Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 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 18 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 16 2 Allan Levin X 18 Michael McAuliffe X 16 2 Jim McIntosh X 14 4 John Vuksic X 17 1 Open Position Also Present Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2127/18,4110/18 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of'October 9, 2018 continued to a future meeting. Action: No Action Taken. ARCHITECTURAL REvir-W COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SARC 18-0007 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC. 1550 N. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a monument sign; Fairfield Inn and Suites Marriott. LOCATION: 74764 Technology Drive ZONE: PC-3, FCOZ Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented a proposal for a monument sign for Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott located on Technology Drive. The applicant is proposing a 10' high monument sign to advertise two tenants; the Fairfield Inn and a future tenant for the vacant pad. The City's sign ordinance allows for monuments signs but requires them to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The typical height standards for monuments signs are 6' high with a maximum of 10' high, as proposed. The color scheme of the monument sign matches the scheme of the hotel and staff is. recommending approval. The Commission after reviewing the monument sign, location and lighting had concerns with the height. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the scale of the sign and the four-story hotel and felt it would serve its purpose if it was lowered to a more typical height. Mr. Ceja said the code states the maximum height is 6' but with architectural embellishments or reasons of topographic features in the area they can go as high as 10'. Commissioner Lambell said she didn't see any embellishments on the sign that takes it to another level of architecture. Mr. Ceja hearing the Commission's concerns said since there wasn't an applicant to speak to the sign, he asked if they would recommend a continuance to allow the applicant to return to a future meeting to make a presentation. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to continue and Commissioner McIntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic commented GAPIanningUanine JudyWRC\lMinutes1201W81023min.do" Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REI", ,N COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 on the design of the sign and asked staff to forward his comments to the applicant. He liked the way the future restaurant name piece juts out, but the fact that it happens on both sides would basically create another sign. He suggested the applicant review the perspectives to make this look more like an element and not like two signs. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. SARC 18-0007 subject to: 1) reducing monument sign to 6' and 2) the "secondary sign" looks incomplete as it protrudes outwards towards the street. Applicant shall submit a better design since that side is exposed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. 2. CASE NO: MISC 18-0018 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AN OH, 73444 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve height and non-conforming material exception for a six-(6) foot tall wooden fence and gate in front yard. LOCATION: 73444 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1, 20,000 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to approve two (2) existing U tall rolling wooden gates located approximately 14' from the curb face. He described the gates that feature horizontally stacked wooden slacks and presented site photos of the fence, the exterior of the home and the yard., Each gate is located at.the entrance of the site's two (2) driveways. The space between the two (2) gates is filled by a continuous landscape hedge. The proposal requires approval of an exception to the fence and wall standards of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) for the height and use of a non-conforming material (wood). Per the Fence Code, the maximum permitted height of the wall in its current location is 4'-11". The- current fence exceeds this allowance by a minimum of 1'. He also pointed out that the Fence Code does not allow the use of wood material in fences facing street frontage. Exceptions to the standards of the Fence Code may be granted subject to Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval based on the following findings: 1) unusual circumstances that make the interpretation contrary to the purpose of the ordinance; 2)the exception shall not result in damage; GAP1anningUen1neJudy\AFC\iMinuWs\2018\181023min.docx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REbiEVV COMMISSION , MINUTES October 23, 2018 3) property owners adjacent10 the proposed exception were notified; and, 4) that the materials used shall be based on architectural merit and compatibility with the home's architectural style. He said as far as unusual circumstances'there are none pertaining to the existing property or home which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of.the ordinance. The fence doesn't cause any damages and is not located in a neighborhood that obstructs the line-of-sight to any adjacent neighbor and wouldn't obstruct the flow of drainage. He stated property owners were notified ten.days prior to-the meeting and staff only received one letter in opposition of the fence. He said the fourth exception is a large one and pointed out that the wooden gate appears to be well constructed and visually striking. However, the modern design of the gate clashes with the traditional ranch style design of the existing home. Because the preceding findings cannot be made staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for