Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-23 �\•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES June 23, 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 11 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 11 Paul Clark X 11 Gene Colombini X 11 Allan Levin X 11 Michael McAuliffe X 11 Jim McIntosh X 10 1 r John Vuksic X 10 1 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:03/10/15; III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 26, 2015 & June 9, 2015 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the May 26, 2015 and June 9, 2015 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. w ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 15-140 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SOBHY YOUSEF, 1708 North Palm Canyon, Palm Springs, CA 92267 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve new signage and site improvements; Shell Station. LOCATION: 77-920 Avenue of the States ZONE: P.C-2 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this sign and a number of improvements came before the Commission about a month ago for the Shell Station on Avenue of the States and Washington Street. The Commission continued the item and asked the applicant to revisit the proposed canopy sign. The Commission didn't want to lose the unique design of the existing canopy by just putting a fascia board around it and questioned how the fascia would interface with the existing building and architecture. The applicant has worked with staff; however, they are still proposing to redo the fascia on the canopy. Staff still has the same concerns on the canopy/sign design, but is recommending approval of the other signs on the site to allow the applicant to move forward with the building improvements. The Commission discussed the different stone types for the sign and Mr. Ceja said the applicant did not revisit that and focused specifically on the canopy. If the Commission would like, they could recondition them to redo the face of the monument sign. The Commission and Ms. Nina Brantham, Permit Agent with Sign Development, reviewed and discussed the plans and illumination of the signage. They asked her what has been revised. She said they have illustrated how the canopy will look when lined up with the roof line. She said nothing else has changed but presented an alternative plan using the existing canopy fascia that shows the sign on the canopy fascia and eliminating the red and yellow LED on the canopy. The Commission reviewed and discussed the alternative plan and suggested that a representative from Sign Development come to the next ARC meeting to address their concerns regarding the details and the basic dimensions of the canopy. GAPJanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 2 of 12 `%WV ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 Commissioner Clark had concerns with the drainage of the canopy and wanted to know what the holes will look like and how it will affect the design and the architecture. He also pointed out damaged elements on the fascia and other parts of the existing building and suggested they be cleaned up. Chair Van Vliet wanted to know the architect's comments regarding the two different design elements; one big and boxy and the other the original architecture. Commissioner Vuksic said neither of the two designs are acceptable and said the canopy over the gas pumps looks like it belongs to a different building and thinks the existing building is kind of interesting with nice thin lines. The second proposal is just a sign on the existing canopy which looks like it's just tacked on there; it doesn't have any architectural merit that would warrant approval. He felt the size of the sign didn't belong up there and suggested the Shell emblem needs to go somewhere else and not at the top. Mr. Bagato said under code, canopies are not necessarily entitled to a sign. Commissioner McAuliffe discussed the height of the canopy and suggested possibly suspending the sign underneath it at the apex. There are options where they can preserve the architectural character of the canopy that is there and how it relates to the existing building. He didn't think there was any reason why they couldn't introduce some of the corporate colors into the canopy in a very refined way and simplify what they are doing. Commissioner Levin pointed out that the Commission at the previous meeting had requested the applicant to address several of their concerns regarding: providing a sample and details of exposed LED lighting; providing the height of the fascia on the canopy and how it ties into the fascia on the front of the building; consider enhancing monument base to match existing stone or apply another treatment to reduce the clash between the two materials; and providing a drawing to reflect how the building and canopy meet. He said the applicant received these recommendations and they chose to ignore them. Commissioner Vuksic thought they could put a Shell emblem where the truss elements come together. The horizontal beam and the truss elements come down to it right at the point where they all come together without the box. He thought that would be worth some study. ,rr GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case SA 15-140 subject to: 1) applicant to address previous comments from the May 26, 2015 meeting (see attached); and 2) a representative from Sign Development shall attend the next meeting to address details. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 15-164 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CRAIG AND MEGAN ARMSTRONG, 72-748 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new exterior paint color change. LOCATION: 72-753 Beavertail Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this came before the Commission because the property owner did not obtain paint color approval before repainting his home. Since the colors are not neutral desert tones, staff didn't want to approve them over the counter. He explained this was not complaint driven but that Code Compliance was driving through the neighborhood and noticed a new paint color and asked the applicant to come talk with Planning. Mr. Ceja presented photos of the house showing that it was painted a grayish color with a light blue trim. He visited the site and noticed there are other homes in the neighborhoods along Pitahaya Street and Beavertail Street that have similar paint color schemes. Staff is recommending approval of this paint color. MR. CRAIG ARMSTRONG, applicant, said they purchased this home as a "fixer