Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-28 ARC Regular Meeting Agenda PacketCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 28, 2020 12:30 P.M. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Please set your cell phones to silent mode I. CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 14,'2020 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS y Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address j the Commission at this point by stepping to the table and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Commission. V. , CASES: A. -Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: PP 18-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Avenue #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve final constructiondrawings; Holiday 'Inn Express and Suites. LOCATION: 694-190-082 & 694=190-086 ZONE: P.C.-2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA January 28,,2020 2. CASE NO:1MISC 20-0001 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: BICKEL GROUP ARCHITECTURE, Attn: Jessica Steiner, 3600 Birch Street, Suite 120, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to -approve construction of a ,new drive -through restaurant building with the approved Monterey Crossings shopping center: Habit Burger. LOCATION: Dinah Shore Drive & Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.C.-3, FCOZ, MSCP 3. CASE NO: MISC 20-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GRAZIADIO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, Attn: Bill Lang, 149 Palos Verdes Blvd. #E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: , Consideration to approve facade modifications; Jensen's Shopping Center. LOCATION: 73-547 Highway 111 ZONE: D.O. B. Preliminary Plans None C. Miscellaneous Items None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday Friday, 8:00 a.m. — 5:00, p.m., 73510 Fred #Waring #Drive, Palm Desert, CA92260, 760/346.061.1#####^t*+ Please contact the Department of Community Development, 760/346-0611, for ADA assistance the Monday prior to the meeting. Declaration of Posting I, Janine Judy, Management Specialist I for the Department of Community Development of the City of Palm Desert, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION meeting of Tuesday, January 28, 2020 was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, January 21, 2020. Date: January 21, 2020 Janine Judy Recording SecretaryG:\PlanningUanine7udy\ARC\lAgendas\2020\200126ag.doc Page 2 of 2 i - CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JAN UARY 14, 2020 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. V. CASES: A. ; Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0042 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: R�RIOTT, c/o William Swank, 74895 Frank Sinatra Drive, Pa(rn,Desert, CA 92211 f s NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SO�JGHT Cois�deratron for a denial of an exterior renovation, Courtyard by Marriott `a LOCATION: 74-895 Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE` P.R.-5 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant - anner, presented a request to modify the facade of the existingtfiree story'Courtyard by Marriott. The changes include.the`addition of a beW tower element on the north elevation to accent the primary entrance along with the replacement of the existing�porte-cochere Nodesign' changes are proposed for the remaining elevations, these will undergo a paint color change froan to shades of gray. He presented renderings of �f , e proposed ,cfa ngesand said this is a standard model_ that ' ourtyard's' corpdrate'branding has adopted and introducing to all f , Iocat�o�n. However,"with these new forms staff is concerned that the scopeof the changes do not relate to the design of the existing hotel and poinWolij t that the new tower forms and porte-cochere on the , north elevation are contemporary in nature and the flat roof of the r towers clash with the pitched tile roof used on the existing building. �r Staff a recommending denial of the proposed facade changes. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that this proposed style might be approved in other locations and asked if there are hotels that have the sloped roofs, as well,as the fagade pieces on them. MR. BILL SWANK, owner's representative, answered no and explained that this is a Marriott brand requirement for hotels that are 18 years or older across the nation. This is their architecture vernacular they would like deployed across the country with some minor variations. GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Min utes\2020N200114min.docx Page 2 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 He said the ownership thinks this is not the right look or the right product for this community and is feeling forced by Marriott to push this through. He said this is not a business hotel; it is 9,5% is tourism related. Commissioner Vuksic said an architectural industry term for this design -is half-baked because there are some contemporary elements aren't even well done on a building that is not contemporary at all. Commissioner Levin asked about the colorsornmissioner Vuksic said colors are a .detail. It is t,the basic-, ;of what Is being proposed that is not acceptable Commissioner McIntosh said it is not well thought. out and not sensitive to the existing building and moved to deny. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to ,deny the request due to the poor integration of the proposed tarad elements with -'"'the existing building architecture, lack of design cohesion; a'hd total;.lack of compatibility with the existing building and neigh'boring`'/ structUres' within the project vicinity. Motion was seconded by Comm'ssioner,°KSchmid and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, and Lambell absent. Commissioner McAuliffe recused himself from this project and left- the conference 4, room` � ,. i; 2. EASE.,NO: MISC 20-0002 APPLIMAW AND ADDRESS: GRAZIADIO FAMILY , DEVELOPMENT, Attn: Bill Lang, 149 Palos Verdes Blvd. #E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 d'4 4NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve fagade modification; Jensen's Shopping Center. LOCATION: 73-547 Highway 111 ZONE: D.O. GAPlanning\Janin 1JudyWRC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 3 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify the approved facade for the Jensen's Shopping Center (Jensen's). He presented the originally approved facade drawings from August, 2018 to establish context and ran through a slideshow. He said back in August, '2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) preliminarily, approved the elevation, which was then approved by staff and the building department. He stated that Jensen's has been undergoing construction since that time and is nearing completion. Mr. Melloni said staff visited the that were not completed per the approved plan9 and elevations At that time, staff ,r provided a correction to the contractor and relaYed-to. the owner that corrections needed to be completedP'per approved plans. He explained to the Commission that the uncompleted work uiras fog the cornice details that are applied ow,six (6)', total areas on Buildings D, E and F.. He presented a form provided py the applicant and pointed out the elevations that were approved August, /2019 that clearly shows the detail on the buildings He pointed "i'ut on the original approval the roof that' slopes forward with �"4' overhang with a cornice detail wrapping at the corner of theelevation. He stated that the as -built has a roof with arake tide ec��ge. He showed the detail on Building F and how it;;r'eturns This w{a`s submitted to the ARC and made part ofAt'he original approval. He also presented a rendering that was subrriitted as part ofi the%proposed modifications specifically �to the roof top screening that '.6s not officially approved by the ARC but shows ira a 3-D context that the return was intended as a part of overalldesrgn Het, presented a photo taken