Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-12 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 2020 (VIRTUAL MEETING) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chris Van Vliet, Chair Karel Lambell, Vice Chair Allan Levin Michael McAuliffe Jim McIntosh Jim Schmid John Vuksic Current Meeting Present Absent X X X X X X X Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Russell Grance, Director Building and Safety Monica O'Reilly, Mgt. Specialist 11 Lorena Ritchey, Mgt. Specialist II Wayne Olson, Economic Development Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: 12/24/19,3/10/20, 3/24/20, 4/14/20 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Year to Date Present Absent 5 1 5 1 6 6 5 1 5 1 5 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 28, 2020 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the April 28, 2020 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion was seconded by Chair Van Vliet and carried by a 6-0- 1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid and Van Vliet, voting YES and Vuksic absent- V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-188 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MONTEREY CROSSING, Attm Gabriel Rios, 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT. Consideration to approve final construction drawings for Buildings 5 and 6 of the Monterey Crossing Specific Plan. LOCATION: Dinah Shore Drive/Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.C.-3 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request for approval of final construction drawings for two (2) multi -tenant retail buildings within Monterey Crossings Center; Buildings 5 and 6. The architecture for these two (2) buildings received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in December 2016. Building 5 is located along the south-western boundary of the site and will be occupied by restaurant tenants. Building 6 is located directly east of Building 5 and will contain retail. The plans largely match the preliminary elevations approved by the ARC. One notable change occurs to the north-east tower on Building 5; the proportions have been changed in order to accommodate several site utilities and a path -of -travel from the parking area. The elevations still substantially match the preliminary approval. The architecture is subject to the requirements of the Monterey Crossing Specific Plan (MCSP). The preliminary architecture was approved based on compliance with the MCSP. Staff recommends approval of the final drawings as presented. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the minor revision on the canopy elevation on Building 6 and said this area was revised with the openings and overall the elevation is fine. 0 1PlanningUanine Judy1ARC11Minules1202&200512min docx Page 2 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve subject to submitting minor revisions to canopy elevation. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid and Van Viiet voting YES and Vuksic absent. Commissioner McIntosh recused himself from this project and remained in the meeting. 2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0012 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GREGORY AND JENNIFER SPATES, 73-695 O'Keefe Way, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a height exception to construct a 17'-0" single family residence. LOCATION:. 77-730 Mountain View r0JZF_A9M Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request for a height exception to construct a 4,837-square-foot single-family residence and 477-square-foot detached casita at a maximum height of 17'-0" from finished grade; 2' above what is allowed in the RE zone. He presented site elevations, a color board and roof plan for review. The property is a vacant one -acre lot zoned Estate Residential (RE) located at the northwest corner of Mountain View and Latisha Lane (Latisha). The architecture of the proposed structure is traditional and characterized by stucco siding, sloped tile roof, and stone veneer wainscoting. The home's primary entrance will front upon Mountain View and feature a three (3)-bay garage fronting upon Latisha. The structure conforms with setbacks and development standards for the RE zone. Per section 25.10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the maximum height for a structure in the RE zone is 15'. The Architectural Review Commission may grant exceptions for homes to have a maximum height of 18' based on design merit. Staff recommends approval of the proposed home and granting the exception as proposed. MR. GABRIEL RIOS, designer, said the area that is going over the 15' height is only 2' and it is mainly the living room area and the center of the kitchen. Commissioner Lambell stated that the Commission looks for architectural significance to grant approval for a height exception. She asked the designer what he thought was significant on this house that sets it apart from other homes in the neighborhood. MR. RIOS said GAPIanningQanineJudylARCllMinules\20201200512mindacu Page 3 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 the owner was going with a standard design that is compatible with the neighborhood. On the front face of the south elevation they recessed everything and added the stone element to give it more of an architectural feature than just a standard home. This element gives it more of an offset and has a nice custom feel to it. Commissioner Lambell asked the designer to consider a pop of color to balance out the neutral color palette. MR. JIM MCINTOSH, resident, referred to the 6' high block wall along Latisha and asked if that was allowed by code because he thought it was 5' high if on the property line. Mr. Melloni said the allowed height depends on the setback relative to the face of the curb. For a 6' high wall, it has to be 20' back with pilasters every 30', as well as additional landscaping. He suggested the applicant revise the site plan to show wall placement that complies with wall ordinance. MR_ MCINTOSH agrees with the previous statement that there isn't any architectural