The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-08-14 CITY OF PALM DESERT. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST„14, 2018 � � _ a I. CALL TO OFID 'R ' S � 1 Q,v r < 2 rt 2 ]✓ ". 8w '� vtat� ,+, t' The meeting was called to order,at 12 30 p m a ll. ROLL CALL ° Corn, issioners Current Meeting ;, �Yearto Date `, 4er r . Present Absent` ` ``Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair X ,13 Karel Lambell,Vice Chair X 11 2 Dodd 1Brewer, ;, . X ,. ;, .•:9 4 Allan Lemn X 13 Miohael McAuliffe X �A 1 y 2 �JimMclntosh' * ,r , X 10 3e .12 j • Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner . ' ' =•i" . ' ' ` ' Nick Melloni,'Assistant'Planner r Pedro Rodriguez, Supennsor Code Compliance ChristinaCanales Assistant Engineer• .e• • Janine Judy;zRecortling Secretary ' III. , ORAL COMMUNICATIONS r• }; , '�- y i S None , IV. APPROVAL;OF MINUTES July 24 2018 Actlon• Commissioner,Brewer.moved to approve the July 24, 2017 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote,With 1.,Brewer, ;Lambell, Levin;' McAuliffe; !Van Vliet, iand'Vuksic voting YES and Mcinfosh absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 14,2018 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 18-oDo3 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: CELLULAR SALES OF CALIFORNIA, 34460 Monterey Avenue, Palm.Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration. to amend original approval of a gray tile backing and replace with gray paint, as seen in the attached photos;Verizon. LOCATION:34460 Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.C:(3) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, said this paint color change has returned for the third time.On March 13,2018,the applicant painted the Verizon building a gray color that was not approved by the Commission. At that time, the Commission requested that the building be painted back to its original color or propose a new exterior color that matches the shopping center.The Commission also suggested incorporating the gray color or a similar color backer behind the three Verizon wall signs. The applicant returned on April 27, 2018,to seek approval for returning the color back to its original color and suggested placing a tile backer behind the three Verizon wall signs. The Commission approved the tile backer and color change and continued it to allow the applicant to make those changes.The applicant re-painted the building back to its original color, however they left the gray color around the three wall signs and did not apply the tile backer.Today the applicant is proposing to modify the previous approval by keeping the gray background behind all three wall signs. Mr. Swartz presented photos of the three wall signs and said the paint color is not even, score lines were painted over, color doesn't meet the edges and doesn't wrap around. Staff is recommending removal of the gray color and the placement of a tile backer for all three wall signs. The Commission reviewed and discussed the gray color behind the Verizon wall signs, the the backer, and the 6" reveal. Commissioner McAuliffe said the building needs some level of contrast during the day and the white is too close to the stucco.Commissioner.Brewer said the original scheme of having the tile backer would look good on the building. Commissioner Levin suggested placing a time frame on this revision and tie Commission agreed to two weeks. Commissioner awe"m4ft*mJ"aMRL%1M ts=j649ue14mn.aw Page 2 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL RL 6—W COMMISSION MINUTES August 14, 2018 ^ 3. CASE NO: MISC 1870007 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GRAZIADIO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 149 Palos Verdes Blvd. Suite E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a fagade enhancement for a commercial shopping center, Jensen's Center. LOCATION: 73547 Highway 111 ZONE: D.O. Commissioners Brewer and McAuliffe recused themselves from this project and left the room. Mr. Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner, said this is the third appearance of the project before the Commission. The applicant has resubmitted renderings for Buildings D, It, F, and G and staff feels they have addressed all items recommended by the Commission. He described the current changes: 1) on Buildings D & E, they re-examined the roof pitch and the parapet will extend further back so not to appear, flat; 2) on the Jensen's Building (E), they removed the front facing gable on the tower and replaced it with a hip roof and revised the roof pitch to 4:12; 3) on Building F,the applicant is showing the proposed screening; 4) on Building G they reduced the square footage, created outdoor dining areas, revised the roof pitch to 4:12, blended a new tower design with the previous design, and re-introduced the shutters on the tower elements; 5) on the north elevation, they reverted away from the original style and,removed the cornice, increased the height and created a little alcove; 6) on the south elevation, they are proposing to install metal roof-top screening. Mr. Mellon!stated there are no site alterations at this time and said that will come in under a later review for staff approval to include: parking, landscaping changes; and .lighting. Staff is recommending approval of the design as shown and a requirement that the applicant return with site improvements for staff approval. Chair Van Wet asked for a sample of the roof-top screening material and MR. KEITH MARTINEZ, Nadel Architects, passed around a rendering of the screening. On the first submittal, they had the angled metal louvers then went to a flat metal that is painted the same color as the building walls and allows air flow to the mechanical units. They feel the updated screening appears less industrial'and has nice horizontal G-.T1annhgV=he Judy%ARMIMlnutes120181180814min.do" Page 4 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWCOMMISSION�N MINUTES August 