prior to today's meeting showing`the-existing condition where the cornice detail was �< not tnc�uded and :neither was the overhang. He pointed out that the comiceerminates without wrapping. He presented photos of the other instances where this occurs. The next photo he presented was ,a taken whenstaff did the original site visit back in November, 2019 and said this photo is intended to show the overall intent of the design and theARC approval was to include that cornice and without it, it is n incomplete element. Mr. Melloni said the applicant has requested this application before the ARC to modify the original approved elevations and keep the existing as -built condition citing' the overall Spanish architecture. Staff would recommend denying the request for the proposed modification directing them to construct what was originally approved or continuing it to allow the applicant an alternative re -design if the GAP1anning\Jan1neJudyWRC\1Minutes\2020\200114m1n.dccx Page 4 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 original design with the 6" overhang and the cornice return isn't possible. He presented an exhibit provided by the applicant showing the as -built with a rake tile edge. Commissioner Levin pointed out that they were able to do it on the tower element and Mr. Melloni said yes but it is slightly different. Commissioner McIntosh said this is a rake condition verses an eave condition. Commissioner Vuksic said this can be done. MR. BILL LANG, project manager, vuante�d to clarify that they are note requesting approval of a facade ;frnodification ; He is appealing .the zoning administrator's final decision., attached he submitted to staff the decision, hiresponse to thatd " ecision, and their architect's response. Mr. R i, Stendell; Direct&. of Community Development, said the zoning aminis�trator does note have the purview of this decision. This Body (ARC) is the one who approved the construction documents and theyunderstantl that you are requesting a modification to an approved set of"plans: MR. LANG said no. His contention is they built it per plan Qr. Stendell said staff F has researched the,case file and the; plan- does not match the approved set of plans that `vere `approved by this Body, and Mr. Ceja's confirmation as the zonin %ad"i inistratof is confirmation of pproved by,the AC. It would probably be more what was a productive„ to,"talk about n do than what's ... (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to'transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said he wan4fi,",'64-iiiake it clear what he is doing here today. He is happy to discuss and see if we can reach a conclusion, but at the end of the day our position is thaf"it is built per plan. His whole point is that, he rs not asking for a,pan modification. Commissioner McIntosh asked why this is a gray area. Either it's built , per plan nor it's not. Mr. Stendell said it isn't built per plan `in his opinionMR. LANG referred to the plan documents and explained JT 4 the co'fnice at the eave that they had originally. Commissioner .Vlcl'ntosh said this wasn't an eave detail and Commissioner Vuksic said this is a rake if you look at the roof tiles. Mr. Lang said this is for the pediment over "Jensen's" that was originally proposed and denied by the ARC. That's the only reason this is here. If he did a pediment, he could do what ARC is suggesting but you can't do it on. a rake. There is absolutely no way you can put a cornice up the rake. Commissioner McIntosh said he could and referred to the roof plan. The Commission reviewed the roof plan and Mr. Melloni directed GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2020 �200114min.docx Page 5 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 them to Building F that calls out that dimension. Chair Van Vliet said they should be able to see an elevation of it and MR. LANG said there are no elevations included that shows that rake condition. Chair Van Vliet said then this is an incomplete plan. Commissioner Vuksic referred to one area and said that is why it doesn't match the plan. MR. LANG-asked the Commission if they we're saying that the overall plamis not substantially compliant for this major modification. Mr. Melloni said there is, an overhang where you can see the line of the underlying .tower and all that is being dimensioned on the rendering M,R. LANG said these are elevations and not construction drawings ,This is an�ifmpression of what the construction is going to be and there are0minor deviations when you are building an existing condition ;�' 'wr yl MR. LANG reminded the Comrriission that he did not build this from the ground up. Commissioner Mclntosh'said i. applicant built the whole roof section up and MR LANG said `he didn't and pointed out that this is the existingroof structure which was not modified at all. Commissioner McIntosh said the==detail is°an applied detail. MR. LANG said this can't be , `the °way tie Commission is asking. Commissioner McIntosh said he wasrIt asking. He is saying it's the way it was presented to the Commission. MR. LANG said he didn't present it thst way. Commissioner McIntosh said he just showed them a dra'wJng. MR. LANG said those drawings were for the roof screen and #hey did that at the last minute to show the ARC the roof seen�whe"'A"w s bein crg discussed. The guy who drew that up made #�at error but "'what they are saying. We talked about many things and we never'talked about the cornice going up the rake. Plus s not�an appropriate architectural element to run the cornice up the rake that u 0 n that side. Commissioner McIntosh asked why is it shown that;way. MR—LANG said that is just one elevation out of hundreds plus the construction` drawings. Commissioner McIntosh said a;llthe front elevations sort of imply that by the way it is coming out there. MR. LANG said he could tell the ARC what this implies and presented photos. He said these examples look terrible, but if the ARC insists he will comply. Commissioner McIntosh asked Mr. Stendell what the objective was today. Mr. Lang interrupted the Commissioner and presented photos of rake conditions. Commissioner McIntosh told the applicant he can't show them good pictures of bad examples. That is; not how you GARanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 6 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 do it. MR. LANG said the way to get that condition to look like that he has -to go straight back. Commissioner McIntosh said he wouldn't. MR. LANG insisted that he,would. Commissioner Vuksic said years ago he had this same issue. He had some foam pieces with one that went horizontal and one that went angle and they matched them up. It;was taken to, the job site and placed up under the eave and it matched perfectly. MR. LANG said there is no way with it straight up and down JQ, degrees that they can make that work. He stated that he J1Jro'ughtpieces in to show AP" staff why that would not work. v r Commissioner Vuksic and MR LANG discussed the propoitions_of the angle piece and the horizontal,p e, 4 and reviewed the hut -backs. MR. LANG said the details are clear,r:Jnrtie construction drawings. ,z Chair Van Vliet didn't think it was clear aif, ail Commissioner McIntosh said that is the problem. MR. LANG as et,,the Commission if they were telling him that the proJect doesn't look I;Ke the elevation. He said to stop focusing o�ust�s)x (6) rakes that nobody's going to see He said to;o back fo the elevation that was 18' above the ground�P approved and askedrif this doesn'fsubstantially comply, which is the criteria used hereg y 111 hwa at wtle A"RC Ce"mmissioner McIntosh said from Hi , mterru `teit hard to transcribe the t Mr. Lan d making 9, p} minutes) AMR:' LANG saidtandrng as close as you want he asked the Commission where do'esn't'"it comply. 