upper" a few years back and have made several improvements to it. Painting the house is the last step before redoing the landscaping. They have received positive feedback from their neighbors with the improvements and were unaware of the color approval process. He passed around photos of the neighborhoods with the different color schemes and stated that he would appreciate the Commission's approval. The Commission discussed the color change and the color scheme throughout the neighborhoods. Commissioner Lambell felt that there is merit in deviating from the desert palette because the neighborhood was eclectic and arty. Commissioner Vuksic was sure that some of the 14 paint color changes in this neighborhood were never approved but felt GARanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 4 of 12 `ftw"' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 that for the most part there are some pretty reasonable examples and didn't find most of them offensive. He stated that the Commission has to be careful with how they approve this because they don't want other people asking for approval because their neighborhood is eclectic and arty. He believes that the ones that will be approved will meet the standards. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve as presented. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 15-162 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ANGEL VIEW, 73-468 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new exterior paint color and new awning color; Angel View. LOCATION: 73-468 Highway 111 r� ZONE: C.1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this proposal for approval of a new awning for the Angel View store located on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and San Pablo Avenue. The applicant is proposing new paint colors on the building and walls, as well as replacing the existing awning. He presented a color board with the proposed colors. The new awning will retain the current frame and will resemble the size and shape of the existing awning but with a new color. They are also proposing to repaint the building on all sides along with a new stucco color for the block wall. He said they are proposing three colors and identified where the colors will be located. MR. IRA BOIKO, Boiko Realty, stated they will be replacing the awning at 44-855 San Pablo as well because he is trying to get the whole center to match. The Commission reviewed and discussed the paint and awning colors. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned because the burgundy was such a powerful color and said they have to be careful with using such a strong color. Usually an awning is an accent on a building, but in this case it's a dominant color. He is fine with the color proposed for the building and wall, but the burgundy was tough. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 Commissioner McAuliffe said he didn't have an issue with the burgundy but what doesn't work very well is the dark value of the awning plus the dark value of the brown color together. They are in the same color value so it's going to be very heavy. He recommended substituting color #3 for a lighter wall color; something similar to color value#1. Commissioner Vuksic felt that an awning is an opportunity to create some pop and to get a nice accent on the building; however in this case, the awning is the building and he wasn't comfortable with the strong color because there's too much of it. Chair Van Vliet also felt the magnitude of the burgundy would be too much.. ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve the awning color as presented subject to: 1) substituting block wall color#3 with another color similar in color value to color #1; and 2) present to staff for review and approval. Commissioner Clark made the second. Chair Van Vliet called for a roll call vote. Motion carried on a 5-2-0-1 vote (AYES: Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe; NOES: Van Vliet, Vuksic; ABSENT: McIntosh 4. CASE NO: MISC 15-151 y APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: RAJNI JUTLA, 6900 E. Green Lake Way, Suite J, Seattle, WA 98115 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new single-family home with a roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 76-881 Florida Avenue ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this project is for a new house within Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC). He provided a Google street view of the location and said the lot is about 6,300 square feet and the home with the building footprint is 2,261 square feet. The home meets all the setbacks but it is over the lot coverage of 35%; they are 35.5%. He also pointed out that anything over 15 to 18' cannot be approved over the counter and is forwarded to the ARC for review. The homes near this property range from 12 to 15' in height. The only section on this house that is above 15' is the loft area in the center of the home that goes up to 17'-4". Staff advertised this to the neighborhood and said the neighbors to the east have some privacy concerns with the loft windows facing their patio. Mr. Swartz presented a photo of the neighbor's patio and said the neighbors understand that their views will be compromised. Staff is recommending that if the GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 6 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 r height is approved that the windows on the east and west be removed because of privacy concerns. MR. JOHN STANFORD, architect, said the windows on the loft are up high enough that a 6' tall person wouldn't be able to see down into the neighbor's yard. The view would be out that direction, but no view into a yard. If the windows are approved, he would like them to be operable; like a hopper. It wouldn't have a view, but would allow for ventilation to the loft area. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the loft windows. Commissioner Clark asked the architect for his opinion on staffs recommendation that the windows be removed. MR. STANFORD said he and staff talked about a translucent paint on the windows that would be acceptable; however, he wants to present the best scenario to the client. