Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-26 �"" '`''�'`` 'r�•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ,� _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � -' MINUTES May 26, 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 9 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 9 Paul Clark X 9 Gene Colombini X 9 Allan Levin X 9 Michael McAuliffe X 9 Jim Mclntosh X 9 �' John Vuksic X 8 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 12, 2015 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the May 12, 2015 meeting minutes. 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. � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 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; Shell Station. LOCATION: 77-920 Avenue of the States ZONE: P.C-2: Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented sign changes, paint color changes and other site improvements for a Shell station located on Avenue of the States and pulled up a Google map of the site for the Commission's review. The applicant will replace the current monument sign with a new digital pricing board and repaint the exterior of the building on all four sides. They will also make � improvements to the canopy that will be consistent with the brand for Shell, which is red and yellow. Two new Shell signs will be attached to the canopy. Staff has a concerned with the proposed logo sign because it extends above the canopy height and the sign code discourages that type of use of a sign. There are two options they have; they can make the canopy a little bigger or they will have to reduce the sign to comply with staff's request. He presented the paint color information and described some of the site improvements for the building. Another concern by staff had to do with the monument sign and said the design is inconsistent due to the use of slump stone as part of the monument sign design and another stone element for the wall. Staff is asking that the applicant to enhance the monument base to either match the stone or do another type of treatment so there is less of a clash between the two materials. Commissioner Levin asked if the entire monument sign would be illuminated. Mr. Ceja said it would be the entire sign and it may be something that the Commission may want to condition. � G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150526min.docx Page 2 of 8 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 � Chair Van Vliet asked if the canopy was being rebuilt or restructured. Mr. Ceja said they will be attaching something to the exterior of it that will raise the canopy elevation a few inches so that it will accommodate the sign and put it back into scale. MS. NINA BRENTHAM, Sign Development, said they will add a 33'/z" fascia around the top of it and will box off the top of the canopy. The sign will be 33%z" and will not go above the fascia. Chair Van Vliet asked if they will leave the sloped structure in place. MS. BRENTHAM answered yes and said they will be putting a box around the canopy so it doesn't show. Chair Van Vliet said the plans didn't reflect that and he didn't understand how it would drain. MS. BRENTHAM said she was sure there would be drain holes and informed the Commission that she would have that detail placed on the drawings. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if it was their intent on the underside to follow the slope or will they level it. MS. BRENTHAM said it will be just on the sides only. Chair Van Vliet asked Ms. Brentham if she had detail on the LED exposed lights that go around the canopy and asked what type of material it was. MS. BRENTHAM said it was an illuminated red bar r� that goes around the canopy and the entire bar lights up. She wasn't sure what the material was. Chair Van Vliet suggested she submit a sample and details for the Commission's review. The Commission and the applicant discussed the canopy fascia. Commissioner Lambell said what exists now is in keeping with the front of the building. She wondered if the two fascia pieces will have some interfacing and what will happen when the building fascia meets the box. Commissioner Clark said it will have kind of a box enclosure overhead for the gas islands but there wouldn't be any changes to the rest of the roof of the main building. MS. BRENTHAM said they will tie the fascia into the top of the building frontage and it will match the canopy. Commissioner Lambell suggested that the applicant submit the height of the fascia on the canopy and how it will tie into the fascia on the front of the building. Commissioner Mclntosh suggested that the drawing be drawn accurately to address how the canopy comes in to help the relationship between the canopy and the building. Commissioner Clark asked if they can do anything to address the base of the monument sign. MS. BRENTHAM said they are not planning on touching the base and said it had been previously ry approved that way. They are only proposing to reface the sign and to repaint just the border. If it was conditioned then they would look G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes�2015\150526min.docx Page 3 of 8 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 + at their options. Commissioner Clark said it is within this Commission's purvue to review it. Commissioner Levin asked if anything was being done to the building on the existing south, north, and west elevations. MS. BRENTHAM said those elevations are being painted solid with a gray border on the bottom to match the front. Commissioner Levin said there is a real eclectic collection of wall materials around that site; cut stone, slump stone, precision around the trash enclosure and another type of stone on the southwest corner. He felt that it is very inconsistent throughout the site. MS. BRENTHAM said they will paint all four sides of the building with shell white with a 12" band at the bottom. Commissioner McAuliffe asked what the purpose was behind the fascia being added to the canopy and did it strictly have to do with the sign. MS. BRENTHAM said this is the Shell look and all of the sites are going with that look and unless there was something in the code that prohibits them from putting up the canopy fascia that is what they are asking for. Commissioner McAuliffe understands that this is a corporate request but architecturally the existing canopy far more relates to the character of the building and thinks there could � be something else that can be done with the logo. However, if that is the request of corporate he understands. The Commission and the applicant discussed the corporate requirements of the height of the canopy, colors, logo, and signage. Mr. Bagato reminded the Commission that they also look at the design of signage in context of the building, so if this is determined that it is not compatible with the building, it would not be approvable. Commissioner McAuliffe said he has no issue with the size, scale, or placement of the logo, but he feels going to the flat canopy with the gentle slope of the building and also maintaining the gentle slope underneath the canopy will look strange. If corporate is willing to entertain an alternate solution and introduce those colors to the canopy, this is a building that does merit looking at the placement of the logo in a slightly different way. Commissioner Clark said he didn't know whether he would have a problem with the logo being on the canopy fascia. It's just how it's done to make it look good and visually attractive and still keep the character of the building. Commissioner McAuliffe said he appreciates what they are planning for this property. v G:\PlanningUanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150526min.docx Page 4 of 8 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 w ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue subject to 1) providing a sample and details of exposed LED lighting; 2) provide the height of the fascia on the canopy and how it ties into the fascia on the front of the building; 3) consider enhancing monument base to match existing stone or apply another treatment to reduce the clash between the two materials; and 4) provide a drawing to reflect how the building and canopy meet. 