2, I Commissioner'Melntosh asked staff if the Commission has to go a� 6 through this exercise >Mr. Stendell said no. Commissioner McIntosh a�df�e,thinks this>is'going nowhere. There are two different opinions A l and he respects, the applicant' opinion, but the Commission and staff doesn'tA ree with the applicant. Either we have to come up with some solutions or the applicant needs to go down another path. MR. LANG asked if the Commission has a solution that they want to see. If;there "was something he could have reasonably ,done, he would f Have' done it. There is ,no solution. He thinks the current existing condition is the best solution. He said he's not taking that cornice that is already applied and angle it out. Commissioner Vuksic disagreed with the applicant that this can't be done and said it can be done. He agrees with, the applicant that having no eave detail along the gable edge is very common in the architectural vernacular, but what draws attention to this design is GAPIanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 7 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 that the eave detail on the face is a different color and it's a lot more noticeable when you're standing out there than as shown in the photo. It looks like something is wrong. Something that didn't get thought out. MR. LANG said they did propose painting up the rake the same width and painted the same color. -"Commissioner Vuksic felt that it wouldn't look very good. Commissioner McIntosh said if anything they should paint the building the same color and not have the accent color. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with not having the accent color on the eave detail. MR LANG said he is fine with that. Commissioner Vuksic said the unfortunate part about that is that it's a pretty simple building as far as" the architecture and the accent bands add some character to it MR. LANG`sad ick our oison. If p y p, you leave it like that, nobody `se{es it unless you were out there looking at it because it's not in anywail'<way, you don't see 'it from a long view and when you walk underneath the canopy. The only one l you can see is on the end in the',backhettoa trash enclosure. This is back of building. Commissioner McIntosh %said fthere are other conditions. MR. LANG said honestly this looks just fine. Chair Van Vliet said it looks real ly.�:odd breaking it on that`outside corner. Commissioner Vuksid didn't't`hink i,t,wouI need to come out 6" going up the slope He sai'TJ1 would' be fineaf tcame out a couple of inches. :TfIt could be a band of some kind with`some lines to it. MR. LANG said the otherproblem is that the Mansards don't match in elevation. The Commission, and the applicant", reviewed how the cornice at the top comes4inan'd dies into the top and sticks over. MR. LANG said if he were to runs thecornice up to that, it would have a weird look. Commissioner Vu%9'agreed and said it wouldn't match up cleanly. MR LANG said tow they did this is the appropriate way to finish that } off and""'such a small detail to :the overall building. He asked again if the ComrY'ission feels, that not having that detail ruins everything they ha done. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission didn't say that. .MR ,LANG again stated that they have substantially complied -and 'fofi tte sake of argument if this wasincluded in the approved plans, it would be a minor modification. Chair Van Vliet said whatever you want to call it, this is a problem. He asked how they would rectify this because of the different heights. MR. LANG said when you start to ,fix it, you will create other problems that will look worse. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were other conditions where they have the cornice at the top. Mr. Melloni said all of them and presented the approved renderings showing the conditions. Chair GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\2001.14min.docx Page 8 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Van Vliet pointed' out that some die to the inside corner and Commissioner Vuksic pointed out some that wouldn't be clean. Commissioner Levin said part of the problem is that the Commission gets presented with pretty pictures, which is I the applicant's representation of what they are going to build. The Commission. reviews it and that is what is expected. Then the applicant comes back to ARC and tells us that someone drafted it wrong, that's your problem not our problem. The Commission can only see what you give us to look at and if what we see sh"ows that; then you have to go back to your people and tell therO t they designed something that can't be built. MR. LANG said he understands'that heand the ARC disagree, but that is not what was presented to the Commission. Commissioner Levin asked what hde. , ns by saying that is not what was presented. MR. LANG said that is one picture out of several that doesn't show every single rake.` r, Chair Van Vliet said you can see how far out it eXtends and he would assume from a construction standpoint it would go up. Commissioner Levin said that is a ,,mitred edge (Mr: Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe ;the,, minutes} Commissioner Schmid said the column detail does return (Mr Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the miAt nutes). M). LAIC; said the column detail doesn't go up a rake 3 °Mr. Stendell ri"agre'ed but said it goes four-sided. Commissioner Schmid said heunderstands but it is shown here and the Commission has the expectation that it returns. MR. LANG said if there was 'a misunderstanding it should have been caught when they submitted construction drawings. That clearly showed a rake. Mr. Stendell said' when there is a discrepancy between a set of construction'drawings and what you have seen in preliminary plans, f staff will go.`back and see what was preliminarily approved by the ARC and'use that as the interpreter of the final drawings. As many a of youhave mentioned, the construction set is just a guideline, but in this case you have the original preliminary design drawings and then a construction set. He feels the Commission has solid expectations... (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said if you want them to put that on there, they can apply it that way but it won't run up the rake. He can make the building look exactly like that if the Commission wants them to. It will look terrible. Chair Van Vliet asked if he meant doing it horizontal. MR. LANG said he could do it horizontal, stop it, or go back somewhere else. GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.dom Page 9 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Commissioner Van Vliet said that was ridiculous. MR. LANG said that is what he thinks as well. He said the Commission is, saying that the cornice will run. up the rake and he's arguing that it won't. Commissioner 'Levin referred to the photo and asked what that shows. MR. LANG said that was not presented. Commissioner Levin asked where the photo came from. Mr. Stendell said it is a part of the case file.'MR. LANG said it was not presented to this Body. It was given to staff to prove to them that we would coverall of the roof -top equipment -The 'photo wasn't a part of the submittal to the ARC. Mr. Melloni said this was the submittalPfhat.was approved by the ARC. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant, why ,he _ thinks the designer drew it that way. MR LANG said he d1 n'.t� know. Commissioner Vuksic said because it was the onIY`soI'd tro'n based on what he or she was given. MR,AC said that was not true. He said they did not talk about going up the' rake. Mr. Melloni said the other rendering that was included was drawnJ,?y the same architect and presented here as it was, reflected of the original rendering. MR. LANG said to show theloof soreen not to shovvthe rake. Mr. Melloni said overall... (Mr. La'hg intprrupte making' it hard to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said again #lat Jf' they looked at the project, overall they have substantially cort,`plied.. Chair Van Vliet said that is not what they ar6 looking at here":We're looking at detailing ... (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard' to transcribe the minutes). MR. LANG said that is the criteria fib`the ARC. One of the Commissioners tsaid its not MR. LANG said it says so right in the application. chair Van Vliet ;esk " staff how many conditions are there that wouldi't work ifheapplicant puts the angle cornice on the rake because it is above the other one coming into it. MR. LANG said he would ``have=to remove the cornice on the front of the building and x then go baq and reapply it at an angle, which he believes that's not f� what the,Commission wants. Commissioner McIntosh said that's not x! necessarily that ,bad. He said the reality is this condition has happened a thousand times. This isn't unique and so the statement that this can't happen is not quite true because it can. What has to happen is the proportions of that profile will slightly change to make the geometry work on the outside corner. That's how it works. It's that simple. Commissioner McIntosh and the applicant discussed ways to have the foam wire -cut from the factory to the proportions they need to make that happen. He said it's not that bad. MR. LANG said it is that bad since the roof is already built. He would have to GAPIanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.dou Page 10 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 tear back the whole roof.. Chair Van Vliet said he wouldn't have to tear back the whole roof. MR. LANG, said he would have to tear back a portion and pull it back for the cornice to make it match. He reminded the Commission that this isn't a. custom house. Commissioner McIntosh said it's a chunk of. foam with plaster on it. MR. LANG said which costs $4,000. It's not going'to work that way. It doesn't work. Commissioner. McIntosh asked Mr Stendell fir guidance. Mr. Stendell said in his opinion the bes=passible'option would be that the t Commission approve plans as designed or con inue the item to allow. the applicant to resubmit a different designAsolution MR. LANG said this is their design choice and 'this is, the way' fit is per plan. Commissioner Vuksic wanted 'to elaborate onMr-S'tendell's comments. The Commission mentiQ'ned earlier that if the eave wasn't a different color it would actually,,,Work MR LANG said he is willing to do that. Commissioner Vuksic sal then we've lost something because the banding with a differen,color is important to the overall look of the, ceritr He thinks tFie applicant needs to f propose something ejse that their desigper couI think about in lieu of that. MR. LANG asked what that - would be. Commissioner Vuksic- said adding some little detel to the',fa�ade. MR. LANG said he feels very stronglyzth4they built this t6olan. He's happy to listen to ideas that won't require tearing off the front fascia or tearing the roof back. If there's sorrtething simple"thatthey could do to fix it, that would be ,great.:F.'' Commissioner Mpintosh made a motion to continue and said as a %� °member of the Commission, he would like to go out to the site and r looka't theseFco'rditions and give the applicant an opportunity to ossibl come up with another solution. (Motion died due to lack of p y a second) `MR. LANG said he has spent two months trying to figure a,sol' tion since staff pointed this out. We have exhausted all our options Chair Van Vliet asked the applicant if he would prefer that `'the�F�Commission deny the request. MR. LANG said if the Commissioners want to go out and look at the conditions he's okay with that, but he has no other solutions. Commissioner Vuksic said if the applicant has no other solutions then he thinks their designer hasn't thought about it very hard. MR. LANG said they have. Commissioner Vuksic told the applicant that he is really focused on the rake edge and saying that it can't be done. If you paint the eave detail the same color as the body, then you're done with that. Then GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Ninute6\2020\200114min.docx Page 11 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 your designer needs to look at something else to add a little more character detail'to the building. You can't say there is no solution. MS. TIFFANY JOHNSON, said they didn't know they were on the agenda until yesterday at 2:00 p.m., so their architect was not able to attend. She asked if the Commission was open to calling the architect and conference him in. Mr. Ceja said he didn't know if they were set up to do that at this point. MS. JOHNSON said staff told her yesterday that it would be possible Comni" sion.0r, McIntosh asked if there was an urgency here. MR ;LANE said ye's because Building is holding up California Fish Grillifrom opening;wJhich is costing him money. This is a big deal that he can't gets"finaled 'He stated again that what they are doing is just a small detail and for°argument sake; they have substantially complied with the drawings t}'at ARC approved. In the application it states that as the applicant they will substantially comply. Commissioner Lenin �said what the applicant believes to be substantial might not bewhat they consider... (Mr. Lang interrupted making,git hard to transcribe'ihe minutes). MR. LANG feels they have,substat"tially.complied `The Commission can disagree and deny it acid then wed move or0o the next step. He said this is costing him a lotof rr�ney Mr. Ceja recomr`iendedtthat the Commission table this item and move on through the agend`aAt the end of the meeting, staff can get the archite`ct�, on the phoney"IVIR. LANG said the architect was available right now. Commissioner McIntosh wondered if they wou'Id then just sif here and design this to come up with a solution. He disagreed with this option and said it would be a waste of time. Mr. ',Stendell said his ,§tdff has been on the phone with the applicant about this issue for months and nothing good happens design -wise when we're operatiig under pressure. He told the Commission that they have been ;tore than reasonable and if they wish to entertain that phone call, they could table the item.. If you don't want to. design ,under pressure, then a continuance would be the best possible ;outcome. Commissioner Vuksic said this is going to be continued regardless because the architect isn't going to have a design solution that the Commission can review. Mr. Stendell said a continuance with comments is the best they can do today. Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue. Commissioner Vuksic made the second. He understands that the applicant is frustrated and didn't think this was that big -of a deal. MR. LANG said neither did he, GAPlanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 12 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 but yet it's costing him money because the City won't approve. He said if planning signs off he can get stuff done, then he will. be more than happy to keep moving. He has been trying to reach ,a solution with staff that is reasonable that they can work with. He asked Ms. Johnson what was needed. MS. JOHNSON said they can't get the Building final until Planning signs off. MR. LANG said which means they can't get the utilities going until the building is finaled. Commissioner McIntosh asked staff if there was a conditional approval. Commissioner Levin felt they would lose'all leverage. Mr. Melloni said they could allow the -;California Fish Grill to proceed however... (too many people talking at this time making it hard to transcribe the minutes). Commissioner Vuksic askedjf the California Fish Grill was done. MR. LANG` said°they Were, ' almost done. However, the air conditioners haven't been tested because"there is no electricity. Commissioner Vuksic asked how soon they can be finished. MR. LANG said they will turn over in two (2) weeks and open by the end of February. He said they haveyto get the kitchen up and running, do dry run-throughs, and get the ern'ployees setup. Commissioner Levin told thedappl�eant that he has three (3) options; the Commission can,approve it, deny .it or continue it; If you get a denial and take ,it to�;nbunbil, that�[s a° minimum of ,30 days before anything happens. If this as'continued, then you'll be back before this Commission' m two weeks He' asked the applicant if standing his ground by saying that he I( take it to Council is worth 30 days. MR. LANG�saii.he's not standing his ground. He's asking for some �° flexibility to get th,e lob done for the tenants so they can open up. He's willing to work uvithstaff and the Commission to figure out a z ; solution, but he hso get the store open: Once he gets the final, the utilities take two,(2) to four (4) weeks to come out. a, Commissioi''er Vuksic asked if staff can hold occupancy. Mr. Stendell said they" can do a Temporary. Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) and ,.hold occupancy. Commissioner Vuksic asked it that.would solve the issue of time and buy them enough time. MR. LANG said he is fine with that as long as it's not California Fish Grill. Mr. Melloni said they had a discussion months ago where staff said California Fish Grill was okay to proceed. MR. LANG said he wanted to clarify that it would be for the other suites. Mr. Melloni said with the understanding that you -would come back with a solution on this other portion, but California Fish Grill... (Mr. Lang interrupted making it hard to 'transcribe the minutes) has been okay to proceed. MR. LANG asked GAPIanningWanineJudyWRC\1Min utes\2020\200114min.docx Page 13 of 20 i P: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES - January 14, 2020 if he is getting the TCO so he can get the utilities set-up. Mr. Melloni said they can have flexibility for California Fish Grill so the tenant can move forward. but the eave detail will have to be resolved. He told the applicant they can discuss those details after the meeting. Mr. Stendell said the TCO will let you get utilities and also allows the City to come back and revoke occupancy. MR. LANG said he will meet with the architect and suggest they paint the eave the same color as the building and'hen come up with some other detail. Commissioner Vuksic said:1, a wa&`sure the architect will come up with something and if you send the,,, -changes to staff before the next meeting that will help a lot. r j A Chair Van Vliet reminded the Commission there wa's a motion for continuance. It was moved and seconded and a vote was taken. yr ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue Case MSC 20-0002 to allow the applicant to submit an alternative design solution,fbr the missing cornice details, which were shown i the aipro�tied pans and elevations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner rried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntoshSchriid, Van �l�l`et, and Vuksic voting YES, McAuliffe abstaining and Lambell absent* B. Preliminary Plans 1 : MISC:;;19-0043 APP/LICANT AND." DRESS: LYNN HAWS, 73-109 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert CA592260 OF s ,s NATUREO PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Considerations to preliminainly approve construction of a new single-family residence -' with arrnaximum roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 73-142 Crosby Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a .height exception to build a new 3,598 square -foot single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 16'-8", and architectural i GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Min utes\2020\200114min.docx Page 14 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 projections up to 18'. The property is located behind the gates of Ironwood Country,Club (Ironwood), and sits on a flagship lot. Per section 25.10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, (PDMC), the maximum height for a structure in single-family residential zones is 16'. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may grant 'exceptions to allow a maximum roof height of 18' based on design merit. The proposed home complies with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks. He presented renderings and described the architectural style ,He pointed out that most of the roof height is 16' with a;poltion, In :rectangular�area, at 18', as well as the chimneys, which are all,, He said the HOA has approved this project. Staff is .in favor of approving the pr.,oposed roofline of 16'-8", and architectural proletions at 18' as the,home is sufficiently setback from surrounding properties. In` addition, the height provides variation in the,4 oflihes and adds architectural interests to the home. Mr. Swartz saff is recommending approval. f Mr. Swartz stated than staff .received one defter from a neighbor opposing the project°along vvath photos`taken by the neighbor from various spots on their ,property Fie explained that the neighbor's argument is that they will ltain views and reminded the Commission that` the new 'home will be 4' lower. The Commission and staff reviewed and discuss "d the photos and the unprotected views. Commissioner Levin said most of.the roof height is 16' with a few areas at1�8' Commissioner Vuksic discussed the line -of -site and ;,said it could �be right "in '_your face" but this house, in terms of the mass, is set, way lback from the neighbor's property, Commissioner, , Schmid asked for the code regarding roof height exceptions I\%Ir. Eric Ceja, Principal. Planner, said there is no ordinance's hat protects someone's view, however there is an ordinance that, at the Commission's discretion, you can go above 15' in height for this zone. Mr. Swartz pointed out that these lets sti'ave greater setbacks and this home will be 4' below the neighboring home. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission looks at the architectural style of the house and where the height overage is located, and in this case most of the house is only 16' high with a lot of open space. He liked the architecture of the house and said it was good-looking. MS. LYNN HAWS, property homeowner, said there is only one narrow GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Min utes\2020\200114min.docx Page 15 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' MINUTES January 14, 2020 element that is above the height limit which is the spine wall that hits the 18', as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said the plans call out for a roof -top deck. Mr. Ceja said the.prohibition of roof decks came about in 2011.' Mr. Swartz said they had discussions with the applicant regarding this because the renderings show a stairwell which the applicant said would be used to access' roof -top solar panels. Commissioner McIntosh said this would be a privacy issue with neighbors. Mr. Swartz stated that the stairs are onlyfor acre§s,lto the solar panels. Commissioner Vuksic wondered'' if the structural engineer was engineering this for a large load �1V,,,r. Swartz stated that they will look into this but pointed out again that the City does not allow roof decks. Commissioner Schmid said from the prole of the neighbor, there is only small projection at 18', as vt ell as 11 chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said it would have been helpfdl to have poles for the line - of -site study rather than the black line on the fte'ghbors photos and didn't 'see a problem with the`�building height , Commissioner Schmid made'a motion to approve and Commissioner McIntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for any further comments. Co�riimissioner,Vuksic as still concerned that the plans were designed�to have a'roof,deok and does not state that this is for, solar access: Mr. Ceja rer`randed the Commission that the code .prohibits roof decks and today's review is strictly on building height. He said staff vuill work ,this out with the applicant. Chair Van Vliet called -for the vo`tel Commissioner�Sehmid moved to approve with the exception of the roof deck as prohibitive per code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and, carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, - '`Schrntd, Van,VIiet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NOS: PP 19-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JOSH & VIVIAN STOMEL, 74-218 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve converting an existing two-(2) unit apartment complex to a 7-unit apartment complex. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 16 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 LOCATION: 74-218 Alessandro Drive ZONE: DE-0 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a new 7-unlit apartment complex on Alessandro Drive. He said this is an existing 9,900 square -foot two -unit apartment complex with a pool and zoned Downtown Overlay. The, applicant wanted to do something per the zone as the City is "encopraging a little more density in this area with buildings' closer and access directly to the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to leave the pool in its current location, relocate the front;"arking to the back, add a� two-story building with four units,one existing budging, and expand on another unit in the batik °He,presented renderings and explained the project. He pointed out at existing driveway that is currently 12' wide that has now been expanded to,.�r18% which is the lowest amount that Fire and Public Works"As by ling to approve. ,The applicant tried_ to work W,ith,4h neighbor to have a shared driveway but this was -unsuccessful fi e t driveway will lead to seven (7) parking stalls. Each ,unit has,one bedroom and will range in size from 455 square feet to 626,` square feet zFje presented color, renderings of the elevations�and passed around the color board. He said this requires a Precise Plan and will move forward to the Planning �;.., Commission: Staff is recomrrt riding approval Chair Van Vliet referred to the 18' wide drive aisle and said it was 7' 'unfortunate because of'all the hardscape that will be .visible coming upx against the wal)'Ion theleft and the building on the right. He suggested having�a planter in that area. Mr. Swartz stated that at one time it bstaffsuggested 14' with a planter. Mr. Swartz said from a safety, stanxdpoint there was concern with a car pulling in and a car coming 4qutand there not being enough room. He pointed out the location, of the trash bins which will be up to the property owner to aintain and the Commission had questions regarding the location of the HVAC and the mechanicals. MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, designer, stated they have a mini - split system that will be in the same area as the trash bins. He said the unit has a 3' clearance and the fire department has access to them from the driveway side. Commissioner McIntosh stated this is a nice design that has captured the character of the style. He felt GAPIanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Min utes\2020\200114min.docx Page 17 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 this was in line with the general plan and architecturally it is done very nicely and will be an'asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic said he would never have guessed about the driveway width and said this is unfortunate. Chair Van Vliet said it is unfortunate because having a couple of more feet, would have really helped. Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development suggested they add to their motion to minimize unnecessary.width in the drive aisle. Commissioner Vuksic said theyr�have made drive aisles 14' wide in residential >, properties,, . in Palm Desert. Commissioner McIntosh agreed and said especially if there will be a lot of this type of development yp p nt in'j , City Mr:Stendell said extra feet could be used for a small landscape planter to soften that, concrete corridor. NATURE/ ;C:P PROJECTIAPPROVAL -SOUGHT: Consideration to prelim1nanfy,yapprove architecture and landscape plans for a self - storage ;facility (Parcel 1) as part of the proposed Landmark Specific LOCATION: Dinah Shore Drive and Key Largo Avenue (adjacent to the Costco Shopping Center). ZONE: PC-3, PCD Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this project was continued from the meeting on December 18, 2019. This is preliminary approval of the architecture for storage facility on 1 GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 18 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Key Largo. At that meeting, the main discussion -was the wall facing the freeway on the north elevation.\,Mr.'Swartz said the Commission wanted to see;some depth between the wall and the columns, see a sample of wall and specs, how will the material hold up on the southern exposure. The applicant has now submitted a materials sample and the specs for the wall.. He said this appears today for approval of the architectural design of the storage facility and the north elevation wall. MR. BRUCE JORDAN, architect, ref erred to the spec sheet that was submitted to staff and said thenaterial is 'specifically made_ for southwestern exposures. They chose ,this material for ,the low maintenance and durability and passed around a sampi6 of .the product. He said they off -set the Npilasters from the`wall :to create shadow line and in -filled the wall uiith aJlat metal panel. Originally r 'the shaded element was taller and they,<felt the proportions weren't right so they lowered it but it has an increa°se over the long linear part of the wall to break up the long 1,200' dimerls!on e pointed out that the vinyl material is set`�in the "ddle of the 8' block so it is 4" back from the face.' g, Commissioner McIntosh asked why -'they chose vinyl instead of PVC as originally I`p(ar�ned. MR, JORDAN said they did not want the expense of running block the entire 1,200'. They broke it up using the masogi) pilasters, the'"stucco and the vinyl. Commissioner McIntosh asked if there ,was a cap that goes on top of the vinyl fencing. MR' JORDAN stated there was a horizontal piece made out of heavier gauge vinyl =`He said this is structural support from the wind and„carries the horizontal load to the pilasters. The Commission discussed the 255' from the west boundary of the .. freeway to the face of the wall. Commissioner McIntosh pointed out that thre�yinyl fencing will not take a direct hit since it is on the north eleuatfon, Commissioner. McAuliffe said if the vinyl fencing fails to perform whether it's a significant decolorization ,or deterioration then it shall be replaced with something suitable. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to preliminarily approve as proposed subject to: 1) if vinyl, material proposed on the north elevation wall deteriorates overtime, the applicant shall replace. Motion was seconded by GAPIanningWanine Judy\ARC\t Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 19 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Commissioner Schmid and carried by a 5-0-2 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet voting YES, Vuksic and Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None' VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic Al In the absence of Commissioner Vuksic Mr. Ryar ,Ster'del,l, Director of Community Development presented an update on AIPP. The:Commissionnd,staff adjourned to a field trip to San Pablo to start looking at how art may project. He suggested that sometime in the near future the ARC can,also adlournrto San -Pablo to look at Phase I and the active reuse of buildings The Commission twill re�iiew San Pablo's vision as far as the difference between El. aseo with its polish"ture, and San Pablo that desires to be a little more urban and fun in mature. He also mentioned ky a new fagade enhancement program that will be presented at„.the next Council meetina. 