the proposed fence exception. The Commission reviewed and discussed the height of the adjacent block wall which was just under 6'. Mr. Melloni said this wall is consistent in height with the applicant's�wall. MS. AN OH, applicant, stated she was not aware of the permits needed to put in a wall on her property. She said the main reason she and her husband put in the rolling gate was for the safety of their children because of the speed on the street. They paid $18,000 for the gate and assumed the contractor knew what was needed. They want to maintain something that is pleasing to everyone and is willing to make adjustments. She stated the wall on the adjacent property is prison-looking and yet it complies, but this same person is complaining about her wall. She understands the concern with the wood because of the heat here in the desert and stated she applied a stain and sealant that seems to work here in the desert. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the wood warping and tweaking. However, from a design standpoint she finds it more pleasing than the concrete block wall next door. Commissioner McIntosh asked if the ordinance specifically talks about walls and fences because this technically is a gate and not a wall. He asked how the ordinance applies to gates..Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the Fence Code is specific to walls and fences. In the past, the City has allowed people to use wood as a gate material, but it's typically framed in wrought-iron and other materials that are compatible with the code. He also pointed out that gates are not always at the driveway location but are setback and in GAP1v*g\Jan1ne JudyWRC\1 Minutes12010\181023min.docx Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE' rarni' COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 line with the home that separates the front and side yards and not as visually prominent as this gate. Commissioner McIntosh said the definition of architecture becomes subjective. He said the fence next door appears to be a blighted environment and asked if this fence received approval. He was concerned because usually when the Commission reviews a fence, a landscape plan is required between the wall and curb and that property has no landscaping at all. Mr. Ceja said the City amended the ordinance somewhere between 2010 and 2013 to add language for the design of fences and limited the materials that can be used. Commissioner McIntosh said MS. OH's fence is somewhat environmentally pleasing even though it doesn't meet the fence code, but right next door is something that is not the intent of what the city is trying to create in the community. He said the Commission should work with this applicant and asked her if she would be willing to lower the height of the gate. MS. OH said she would be willing to lower the height to what is appropriate and allowable. She said it is still a work in progress and they are still working on the front yard landscaping and are planning on landscaping the front as well. Chair Van Wet said they have some fixed panels so it's not strictly a gate. MS. OH said the fixed panels are only in front of the gate motor so it would not be visible from the street. Chair Van Vliet said the street really looks open and was concerned about the height and location of her fence. MS. OH stated there are one or two houses on the street that have wood gates right at their driveway. Chair Van Vliet said they try not to have the walls too close to the street otherwise the whole street looks walled-in. The Commission and staff discussed the height of the fence and setbacks and reviewed the applicants site plan and the alternative materials. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant as she was designing the gate, did she think about it in relationship to the house. MS. OH said they did think about that but they didn't want the wall to look prison-like. They thought it would be a good idea to put some security measures in place prior to the remodeling phase because the house was going to be open and torn up and they wanted their children to be safe. Commissioner Vuksic asked what she would do in the more open spots where a hedge is currently. MS. OH said they will be replanting those areas with something that is more substantial since it is a security measure. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned she was piece-mealing this project and asked if they would put in a fence of GAPIanningUanine Judy4ARC\1M1nuteM201B%181023mindccx Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REvir-W COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 some kind in the future. MS. OH said she would not put in a wall because she hates the idea of being walled-in that is why they chose greenery in those areas instead. Commissioner Vuksic asked staff if this gate must meet all the fence criteria or can it be subjective. Mr. Melloni said it would have to meet all the findings. Commissioner Vuksic said the gate is interesting and he likes the design. He feels that it has significant architectural merit. However, since it is a little strong it would help by lowering it and then he would be inclined to approve it. Chair Van Wet asked the applicant if she will do anything with the house to tie the fence into the house and asked what her plans were for the renovation of the house. MS. OH said when they initially moved into this mid-century style home it was quite a hodge-podge. She would like to keep it simple and consistent. Commissioner Lambell said they need to employ an architect or a designer who can help them with their vision who can give them some feedback on how they can make this whole thing become cohesive; which would help the Commission approve the gate system. Commissioner McAuliffe said unifying the whole thing is the challenge and if there is no definitive plan to unify it then it's hard to leave it as is. He thinks lowering the gate will help and asked her if she would be amiable to potentially painting it. He loves the design but it just doesn't fit with the house. He said there are things that can be done to quiet it down because he'd hate to deny the whole thing. Commissioner McIntosh felt that painting it would totally change its• character and said there had to be something to tie it into the existing home. Commissioner Vuksic suggested a slate roof to compliment the gate. Commissioner McIntosh expressed that the Commission should not dictate what the design should be and said the applicant should take away today what the Commission's position is and come back and propose a solution. He said this Commission is trying to incorporate what has been established in the Code and be fair to the community. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue Case No. MISC 18-0018 subject to: 1) lowering the height of the gate and fence; and, 2) applicant submitting a proposal for the fence to tie into the architecture of the house. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Wet voting YES G:1PIanningVan1ne JudMRW MinutesN201WBIG23mindo" Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE4imvV COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP/PP 16-303 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUMAR DEVCO LLC., 3835 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:. Consideration to preliminarily approve architecture for the development of a retail shopping center. LOCATION: SWC Washington Street & Avenue of the States ZONE: P.C:(2) Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, went over the Commission's recommendations from the meeting of October 9, 2018: the pages are now numbered, the plans now match the elevations, changes have-been made to the spandrel glass, and they have submitted updated plans. Staff feels with this resubmittal, the applicant has addressed the Commission's comments and recommends approval of the Precise Plan subject to some standard conditions: clarify that all roof-top equipment shall be screened; all elements carried over shall appear 3-dimensional; roof drains shall be integrated into the building design; and the detector checks and electric utility cabinets shall be screened and located so they are not readily visible from the public line-of-sight. MR. RICK GRANDY, Project Architect, went through all the changes they made since the meeting of October 9, 2018; they changed the glass on the corner of Denny's to corner glass and took out the column; on the index they added Sheet 10 for the Denny's floorplan; they added Sheet 21 to combine the roof plans of Pads B and C; on the first Modeling Study #1 they changed to corner glass from the column; the same thing on Modeling Study#2; Sheet 10 now reflects the corner glass on the Denny's; on the top elevation on Sheet 11 they removed the trees; on the two side elevations,they changed the height of the tower from 22' to 26'. Commissioner Vuksic asked why they changed the height of the towers and MR. GRANDY said they were asked to vary the heights. Mr. Ceja said one of the comments from the last meeting was to have the towers at different heights. Commissioner Vuksic said he remembers making that comment for Pad C but doesn't recall it on this elevation. MR. GRANDY said he recalls it on all the buildings. He continued with Sheet 12 and said they adjusted the heights of the top of parapets on the towers and GAPIanningUmine JudMRM1 Minutes12018N181023min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RL:.�W COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 adjusted two of them to 26% on Sheet 13, they adjusted the tower to 26' on the north elevation; they changed the top glass above the canopies from spandrel to clear glass; on the east elevation they changed the tower to 26; they added relief dimensions on the east elevation for how far the elements are sticking out from the zero plane of the wall; they took out the window on the left tower on the east elevation and put in plaster; on Sheet 14 they raised the tower to 26' on the south elevation and removed the trees; they added the cross-joint plaster treatment on the wall-, and on the west elevation they raised the tower to 26; Sheet 16 they changed the corner__ column at two locations on the north and east elevation to corner glass. Commissioner Vuksic said they mentioned the northeast corner and asked if their intent was for that to happen on the northwest corner as well. MR. GRANDY said they weren't going to do it there because that was between the two buildings; Sheet 19 they changed the corners to glass on the east and north elevations on Pad C; Sheet 21 for Pad B they revised the top of parapets at the towers from 28' to 27'; Sheet 22 they added a detail to show a red band around Pad A to give a little shadow effect; Sheet 24 they took out the planters on the south side of Pad A; Sheet 28 for Pad B on the finished schedule they replaced the Well Bread Brown color with Accessible Beige and replaced the Admiral Navy Color G with Pearly White. Chair Van Vliet referred'to the equipment heights and said it should be below the top of parapet and MR. GRANDY said it is noted to be top of equipment which is 4'-6" above roof deck. Chair Van Vliet said this Commission requires it to be screened below the top of the parapet. They discussed the height of the parapets and Chair Van Vliet said it is easier to call it out on the drawings to be clear for everyone. , Commissioner Vuksic said this has come a long way and is hoping this can be approved today. However, he thinks there was a misinterpretation of his comments regarding the towers. He remembers saying to vary the heights of the towers and pointed out that they have two towers with flat tops on the Denny's both at 24' and now they are both at 26'. He thinks it was better when they were 24' and