Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-13 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 19 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 17 2 Allan Levin X 19 Michael McAuliffe X 17 2 Jim McIntosh X 15 4 John Vuksic X 17 2 Open Position Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director, Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Supervisor, Code Compliance Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/27/18,4/10/18 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 23, 2018 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the October 23, 2018 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. ARCHITECTURAL RE__ W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 18-0020 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JAMES PAIGE, 73365 Highway 111, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve construction of a 265 square-foot outdoor dining patio with a patio awning, landscaping and decorative metal fencing; Little Bar. LOCATION: 73560 Highway 111 ZONE: D.O. Mr. Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner, presented renderings for a proposal to construct a 265 square-foot outdoor dining patio with changes to the facade along with a patio awning, landscaping and a decorative metal fence to enclose the patio. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Levin asked about the outdoor lighting and Mr. Melloni said the plans didn't go into that level of detail but and the applicant will be conditioned to conform with the City's outdoor lighting ordinance. Chair Van Wet and MR. SKIP PAIGE, applicant, reviewed and discussed how the awning will connect to the roof as well as along the front of the building and how'it will return back to the side of the building. Commissioner McAuliffe and MR. PAIGE discussed the new neon signage that will be located at the edge of the awning. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. GAPIanningVanin.aJudyWRCV MinuWs=18N181113m1n.docz - Page 2 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REV,- . f COMMISSION ' MINUTES November 13, 2018 2. CASE NO: MISC 18-0022 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SHAWN SMITH, 8370 Wilshire Blvd. #330, Beverly Hills CA 90211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve exterior storefront changes to an existing tenant space within The Gardens on El Paseo; Gucci. LOCATION: 73585 El Paseo ZONE: D-Downtown Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented changes to an existing storefront tenant space within The Gardens on El Paseo for Gucci. Changes will include a new window system, exterior material changes with applications of marble and awnings. The materials match the architecture of The Gardens and provides a nice upscale look. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Lambell arrived at 12:45 p.m. The Commission and the applicant discussed the fagade's stone material, the recess 3above the awning neutral column, the recess of the marble from the walls of the building shell, and the framework on the underside of the awning. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 18-0008 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: 111 MONTEREY PALM LLC, 610 Newport Center Drive #1520, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve a new bank building; Chase Bank. LOCATION: 72950 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C:(3) GAPlenningUmine JucyWRM1 MInutes12013tl B1113min.docx Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE `W COMMISSION - MINUTES November 13, 2018 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented for preliminary approval a new Chase bank building at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue; formerly occupied by the old Denny's Restaurant. He presented a resubmittal and discussed the changes made by the applicant as recommended by the Commission at the October 9, 2018 meeting. The applicant has changed the stone cladding to a warmer color that better compliments the other tones; no changes were made to the site plan, however the depth on the metal canopy has been increased; a service room door on the eastern elevation has been relocated so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way; and changes occurred with the roof plan which in turn changed some of the proportions. Instead of having a multi-tier roof it will all be on a single plane with the biggest impact being the change to the east and west elevations. He said the center mass of the building no longer connects and instead creates two towers for through access to the roof and the backs of the parapets will not be visible. Staff is recommending approval of the elevations as shown subject to some standard conditions related to screening of equipment and general requirements for the materials MR. TOM CARPENTER, applicant/property owner, thanked the Commission for their time and feedback on this project. They have worked with Chase Bankto incorporate all the Commission's comments that have made for a better project. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the roof plan for the tower element facing Highway 111 on the south elevation and discussed the substantial differences in the heights of the parapets making them visible from the public right-of-way. MR. BICKLE, architect, said this design has low parapet heights for the most part and they have not placed tall parapets to keep the horizontality of the building. He said the only place to hide the A/C units is between the two tower elements. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant had a lengthy conversation regarding the parapets. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they add a return to the rear of the building's high parapet so the rear of the wall panel is not visible to the public or the applicant can submit a line-of- sight survey demonstrating that the rear of the parapets won't be visible. He said he also has those same concerns looking from the northwest, the southwest and from the northeast. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the recesses along the southeast corner of the building facing Highway 111 and pointed out that the applicant added some dimension at the sill under the glass. He and the applicant discussed the offset between the cementitious wood material and glass and having a larger offset between the metal clad element at the center of the south elevation. MR. BICKLE spoke about the 18" GAPlannhgWanlne JudMRC\1Minutes@018\181113minAm Page 4 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE%:—_J COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 offset between the main wall where the glass and wood is and the flanking trim element and said there is really three planes happening there. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed how far out the wood was from the glass and this being in the same plane. Commissioner-Vuksic said they need a little more offset between the glass and the wood and they shouldn't be in the same plane. MR. BICKLE said there is a lot of undulation across this elevation with a certain elegance and reasonable amount of simplicity. If every single piece of glass and door starts to be in a different plane, he feels they will lose the design. However, they will certainly look at increasing the distance between the two planes if they don't think it's strong enough. Commissioner Vuksic said if the applicant feels strongly about that then that's alright, but feels that the metal element needs to come out more than 18" for something that massive. Commissioner McAuliffe understands their argument about these being in the same plane and doesn't think having things in the same plane necessarily is wrong or bad but it's not consistent with what they have going on in the rest of the building. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. BICKLE discussed the setbacks on that same elevation and MR. BICKLE said to accommodate the setbacks they had to make some site plan changes and feels that anything further would trigger more changes throughout the site. MR. CARPENTER said they are right up against the setback and they don't have a lot of give on that side. Commissioner Vuksic said there is room because the parking spaces are larger than they are required to be giving them a couple of feet to play with in the parking lot. He and the applicant discussed the space width and length giving them the ability to shift the building to the north by 1'. MR. CARPENTER said his preference is to keep the 18" and not move the building if that is something that the Commission can get comfortable with. Commissioner Vuksic said there is an 18" overhang over a large length of glass that seems minimal and pointed out that this is the Highway 111 elevation which will be in the sun. MR. BICKLE said there is spandrel glass in that area and from a functional standpoint it won't be an issue. There is a certain geometric elegance of simplified forms here and felt that if you start breaking down too much in a' contemporary style building you will start losing it. Commissioner Vuksic said it's not about shading the windows it's about creating shadow lines. MR. BICKLE said having a building with deep recesses and big shadow lines and other parts that have less shadow lines adds interest to the building. Commissioner Vuksic said if this could be a little deeper it would make a difference and be an improvement. He said this Commission tries to be cognizant when they hear design reasons for doing things and the last thing they want to do is to interfere with the applicant's creativity and design of the building. GAPlanningUwinsJudy\ARC\1Mlnutas,2018\181113min.doca Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE' , _W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 Commissioner McAuliffe asked if there was 6" of space on the inside where the vault is that can be taken out of the interior of the building on the south face. If so,they can leave the parking lot as is, push that plane in and capture the overhang. MR. BICKLE said his suspicion is they don't have 6", but possibly only a' couple of inches. MR. CRAIG, representing Chase, said there is some flexibility there but didn't know how much. The vaults are usually a prefabricated unit and they are constrained on the size of the vaults. He believes there isn't much leniency on trying to push that corner of the building back. Commissioner McAuliffe and MR. CRAIG discussed the 8' high vault and how there may bean opportunity to cantilever back into the building and push the spandrel portion back. MR. CRAIG said it may be structurally difficult but he's not saying it's not possible. Commissioner McAuliffe said there are ways this could be achieved without it being so disruptive and thinks as,a Commission they have to be careful that what is being suggested doesn't ripple across the entire project. Commissioner Vuksic stated this is a really good project and the Commission is talking about slight things to nail down the south elevation. MR. CARPENTER said it sounds like a pretty easy fix by taking the 18" and pulling it back another foot both on the south and east elevation and reducing the parking stalls from 18'-6" down to 17"- 6". He said he just conferred with Chase's architect who doesn't see any problem with this request. He asked if this request could be a condition of approval today to keep the project going forward and move onto Planning Commission. Commissioner Vuksic said that would be fine. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to staff's review of the following conditions prior to construction drawings: 1) add a return to the rear of the building's high parapet so the rear of the wall panel cannot be observed or easily discerned by the public or prepare a line-of-sight survey demonstrating that the rear of the parapets are not visible; 2) revision of the southeast corner of the building to provide an offset between the cementitious wood material and glass as well as providing a larger offset between the metal clad element and the glass; and 3) increase the offset of the metal element at the center of the south elevation to work with and balance the revised element on the right side of that elevation. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. GAPImningUenineJudyWRC\1MinuWs\2018\181113min.docx Page 6 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REV:__/ COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 2. CASE NO: PP 18-0007 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JIM KRICK, 4604 Alta Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76107 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of two (2) industrial buildings totaling 26, 666 square feet; Russell Lane Industrial. LOCATION: Cook Street/Sego Lane/Green Way ZONE: S.I. Mr. Nick Mellon!,•Assistant Planner, presented a Precise Plan proposal for two industrial buildings totaling 26,666 square feet located at the southwest corner of Sego Lane (Sego) and Green Way Lane (Green Way) off Cook Street (Cook.) In addition to the Precise Plan the applicant will submit a Conditional Use Permit that will allow partial retail and potentially restaurant uses. He presented an aerial of the location and stated that this is an infill lot with all the adjoining properties fully 'developed. The buildings will be located partially in an "L" with parking on all sides in a traditional business park configuration. Building 1 fronts onto Sego and Building 2 fronts on Green Way, as well as Cook with loading areas abutting these two streets. He said these two streets are privately maintained which allows for some flexibility from screening requirements, as well as driveway spacing. There will be three access points along the private streets one of which will be shared with an adjoining portion of the property. The applicant will create through access from the neighboring retail center to the north under a reciprocal access agreement. The applicant proposes two sections of parking areas that will have a carport structure along the north and south ends. To accommodate overflow drainage on site, the applicant is proposing a 2 to 3' retaining wall along Cook in order to create a rip rap for emergency drainage and runoff, which will be landscaped accordingly. In this proposal, they show a low block wall to sit.atop the retaining wall. Staff is,recommending the wall be modified with some type of decorative metal fence to soften up that frontage. He presented renderings of the building and said they are designed as concrete tilt-up with some horizontal score lines showing alternating paint tones. There are covered entryways to add a degree of articulation'in the building mass and the roof-top units are completely screened by a 4' parapet wall as shown on the plans. He pointed out that access to the roof is also screened and he presented photos of what would be visible along Cook. The windows are all on a single plane and staff is recommending those be recessed accordingly. The applicant has added a decorative cornice G1PIanning\Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2018\181113min.dacx Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE_._W COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 that runs across the entire length of the building and the covered entryways feature an arch. A similar treatment is shown on the rear entryway which is characterized primarily by roll-up doors that will be visible. At this time, staff would recommend continuing the case and ask the Commission to provide some architectural direction such as potentially changing the proportion of the covered entry and using an alternative cladding material there to differentiate it from the primary mass of the building. This will add some visual interest to the massing since it will be the most visible portion along Cook. He said each of these buildings will be sub-divided into individual spaces with a roll-up door along the rear that will be visible from the private streets. However,there is dense landscaped proposed to help soften that area. Generally, the code doesn't allow loading areas to be directly visible from public view but because these are private streets staff is not concerned with that. The loading areas for Building 1 faces the property line which is already finished with a U blocked wall facing a personal storage facility and staff doesn't have any concerns with the layout of the site itself. Staff is mostly concerned with the architecture of the buildings and thinks there are strategies to incorporate more articulation and massing to bring it up to the design standards of the Commission. Staff has reviewed this and finds that it complies with all developmental standards and is looking for design comments from the Commission to work with the applicant on the architecture of the building. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI; architect, referred to the block wall on Cook Street and discussed the materials and the varying heights from 3 to 5'. At this point, there was too much noise making it hard to transcribe. MR. RICCIARDI discussed internal drains and water draining onsite. He said this property does not have on-site retention and eventually all water will find its way to the wash at the high school. They have an interesting bank of colors, textures, variety and rhythm, as well as an aluminum element with a 6' overhang. Chair Van Vliet asked how the 10' panels were seamed and MR. RICCIARDI said there will be a slight seam, as well as epoxy glue and screws so they will never move. The Commission and the applicant discussed the project colors, the retaining wall on Cook, concrete texture, the tilt-up buildings and columns, location and number of garage roll-up doors facing the street, roof access, the amount of window recess, the roof fascia behind the aluminum fascia, and internal drainage. Commissioner Vuksic and the architect reviewed and discussed the west elevation facing Cook regarding the heights between the red GAPIanningUenine JudyNRCUMinules@0181181113min.docz Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE4,___V COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2018 elements and the location and width of the red forms, as well as increasing the height of the center red element. He and the architect discussed the bay located in the middle of the building and how the two at the ends are higher and the three in the middle are lower. He asked the architect to make the Cook elevation a little more playful and suggested it be modified to create more play in heights. The Commission and the architect discussed the tile roof on the back of Building 2 and ADA grading issues. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1)the west elevation facing Cook Street shall be modified to create more play in the heights between the red elements and possibly the location and.width of the red forms at the discretion of the architect and approval of staff; and 2) the center red element shall be increased in height and reviewed and approved by staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:30 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY 0&4 J N JU R C ING SECRETARY c:wiammngUwlneJedyNARMlMfnmes@otaVeT113miu.do" Page 9 of 9