significance especially since the height goes from side to side all the way across the building on a long ridge with no breakup of the architecture. He also feels this does not stand out in the neighborhood. Commissioner Levin asked if there was anything going on within the house that necessitated the additional height. MR. RIOS said the living room currently is 10' but they did drop the ridgeline as low as they could and used a 3:12 pitch. Commissioner Lambell said rather than having one long element she asked if this could change at the master bathroom closet, keeping the height in the great room and kitchen to break up that long expanse. MR. RIOS said he will look at an area right past the living room and possibly switching that end to a hip to break it up. He said he will review the roof line and make revisions. Commissioner Schmid was concerned with the blank east facing wall of the kitchen and asked the designer to work with the articulation on that wall. He said there is a lot of detail on the front of the house and was concerned that with the increase in height they are just pulling that big blank wall a lot higher. Commissioner McAuliffe was concerned with the garage doors because they will also be highly visible on this corner lot. He thinks if they were to double frame that face of the wall that will help to further elevate the quality of the home. Chair Van Wet referred to the color board and questioned the main color, as well as the trim color_ He and the designer discussed where G:TlanningUanineJudMRC11MinuleM2020%2pp512mindoc- Page 4 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 the trim color will be located. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the starkness of the pure white stucco and how it relates to the stone and bronzes. Chair Van Vliet suggested color combinations on the different masses that may improve the starkness of the white stucco. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No MISC 20-0012 subject to: 1) consider adding additional color to exterior palette; 2) re-examine design of roof line above 15' to break up the long horizontal mass of the gable form; 3) articulate exterior expanse of eastern kitchen wall; 4) recess garage doors in a manner similar to recessed windows; and 5) revise site plan to show wall placement that complies with wall ordinance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Schmid and Van Vliet voting YES, McIntosh abstaining and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 20-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: 72221 HIGHWAY 111, LLC, Attn: Adam Gilbert, 2496 E. Santa Ynez, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve facade remodel for an existing multi -tenant retail building within the Las Sombras Center: Bump and Grind Plaza. LOCATION: 72-221 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.4 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify the facade of a 17,000-square-foot multi -tenant retail building along Highway 111. The proposal also includes landscaping modifications which will remove all existing turf along the property's Highway 111 frontage and replace it with desert native plant species. The building is a part of the Las Sombras Center, which was originally developed in the early 1980s. The respective buildings within the center are currently under separate ownership, but utilize the common parking area. The existing architecture is characterized by Spanish inspired sloped terra- cotta roofs, tan stucco, and a long -horizontal form with multiple breaks in the building mass. He presented site elevations, a color board and roof plan and said changes to the building include: new contemporary parapets and tower forms along the western and eastern elevations; addition of outdoor dining terraces; addition of art/mural elements along the Highway 111 frontage; and color changes from the existing desert beige and tan to neutral grays and painted tile roof. Architectural Review GAPIanningUanineJudyl RCI1Minules120201200512min.docx Page 5 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 Commission (ARC) approval is required for all commercial facade modifications per Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.68.020 (A). Mr. Melloni stated that staff is supportive of the overall changes and recommends the ARC continue the case and provide design direction. The overall character of the western facade upgrades and eastern facade changes have potential to better match each other. The west side features more contemporary forms, while the eastern side retains some traditional elements, such as the inclusion of cornice trim details. Staff would recommend the overall design more clearly pursue one style. Staff also recommends the forms added to the eastern elevation be simplified in a manner similar to the west elevation. Staff also recommends the applicant diversify the variety of flowering shrubs in the new landscape design to include more color and help add to the visual interest along Highway 111. MR. ADAM GILBERT, property owner, said he was excited to present this project to the City. He purchased the building after sitting empty for about seven (7) years and had a vision to resurrect this dying area of the shopping center. He pushed forward with that vision that has attracted tenants to make this an exciting retail, entertainment venue with restaurants, coffee shops and a fitness studio. To modernize it they are proposing a large facade improvement in order to bring the building to the level that it can be. He pointed out that the building is 100% vacant, as well as the old Tilted Kilt. Essentially they are dealing with a 16,000-square-foot retail shopping center in a dead portion of a shopping center which has been difficult to get tenants to come on board. In order to bring them on board they are proposing an exciting new contemporary design that gives tenants the reassurance that they are going to invest in the property and bring people in so their businesses will be successful. Overall, the shopping center is very eclectic in terms of the design and there are some