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. 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 of preliminarily approving two new office/retail buildings (13,772 sq. ft. and 16,080 sq. ft): University Village Office Park. r LOCATION: 36-963 & 36-927 Cook Street ZONE: P.C.D. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this case, as well as the next case, and left the conference room. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this project has returned for the third time for review of two new office/retail buildings in the University Village Office Park. The applicant has made some changes as recommended by the Commission at the last meeting. He described the changes and said this is now more in line with other commercial buildings in the complex. He presented a site plan and a color and materials board for the Commission's review. He had some concerns with the columns and felt they needed to be beefier. He presented a 3-D model for review. The Commission reviewed the awnings, up-lighting, paint colors and the materials board. Commissioner Mclntosh said this was a vast improvement over the last submittal and it looks quite handsome. � G:\PlanningUanineJudNARC\1Minutes�2015\150526min.docx Page 5 of 8 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 i The Commission and the applicant discussed the parapet depth on the entry pop outs for Building 5. The Commission felt there wasn't enough depth for the scale of the building. The Commission suggested that the applicant thicken the parapet depth by a 12" minimum and working with staff for review and approval. Commissioner McAuliffe said the development from where they started to what was presented today is very nicely done and feels they have kept certain identifiable characters of the existing center while having their own identity as well. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to preliminarily approve subject to the applicant working with staff on thickening the parapet depth by a 1' minimum at the entry pop outs for Building 5. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO: DA/PP/CUP 15-87 /Amendment to DA/PP/CUP 07-11 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: EL PASEO HOTEL, LLC, Attn: � Robert Leach, 3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-308, EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve a new design for a previously approved hotel; EI Paseo Hotel LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur Lane ZONE: C-1 8� R-3 As stated previously, Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this case. (See above) Commissioner McAuliffe announced that he recused himself from this case at the last meeting due to a potential proposal of an adjacent property. That proposal ended up not moving forward so he will not have to recuse himself today. He also stated that he has read the previous meeting minutes for this project. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this is the third time that this project has come before the Commission. The first time they proposed a four-story hotel with architectural changes. After that meeting, they reduced the hotel to three stories and two weeks ago �' at the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to take a G:\PlanningVanineJudyWRC\1Minutes�2015\150526min.docx Page 6 of 8 ��rr+ `�.� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 � closer look at the front elevation on the west, the elevation facing Shadow Mountain, and the north elevation. They have returned with changes to the massing and design changes on the elevations. He said the applicant has once again slanted the design of the roof line keeping it within the 42' height limitation for the hotel. They have also removed some of the glass that was used on the balconies and replaced it with a rail system. They have also upgraded some of the column elements to enhance the hotel design on the exterior of the west elevation. On the south elevation, there were comments about the footprint on the floor plans not matching what was shown and he presented those changes. On the east elevation, they made changes to the balconies as well as paint color changes. On the north elevation, they correctly show the stairwell, additional details on the columns, paint color changes, as well as bringing some window space to that elevation. He presented some perspectives and said overall staff is happy with the modifications of the exterior. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission reviewed and discussed the changes to the windows, columns, stairwell and balconies. The Commission asked why the glass was removed from the balconies. MR. ROBERT r� LEACH, Project Manager, said from an operational standpoint the use of glass balconies in a desert environment is not functional. MR. LOUIE DeCARLO, Project Designer, said they didn't eliminate the glass all together but will provide some inlaid glass features that goes along with the mosaic architecture making it a lot more interesting. He also pointed out that the top railing will be a composite material so it will not build up heat. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to preliminarily approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None rr� G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150526min.docx Page 7 of 8 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2015 � VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported the following from the May 13, 2015 AIPP meeting. The Commission discussed the public art sector in the valley as a whole and where Palm Desert fits in with that; how to promote the city through art; collaborating with other cities to explore what they are doing not only in the valley, but throughout the country to promote art; the First Weekend events and the documentary film series for next year. He also reminded the ARC Commissioners that for larger projects they should remember to ask about the art aspect of the project. VII. COMMENTS None VIII. 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 1:45 p.m. �� � TONY BAGATO, P INCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY � ; J� f� � JUD ��tSRDING SECRETARY � G:\PlanningUanineJudy�ARC\1Minules�2015\150526min.docx Page 8 of 8