desert landscape and water usage. MR. PARKER said with the removal of all the turf, they will probably cut water usage by 75%. When this project is completed this summer, they will start renovating the exterior Portola section, which is also part of their ongoing improvement project. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 5 of 10 A4FtCF#ITECTURAL RE�N COMMISSION r� ~ I�lNUTES January 27, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Mclntosh and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-402 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROBERT F. 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 Springhill Suites by Marriott. LOCATION: 72-322 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-4 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was continued from the last meeting for an exterior fa�ade modification to the former Fairfield Inn by Marriott. The applicant is now proposing a large metal trellis on the south facing exterior brown wall on Highway 111 for vines and the white wall will have an interchangeable metal canvas for an art piece compatible to the Palm Desert community. On the back wall which faces the WalMart Neighborhood Market parking lot they will add another metal trellis for vines. They have projected out a metal frame shade structure to provide shading on the windows. Staff believes these changes break up the massing of the building but are concerned that the vines on the south facing elevations will fry in the summer heat and the metal trellis alone is not an architectural element. Staff talked with the applicant about doing some sort of column to break up that plane. In regards to the art, staff agrees with that idea and would have to talk with the property owner on what type of art they have in mind for that area. Staff emphasized to the applicant that the art cannot be used for advertising and that it would have to be art that is compatible to Palm Desert. He stated there were no changes to the landscape proposal. Staff is looking for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Lambell appreciated that they looked at the three planes and addressed them accordingly. She said vines on a metal trellis on a south facing wall would have a hard time surviving with the summer heat because the metal will heat up. She loves the idea of the G1FlanninS�JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE`�,W COMMISSION °`'� MINUTES January 27, 2015 art piece and asked if this would have to go Art in Public Places and Mr. Swartz said that is something staff would have to work out with the property owner. Chair Van Vliet asked if there was some depth to the trellis or was it flat. MR. CLYDE KIM, architect, said it will project off the wall and will be mesh to allow the vines to crawl up. He appreciated the comments regarding the heat from the trellis which would be detrimental to the plant and will look into that issue. Commissioner Lambell had the same heat issue with the metal framed louvers. Commissioner Colombini suggested a fiberglass material. MR. KIM said if the art work is approved by staff he was thinking about moving it over to the large brown wall to create a more pronounced art work and then create fenestrations on the white wall in order to break up the massing. Commissioner McAuliffe said they don't have to be afraid of the blank walls if there is composition. He thinks the suggestion to move the art piece to the large area probably would work without having to do anything more to the white wall in between because of the porte-cochere and the horizontal element below. He is intrigued by the public art incorporated into the building and feels that could be a very interesting precedent going forward if done well. He thought if they were to pull the signage down from the cornice on the lower left corner, there would be enough composition on that faCade without doing anything else. Commissioner Vuksic agrees that they don't have to put something on every wall. Relief is okay as long as the more developed areas are done well and he doesn't see that these are done well right now. On the front there is a porte-cochere which is fine, however the windows just look like fenestrations in a big flat wall with nothing really special about them. He thinks the vertical column element to the left of the windows is awkward with nothing differentiating it. Looking at the top, there's just a cornice detail that goes along the top of the element then it bumps out a little bit where you have the column element. There is a parapet which he thinks is dictated by what it needs to do on the roof and they are wrapping a cornice around it without creating objects that have some composition. He doesn't feel like strong efforts are being made to make this into attractive architecture and is confused on what style this building is. He thinks the building has a minimalist modernist feel. MR. KIM said as far as the aesthetics are concerned it's driven by the brand guidelines. Springhill Suites wants to achieve certain architecture characteristics which are more uniform and his intent is to follow through with what was approved by the brand. At the last meeting, it was his understanding they were dealing with the G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE�V COMMISSION v � N#�NUTES January 27, 2015 fenestrations. Commissioner Vuksic was sure that he cautioned them about the Commission not designing it for them. He remembers the other gentleman at the last meeting making a comment about throwing something on there and he feels like this is what is behind these changes. MR. KIM understands the Commission's concems and said it is beyond throwing something on there and being done with it. Obviously they are talking about major aesthetic changes. Commissioner Vuksic said it needs to be looked at with careful and learned consideration and he's not for sure that is happening. Mr. Bagato pulled up examples on the internet of other Springhill Suites that have a lot more form and architecture for the Commission's review. Commissioner Vuksic said this is in a