Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-22 °orr Iftw ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 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 17 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 15 2 Paul Clark X 14 3 Gene Colombini X 16 1 Allan Levin X 15 2 Michael McAuliffe X 17 Jim McIntosh X 15 2 John Vuksic X 15 2 Also Present Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/9/16,3/8/16,5/24/16,6/28/16, 10/11/16 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 2016 Action: Commissioner Clark moved to approve the November 8, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 16-336 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DLI PROPERTIES, LLC. P.O. Box 517, Agoura, CA 91376 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wood fence exception. LOCATION: 74487 CANDLEWOOD STREET ZONE: R-1 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented a request for a wood fence exception. The homeowner repainted the home and updated the existing wood fence material. The City's Municipal Code states normal maintenance of a wood fence is allowed, however once you change the design or location of the fence it is no longer a non- conforming fence and would have to comply with today's code. In this case, the homeowner kept the fence in the same location, but the design was changed. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) can approve a non-conforming material such as wood based on architectural merit and compatibility of the home's architecture. This is an older home with a wood and block fence. The applicant has applied for the exception based on architectural merit. It was painted to match the trim and has been updated to modern standards. He pointed out that this was not a neighbor complaint but the Code Compliance Officer noticed it and asked the applicant to get approval from the Planning Department. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Vuksic said the style of the home is 50s or 60s modern and the color along with the wood and block is a huge improvement to the style of the home. Chair Van Vliet asked if this would also be a setback issue. Mr. Ceja answered yes and said it would also be a height exception because the existing wall is approximately 5' or 6' with a typical 15' setback and this has about an 8' to 10' setback. This matches the height of the wall that was there previously. Commissioner McIntosh asked what setback they were applying for because he G RIanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 2 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 felt it was more like 5' to 6'. The Commission reviewed and discussed the setbacks. Commissioner Clark said this is a nice neighborhood, high travelled and most neighbors have masonry walls, but there are some wood fences in the area. Commissioner McIntosh said he was concerned with the short fence that was added to the end of the driveway that appears to be a guardrail. Mr. Ceja suggested this fence be removed from this approval as the City would not allow this as it is too close to the curb. The Commission discussed not allowing the guardrail and suggested conditioning the proposed fence exception by having the applicant remove the guardrail fencing facing the street, cut the concrete back at the end of the circular looking driveway to be in line with the walkway and replace it with gravel and landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic said this fence adds some artistic value to the home. Chair Van Vliet agreed with that comment, but didn't like the color. Commissioner Vuksic said the color makes a statement. It is clean and stylish and part of the palette of that era. He said the reason this works with the bright color is because of the amount of styling that the house has and the color isn't overpowering the vast majority of the property. Chair Van Vliet said he also had a problem with the setback issue and the wood fence portion. He doesn't mind the color so much it's just because it's right on the street. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve the wood fence exception subject to: 1) removing the guardrail fencing facing the street; and 2) cut concrete back to be in line with the concrete walkway and replace with gravel and landscaping. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-1-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Vuksic voting YES and Chair Van Vliet voting NO and Commissioner Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None GAPIanningUa nine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: CUP 16-188 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, c/o Vasanthi Okuma, 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Presentation of Monterey Crossings Specific Plan. LOCATION: NEC Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C. (3) F.C.O.Z. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented a specific plan for Monterey Crossings which is the last vacant parcel located on Monterey Avenue (Monterey) and Dinah Shore Drive (Dinah Shore). He presented the site plan and landscape plan for review and said since this is a specific plan document it requires a review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and will move forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the ARC approves the architecture of the six or seven buildings today, it will come back for the building permit process and final drawing review. He asked the Commission for their comments for any modifications that would then be incorporated into the Specific Plan. Mr. Ceja passed around two additional handouts that were received prior to this meeting and said the applicant updated their elevations for the Les Schwab building (Building 8) on Dinah Shore. Not much changed for the north elevation of this building but staff had comments on the south elevation that faces Dinah Shore. He mentioned that this handout reflects some of those architectural changes. This center will be located right off the Monterey interchange and will include a whole mix of uses including three drive-thru restaurants, two shop buildings and inside box stores as well. A