Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-26 � � �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' ' MINUTES January 26, 2016 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 1 1 Allan Levin X 2 Michael McAuliffe X 2 Jim Mclntosh X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate 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 12, 2016 Action: Chair Van Vliet moved to approve the January 12, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Colombini abstaining. .:� - �+ `lrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 15-378 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LOUAY NAOUFAL, 77-005 New York Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new front entry carport 20' from the curb and a new roof height at 16'-3". LOCATION: 77-005 New York Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said this proposal for a new front entry carport 20' from the curb and a new roof height at 16'-3" has returned to the Commission with changes that were recommended at the last meeting. MR. CARLOS SANCHEZ, designer, discussed the changes to the carport and roof as recommended at the last meeting. The Commission and MR. SANCHEZ discussed the width of the driveway, roof tile, stucco, and the material at the base of the columns. Commissioner Mclntosh said this is an improvement over what was presented at the previous meeting. The roof forms represent more of the overall design of the house on all four sides versus the previous plan. The scale is more appropriate along with a new roof form that actually identifies the entry instead of it being just a big carport on the front of the house. The Commission and MR. SANCHEZ discussed the flashing conditions where the crown work tucks under the eaves and the little roof over the front entry that sits on top of the carport roofing. They suggested reducing the width of the carport a little so that the entry structure can be its own element and possibly getting it up a little higher so they wouldn't have that odd condition. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the floor plan and said it appears that the house is suffering and looks like it's crowding the entrance to the house. He said there is 22' between the columns and asked G:\PlanningVanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160126min.docx Page 2 of 7 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 if they needed that 22' feet clear. MR. NOUAY NAOUFAL, applicant, said yes because this will be for handicap-accessible parking for a van plus another vehicle. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the front door and the little gabled roof and said things don't always have to line up but if they don't, it needs to look intentional and this doesn't look intentional. He said the issue is with the detail where the roofs come together because that will look odd if it's not detailed well. The mass and forms are fine and said he would vote to approve it and said this Commission will take a look at that detail when it comes back in working drawings. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to Commission comments and submitting construction drawings and entry roof details for their review. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Colombini abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 15-207 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT, Attn: Stanley Rothbart, 10990 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90024 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve a new 6,700 square foot building on the last remaining building pad (22) within the Desert Gateway Shopping Center, and a landscaping plan surrounding the building and at the southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue. LOCATION: 34-100 Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.C.-(3) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, said this item was continued from the October 28, 2015 meeting for the last pad at the Desert Gateway Shopping Center. He presented photos of the pad from Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Avenue and described the changes that the applicant has submitted and passed around a materials board for the Commission's review. He explained that the building's orientation on the east elevation is within the parking lot and pointed out that the applicant added awning details on the north and west elevation so it wouldn't look like back of building. He G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes12016\160126min.docx Page 3 of 7 � � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 informed the Commission that signage was not a part of this submittal but each tenant would be allowed one sign per frontage. He pointed out potential locations for the signs. MR. BRIAN POLIQUIN, architect, said they added two four-sided pitched roofs on each side of the buildings, mostly oriented towards the road at the corner, they fully cut the mansards into the buildings, they softened the colors, all the major architectural elements protrude 3' from the building, and they kept most of the cloth awnings along with steel awnings on the buildings. He discussed the color changes on the building and said there is a lot of detail on this building in a very small area and believes this is what this Commission is expecting on the corner. They also added green screens on the ends because their client doesn't want windows on the back side of the building. The Commission and MR. POLIQUIN discussed the green screens, metal trellises, the landscape plan, and the depth of the columns on the west elevation, and awnings. They also reviewed and discussed the recesses on the major elements. Commissioner Vuksic was still concerned that some of the elements were still shallow. The Commission and MR. POLIQUIN continued to discuss the amount of recesses on the building. MR. POLIQUIN said his client doesn't want to double up the walls to get the thickness. He restated they have increased all the major elements on the building; they have added pitched roofs, and a mansard that cuts into the building based on this Commission's comments at the last meeting. Other buildings on the site have windows that are 4" in and are not overly recessed. He suggested they back-set the mullions as far as they can and use 6" studs on it with an additional inch for stucco. They are also building out the bottom bases and can push the glass as far back into that recess as possible. He understands that this is an important location and that is why they added a lot more detail on the building. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the north end of the west elevation and the south end of the west elevation where the green screens are located and said this needs more depth than what is shown on the floor plan. On the north end, it is showing 4" and on the south end it shows 3". MR. POLIQUIN said he thinks he can push this out fairly easily and thicken that opening to get some depth there. Commissioner Vuksic suggested at least a foot. On the south elevation, the wall that faces Panera, he said that has to be more than 4" for that whole wall because it is so big and suggested a 12" recess there. Commissioner McAuliffe suggested thickening G:\PlanningUanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2016\160126min.docx Page 4 of 7 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 the columns to the inside of the building to possibly achieve that thickness but that footprint may have to occur as a pilaster on the inside of the building leaving the glass line where it is. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the three-sided taller parapet elements on the roof plan and recommended they be four-sided. MR. POLIQUIN said he could wrap the ends around the corner so the detail looks finished and taking it four or five feet down so it looks like a mass where it just stops. Commissioner Vuksic said that would be okay if they submit a line-of-sight to prove to this Commission that you would not see it. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminarily approve subject to: granted preliminary approval subject to: 1) the south elevation windows must be recessed to a minimum of 12" from all columns; 2) the applicant will remove all green decorative walls; 3) on the west elevation, remove the green walls adding stucco, paint and awnings; 4) on the rear entrance, add an awning to the right side of the former green wall for balance; 5) on the south elevation, awnings must be added over the green color paint where the dark brown color is located; and 6) the buildings two larger parapet elements must return. 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. 2. CASE NO: MISC 15-384 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: D.R. HORTON, 2280 Wardlow Circle #100, Corona, CA 92880 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve 54 units; Sonrisa at Spanish Walk. LOCATION: 341 Paseo Gusto ZONE: P.R. 19 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented 54 units for Sonrisa at Spanish Walk. The Sonrisa property was approved for 147 units of single-family homes and the remaining 54 lots that will change from detached single-family homes to attached single family homes. He described the styles of the homes and said this is here for the new architectural elevations for the attached product. G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160126min.docx Page 5 of 7 �' � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 MR. DAN BOYD, D.R. Horton, said the reason they are proposing this modification is because their buying market has basically demanded a different product. Consumers are asking for larger square footage, larger bedroom count and bedrooms downstairs. They are taking the balance of the project and adding square footage, adding a bedroom downstairs, increasing some other livable square footage, and increasing the private open space. He also described the details regarding massing and roof heights. The Commission and MR. GARY CUNNINGHAM, architect, discussed the setbacks on the sides and the rear. Chair Van Vliet was concerned that the rear yards looked shallow. MR. CUNNINGHAM stated there will be 11.7' on the interior lots and the perimeters will be an average of 15.4'. He stated there will also be a little private courtyard that will pull into the back yard. He said the goal was to increase the livable square footage, bedroom count, and at the same time achieve larger private open space. The Commission and the architect discussed the breakup in the roof plane, recess on the garage doors, the horizontal mullions, the cornice detail, the slope rake detail on Plan 1 Building 100, privacy issues in the back yards, and window patterns. The Commission recommended that that garage doors be recessed to match the existing product, to re-study the slope rake detail and window patterns. They also had a discussion regarding on-site guest parking which was previously approved. Commissioner McAuliffe discussed the angled wall and eave detail and suggested reviewing how the eave line works. ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to preliminarily approve subject to: 1) garage doors must be recessed to match the existing product; 2) study the sloped rake detail on Plan 1 Building 100; and, 3) re-study the window patterns with a bar across the middle. 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:\PlanningUanineJudyV+RC11Minutes\2016\160126min.docx Page 6 of 7 �� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2016 VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic — 1/13/16 The AIPP selected two artists to paint the traffic boxes at the intersection of Portola Avenue and Fred Waring Drive; the Palm Desert Community Gallery exhibit, Mandalas and Fragments, is now on display through April 8, 2016; Swing `N Hops event on EI Paseo takes place on Saturday, February 6; the Documentary Film Series is now underway through April 21 at the UCR Campus; another All Valley Public Art meeting will be hosted by the City of Cathedral City; an art show called "Open Book II" is on now display at College of the Desert. VII. COMMENTS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeti ng at 2:45 p.m. TONY BAGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY E JUD C RDING SECRETARY G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160126min.docx Page 7 of 7