recommended the heights remain at 24' because they are on opposite ends of the building; one is in the northeast corner and the other is in the southwest corner and you're never going to see them at the same time. MR. GRANDY said he will make that change. Commissioner Vuksic discussed adding more recess in the glass for Pad A on the north elevation. He said the corner glass on,the tower c:NIammngUamneduaYwaaiminme:\2meNieiozsmin.aoc, Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REI._.V COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 l of Denny's that faces the intersection is good, as well as the thick wall on the Washington side. He questioned whether they have a thick wall on the Avenue of the States side because the renderings are not matching the floor plans. He discussed the pop-out at the end of the glass on the Washington side and a thickened wall set-in a foot on the east side. On the north side, which has the same window system, it looks like it's set in a foot on the rendering but on the floor plan it's set in only 2" and on the east elevation there is a foot and on the north elevation the dimension only shows 4". This also needs to look_like the rendering. MR. GRANDY said he will make that__ adjustment. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the floor plan showing flat glass on a large expanse of glass and said this is a sizable architectural element that has no recess in the glass. He has asked about this in previous meetings, however, it is still the same. He .asked the architect to explain. MR. GRANDY reviewed the elevation and said they can certainly bring out the wall 12" and have the glass inset. Commissioner Vuksic was satisfied with his answer. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the wainscot on the northwest ( corner and said the information provided was not the preferred solution because basically it's a 2 x 4 that is attached to the wall with a different color below than above. He recommended they create a base to the building that is in a different plane than the glass and the wall above it so it doesn't look like a stuck-on piece of material. MR. GRANDY said they prefer to have the stuck on 2 x 4 to avoid problems with Denny's. Commissioner McIntosh asked if it was a foam piece and MR. GRANDY said it was. Commissioner McIntosh said this is a location that is susceptible to damage. MR. GRANDY said they can change to 2 x 4 wood and stucco it. Commissioner McIntosh said it is kind of a whimsical building and this might be more acceptable. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if this was on all four sides of the building and ,MR. GRANDY answered yes. Commissioner Vuksic was agreeable to that solution and feels that will help a lot. Commissioner Vuksic didn't see any changes to the southwest corner on Pad C that faces the Carlos Ortega Villas and thinks this needs some reveal there. He said this also happens on the west elevation that has a tower adjacent to it with a 6" offset. MR. GRANDY said they can bump it out 3" but doesn't want to interfere with the tower. Looking at the west elevation the top of the tower is 6" out on a zero plane and he'd rather not make it flush and have a G.\PlanningManine JudMRC\1MinUte$\2018\181023min.do" Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REvicW COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 shadow line there, but he will bring out the dark color 3". Chair Van Vliet said it's nice to have that offset even though,it's not much. Commissioner McIntosh discussed the glass at the entry next to the window and the little piece of triangular plaster between the glass at the leg on Pad A. He said the applicant followed a formula of negative voids in the masses and they departed from'that in that area which leaves an odd shaped wall that's not following the formula they have used everywhere else in the buildings. He thought that if the glass is engaged at the entry and the sloped wall came-in-on the plan a little, it wouldn't be just a planted on element on the outside of the building. It would actually go into the lobby a little to become more of an important element in the building. MR. GRANDY said it may make it look more whimsical. He said the element on the right side is out 12" now from the glass so the glass is recessed in appearance on the corner and where the doors are they are already recessed. Commissioner McIntosh was concerned they are missing an opportunity there. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to bring up an item that he has mentioned several times and referred to the east elevation Pad A facing Washington Street. He referred to the floor plan and the glass in the middle facing Washington Street that has no recess in the glass. He said there is a 6" thick wall and a window frame system that is 4" and asked if they could recess it 2" to be flush with the inside of the wall and not the outside of the wall as it is drawn now. MR. GRANDY said yes. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) submitting a floor plan for Pad C; 2) the heights of the Denny's tower shall remain at 24'; 3) thicken walls on north elevation Pad C to match rendering on north side; 4) Pad C shall have a 3" reveal; 4) take glass and create slope geometry on Pad C; 3) add additional recess in glass for Pad A north elevation; 5) create a base in a different plane Pad A; and, 6) increase reveal to be flush with wall on Pad C on east 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. C. Miscellaneous Items: None GAPIanning\Janine JudyWRC\7 M1nutes\P018\181023m1n.docz Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REver-W COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2018 VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:05 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY X� JANI JUDY R RDING SECRETARY G.\PlenningVJwine Jud MRC\1 Minutee\2018\181023minAccx Page 11 of 11