real important area and he is concerned that it's not going to meet the mark with the proposed plans. Commissioner Mclntosh said the conditions suggested by the Commission at the last meeting were examples of depth, relief and shadow that were more characteristic forms of desert architecture. What the Commission was trying to explain was that this needs to exhibit itself in those architectural forms instead of the blank wall with the glass in the same plane as the stucco. When you take those things into consideration, you start developing a vocabulary of architecture instead of just adding things on top of it. MR. KIM said a part of their direction was to add the visors to create the shadows along the fenestrations to break up that monotonous massing along the elevation. He said at the last meeting the Commission informed him that they wanted him to stay away from the mid-century modern style of Palm Springs. Unfortunately they have a branding issue that they are trying to capture. For Springhill Suites to come into Palm Desert, he feels they would have a difficult challenge because their branding image isn't compatible for the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Mclntosh didn't think they want to take a literal transplant of another hotel, but there are other examples. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't think having the windows in the same plane as the wall is a branding thing. MR. KIM said no not at all, but the overall architecture they mentioned is more of a modern approach. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't remember dictating style and hopes this Commission hasn't done that. Modern is fine, but it just needs to be done well. It needs to be thoughtFully articulated and he doesn't feel like it's there yet and it shouldn't be that difficult to get it there. Commissioner McAuliffe said the thing they have to resist as a Commission is designing it. A careful message is to make the design internally consistent with itself with whatever that consistency is. If you G,�f�lanning,JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 8 of 10 . ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION � MINUTES January 27, 2015 are looking at something that is more of an international style contemporary then the cornice is not the right direction, but if they are looking for something more traditional then some of the international detailing needs to take on a more traditional flavor. MR. KIM said he understands but it is unfortunate that the message that the design was not compatible with Palm Desert wasn't conveyed clearly enough at the last meeting. He said at the last meeting it was about the fenestrations, breaking up the massing of the walls, and a few other elements and they thought they could resolve those issues fairly effortlessly. Now we will go back and look at something deeper; more profound. Commissioner McAuliffe looking at the internet examples referred to a Springhill Suites product that had a clean contemporary feel. He pointed out the windows, the massing and color and said it didn't have a cornice. Then he pointed out a more traditional product with a rounded cornice and a pitched roof. He stated there is architecture here in the desert that has that kind of detailing and looking at what they have now they are far closer to some of the more contemporary designs then they would be trying to achieve a more traditional design. MR. KIM understands that the Commission can't design it. However, if he comes back and the Commission keeps insisting that this is not the design the City wants, then how do they go about achieving that without the Commission giving a specific intent on what the building wants to be. Commissioner Vuksic said it's about bringing it all together as a good piece of architecture. Right now the building is just floating around and it's not sure of its style. It is not well composed in some instances and the details are not coming together. Commissioner McAuliffe reiterated that carrying one style throughout the design would be easier to accomplish and more financially feasible for the applicant. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to continued Case No. MISC 14-402 subject to: 1) study building to determine architectural style; 2) create more architectural form with depth and shadow; 3) lower signage on the cornice to provide relief; 4) use another form besides metal trellis to break up the building; and 5) the use of interchangeable art is a creative touch and subject to the City's review and approval. 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 G:\PlanningWanineJudyV+RC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 9 of 10 Ah�CHITECTURAL REV��V COMMISSION N�NNUTES � January 27, 2015 VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic (1/14/15) Commissioner Vuksic reported the following at the January 14, 2015 AIPP meeting. The Palm Springs Museum in Palm Desert is experiencing high attendance; they are planning a film series and a modernist lecture in February; four new artists have been considered for the registry; there is a new art exhibit opening at the Palm Desert Community Gallery titled "Coachella Valley Inside and OuY'; currently there is a demand for docents to lead tours the first Saturday of every month; changes have been made to the mural for the Carlos Ortega Villas project; and the new sculptures have been installed on the EI Paseo median. VI�. COMMENTS The Commission discussed Monterey Shore Plaza and holding a possible creative signage workshop. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development discussed the Architectural Review Commission Ordinance regarding the Commission's duty to look at proposed projects in the context of the neighborhood and the neighbors. Vlil. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Levin, 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 2:15 p.m. C� T(:)NY BAGAT , PRINCIPAL PLANNER �G:CRETARY � J���,N E JUDY �;E= RDING ECRETARY G\F'IanninclJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150127min.docx Page 10 of 10