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the windows and said that neighborhood there is a reasonable expectation to have a one-story home next to you where there isn't an opportunity for someone to look down into your yard. The Commission and the applicant continued to discuss the loft windows. The Commission and the architect discussed the air conditioning unit r and the setbacks for the entry wall. MR. STEVEN BRUNT and MRS. LAURA BRUNT, neighbors to the east, had concerns with the height of the house and the windows that would create a privacy issue in their backyard with the spa and patio. They would like this to keep within the character of the neighborhood which are one-story homes. They feel that it is a big house for a small lot and it looks down into their yard; which they object to that. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, explained that they changed the setbacks in 2013 to allow larger homes in the PDCC to be 5 and 5 because the city received complaints that those lots were too small to build what people wanted to build these days. He also pointed out that this is still considered a one-story house that has a loft. Commissioner Clark suggested they either eliminate the east and west windows or use opaque glass because of the privacy concerns. Commissioner Vuksic also suggested a hopper window. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the profile of the roof where the loft is located and the neighbor's property to the east and said it seems the loft is further shifted away from their property. It will have much less visual impact than even as portrayed in the drawings just because y► the way it is pulled back from the edges as well as the distance. He felt it will really have a minimal impact. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 7 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve the height as submitted (18') subject to: 1) applicant shall work with staff on the east and west loft windows to consider translucent glass or hopper windows to eliminate privacy concerns; 2) applicant shall work with staff on block wall setbacks; and 3) increase of lot coverage. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 15-128 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LARREA PARTNERS, LLC 7 Via Meranda, Rancho Mirage CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve the development of a 62-bed memory care facility; Palm Desert Memory Care. LOCATION: 78-825 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 13,000(3) W Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this proposal for a one-story, 62-bed memory care facility with 19 on-site parking spaces located on Larrea Street was continued from a previous meeting. He reminded the Commission that this was a single story building but they raised the height to 22'. The applicant has increased certain elements to give it a little more massing, but is still within the height for that zone. The applicant submitted a 3-D rendering of the block wall as recommended by the Commission to show how the block wall staggers and the elements that pop out about 3'. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the wall, stucco materials, parapets, and the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Vuksic felt that by reducing the parapet on the back plane to 19' was a mistake. It helps the elevation but in reality it makes those masses in the front look like they're not as deep because once you turn and go back 8' it drops and you see the end of it. In 3-D, the reality would not be as good as if you just kept it consistent. MR. RUDY CARBAJAL, designer, said he was worried about having a real long parapet line and wanted to break up some of the massing a little. In reality, when you're down on the street level you will hardly notice that being back 8'. Commissioner Vuksic thought it might look odd for it to drop in the back and said it should go around and butt into 4 something that is taller. He said it helps the elevation but the elevation GAPlanningWnineJudMRC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 is not reality; 3D is reality. If the back element was the same height and just a continuous parapet, then you wouldn't know how far back that mass is going. Commissioner Levin and MR. CARBAJAL discussed the double rolling gate. MR. CARBJAL said they would be metal and decorative in nature. He mentioned that the wall had not yet been designed. Commissioner Vuksic said the building was handsome and appreciates how hard they have worked at creating these masses and articulating the elevations, but he was concerned about the details. He asked them about the corner element that is covering the corner with glass that was very thin and coming out a long way. He asked if that was a parapet or was it just flat on top. MR. CARBAJAL said it's going to be a parapet about 1' thick, it's all framing and will go back a couple of feet and drop down enough to get a slope with a drain in that corner. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out a thin, plastered element right in the middle of the same elevation and asked if that was a parapet. MR. CARBAJAL said it would be stucco all the way around with a flat top with enough slope for more drains on the back side to flow to the front. The Commission and MR. CARBAJAL discussed the drains and gutters and Commissioner Vuksic wanted them to be thin r and clean and said this Commission will review those details on the construction drawings. The Commission reviewed and discussed the 5' high wall and Mr. Swartz said the wall was 12 to 13' back from the face of curb and per code it should be 15' back and would need a setback exception. Commissioner Clark pointed out that the wall has architectural merit. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the edge of the stone veneer and how it returns. He wants to see that these materials don't end on an outside corner; it needs to come around so that the form has integrity. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicants if they were planning on putting funds towards the Art in Public Places program in lieu of placing a piece of art on the property MR. JOSH LEVY, Larrea Partners, said he would like to put a piece of art on the project but part of the challenge would be the type of art and where it would be located on the property. He is trying to figure out how to design it and what pieces he can use for the safety of the residents. Commissioner Levin suggested they do something artistic in the design of the gate. Commissioner McAuliffe said they could possibly use a portion of the wall to house or be a backdrop for a piece of art and let it be an wr extension of what they've already done with the design. GAP1anning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 9 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminarily approve the design, landscape, and block wall exception at 5' high 13' back from curb subject to details being reviewed at the construction document submittal. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. Commissioner Levin left at 2:30 2. CASE NO: PP/CZ/DA 15-86 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PROSPECT COMPANIES, 153 South Sierra Avenue, Suite 173, Solano Beach, CA 92075 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving construction of four new buildings consisting of 12 memory care beds and 15 assistive living units; Legend Gardens. LOCATION: 73-685 Catalina Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented plans for the expansion of Legend Gardens on the corner of Catalina Way (Catalina) and San Pascual Avenue (San Pascual). The owner has purchased two single family homes with an application submitted to demolish them and convert them into part of the expansion. They also have a change of zone application to apply the senior overly zone and the R-2, multi- family residential zoning designation and a development agreement to ensure that some of those beds are made available for affordable units. He presented photos and described the existing building. He pointed out where the expansion would take place and said there is an existing parking area that is sufficient to accommodate even the new expanded area. The expanded area would include 15 new assisted living beds and 12 memory care units. There are essentially four new buildings to the site; one on Catalina, one on San Pascual, one at the back of the property, and a smaller building that faces the parking area. The applicant has stated that the architecture and the exterior finishes for the building match the existing building which is a light stucco finish and the same color for the roof tile. The elevation that faces Catalina will have a 4' high block wall in front and staff is recommending that the block wall match the existing block wall for the entire property. Staffs concern was that the whole area should look like one solid facility and that there isn't a hodgepodge of architecture. Staff is also recommending that once the new buildings are built, that the existing buildings get painted so they all look the same. The drawings don't reflect the exact colors but the existing building is white G:\PlanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 stucco with a red tile roof and the building movement and style also matches. Staff has taken a look at the drawings and has asked the applicant to dress up the blank elevations on San Pascual and Catalina. He discussed the color board submitted and indicated that it doesn't reflect what they are actually proposing. The roof line in the plans match the roof of the existing Legend Gardens and staff is satisfied with the landscape palette for the interior garden but the Landscape Specialist has asked that they reduce the total quantity of plants due to overplanting. They will preserve some of the existing landscape on the two residential homes and relocate the palm trees elsewhere on the site. The Commission and Mr. Ceja reviewed the parking calculations for the site. Mr. Ceja said their parking study shows they will need one additional parking stall on site and the applicant thinks they are fine without it. The Planning Commission has the ability to allow for a parking exception. Staff is recommending a condition that a valid driver's license is needed to store a vehicle on site. He stated that on any given day there are no more than five cars on site. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the roof tiles with the overspray treatment that will match the existing building's roof tile. MR. GREG IRWIN, architect, said this existing property today is a very unique property and fits a unique spot in this market and meets a very bottom end affordability of senior housing. The best way to do the project is to match the existing building and keep the affordability because senior housing is so expensive. As far as the walls, they have planted heavy landscaping in those areas because they didn't want windows in the memory care, due to noise to the surrounding neighbors. He didn't like faux windows because they never look the way they're supposed to. They also didn't like the white on white building with plum tile so the goal is to change the original building to desert tone colors as proposed. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the HVAC units. Mr. Irwin said the individual units will be inside above the window with the condenser outside and screened by the patio walls and the air conditioners will be hidden on the roof. The Commission was concerned that the units will be visible and Commissioner Vuksic said it was important that they not be above the height of the parapet. Mr. Irwin said they will be below the parapets. Commissioner Clark brought up the issue of the blank elevations and r MR. IRWIN said the elevation that faces the back property line is the memory care unit and the landscaping will hide that elevation. He GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2015 reminded the Commission that they prefer not to have windows because of noise issues. He also thought the elevation in front would be great for public art they just need to figure out what they can do there. Commissioner Lambell said they do not rely on landscaping to cover up or enhance a building. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant what he could do to fix those blank elevations. MR. IRWIN said they could do some trellis work to make it natural to the exterior. Commissioner Lambell stated this was important and needs to be addressed. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case PP/CZ/DA 15-86 with comments subject to: 1) dressing up blank elevations on San Pascual Avenue and Catalina Way; 2) existing buildings shall be repainted to match; and 3) HVAC units shall be screened. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Commissioners Levin and McIntosh absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None Vl. COMMENTS The Commission discussed the fire-damaged Fairfield Inn and the unkempt property. VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Clark, second by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 6- 0-2, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, and Levin and McIntosh absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Q--- — TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY xhjlt� A I EJUDfl RDIN SECRETARY 14 GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2015\150623min.docx Page 12 of 12