inherent design flaws with the building that they wanted to change. One is that the current design provides no signage on Highway 111 which makes it impossible for businesses to be seen because you don't know what is on the other side. On that same note, there is no inlet directly to their building as they are in the middle of the shopping center from Highway 111. So the signage will be extremely important for the success of the center. The change itself has to be significant enough to entice tenants to lease. The tenants he has so far are not national retailers, they are all mom and pops. He has been able to explain to them that they are going to create something that is significant, modern, and will stand the test of time and be willing to invest their time and money into it. Because of the COVID-19 crisis and everything that is going on it is a very scary time for retail_ In closing, he would like to ask the Commission for their G%PlenningUanlneJudyV4RMIM,nuteW020=05a2mindocr Page 6 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 recommendations and would appreciate a preliminary approval of the project so they can move it forward. MR. GABRIEL LUHAN, designer, presented the elevations and described the articulation of the building. They will employ Art in Public Places for the center, add LED recessed lighting, and improve the landscaping, There will be separate articulations on the different roof types and to tie the whole thing together they will add horizontal elements and vertical elements, apply foam trim and paint the roof black to make the building pop. Commissioner Lambell discussed the proposed monument sign on Highway 111 and suggested that the 8' tall sign have more articulation, as well as more architectural significance for it to be considered for approval. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the applicant has two (2) items on the agenda and staff wanted to make sure the building elevations were reviewed first because that will dictate the monument design, as well as the sign placement for the entire center. At this point, the Commission will focus on the building architecture. Commissioner McAuliffe commended the new building owner for taking on a very challenging property. This property, as a gateway to Palm Desert, has significant opportunity with a lot of challenges to overcome. He thinks the owner has articulated very well with what needs to happen and applauds him for taking this on this ambitious path of changing the flavor of the architecture from something a lot more traditional in form to something that is a lot more contemporary and feels they have done a lot of creative things to take it in that direction. He was concerned with the more contemporary forms as they get placed along the facade of the building and said how they interact and engage with the existing form of the building is going to be critical. He referred to a sloping form and said how that element actually turns back or doesn't is going to either make or break this. As it is presented now, these forms are going to look like they are just pushed up against the building and not an integral part of the architecture. He referred to the little returns on these elements and said how they relate to the existing form will be critical because they will be visible given that they are tapering forms. Those things really need to be carefully studied otherwise this will come across as a Hollywood set and he doesn't think that is either acceptable nor the owner's intent. There also seems to be a mix of both very traditional architectural forms and some of the more contemporary and he thinks they are just wrestling with each other. He referred to the patio rail forms that are a very traditional design that are fighting against the architecture. On the Highway 111 side, there are forms that have a very traditional cornice element on them and then there are all the other GAPtanningUanlneJudyMpCllMinutas12020%200512min.daex Page 7 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 newly introduced forms that are crisped edged. He thinks they have to take the design completely in this contemporary direction and said not to introduce more of these traditional elements. There are enough of those in there already that they have to overcome. He feels these are little things that can be tidied up that will just further strengthen what they are trying to accomplish. Commissioner McIntosh wanted to thank the building owner for taking this on because the Commission has seen projects come through a few times with unsuccessful solutions. This is a particularly difficult retail environment that hasn't proven successful for many years. He couldn't think of another center that is laid out like this where a lack of exposure is the problem. He is concerned that the monument sign or signage alone is not going to be enough to trigger the energy needed to make this a successful project. He feels it would be wise to look at a case study of another center with a similar concept and layout. He asked the owner if he has looked into that. MR. GILBERT said he hasn't looked at other case studies but agrees that signage alone won't fix this center. It will take substantial work both in form and the right kind of tenant mix. In addition, they will be doing things along the lines of public art and social media to get people there, such as the food truck festival they held in the parking lot. Again it will not only be the architecture, it will take a lot of work, time and energy and not being a passive landlord. They are working on all these things in addition to the facade. Commissioner McIntosh said he appreciates their enthusiasm because he thinks citizens want to see this project become successful. He and the property owner discussed creating a pedestrian pass -through from Highway 111 to the west side of the building that would allow travelers to see into the center instead of seeing just the back side of the buildings. There is a real synergy that happens in a pedestrian environment. When people see activity, they tend to want to stop and find out