Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-13 �_•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES September 13, 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 13 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 12 1 Paul Clark X 10 3 Gene Colombini X 12 '21 t Allan Levin X 11 2 Michael McAuliffe X 13 Jim McIntosh X 11 2 John Vuksic X 11 2 Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Heather Buck, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/9/16, 3/8/16,5/24/16,6/28/16 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23, 2013 minutes will be approved at the next meeting. Action: No action taken. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2016 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 16-249 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: STONE EAGLE GOLF CLUB, 72450 Stone Eagle Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve new carports to cover four parking stalls in front of maintenance facility; Stone Eagle Golf Course. LOCATION: 72450 Stone Eagle Drive ZONE: HPR Ms. Heather Buck, Assistant Planner, presented a proposed carport structure for the maintenance building at Stone Eagle Golf Club. Stone Eagle is zoned Hillside Planned Residential and has an approved Development Plan in place. The structure is screened not only by the maintenance building, which is 14' in height, but also by the berm adjacent to it on the south side. The height of the structure is 11' and is not visible from the public right-of-way. She described the finishes and proposed color and style. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Rob Blackburn, General Manager, said the structure will be used for the company vehicles and the color will match the existing maintenance building, which is a desert tan color. ACTION: Chair Van Vliet moved to approve as submitted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: PP 16-75 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINIO, 1201 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92404 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve construction of a one-story 2,800 sq. ft. classroom; Sacred Heart Catholic School Campus. LOCATION: 43775 Deep Canyon Road ZONE: P.R.4 G:FlanningVanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160913min.docx Page 2 of 7 *..r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2016 Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented final construction plans for a one-story 2,800 square foot classroom that was preliminarily approved this past April. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 6-0-2-0 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners Clark and Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO: MISC SA 16-220 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, 72630 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new monument sign; Fred Waring Plaza. LOCATION: 72630 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented changes to a monument sign for Fred Waring Plaza that was continued from the last meeting. At that meeting, the Commission recommended; reducing the height of the sign, review the thickness in proportion to the reduced height; and provide a 3-D perspective to show thickness. The applicant re-located the name of the complex higher up on the sign with Fred Waring on the first line, Plaza on the second line, and Medical Professional on the third line; they widened the blade from 8" to 12"; and, widen the base from 10" to 17". He presented a perspective on the side elevation to show that the massing is more in line with the actual columns on the building, and the sign was reduced from 8' to 7'. Staff is recommending approval. Chair Van Vliet was still concerned with the height of the sign and felt it didn't blend with the building. He pointed out that all the corners on the sign detailing were square but the building actually has about a 4" diagonal bevel detail on top of the elements. MR. KIM SANSON, sign representative, said they will smooth the corners and put the same bevel on it. G\P1anningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160913min.docx Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2016 Commissioner McIntosh said the height didn't really bother him given the amount of area that the building is setback but agreed that it needs additional detailing. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that the sign doesn't need to be that tall, but he felt it was consistent with other monument signs in the City. Mr. Ceja said the language in the code says 6' unless topographic or other features necessitate a height increase. Staff originally reviewed this at the counter and looked at the existing landscape condition and how it blocks the existing sign and suggested an additional foot of height to get above the landscape. Commissioner McAuliffe said he was okay with the height and also agreed that additional detailing will refine it further. As a monument it complements the building without literally imitating it. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to cap detail on the terra cotta portion of sign shall be beveled to match the building. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-194 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MIGUEL RUIZ, 40240 Yucca Lane, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve a new three-story mixed-use building for residential and retail; Ruiz Building. LOCATION: 73690 El Paseo ZONE: C.1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented changes to a mixed- use building on El Paseo that was continued from the last meeting. The Commission was concerned with: the lack of staircases for the second and third floor fire access, the east wall elevation, mechanical equipment and roof slopes, fire sprinkler risers, and ventilation in bedrooms. He said in the original plans there were two retail spaces on the second floor.facing out on El Paseo. The applicant has nixed the retail on the second floor and went to strictly four residential units. G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\16D913min.docx Page 4 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2016 The third floor remains the same at four units and the bottom floor now has five retail spaces; three facing El Paseo and two facing President's Plaza. He asked the applicant to describe the accents on the east elevation wall. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, architect, said at this point in time they don't know if the building next door to the east will ever increase in height. In the meantime, they are proposing to do something like a mural with different colors or different textures. Commissioner Colombini was concerned with the lack of ventilation in the bedrooms and advised the applicant to review the Building Code for bedroom ventilation, as well as a second emergency staircase on the second and third floor exiting to the ground level. Mr. Swartz said he spoke with the Building Department and the bedrooms may have to be towards the balcony so the occupants can access the balcony in the event of a fire. MR. OCHOA said if a second staircase is required, he believes they have enough space in the central court to add it. However, based on the code section they are not required to have a second staircase. Commissioner McAuliffe said it would be worthwhile to check this out further. Commissioner Vuksic feels that the accent design on the east elevation is okay but thinks this element needs more than just a mural. He suggested textural differences to make it pop or slight offsets of a couple of inches that interlock. MR. OCHOA said they were trying to achieve that and referred to several other mural designs he provided. Commissioner Vuksic recommended providing details for the balcony railings and ends showing how they wrap around the building. He also suggested they review the details for mechanical equipment including ceiling ducting, and roof slopes. Commissioner McIntosh asked what the floor to floor heights were and MR. OCHOA said they were 9'-5", 9'-5" and 8'-5". Commissioner Lambell recommended that the applicant provide something on the residential lighting and how it fits into the whole personality of the building. Commissioner Levin asked if the fire sprinkler system came off a single system for the entire building. Commissioner Colombini said it would be two different systems; one for residential and one for retail space. Commissioner Levin said there will be a lot of utility concerns; water, sewer and electrical. MR. OCHOA said they will add space on the bottom floor to house the utilities. G\PIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160913min.docx Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . MINUTES September 13, 2016 Commissioner Levin asked about the trash enclosures. Mr. Swartz said there are two options. They could either eliminate parking stalls to build a new enclosure or they could add an additional pickup day, which would be paid for by the applicant. Commissioner McIntosh said the architecture has a clean, crisp geometry and wanted to know what style of signage they would have for the three retail spaces on the El Paseo elevation. The Commission discussed signage locations and the types of signs that would blend with this architecture. Commissioner Clark asked the applicant to submit a conceptual signage plan and show how the different types of signs will work on the El Paseo elevation. Commissioner Colombini asked if they checked the size of the electrical room for the switch gear to see if it meets Edison requirements. MR. OCHOA said they currently have one room and will add a second room on the opposite side. Commissioner Colombini reminded the applicant that a separate room is also required for the sprinkler risers. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to continue. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin. Chair Van Vliet asked for further discussion. MR. MIGUEL RUIZ, building owner, said continuing this project again was very costly to him. He asked the Commission to write down what was needed and they would do it because no matter what they do the Commission finds something else. Commissioner Lambell said this is a new concept on El Paseo and it has to be right and explained that the Commission does not design projects for the applicants. The comments made today will be in writing and sent to him and the architect will address the things that the Commission is concerned with. It is a design in progress and they are trying to safe guard the design while at the same time making sure there aren't other stumbling blocks that will end up costing the applicant more money. Commissioner Vuksic said the Commission is asking the architect to show details now which normally would come later, but in this case doing them sooner is better. Commissioner McAuliffe said they need to do their homework on the floor to floor heights. Making that decision at this level will smooth the way to the very end. The Commission discussed requesting a height exception for this project. GAP1anning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160913min.docx Page 6 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2016 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case No. PP/CUP 16-194 subject to: 1) review Building Code for additional staircases for second and third floor fire access; 2) for the east wall look at mural options with different textures or look at providing offsets a couple of inches that interlock; 3) show details for the balcony railings and details for the ends of the balconies and how they wrap around the building; 4) review details for mechanical equipment including ceiling ducting, and roof slopes; 5) consider a height exception to allow for increased ceiling heights if needed; 6) review sprinklers raisers; 7) review the Building Code for ventilation in bedrooms; and 8) review signage locations and type of signs that will blend with the clean crisp geometry architecture. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development presented educational information on Measure T. VI. COMMENTS Commissioner McIntosh requested that Building and Safety do a cursory code review on projects before it comes to the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Ceja said staff is working out the internal process so that building issues are addressed on the front-end when applications are submitted not on the back-end when building plans are received. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:55 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLA N R SECRETARY 4i !�J UDY RECORDING SECRETARY GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160913min.dccx Page 7 of 7