1,. aural Review Commission JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY i GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200114min.docx Page 20 of 20 J CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING, CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission From: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Date: January 28, 2020 i Subject: MISC 20-0001 — New Restaurant Building - The Habit Northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive Project Summary The project is a request to construct a new 2,776-square-foot restaurant building with a drive -through on parcel 7 of the approved Monterey Crossings commercial center. The building features a contemporary design characterized by desert appropriate grey, brown and tan colored stucco finishes with area masonry veneer.. The project includes a landscape plan for the areas immediately adjacent to the restaurant and drive -through. The building features a parapet at an average height of 22'-0" with tower elements up to 27'-0". The plans indicate that all rooftop equipment and drainage will be screened from public view. Zoning Ordinance Summary The proposed restaurant 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 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 Recommendation The proposal complies with all applicable requirements of the MCSP. The proposed elevations are consistent with the approved material palette for the center, attractive landscaping and low walls are provided to screen the drive -through area, and all equipment is screened from view. Staff recommends approval as shown. Attachment: Project Plans SITE INFORMATION ■ ■ ■ VAMM ■ ■ ---------------- N89'59'23W 172.21' ] 1 ` DINAH SHORE DRIVE (APPROX. 76' SOBEmMOOIFIE \ / — _ — — — _ _ l — �_ I f F\ MONUMENT j I SIGN, M2.1 -_ BUCKED GROUP MONTEREYARCHITECTURE CROSSING BICKEL GROUP RPORATED 3800 i\\, � N WPORTH BEACH. 02680 ITE 120 \. ` ,P:242.7567`0411 9949. 5`.06111 DINAH SHORE DRIVE AND MONTEREY AVENUE ��} PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TOTAL PARCEL AREA: x39,524 SF (_0.91 AQ GROSS BUILDING AREA: s2,T75 SF NET BLLDING AREA: 12.700 SF (NOT INC. UTILM AREAS) OCCUPANCYTYPE; A-2 LOT OOVERAGE: 115.1 % TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA- x11.214 SF 42S A%) BUILOW40 CODE ANALYSIS ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT PER CSCTA9LE 504.3 FOR FULLY SPRWKLERED BUILDINGW ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES PER CBC TABLE 504.4 FOR FULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING: 2 ALLOWABLE AREA PER CBC TABLE 506.2 FOR FULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING: 24,000 SF PARKING 9NFORMATiON PARKING REQUIREMENT: RESTAURANT - B STALLS 11,000 SF TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED: 22 STALLS (INCLUDING M. 1 ADA STALL) TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED: 34 STALLS ONCLUOING 2 ADA STALLS) PARKING RATIO: 12.69 STALLS 11.000 SF LEGEND — ■ f PROPERTY LINE r ■ PROPOSED INTERNAL PARCEL LINE - ----------- 3U LANDSCAPE SETBACK ADA PATH OFTRA.VEL WATER LINE SEWER LINE LANDSCAPE AREA COMPACT VLH CL.E STAIR. CAV CLEAN AIR VEHCLE STALL EV FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE VICINITY MAP I: SITE PLAN Scale: 1' = 10' January 22, 2020 PAIATMSM-Feh1 Dell t, NEC Ok1 h Sh" 6 AAenbielhCa�0iiL97d�fn 5AM - Sao Plan ISLOG 7 &mo--o. p. LOCATION OF REM CONDENSER BEYOND, TYP. LOCATION BICKEL CRQUP M-O-NTEREY CROSSING A R C H I T E C T U R E BICKEL GROUP INCORPORATED - ---- - - - -- 3600 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 120. - NEWPORT 411 17: -CA-B2660-- - -- - - ..-.__DINAH _SHORE DRIVE AND MONTEREY AVENUE - .P:94PORT0BE E: 949.767.051t:: - --- — --.- _ .;-_ __.__._ -. w w w, b 1 c k e l 9 f P• c o m -_ - PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA NOTES: ALL ROOFTOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED FROM VIEW, LOCATIONS OF ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE CONFIRMED DURING CD PHASE ALL ROOF DRAIN PIPING TO BE WITHIN WALL THICKNESSES tROOF PLAN 0 z BUILDING 7 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS Scale: 1 /8 II = 1'-0" January 22, 2020 R15\1 SA670 - Palm Desert, NEC Dinah Shore & MonWafflesign\Roor narsor<me ._.+„111115A670-9ld 1 i. - '; �dt ilprt OF AErnO1E DER BET9N� 44DY 3I�� T„f ,h tk 2'.aP(>r1�@�UN�OCA o 1SS. I I- - I - Imo` BICKEL GROUP ARCH ITECTU RE EST. SITE 120 N W PORT BEACH, Cu 92894 P w9 b I❑ 41k e 1 7,049,750511Pc WEST ELEVATION TP, EAST ELEVATION x - {{ �OC4nON CF mix ^ �S 9t1'ONp Of�Th]n Cf RN ..• 4j' :" ppr3uv'i5£sr 6�uCf uM1U 6E?AAVE AEY+Ei' � Y _ 37d 1� 17d � f�lfI�1A NORTH ELEVATION k , '� Lwnl BEvo�ID I r��kSE.i�� � •� � a•d �SEPhRAIE 9�(��Irdf.R rL�MEW.IYP ��CK cvonU. �-.�_ 1 Owd� ri'd to rwr3NM y i� ra rwN3 I 7 �1Il �ddirk, � Fries Ruhl Y n 91 q(Yi R' SOUTH ELEVATION MONTEREY CROSSING DINAR SHORE DRIVE AND MONTEREY AVENUE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA NOTE: ALL ROOFTOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCRELNED FROM VIEW, LOCATIONS OF ALL EQUIPMENT TO BECCNFIRMED DURENG CD PHASE BUILDING 7 ELEVATIONS Scale: 1/8 " = V-0" January 22, 2020 F.115115AI370 - Palm D®rt, NEC Dn Scare & Mdtl rWDwgoEm—bm,A15A670 - 9ukkM 7 5ii—!wrt dv _. f �� . Jam, M s' r �y _•� - 5'ta Tom. YIWY @iYpf XpOR CIS'$ ...; i I � rn nmw nrsl new SECTION 1 �t zra tY n wmrtT a•-0' ,� Tn nYtlPET �ih wms �y TAB ��IW5,27m7rr""77TTT7r`77 Tam SECTION 2 AR0HIT_ GROUP _ ARCHIT MONTEREY CROSINGECTURES � BICKEL GROUP INCORPORATED - 2�® a`.� mom 3600 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 120 ._ NEW PORT BEACH, CA 82660 949.757,0411 F: DINAH SHORE DRIVE AND MONTEREY AVENUE .. ��� _4 w g r p .7.0511 w w w. b/ c k e/ g r p. c o m. - PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA -- NOTE: ALL ROOFTOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED FROM VIEW, LOCATIONS OF ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE CONFIRMED BY TENANT DURING CD PHASE BUILDING 7 SECTIONS Scale: 1 /8 " = V-0" January 22, 2020 F:\15\15A570 - Palm Desert NEC Dinah Shore & mawnMms t�rey,[UUesIgh\EIsvatlohs�t eASm7 0- Building 7�EIevTabon�s.dwg�,� 9 MILOW I ! 15 CAV LlGY,V CAV f PARCEL 7Ln PARCEL 7 I S _IR � � 9 el FUTUREI: I: e � $=• ZJ — a lk .� �n I d Mal —E CWT. sm C., •.. rrrb.ia',Zr K -tb-'n V4 -Ban NaeMYYerb TnmY � LFIepk Fete-0.axrthrnre Ae.n V,�M xB� - Wnhln4laJaflbn HrbM }1rpX Glfomr Fn„PeFn Ya R[rent BYr sr[BrEs OMON wiyF F F-5qF ORmnr ndobne'Aa.n CnrpN I/d [r,Y Caudaw Byer c�� Ad,dF,ea Nm,Mko MaxMiie Yarew 54a1 � ceeWe:r nmic.ee Nn'ean d,eY P.r.ti.e y �0� Gvr enxarnM.e Feelb.ry CnaW ] 9Y [:•,71 CmrohaYn smv,um Bwb Ma,MPOYarY 54,I I Fnugw«w.pemm,e oeeub ,a can c, ]a �e'laa I I � rraaaerYe. p,nmr. Rea Y� s 4Y a 1 1 •-R Feuc.pryl,m r:vsenwn.'Ger,pacl� Cwnpad lger.len9� F9,1 �f P.nnbJmnaJaceum rtub„m- Vu�pr Fowda., v�.v 6PaI sarr aararneu CINYxd sa4. s4al vPrErEBEAUEF 9CTPNfC,1 NNMB COMMON NNdE Prnlhp swN OESCWPTIob seew e,.m Nuebr.s�db.w m,dd...,J s,ne., rwr•: edn knW eai] nu emm enmdnY r' wbe. ha.deer,v. Iwa� ax O.YAa ].] w. Ncwn Weed Bame,- OaxmY.e or. wlinwa,na vw kea.I. Wl4erfi Me�aN„Y.F M.bnned am Ieix de2mBw—Raebb-SaNhrveal Bvabx and 4lwn. Mrai ,oF.l nn ,d:n ,-bebwb re >Pe...v.].,em..lm am nF.l p.de,m� vw„�Yee� bae.a nn fnJ o,e fe ew , � � Nolard Ovae,IPw'e,4lo Nemak. GWeemaod, end brek I DINAH SHORE DRIVE ` ` (APPROXe 76') �- SrR"®uNAL ; lE1 TRAPMOeIGFdAL 1 — — —— ----_— BM3M: Mt1 S - - 1 A-)� T(,- G N` a�° °GIaT ES, I N C N p 5 P A A E m H I T E C T 5 MONTEREY CROSSING 36 LONG BEACH BO ARD, ME 300 NcTEL.. ' TES. 2 4. B I B DINAH SHORE DRIVE AND MONTEREY AVENUE CA OIC 3337 � PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA r I ' THE SITE WLL UTILIZE POINT SOURCE SCRIP) IRRIGATION FOR SHRUBS AND BUBBLERS FOR ALL TREES. VICINITY MAP L z LANDSCAPE PLAN Scale: 1" = 10' January 22, 2020 CIODYUVEDWGFILaCOMMEP,DA41Fan,-W.Sd D—k,.r,anhl8-v77a NEC Crnah Shoe and MO Wmy PBIm OBmrA00%�012040 ARC PAD 7 ..I-d rg - - IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 - 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch - 20 ft. LEGEND -FLOW LINE S - --- -EXISTING CONTOUR FL FF-XXX - FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. TC - TOP OF CURB FS - FINISHED SURFACE --- --------------- - STREET CENTER LINE FG - FNISHED GRADE - - - PARCEL BOUNDARY GB - GRADE BREAK �� -SLOPE (2:1 MAX.) HP - - HIGH POINT LP - LOW POINT ---(121-7158) - EXISTING ELEV. EP - EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1217.5 - PROPOSED ELEV. PA - PLANTER AREA FIG TG - TOP OF GRATE 128% - - RATE OF GRADE CF - CURB FACE - PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT IF - TOP OF FOOTING GB - GRADE BREAK - - DIRECTION OF FLOW - EASEMENT NOTES A VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES, DEDICATED TO COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, PER PARCEL MAP 37157, P.M.B. 247/1-7. _ MONTEREY CROSSING III I ll,�llll I I !I 11--17.35�TC `-.....,�AROLB 1 SI,I II 109.91T PPP \Y � 7G I c \ - J _ �" 10.8 FS N9D'0021 :37' 09.4 ' FL �� 3 T 11_ 11 �TC PARCEL 7 '� 1t TC Ib2 0.32 F5 ae 1 AI I 4 I�, I I 1 II JH1.