14,'2018; Vuksic stated that if the,applicant chooses to paint the tower a different color,they are required to come back to See approve of the pain.,t color; He also sold that ff the color is too dark, this Commission probably will not approve it ACTION ; •;:; Commissi6n6r Lanlbeli moved to deny durrent submitted changes sublect to: i) incorporating a gray,tile,,backer behind the sign as•proodsW by the applicant on April 24; 201,8; 2) include a 6",reveal oli;sides of.all Sig ns;''an 3) submit changes by August 28, 2018. Motion was secohded by Commissioner.Levin and carried by a 6 0 1 'vote, with Srewer, Larnbell, in, McAuliffe, Vuksic, and Van Vliet;Voting YES and McIntosh absent:' 2, CASE NO: SARC 18 0005 "h APPLICANT AND ADDRESS ENTRAVISION,72920 ParkVlBw Drive, ,.Palm Desert, CA 92260 ,NATURE OF PRnilECT/APPROVAL«SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a monument sign;?Entravlsidn' r I LOCATION 72920 Parkv1ew Drive ZONE ,P, R 7,S P € MrKevin ,Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal .for a monument sign for Entravision locatbdl on jPirkView W6 (Park View). ,Thisimonument„sign vVill be.zlocated<n front of4he property which is „zoned Planned Residential and � has . to ;comply with residential standards, non Illuminated and not more than,six(6)feet in height. The currdptsignage is a;littde plaque located on the block wa1! along Park View This monument sign will be located behind the right=of way,which is ,ten,,c10) feet. ',He presented irendenngs of 'the. sign for the Commission's review •, , Chair Uan Vliet asked if this sign wouidi have,external illumination at ;night and Me. Swartz said illumination is not allowed. He said the applicantpay consider piacing,landscaPe lighting in that area after a landscape plan.has;bde6n r 'vlewed and approved. ChalrVan Wet said the slgn seems",to roast all the parameters in teens of height and size.' } ACTION } Commissioner,.,Vuksic -moved ;to •approve. ' Motion was seconded by Coirimissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Brewer, Larhbell,'Levin' , McAuliffe, Vuksic;and Van Vuet voting YES and McIntosh absent. auianxoUamineJwM RGk1kVn.rtaizmet,9014mlmdcu Page 3'of 6 `ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, MINUTES August 74;,2018t!• t lines.=They wenivlth metalbecauseaha buildings cannot handle mach weight on theiroof and the metal screens are{light and look attractive. The Commiseion;and:MR MARTINF2 discussed paint„versus powder, coating, the seams of the protluct, maintenance, stability, and setbacks from the`building 'plane. ;,Commissioner Vuksic,discussed the<tower at the north-west corner of . „Building 'G and recommended they,create ai:four sided element and jocorporate a wall aiong thetsoutham side="MR ,GREG'LYON, Nadel ' "Architects,said they will look at,this,and make sure that from any visible point it will look like a complete form:', MR. LYON and MR. MARTINEZ discussed the revision of the,arches on the bu Jense" i lldin'g, reduction I then ,pitched roofs throug hout, and . the'trellis elements: Chair,Van Wet discussed the upstairs component on the Jensen's building,and asked what`the'differential was between the columns in the back'andpthe"offset on the upper area where the shutters are located.. He feit'It.should lead as more than 2.' to'create more of a shadow. Commissioner Vuksic said it should be at least to appear as a set-ln panel "MR. LYON said they could 'achieve the Commission's gpsi-op casting a shadow,however it may not be 9". Commissioner Vuksic and the applicants reviewed and:discussed the mansard.r`oof and the eave detail that continues onto the Jensens tower on the same plane. The apphcants stated relative to the existing X conditions they tried to,break it up Commissioner,Vuksic said it is very' 16hallenging and"understands the limitations Commissioner Vuksic discussed the parapet returns on the cornices of the Jense'n's building and said they£are only returning about 2'iandafe is this will be visible and suggested ,they ,go.back about 10':cxMR1 MARTINEZ said that is existing and they will only be adding the cornice detail. Commissioner Vuksic-asked Mr. Swartz,Hit would be'reasoriable to'ask the apphcanbto take it back as,part of this facade enhancement and Mc Swartz said it is within the purview of the Commission to request 'that. MR. MARTWEZ believes this won't be visible Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the parapets`extending above the rooflme#on Buildings b and E. extend back and be designed'so as not i.to appear flat. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that he was disappointed that after the discussion at the last meeting that the two towers on the west elevation are still about the same width and height and feels the apphcants missed an opportunity to create more variation between the arohitectural features of each building. MR.LYON feels this creates a nice rhythm for a:w u;ovarJMJ yMM1Lvnw A2018%1Wg141n1Mdd Page 5 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 14, 201 8 the retailers and the pedestrian experience. Commissioner Vuksic said :R making the towers different from one another seems like an easy thing to do. He said overall this is a nice design to a challenging site, ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1)the tower at the north- west comer of building G shall be re-designed to be four-sided by incorporating a wall along the southern sfde;,and 2) parapets extending above roofline on buildings D and E shall extend back and be designed so as not to appear flat. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 4-0-2-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES, Brewer and McAuliffe abstaining and McIntosh absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None V1, COMMENTS Commission and staff discussed Paseo Hotel. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:45 p.m. KEVIN SWAB ASSOCIATE PLANNER SECRETARY J IN JU R RDING SECRETARY QWWWn"nIneJvtlM=1MJRUMSVote 16=14vd"= Page 6 of 6