hotel will be located in the northwest portion of the site and an auto dealership on the southeast portion. The specific plan is addressing some of the development standards allowing the hotel to go up to about 50' in height and 60' on some of the roof projections. He presented a PowerPoint of the project and described the building elevations, materials, and accent pieces on the buildings. GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 4 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 Commissioner Clark and Mr. Ceja discussed the parcel for the auto dealership and visibility from Dinah Shore and the freeway. Commissioner Clark thought the block wall was counter-productive. Mr. Ceja said there were concerns with security and pointed out that a lot of the site will have wrought-iron fencing. Mr. Ceja mentioned that the applicant has been working with Planning on this site as well as Economic Development with Riverside County. Much of the conversation has been about this being an entrance into Palm Desert and making it a statement piece or a gateway type development so the applicant put a lot of emphasis on the two corner buildings on Monterey and Dinah Shore. The Commission reviewed and discussed the buildings for this site. Commissioner Clark noted that this was a relatively high wind area and would hope that the front doors or any balconies facing west would be shielded in an appropriately architectural manner. Mr. Ceja said the applicant is aware and stated that some of the trees being placed out there will have an established root system and be less likely to topple over or break in the wind. Commissioner Levin asked if the General Plan and zoning was in conformance at this point. Mr. Ceja said this area is zoned Planned Regional Commercial with a freeway commercial overlay and because of that overlay staff asked them to prepare this specific plan. The only thing new to this zone would be the auto dealership and through this specific plan process we can expand on the number of uses and modify or establish our own development standards for this site. Mr. Ceja said the building and architecture is not something that is traditionally seen in Palm Desert and feels this is a statement piece as you enter Palm Desert. He requested that if the Commissioners have comments on the architecture to make them today so the applicant can update and incorporate them into the specific plan. MR. JOHN LOPER, Consultant for Fountainhead Development (Fountainhead), said they placed all the uses that had a lot of outdoor dining and a pedestrian plaza on the corner to create this gateway statement. The tallest building is placed on the lowest portion of the site so from Monterey it would be less visible. He discussed the design for the auto dealership site and described the block wall portion. The wall will be fully landscaped and setback from the street. He explained that the reason for the block wall was GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 to avoid the public from seeing the cars that are not in perfect condition. They are currently working on tenants for this center and the hotel will probably be similar to some of the other hotels recently built in the area. They also have a lot of restaurants interested in the two restaurant sites. MS. JESSICA STEINER, Architect, said their original goal was to create some sort of a landmark or gateway to people coming off the freeway. They are aware of Palm Desert's heritage of what has been built, materials used, and style. They want to respect Palm Desert's heritage and create something a little more different that will catch the eye on the corner. They used a lot of rich earth tones and materials that are desert friendly that will stand up and be durable but have a lot of visual interest to draw people in. She described the plans for the pedestrian plaza. Commissioner Clark asked how they would address the roof mounted equipment given the height of the overpass. MS. STEINER said all of their parapet heights are absolutely tall enough to cover it from grade level and from elevation view. However, there will be some visibility of Building 5 on the corner from people coming over the overpass. It will be a little visible, but it has a tower element which should block a lot of that view from people coming southbound. Commissioner Clark referred to the Costco building on the west side of Monterey and mentioned the high screen for the roof top equipment. MS. STEINER said she was aware that the municipal code requires that the tower features return about 2/3s of the length back of the tower. They will make sure they place things in the best location with that in mind and will tuck those behind the towers as much as possible. Commissioner Clark asked how they would address the wind element and was concerned with the open seating area. MS. STEINER said they have used a number of techniques with landscape where it would make sense. They have oriented the plaza on the hard corner to be the most protected as well as on the north and the east. All along the interior frontages of Building 5 and 6 they are doing a deep trellis or pergola coming off the building and break the wind at the front doors. Commissioner Clark suggested a clear glass barrier for the open areas where people will be sitting and suggested that be a part of their analysis. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 6 of 12 fir✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 Commissioner Columbini was concerned that the pool area on the backside of the hotel on the west side will get a lot of wind. MR. LOPER said they placed the pool on the west side to get the sun because if it was placed on the non-windy side of the building it would be in the shade all day. The pool will be sitting down significantly below the level of the curb of the street and should block some of the wind. Commissioner Clark asked if they were landscaping the public slope area and MR. LOPER said they are landscaping everything up to their property line and anything beyond that is dirt. Chair Van Vliet asked how the HVAC units will be handled on the hotel. MS. STEINER said they will be inset and flush with the exterior glass. Chair Van Vliet referred to the elevation differences from front to back and MS. STEINER said there is a little bit of an articulation to get as much movement in the building as possible. Chair Van Vliet asked if the windows were recessed and MS. STEINER said they were recessed about 4" to 6"; just enough for a soffit. Commissioner Clark asked if there were changes made to the architecture would it come back to this Commission. Mr. Ceja said if there are significant changes to the building designs it would then come back through an ARC hearing. Commissioner Levin asked if Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) was on board with vacating the extensive sewer system going right through the sides of the buildings. MR. JAY STABLES, Civil Engineer, said they have had a number of meetings with CVWD and they have conceptually approved the realignment of the existing sewer and Fountainhead has worked out a process to vacate and quit claim the existing easement and construct a new line. Commissioner McAuliffe was highly complementary of the project and said it is exciting to see. He asked if the monument signage would be submitted as a separate package and Mr. Ceja answered yes. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if auto dealership signage would appear on 1-10 like the ones in Indio that are visible from the freeway at high elevations. Mr. Ceja said the applicant is looking at pylon signs and staff needs more direction from the City Council if they will be allowed in the first place. G1PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 7 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 Commissioner McAuliffe asked if they are taking special measures with the proximity of the hotel to the rail lines since it is going to be a noisy place to sleep. MR. LOPER said their environmental review analysis will cover that. Commissioner McAuliffe noticed on many of the exterior elevations the use of a vertical landscape trellis and said plants on metal trellises don't generally do well here in the desert due to the heat and wind. He suggested they look at the architecture without relying on plant material to be successful on those elevations; in the long term it's going to be a better solution. MS. STEINER said the intent of those was not to take the place of architecture. They wanted to introduce some green material to the building with a native plant that will hold up out there. Using the grid or lattice work in the form of the panel goes with the overall look, will break up the parapet line and create some interest. Commissioner Vuksic complimented the architecture and liked how the buildings were all different although there are enough differences between them that create a nice composition. He thought the building placement at the corner of Monterey was really tight and pointed out how inside the solid walls of buildings you can't see into the site; even at the corner where you have the plaza. MS. STEINER said they wanted to create the paseo along the frontage and through the site for pedestrian circulation. Because of the grade differentials they pushed the buildings back to try and minimize the massing by tucking it up against where the grade is changing from Monterey. They are trying to balance the design to make the project viable and create a good look for the city. Commissioner Vuksic said he understands they want to maximize square footage, but at the same time you don't want to choke off the guy in the back because nobody can see him. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the hotel and said the Commission needs to see floor plans and a roof plan. He thinks it would be good because there are a lot of things going on and it's hard to tell if things are offset. If the applicant provided 3-D images, it would make it a lot easier on the Commission. He and the architect discussed the elevator, the circulation tower, stairs on each end and the equipment room. Commissioner Vuksic said the main elevator is tall and has the opportunity to be iconic and right now the proportions look odd. He was concerned that in reality this might be a much flatter building than what is coming across. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.dccx Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION tip.► MINUTES November 22, 2016 Commissioner Vuksic referred back to the discussion on the mechanical equipment and was concerned with the comment that the units wouldn't be visible from the ground. MS. STEINER referred to Building 4 that calls out the lowest parapet at 20'-6" and the roof deck sitting around 14'. That will allow for 6' of parapet for rooftop screening, which is more than adequate for this size of building. On Building 5, they are raising the parapet on the northern end with raised tower elements and that is what people will see coming down the overpass. There is actually a very small portion of the parapet at 24', which is the lowest height of that building. The taller tower is actually 31'-6" and a roof deck of 15' so there is 10' to 15' of parapet in some places to block even more of that view coming over the freeway. Commissioner Vuksic said the City has a policy where mechanical equipment needs to be screened by enclosures, parapets, or screens that are at least the same height as the equipment and MS. STEINER said that is their firm's practice as well. Commissioner Vuksic said forms need to come back at least 2/3's of the distance and that is a good proportion. The Commission doesn't like to see the backs of parapets or the ends of parapets so they need to be four-sided. In this architecture, two things are going to be important; one is going to be the materials used and the second important thing will be the details. He referred to thin walls and elements in the elevations forms returning back. Again he encouraged them to submit 3-D images and roof plans on their next submittal. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the back of the buildings that face Monterey on the corner and pointed out six service doors and a trellis element covering some of them and thin looking wall supports. He feels that the applicant hasn't done enough in that area and said the details are going to be important in that area. MS. STEINER said it is a balance of something nice to look at from the street and something nice to look at from the corner and know they can't have a blank back wall. They tried to use elements found elsewhere in the center to wrap and create four-sided architecture that brings the look around the corner at least where it is most visible there where the grade is closest to zero. MR. LOPER said these five doors are all service and fire doors and the entrances are all on the east side of the building. There is a sidewalk back there for service entry for about five tenants with five individual doors for exterior exiting and bringing in supplies by handcart. There will also be an interior room for the electrical meters and fire equipment with two doors for ingress and egress. Commissioner Vuksic said he GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 9 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 wants to make sure in the end that this looks as good as the renderings. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the trellis elements on Building 5 on the west elevation and said the columns look really thin in plan and wasn't sure how that was going to come off. MS. STEINER said the intent there was to create shadow lines for play. On the south elevation of Building 6, they will have either a trellis or pergola wall there with various types of tie backs and trellises overhead to create interest and shadow. Commissioner Vuksic said the one on Building 6 looks okay but wondered about Building 5 and again recommended the 3-D images. Commissioner Vuksic referred to Building 5 on the south elevation facing the street and said there is good massing of elements and good composition. However, on plan those things are off-set by only 6" and for the size of building this is those elements probably need more than that to really get the correct look and feel. MS. STEINER said they will make sure they treat those details correctly. Commissioner Colombini suggested a bird's-eye view from Monterey looking down in 3-D so they can see the roof and parapets. Commissioner Levin asked if site lighting would be overhead or ground lighting. MS. STEINER said they will do a photo metric and will follow all necessary codes and ordinances. MS. VASANTHI OKUMA, Fountainhead, said the lighting will all be directed downward. They understand the light pollution ordinance for Palm Desert and will have zero cut-off on all property lines. Commissioner Levin thought the amount of trash enclosures looked light in size, quantity and location and MS. STEINER said they wanted to put the trash enclosures close enough for employee access and not blocking the front door in the prime parking areas. They will maximize good parking and make the trash enclosures operationally accessible for the tenants and also the trash trucks. The Commission and the applicants discussed parking spaces in the center and MR. LOPER stated the spaces would all be the standard width. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission would be approving the building lighting fixtures. MS. STEINER said they haven't shown the lighting as of yet. Commissioner Levin asked about the signage and Mr. Ceja said a master signage program would come back to the Commission for review at a later date. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 Commissioner Vuksic referred to Building 8 and said the Commission feels it is important to have offsets and the glass recessed. He complimented the architect on the dark bronze ionized system and said it looks good. It doesn't have a lot of recess to it but it works because of the material. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if once this receives full approval will they build all the buildings at the same time or just a few once they get tenants. MS. OKUMA said this will be done in phases and they anticipate the shop buildings and some of the fast food at the corner will go in on the first phase. They will have some tenants who will be building their own buildings. She asked the Commission to approve some of the conceptual vernacular of the design and have the tenants come in with their own detail plans when they do their building design. She stated they are preparing the two shop buildings and the hotel parcel will be sold off to a hotel operator at some point who will come in with their own design. Mr. Ceja said considering that tenants may change and have their own designs staff can put language in the specific plan to use these architectural vernaculars as diagrams and just condition it when a pad building comes back for the Commission's review. The Commission and the applicants discussed approving everything except the two pad buildings on the corner. MS. STEINER said they are looking for approval on Buildings 5 and 6. MS. OKUMA said on the rest they are requesting a conceptual approval on the first phase and the tenants can come back with more details. Commissioner Vuksic said he would be concerned with giving conceptual approval today because of future tenants using the information that was discussed today. Commissioner Clark said if there is more to do on Buildings 5 and 6 this will need to be continued to address those issues. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant received feedback from the Commission today and the changes should come back for review and approval. Chair Van Vliet reminded them that they need to submit the floor and roof plans, materials board, and 3-D images which is required at the preliminary level. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic continued Case No. CUP 16-188 with Commissioner's comments. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. G1PIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\161122min.docx Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2016 VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:05 p.m. ERIC CEJA, P IPAL PLANNER SECRETARY "V14 J I E JU R RDING SECRETARY WPIanningUanineJudyWRC\1 Min utes\2016\161122min.dwx Page 12 of 12