- I I 1057 TC 1�I,1flI r 4 / I? �'I _ I -f I C II I I 1054 T +ENCLOSURE , U PARGEL7 Ross T•1 \ 10` 7 FS 10.04i FS - -- _� TOR_ Iv, I io.IR 1- loin . 9 0.I �-\ •'d\08\6\ I IIIII V'OF TRAV-EL -,I�\-+\1 " SEPARMANS I I FL 8 \Rs-09x --'-- -- 0.7.444 1 TC 1 I II I /I 4 09.84 F99FL IiJ900000"W GB ADA XnV0FSITE IMPRMENTS PER FLl/ \ `1 \ 1' I •`Y PROP 18 WT i - 11.15 TC -fO:6O T I 1 I I I 1 -T2:70 TC ,v 12.25 TC 11 12 1 1 - 11.40 TC 1 \.t�'-m _11.75_ES FL -GB 10.90 FS '" 1TC \ � � I�l� f7R 1 11.67 11:49V �'A I WM1 111B \1.2R0 7C ��uP 0 Fs�11,So Fs 1.6R OSS 1f.76 11.76\;oI' I 11.25 FS FS T I I I I I IJ, i 9 ! Illu 1 1 i� (` 1163 1 i� FL 1' o "I - Pia o cF 6.5 11.7 s BLDG 7 I I I t I I AII �i ,o UPI !� a Fs 55 .az ! 1 L.I_ 1 III I_m b 12.10 11" a SR TAURANT -I IWIs FS 1 2R .\ FL L, 1 IS'- 11�60 TC 7 FF=11.g . T II$I 4 I (-� I _`18Y=11 t0. JNv PAD=11.12 ~ o SITE IMPROVE A. NIS. PER 11 a a 2 I tT I l u I I fl- .{ o-=�EPAPATE PIANs� �oe ila a / o I I lY�lil1 =�z I I I �'. I- i0i70iTO I I I \ I J 11.66 I-1I�L.I tom. 1176 - 11.76- m 12.17 FS ,12.50 I 12.00 FS I D CF---' ( \1775 .� Fz - 1Ihs �Y FS! I- 11 GREASE I Ll�`N Laz ice\ i. I �. I I I G I^I 1 ` u 12 5 TC TRAP I s .- 1 AII 4,91 II T_... I_ .1 1 .1�2.05 Fs,I 11 .• 1 I THOUSAND CATHEDRAL PALMS CITY RA"'°" RD DINAH SNORE DR w1 P" PROJECT RANCHO ,� a o HD 42No AVE MIRAGE ' m a� INDIO FL WROVEMENT12n rcaR TaArEi1 PLAN NOTES: \ r 1 PROP GREASE 11,57 FL FI'�, �7 p.0.O ry / I 1 ( A�-' I l I t 10-PROPOSED. AC PAVING PER GEOTECHNICAL 12.B0 7C TRM I I 72'40 1 6R � ' , I 1 AI6" I I ' RECOMMENDATIONS �'•. I I �' :I 1 0 FS Ffi VOtN1.�' _s .l; /" 1-, I Ag''.' ly I I I -- _72.70 '1 I z ?('�'T215 TC` 11.30 0.D t vim; " Y J IIIIo m� I I I I I ! 2o-PROPOSED 6" CURB PER CITY OF PALM DESERT 1 1I I 1205 F5 H?JO< O.BO;.FsII STD. DWG. (E703. _ a --- .f.��' _- - _ _ .v\r` / ,n I: - .- -I I i I4 I 1 3_PROPOSED 6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF PALM 1, I 1290 TC 1223d 'I I I I DESERT STD. DWG. 102 1240 FS 111�6 FL �PROP 12 SDt -'I\ -_ `1, w - k.�.. �+1 I1BR a�l I i I i' � o-PROPOSED 5" THICK SIDEWALK PER CITY OF PALM l_�PROP. 8'3EVIEg :. � �.• b'-n'�^ . �f-�' Q _ „+�11 I L: DPESERT STD. DWG. #104 d l - N86 17'24�V t y _$ _ , \ \, :\ J ,+ I m Io I 1' 1 I (D- -PROPOSED 3 WIDE CONCRETE "U" CHANNEL Ui 890 + .I I I I• ©-PROPOSED 4" PVC STORM DRAIN d- --GRIT R/�W\ 1 I I I ROPOSED GRATE INLET / NQ9 231y--134.97 - 1 { o j l B -PROPOSED DECORATIVE FENCE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 15 - \.. 11.27 TC v EXIST 10.60 FL 10. 09.38 FL WFL I ` __-_ -_4 ' `� T I 48 SD -- - aa_s0___ I,, INA -- -- ----� OR6BI" D` I D�'�ii5777 �� D In Fit �� � P ° TJa 1NaxctN - REVISIONS u T ENGINEERS SEAL PROACTIVE ENGINEERING LI IT Ur PALM UtStK I PLAN cHEacED BY` 11 11�11 f� " II " IIEYdDOtl: x34.218 D6DIY; LiAw 19ee - MARK BY DATE APPR. DATE ,�--�" DEPARTMENT OF, PUBLIC WORKS - �J JS er m p��zgyG CONSULTAnNTS WEST MpROYID By: e 2" BRASS DISC, WESTERLY 90E OF MONTEREY AVE, 388 FEET zs Ee 0 Ave. SUITE 200 DIAL 7iq WORIONC NORTH OF PCR NORM ON DINAH SHORE DR, 10 FEET WEST OF 1 BEFORE DAYS BEFORE OF, NOR1NWt37 CORNER OF ELECTRICAL VAULT, FLUSH. �. TK cs zo0 eeLo ozsez - CIVIL YOU DIG YOU DIG BASIS OF BEARIMCS. - * am 31' FID * 0TV ENONEER DATE TOLL FREE 1-300-227-2600 BASED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2O, T4S - - ' - - 'Ni• OIW\� PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: _ _ R.C.E. 648t9 _ TRAFFIC A PUBLIC SERVICE BY �a OµT _.. _. DATE: - _ - - RGE. BEING N8939.23"W AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO 2I63S, 'W - - - -- - - IINIIFRC.R111NIf.6ANf5 AIFRT P.M.B. 206/94-99 .. ,._. ._ _ - - _ _ - -_ _ GEORGE A.LEHFESTEY R.C.E. No. ISOOO E7�. -12/37 1 RENEWED MIT REoeuuFNnFn Bn nzTF 11Nn 1- INDIAN WELLS LA VICIMMAP QUINTA x9r m scuc PROJECT DATA: TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 0.907 ACRES (39,524 SF) BUILDING TYPE: COMMERCIAL/RETAIL IBM FLOOD DATA: FLOOD ZONE X. PANEL 06065C1595G, 8/28/08 AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY: SURVEY PERFORMED BY: CC[ SURVEYING & MAPPING DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 2015 PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK OUA TITRES RAW CUT: 250 CY RAW FILL:-250 -CY- - - - ---- APN AND LEGAL DESCRIPIM PARCEL 7 OF PARCEL MAP 37157. ON FILE IN BOCK 247. PAGES 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE, CIF PARCEL MAP$ RECORDS OF THE RECORD R OF Po%ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. LUNG WTHN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER CIF SECTION 20 MA A PORTION OF THE NCRT-I EST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, BOTH IN TONNSAP 4 SCUM RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BE%IAFi01N0 BASE AND MERCIAN. APN 685-020-027 CIVIL ENGINEER OWNER CONTACT - HANK 0 ANO VASANTHI OKUMA L Z PROACTIVE ENGINEERING FOUNTAINHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS WEST 1401 QUAIL STREET 25109 JEFFERSON AVE. SUITE 100 SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MURRIETA, CA 92562 (949) 752-2515 951-200-6840 SOft_S ENGINEER: ARCI �TECT EARTH SYSTEMS BICKEL GROUP ARCHITECTURE 79-811 COUNTRY CLUB DR. 3600 BIRCH STREET SUITE B SUITE 120 BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92203 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (760) 345-1588 (949) 757-0411 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CCA INC. 3633 LONG BEACH BLVD. SUITE 300 LONG BEACH, CA 90807 (562) 424-8182 REFERENCE DATA: ENGINEER SHALL LIST ALL RECORD DATA, REPORTS, AND DRAWINGS RELEVANT TO PREPARATION OF THESE PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSOCIATED PROJECT. CITY OF PALM DESERT CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN PARCEL 7-PARCEL MAP 37157 MONTEREY CROSSING LEGAL DE=IPTION (I.E. LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 19. T5S RGE. SBBM SHEET OF SHEETS I CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission From: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Date: January 28, 2020 Subject: MISC 20-0002 - Jensen's Center — Facade Modification 73-547 Highway 111 Project Summary The project is a request to modify the approved fagade of the Jensen's Center. The original fagade was approved by the ARC during the August of 2018. The building permit for the project was subsequently issued in November of 2018 and the project is nearing completion as of the date of this meeting. This project appeared on the January 14th, 2020 agenda where the ARC directed the applicant ,to prepare a solution for the cornice condition. The applicant has propose two options. Zoning Ordinance Summary ARC approval is required for all commercial fagade modifications per Palm, Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.68.020 (A). Findings for ARC decisions are listed under PDMC Section 25.68.040 — Findings of the ARC. Staff Recommendation Take a final action on the proposed changes. Attachment: Applicant letter and exhibit EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED 1 i PROPOSED 2 i EX'IST4N* TrFO-PIECE 7LE Ck 9 w uu z_ —5NAPED E.I.F. 'RAKE' GOVERER 6T-H PLASTER TGxTL)cE ADHERED OVER EX. CEMENT PLASTER —E\15T,N6 ExT. CEMENT PLA5 ER FINISH EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED DATE: January 23,2020 NADELJOB#: 15023 NADEL EL PASEO PLAZA MARKETPLACE LOSANrUDS,CA.910 ONE, WC. 7990 S. BUNDY DR., FOURTH FLOOR l05 ANGELES, GA. 90025 0182 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA T.316B26WW ADEL826.COM WtN1Y. NADELARC.COM Nn011