what is going on and to be a part of it. They will never get that opportunity with the way it is configured right now. This is an unusual site with chronic problems from the beginning and it might need a really bold move to really make it successful. The Commission and the applicant reviewed the center on Google Earth and MR. LUHAN pointed out the existing areas that are similar to a pass -through. He said the existing areas don't do anything for the site as they are mainly used for trash enclosures. Commissioner McIntosh said some of the comments about trying to convert this more traditional style of architecture to something contemporary has its challenges and cautioned them about painting the roof tile black. That might work in other areas but this is a very dusty GAP anninpUenineJudMRG11Minutes12020120D512min.dxa Page 8 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 environment but after a couple of heavy dust storms the black the will look terrible. MR. GILBERT said they initially proposed keeping the red tile roof but didn't think it would blend with the contemporary look. He said they are to hearing the Commission's thoughts for any color combinations. Chair Van Vliet commended the owner for their efforts in trying to put this together as this has been an extremely difficult project. He felt that no matter what they do to the architecture on the Highway 111 side it still may not be enough to get people into that center. He thought they could focus on doing something on the parking lot side to create something that attracts people into the center. He said the changes will have to be fairly significant and not minor in nature to get through this Commission. MR. GILBERT is betting they can solve this problem and thinks the signage will be a huge factor in that. He appreciates all the comments and said they will be putting a lot on the line for this project to make it work. He will take the Commission's comments and suggestions, make changes to the drawings, and continue working with staff to move this along. Commissioner Lambell feels they need to get rid of the traditional architecture and the cornices at the two tower elements. She feels this will trigger some other changes as they look at the Highway 111 side. She suggested they get the architecture stabilized and approved then the Commission can move on to the signage. Commissioner McAuliffe made an edit to Commissioner Lambell's comment regarding the cornices. He said it's not that the cornices should necessarily go away. There are plenty of examples of great contemporary cornices. The ones they are seeing here are a very traditional profile and thinks that is the conflict. If they want to remove them that is one direction, but if they can be done in a contemporary profile that is also certainly acceptable. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. MISC 20-0005 subject to: 1) design new tower elements and parapets to appear four-sided and integrated into the building design; 2) carefully study the mix of traditional and contemporary forms; 3) revise design of the Highway 111 frontage to feature more contemporary details and forms and remove more traditional elements on the additions; 4) review case studies of other projects with a similar concept and layout; 5) explore the possibility of a pedestrian path or architectural "pass - through" from Highway 111 to the west side of the building; 6) consider a GAPienningUanineJudMRL\lMinules120201200512min,docx Page 9 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 different color for roof tile; and 10) update the patio rails to feature a contemporary design. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO: SARC 20-0004 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: 72221 HIGHWAY 111, LLC, 2496 E. Santa Ynez, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT. Consideration to approve a new sign program and monument sign for existing retail building: Bump and Grind Plaza. LOCATION: 72-221 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.-4 Mr. Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner, presented a request to establish a new sign program for the updated Bump and Grind Plaza building. The sign program will establish signage design standards for the seven (7) tenant suites in the building. Signage includes: nine (9) tenant wall signs on the west elevation; seven (7) tenant wall signs on the east elevation; one (1) building identification sign on the east elevation; and, one (1) monument sign along the Highway 111 frontage. The signage standards are clean and consistent with the general signage standards established by the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance under Chapter 25.56 — Signage. The monument sign is designed in a contemporary style Inspired by the updated facade. It is constructed from routed aluminum cabinets and stands at a maximum height of 8'-0". A comprehensive sign program is required for all multi -tenant buildings with three (3) or more tenant spaces per Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.56.100. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is the approval authority for comprehensive sign programs per PDMC Section 25.68.060 (C). Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign program standards for the wall signs and require applicant to update exhibits based on the updated elevations for MISC 20-0005. Commissioner Lambell understands the need for this 8' high monument sign to draw people's attention to the center and said this needs to be looked at in relationship to the rest of the building once the architecture is determined. Chair Van Vllet pointed out all the signage on the back of the building and was concerned that there would be a lot of variation in the signs. GAPlanningUanineJudy\ARC%1Knutes1202=00812mindwx Page 10 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 He asked about can signs, logos, color, letter sizes and illumination. Mr. Melloni said what is allowed are channel letters, acrylic face or the non - dimensional flush mounted letters. MR. GLENN DAVIS, Signarama, said they want the signs to conform to the City's sign ordinance and the sign program is being designed to mimic a similar look and feel as seen in many shopping centers that surround the Highway 111 corridor in the mixed -use shopping centers. They want the signage to be flexible in terms of size and proportion and in harmony with the architectural element of the new center's facade, but they also want to allow flexibility and style and application on a case by case basis. There will be guidelines to steer tenants into a uniform proportion in a similar look and style but they don't want to restrict it to just reverse channel or face -lit. MR. ADAM GILBERT, property owner, said all of their signs are in conformance with the actual code that is allowed. They didn't ask for anything over and beyond based on the lateral length of the wall where it will be applied. The only sign that is a little larger than what the code allows is the main sign, Bump and Grind Plaza, that will be located above the art on the center of the building to give name recognition to the center itself. Commissioner Levin asked for the size of the letters. MR. DAVIS didn't know the actual height of the individual letters but thought they would probably go with something in the 24" range given the overall 47" sign area height they are asking for. Commissioner Levin requested the applicant to label all sign dimensions, letter heights and spacing on fascia. MR. DAVIS stated he will include the dimensions in the sign program. Commissioner Levin referred to the monument sign and stated the rendering didn't match what was being proposed. After some discussion, MR. GILBERT said they will make those changes. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if the font or fonts are going to be corporate fonts and who will decide that. He also asked if they were allowing different colors for the fonts and corporate logos and if so, how will that be consistent or change between what is on the building and on the monument sign. He said all that needs to be spelled out in the sign program text at the front of the package. MR. GILBERT said they want to be as flexible as possible because there will be a lot of different types of businesses. Commissioner McAuliffe said the variety is certainly fine but it would be appropriate to spell out what those parameters are as they are defining their sign program. As the graphics present, it looks like everything is the same font, color, size, etc. G.1PlanningUaninoJudMRMIMinules\20201200512mindo= Page 11 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. SARC 20-0004 subject to: 1) submitting updated building elevations based on design changes to fagade update (Case MISC 20-0005); 2) clearly label all sign dimensions, letter heights and spacing on fascia; 3) submit updated renderings; 4) clarify what fonts will be permitted on monument signage in the design guidelines section of the program; and 5) update and further articulate the monument sign based on the architecture of the main building. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid and Van Viiet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 20-0011 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SEAN AND KIM SMITH, 47-817 Sun Corral Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new side -entry carport 16' from curb. LOCATION: 47-817 Sun Corral Trail ZONE: R-1, 10,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a new side -entry carport 16' from curb and presented the renderings and a landscape plan for review. The proposed carport is 519 square feet and is designed to blend into the existing home, while maintaining the Spanish architectural style. In order to accommodate the carport, some existing native landscaping will be removed. The property is zoned R-1, 10,000 and the front yard setback is 20' from property line. In older neighborhoods, the Zoning Ordinance encourages rehabilitation of older dwelling units and provisions for shaded parking by allowing a side -entry carport structure 16' from curb. In approving such a setback, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) must make a determination that a reduced setback will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and that the design of the structure is compatible with the existing home. The design and scale of the proposed carport is compatible with the existing home and provides for a nice architectural feature. Installation of the proposed carport would not impact the existing on -site circulation. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with a condition clarifying that the Commission require the applicant to, if feasible, preserve as much existing landscaping as possible. Chair Van Wet asked for clarification on the area where an overhang and sliders were located_ MS_ KIM SMITH, property owner, said the G1PlanningUanineJudMFtC11Minutes120201200512min.dxx Page 12 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 overhang will remain and said the designer didn't draw it into the picture. The Commission reviewed the elevation showing the roof cover on it. Chair Van Vliet hoped it wouldn't be too visible and thought it would look odd. He asked if the back wall of the carport would be up against that and MS. SMITH said the carport will have to be 2' behind it because there is a natural built-in bench behind it underneath the palapa so it won't allow them to build it right on top of the palapa. Commissioner Lambell suggested the applicant ask the designer to submit corrections to the east elevation to show the existing covered area and bench. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the windows being added to the side of the carport and feels that the tops of the windows are crowding the vegas and given the height of the other openings in the building those windows seem high. He thinks they would look better if they were pulled down to possibly be in line with the head of the slider window and the other window to the right of it. He said just having a little bit of that stepped parapet above will make that carport visually read a lot stronger. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. MISC 20-0011 subject to 1) submitting corrections to east elevation to show existing covered area and bench; 2) lower windows on the side of carport to avoid crowding and to visually read stronger; and 3) update lighting on east elevation. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 20-0006 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: QUICK QUACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Attn: Efrain Corona, 1380 Lead Hill Blvd #210, Roseville, CA 95661 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new car wash building within the Monterey Shore Shopping Center: Quick Quack Car Wash. LOCATION: 73320 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request to construct a new 3,384-square-foot carwash building with vacuum cleaning GAPIanningUanineJudykARNMinuteM20201200512min.docx Page 13 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 stations on parcel 8 of the approved Monterey Crossings commercial center. He presented renderings and a color board for review. He reported that the building features a contemporary design characterized by desert appropriate beige, tan, brown, dark yellow colored stucco finishes and masonry veneer. The project includes a desert landscape plan along Dinah Shore Drive, and around the building. Also included is a design for metal canopies to shade the vacuum cleaning stations. The building features a parapet at an average height of 23' with a tower element up to 29'. All roof -top equipment will be adequately screened. The proposed carwash is located in an area subject to the Monterey Crossings Specific Plan (MCSP). This document establishes allowed uses and design guidelines for all future buildings on the 18 acre site. The MCSP establishes the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) as the approval authority for future buildings within the plan, provided said building is within the scope of the original entitlement. The ARC reviews new buildings for compliance with MCSP guidelines for building design, materials, and development standards. Staff provided comments to the applicant on their original submittal, which included a large amount of stone. The updated design is more in keeping with all applicable requirements of the MCSP. Staff recommends approval of the proposed carwash as presented. Commissioner Lambell asked where the roof access was located. MR. EFRAIN CORONA, Quick Quack, said it is located inside the equipment room. He then pointed out another exterior roof ladder for the quarterback station and stated there is not enough room for an interior roof ladder because the room is too small. Commissioner Lambell said exterior ladders are not allowed in the City. After much discussion, MR. CORONA said they may be able to find some extra room by revising the footprint. Commissioner Levin and MR. CORONA discussed the secondary exit and Mr. Swartz suggested they obtain a determination from Fire whether the secondary exit is needed next to the trash enclosure. Commissioner Larnbell said the renderings looked weak and suggested they beef it up. MR. CORONA asked if she was referring to the depth of cap flashing at the top of the parapet. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the comment made by Commissioner Lambell regarding the thickness or thinness of the architecture is appropriate. He pointed out that the material itself is approved in the specific plan and one of the challenges they have is using the material that has been identified for the entire shopping center and bring that into each and every building within the center itself. MR. CORONA said they matched the center at 8". G-OanningUanina Judy ARM Minules=2=00512min doo Page 14 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 Commissioner McAuliffe said he is comfortable with the form of the building as presented in the prospective and renderings provided by the applicant. He would be concerned if there were other technical issues, for instance, with the roof plan or equipment not being screened. If staff is comfortable then he is comfortable. Commissioner McIntosh asked if this was a part of the original master plan that they have been reviewing for the past couple of years. Mr. Ceja answered yes and said the specific plan shows this portion of this shopping center as automotive uses. However, he did not previously see a Quick Quack or other type of carwash. Commissioner McIntosh asked if this was adjacent to the CarMax and Mr. Ceja said it is a bit away but it is pushed up against the eastern property of this shopping center which is close to CarMax, Commissioner McIntosh said from what he has seen he has no problem with the architecture. However, because some of the plans were missing from the Commissioner's packet, he doesn't want to go on record that he's approving a project without having a full set of drawings to review. Mr. Ceja suggested the Commission grant preliminary approval for the architecture and staff will email the missing set of plans to the Commissioners for review. If there is a major concern that arises, staff will relay that to the applicant to correct the items as they are preparing their construction drawings. He reminded the Commission that the construction drawings will come back to the Commission for final review. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to preliminarily approve subject to: 1) relocating exterior roof ladder for the quarterback station to an interior space; and 2) obtain determination from Fire whether the secondary exit is needed next to the trash enclosure. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Schmid and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None 0:1PlanningWnineJudyV1RC11Minutes120=00512minAm Page 15 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2020 VI. COMMENTS Discussion of exterior roof ladders. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:55 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLACNE SECRETARY iSJf ! JUD RDING SECRETARY GAPianningUanineJudyIARMIMinutesl2O=200512minU-cx Page 16 of 16