Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-28 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 4 MINUTES August 28, 2001 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 13 3 Kristi Hanson X 13 2 Neil Lingle X 11 4 Richard O'Donnell X 10 3 Chris Van Vliet X 15 1 John Vuksic X 15 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager 111111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 14, 2001 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the minutes of August 14, 2001. The motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Vuksic abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None GRanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\Agmin\AR010814.min.wpd 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: 01-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESIREE DOERFLER, D•ZIGN, 21 Queen Street East, Suite 404, Brampton, Ontario, CANADA L6W 3P1 GLENN HARRIS, Ruth's Chris Steak House, 3321 Hessmer Avenue, Metairie, LA 70002 RICHARD PRICE & ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, 27127 Calle Arroyo, #1905, San Juan Capistrano, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plans and working drawings (shell building) for Ruth's Chris Steak House LOCATION: 74-738 & 74-740 Hwy. 111, northeast corner of Hwy. 111 and Village Court ZONE: PC-4 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant would return to the Commission's next meeting to present the landscape plans. Mr. Knight stated the applicant had been allowed some leeway in terms of the plant material because of the nature and location of the project. The only criteria put on the applicant was to pass the .5 maximum water allowance. They have done that. The landscape will be a little more lush than normal, however, it does need to transition with the landscape on the adjacent property in Indian Wells. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval to the working drawings for the shell building via minute motion. The landscape plan was not available for review. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO. TT 29444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 David Schriver, PO Box 926, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of tan precision block for front yard walls LOCATION: 74098 College View, College View Estates ZONE: PR-5 The applicant has built tan precision block walls between each of the 32 single family residences. The 6-foot high block walls enclose the backyards and continue around the sides where the height is gradually reduced at the property line to 2 feet high. Precision block walls are allowed 20 feet behind the front property line and further back. The applicant has extended the precision block walls forward, decreasing in height from 6 feet to 4 feet to 2 feet. Mr. Alvarez stated City ordinance required block walls within 20 feet of the front property line to be "decorative". The Commission was being asked to make an exception in this case since the walls were already built. Mr. Halleck explained that rather than build a 6-foot high wall and stop it at the garage, they elected to extend it toward the front property line to define the property and reduce the height of the wall in segments. He stated that in most cases the backyards will be enclosed by returns and gates which will be located beyond the 20-foot setback. Therefore, the returns can be precision block walls and do not need to be decorative. Commissioner Gregory expressed concern about the turf coming right up to the base of the block walls. It will show the mineral deposits from the sprinklers. Mr. Knight said he would re-check the approved landscape plans to see if turf had been approved next to the walls. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission members if they could approve it as an anomoly, to be allowed just in this location, or if not, if there were someway it could be fixed up without causing undue hardship to the developer. The heights of the walls are acceptable. The center of discussion was to be whether the walls within the 20-foot setback should be decorative. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they should require the developer to plaster or stucco back to the setback, GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES but then there are two different wall materials along the sides. Mr. Alvarez stated that whatever is approved for this site, the developer's other site in the area must follow the ordinance requirements. Since the walls are already built in this development, the realistic options would be to plaster, stucco and/or paint. Mr. Halleck noted that the return walls are just a pilaster to hold a gate. Commissioner Gregory recommended in those cases where there is a pilaster they allow the use of the precision block wall as-is with everything toward the street side being plastered. The pilaster will be the separator between the precision block and the plaster decorative walls. Those without the pilaster would be plastered all the way back. Mr. Halleck pointed out that a house on one side would be a different color than the house on the other side of any wall and he couldn't make the cap half one color, half another. Commissioner Gregory suggested the developer make a decision and use one or the other. The Commission said it would accept tan slump stone walls and returns in the applicant's forthcoming development. It would also consider precision block if it were decorative. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant final approval subject to having the applicant plaster/stucco the walls in front of the pilasters or the returns. For walls without pilasters or returns, the walls are to be plastered/stucco'd for their entire length. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO. SA 01-94 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRED JENSEN, HOGI YOGI, 36 Mission Court, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business signage for Hogi Yogi/Teriyaki Stix LOCATION: 72-333 Hwy. 111, #G, Desert Crossings ZONE: C-1 GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 4 . fir►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES The applicant provided photos of his revised signage on the awnings for Teriyaki Stix. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the revised signage as shown. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 98-5 and TT 28818 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, 6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32809-6090 DAVID PUSHKIN, Sr. Project Manager, Shadow Ridge Resort, PO Box 12757, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised elevations for 6-plex, 7-plex, and 8-plex buildings at Shadow Ridge LOCATION: Marriott Shadow Ridge, east side of Monterey between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Those attending for the applicant were Mr. David Pushkin, Marriott's Senior Project Manager; Mr. Steve Zik, Marriott's Western Design Director; Mr. Stephen Withers, Marriott's VP, Architecture & Design; and Mr. Gary Houston, Marriott's architect. Mr. Zik took the floor as he had shepherded the project through its original approval. He stated the original elevations were acceptable but were not as refined and detailed as what they wanted to carry forward. The request presently before the Commission was to allow the Marriott Shadow Ridge Resort to go forward with the concept of villages with the resort and changing the architecture in some ways. There are four buildings along Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Zik pointed out that the architecture is intended not to be consistent; there is not a series of look-a-like buildings. The buildings facing Monterey Avenue have varied color schemes and are not repetitious. The buildings are varied in length and architectural interest. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocsWGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 5 err+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Zik stated Shadow Ridge would consist of five individual villages. Each consisting of the same buildings but differentiated by color, theme, landscaping, and signage. He displayed three color schemes: brick, brown, and sand grey. Members of the Commission walked through the project on July 121n Mr. Zik pointed out that since then color accents and iron work detail have been added. He addressed each of the items recommended by the Commission: 1. Break up the long roof line: The applicant will be articulating the towers to create strong elements, flat areas, and strong areas. They intend to raise the roof up about 2.5 feet in some areas in order for it to appear stepped. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the pop-up is 2.5 feet as they seemed less than that in the drawings. Mr. Houston stated they had created a shadow line by popping the roof and have recessed the roof in some areas . Commissioner Vuksic suggested not having the tower elements look the same; make one more dominant than the other. 2. Add mass to the top level openings: Mr. Houston responded that it was originally his intention to add natural light into the corridors so he had gone from a double arch to a single arch. He has gone back to the double arches. 3. Look at adding arched windows: Some have been arched. Those that have not been arched will have trim detail added around the windows. 4. Adding mullions to windows in certain sections: In particular, those sections are in the tower elements. The applicant responded that they had added a vertical instead of one big window of 5' 6" x 5' 6". It was pointed out that the tower elements happen to be the living rooms with those windows being the view to the golf course. At each level of the tower, there are doors opening onto recessed, wrought iron balconies. There are also glass sliders from the master bedrooms to the balconies. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the difference was between having a sill and a furred out wall. Discussion followed regarding construction methods regarding window placement GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 6 NOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES and the effects of changing the room configurations. On the rear elevations, the windows within the towers are flush with the wall. The applicant agreed that some articulation could be added with caps, crowns, and/or sills. By painting the sills and headers, the articulation would become more evident. Commissioner Gregory summarized that there were several options to make the windows appear to be recessed to add shadows and thickness. 5. Considering adding faux chimneys to the roofs: That has been done. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that one of the existing buildings facing Monterey doesn't have anything on the roof other than tile. He asked if it would be possible to put plant-on's on that building and asked that the applicants consider this. Commissioner O'Donnell asked to see the color schemes again. Commissioner Hanson asked if the teal could be used with the windows. Mr. Zik responded that vinyl windows in dark colors crack and fade. Commissioner O'Donnell recommended using more color than those shown as the difference between the four colors in each scheme is slight. The brick-colored version had good body; but the others will get faded and look exactly the same. The applicant agreed and said the colors could pumped up with more contrast. Commissioner Hanson suggested using a strong color on an entire wall or tower to make a statement; not to restrict it just to the base of the buildings. Mr. Houston displayed some color ideas they were playing with to help identify each of the village which the Commission thought was appropriate. Teal will be one of those colors. Commissioner Vuksic noted that many of the openings on the third floor are square with little details in the corner. He suggested increasing the size of the detail or vary them Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval subject to conditions: 1) making one of the tower elements on each building more dominant than the other, 2) making sure the roof pop-ups are 2.5 feet as they seemed less than that in the drawings, 3) on the rear elevations, the windows within the towers need to appear to be recessed to add shadows and thickness to be accomplished by furring out the walls, adding caps, crowns, and/or sills and accent paint, and 4) using brighter or contrasting colors in the color schemes. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMINWR010828ag.wpd 7 *40e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STATE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK PARTNERS, 74-770 Hwy. 111, #201, Indian Wells, CA 92210 FRANK URRUTIA, FRANK URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, #201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office/industrial complex LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, 1,000 feet +/- east of Cook Street, opposite entrance to California State site, COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK ZONE: PCD Mr. Urrutia displayed a 6.5 acre site plan of the five proposed buildings and a typical elevation. The buildings will not mirror each other, but they will be similar. The project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will consist of the three buildings along the rear perimeter of the property. That perimeter is adjacent to the railroad tracks and Highway 1-10. The front of the buildings will look like offices. The rear will have overhead doors. The walls will be stucco and two types of masonry (precision and split face). A material board was displayed for the Commission's review. Mr. Urrutia pointed out that the majority of the building has a higher roof element while the office areas in front are shorter, thereby creating a step-back look. They have also brought some clear story into the industrial warehouse area. Mr. Knight expressed concern about the spacing of parking lot trees and their ability to provide the necessary shade. The count appears to be correct, but there are large areas where there is no shading. The fruitless Swan Hill Olive and Holly Oak both seem to be slow growing, especially in the desert. However, both are listed in the parking lot tree ordinance so they can be used. He suggested that if the applicant chose to use them, a larger sized pot should be used. Mr. Wayne Connor, the project landscape architect, noted they had used them in the El Dorado parking lot about four years ago and they were sizeable. He agreed they were slow growing and noted they were low- maintenance trees. The olive trees anchor the four corners of each building. As both types of trees are slow growing and are being used GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES as focal points, the Commission recommended upsizing the boxes from 24 inches to 36 inches. Buildings D & E, the two front buildings, are not going to be in the first phase. Those expanses of land will need to be stabilized with something other than turf. Mr. Urrutia agreed that something would be done temporarily. Commissioner Vuksic commented on how well the buildings were articulated with the banding and detailing. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how signage for the buildings would be handled. Mr. Urrutia explained that the first phase buildings are designed to take maybe two tenants so there won't be much signage. The business signage along with the building/unit numbers are proposed to be placed on the facias on the south elevation over the doors. An entry sign to the complex will be brought before the Commission at a later date. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval of the architectural and landscaping plans subject to increasing the size of the Swan Hill Olive and Holly Oak trees being up-sized from 24 inch boxes to 36 inch boxes. Motion carried 5- 0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ART JORDAN, 6150 N. 16th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85016 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office/industrial complex, UNIVERSITY COMMERCE CENTER LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, east of College Business Park ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith explained the total property size was 20 acres. The applicant is providing plans for the westerly 10 acres as phase one. When complete, phase two plans are to "flip"the plans over to the easterly 10 acres. The property's rear (northern) perimeter is adjacent to the GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES railroad tracks and Highway 1-10. There are four buildings in the first phase. Buildings A, B, and C are linear, running along the rear perimeter in an "S" shape. Building D is proposed as an office building set at the front of the property, in front of the other buildings. Staff has some concern about Building D being two-storied and being so close to Gerald Ford Drive. While staff believes it should have a slightly lower profile, the applicant does have reasons for the proposed height as they expect the building to be used as a two-story building. Therefore, it is difficult to get below the 29 feet. The applicant's representatives attending the meeting were: Mr. Art Jordan, General Contractor; Mr. Rajiv Kapadia and Mr. Frank Sator, Continental Fabrications, the owners; and Mr. Dave Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers. Mr. Kapadia stated the buildings would be tilt-up with grey line 14 glass and black aluminum banding accents. The three rear buildings will be flex industrial use with loading areas to the back so that the doors will be hidden from view and the front building will be an office building. He noted that the front building, "D" is intended to have two stories. In Buildings A, B, & C, they are currently planning on finishing just the first floor, then complete the second floor as demand is created. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could consider stepping the second floor back on Building D so that it wouldn't seem so monolithic. Mr. Kapadia explained that there was quite a bit of in-and-out - specifically the first floor wall on the north and south elevations is indented about four feet behind the columns. As well, there are ins- and-outs along the sides with the bands. The black band takes away from the bulk massing. Commissioner Hanson stated the second floor windows are not recessed and that the second floor will be perceived more than the first floor. She suggested pulling out the bottom floor and recessing the second. Mr. Jordan commented that the way the building is being constructed wouldn't facilitate that option. Mr. Kapadia added that if the first floor were pulled out, the tenants on the second floor would be looking down on the roof of that extension. Commissioner Hanson stated the rear buildings were fine because they are set back, but the front office building looks "hospital-ish". There is not enough happening on the second floor to make it interesting, particularly on the south elevation. The columns and the recesses on the first floor are great. The applicant stated they were trying to create the interest with the tri-color approach and in having done this building design before, it is typically flushed out in tilt-slab construction to emphasize the contemporary nature of the architecture. In GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 10 `%0r+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES contemporary architecture, it is typical to do it this way to get the flow. He also noted that in both the flex industrial buildings and the office building, wherever you see a curve, that is faceted which will be adding a lot of architectural interest. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the buildings. They are all approximately 29 feet, 10 inches, but because of the undulating shapes of the buildings, it will seem more broken up than a flat strip mall. Mr. Kapalia explained that they were looking at making all the buildings two storied. The buildings are currently being interior finished as one-storied with the possibility of adding a second floor. There is ample parking should the second stories be occupied. The office building will be marketed will a fully built out lobby including stairway and elevator. The finishes in the lobby will be conducive to Class A rents with granite and stone accents and wainscoat. The office building is showing a coping detail that cantilevers out over the utility walls that gives a shadow relief. They will continue working on making it something a little more special. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed concern about providing sun protection for the second floor offices even with the type of glazing being discussed. He felt it was an inappropriate design in the desert to go with buildings that have flush glass without any type of built-in shading devices. The applicant explained that the lower level is all inset and will be fully and entirely shaded during the year. Mr. Kapalia stated in the past they have used high-performance glass that has given good results in terms of cooling in the Phoenix area. While they are not planning on using high-performance glass in this project, they are considering grey line 14 glass to address the expense. He pointed out that two of the bands are Spandrol glass which gives them the ability to insulate to an R-20 behind it. Commissioner Hanson stated there were two concerns: 1) the lack of undulating roof, every building has exactly the same height which is problematic, the applicant should consider where they want the second story and lower the other areas 2) the glass on the face of the building is an unacceptable solution in the desert. The elevation of Building D needs to be stepped back away from the street - this does not mean moving the building back. Commissioner Vuksic noted he likes contemporary architecture, but does not see any strong design concepts. The site plan is interesting and Building D has a lot of potential. It looks like very standardized tilt-up. He suggested taking some of the features of the lobby and put it on the outside. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES The applicant noted that this project has been built in the Phoenix market and it is award winning. It is a style of architecture with the warm desert colors with the flush glazing and the very refined landscaping and the uniformity of the parapet instead of the undulating parapet which brings more of decorative look into it. They are going more for a timeless, slick look that doesn't compete with the landscaping. It is a very deliberate design that has been built and tested and meets the requirements of the people who are trying to build it. Commissioner Vuksic stated he didn't see detail or a strong massing concept or overall concept that would lead to something this powerful and monolithic. Mr. Kapalia stated it wouldn't be as monolithic as it appears on the elevations because of the way the buildings are shaped. It was never intended to be an architectural statement, per se, as the area is undeveloped now and the market that is being targeted is not something that needs to support a high-end look from the outside. Only the lobby will have the high-end look, but that is not necessarily what they are trying to do in the back buildings. By definition, it will be industrial/warehouse type of use. There is nothing to tie into right now and is a fairly neutral look. Commissioner Lingle stated for that reason, the applicant should be setting the standard and listen to what the Commission was suggesting to get it done. Commissioner Gregory stated the landscaping overall was quite good. The use of materials reflects an Arizona approach. There are berms along Gerald Ford Drive. The parked cars need to be screened from the street either with berms and/or low walls between berms. The applicant was instructed not to use just a row of plants to screen the cars, ie, oleanders. The parking lot median planter needs to be at least 5-feet wide in order to accommodate the proper sized shade trees. Mr. Smith stated the recent code amendment permits shorter parking spaces along the areas where the trees are located in order to provide the necessary width for the planter. There are areas that do not seem to have adequate shading for the parking spaces. The applicant was informed that at mature growth, 50 percent of the parking space area should be shaded. There is some concern by Mr. Knight about the use of turf at the entry and by the art piece which will be discussed with the applicant. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 12 1400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to incorporate recommendations: 1) Building D should have a stepped appearance on the south elevation, 2) Second-story windows need more solar protection, either with high-performance glass or with shade structures, 3) Consider where they want the second stories and lower the other areas in order to create an undulating roof line, 4) Consider putting some of the upscale features of the lobby on the outside, 5) Create some strong detail/massing concept such as punching out the corner entrance in Building A, 6) Use darker colors with more contrast, 7) Screen parked cars from the street by using berms and/or low walls, not just a row of plants, 8) Tree wells in parking lots shall comply with size prescribed in ordinance, 9) 50 percent of the parking spaces are required to be shaded by the time the trees reach mature growth, 10) Applicant should discuss use of turf with the City Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRY KIM, MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTS, 1110 112`h Avenue NE, #500, Bellevue, WA 98004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 15,510 square foot addition LOCATION: 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive, COSTCO WHOLESALE ZONE: PC Plans for the addition were displayed for the Commission's review. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval to the addition plans. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 13 Ifto ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: CUP 01-15, SA 01-96 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN WESSMAN, WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1555 South Palm Canyon Dr., Suite G- 106, Palm Springs, CA 92264 PROMOTIONAL SIGNS, INC., 20361 Hermana Circle, Lake Forest, CA 92630 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans to expand the existing RANCHO SAN PABLO CENTER by 1,261 square feet. Modify the corner of the building to facilitate use by STARBUCKS and approval of signage for STARBUCKS. LOCATION: 73-520 El Paseo, Rancho San Pablo Shopping Center ZONE: C-1, SP Mr. Smith reported that Starbucks was looking at locating at the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo. This case has two aspects: 1) enclosing the existing breezeway between the two buildings to create another store front and 2) modifying the corner to facilitate Starbucks . Mr. Wessman stated he intended to do some major remodeling of the building in the future. For now, he is attempting to do some re- positioning within the building. He noted that the building architect had used wood which has become warped, cracked, and twisted. He proposes to remove the arched awning and the wood and then plaster from underneath the overhang creating a plastered 14" fascia. For the breezeway, he proposes removing the warped wood beams and replacing it with another higher element to create some interest from the street. He will return to the Commission with a color scheme. Mr. Wessman explained his plans for the interior layout of the restyled building which allows entrances off the parking lot and the street. He has been in discussion with City staff and the business association about parking. In particular, space is being allocated for the tenants' employees in order to leave room for visitors. The applicant is working with Doug Arango to make sure that Mr. Arango's restaurant has access. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed concern with Starbuck's outside seating area which shows the use of umbrellas. He feels that the south/southwest exposure will be difficult. He asked if there could be some kind of fixed shading structure over the exterior seating area. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 14 �rrr1140 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES The applicant responded that part of the Starbuck's "mystic" was being able to sit outside. Commissioner O'Donnell likes the overall project with the exception of it not having a shade structure over the seating area. Mr. Wessman stated Starbuck's did not want a completely shaded area. They want some areas where people can sit in the direct sun or in the shade. They would be glad to use umbrellas. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of the project subject to the parking being handled and approved by the Planning Commission and that access to Doug Arangos is maintained. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed. 6. CASE NO.: CUP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 47-321 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PHILIP SMITH, 83-810 Via Deo Circle, #101, Indio, CA 92201 CHANCY M. LOTT, LOTT ENTERPRISES, INC., 44 Lakeshore Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an addition for a proposed Family Life Center LOCATION: 47-321 Highway 74 ZONE: R-1 The Commission received plans in their packet. In addition, the applicants brought in a 3-D model of the proposed Family Life Center. This addition will house space for the choir, classrooms, and a two- story multi-purpose room. Staff noted that parking could be an issue. However, those using the addition will be doing so during the week days and nights and many of them are the same as those who will be attending services. Commissioner Hanson stated it would be important to do something on the rear elevation to add some architectural interest on the channel side of the high roof. The applicant pointed out that the split-face Orco block being used in the wall creates long horizontal banding effects with shadows lines and textures. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval subject to adding some architectural detail on the elevation facing the channel. Preliminary approval is extended to the landscape plans subject to the City's Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP 01-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FEDDERLY & ASSOCIATES, 45-350 San Luis Rey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 DAMIAN VAUGHAN, Hunt, Hale, Jones Architects, 636 Fourth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised preliminary elevations for 12-unit luxury apartments, El Paseo Villas LOCATION: 73-825 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 (3) Mr. Smith explained that elevations had received preliminary approval for this project. However, the applicant was asking for approval of revisions to those elevations. The changes were circled on each set of plans. Commissioner Hanson expressed concern about Building 2's south elevation. Some of the gables along the roof line have been removed. Mr. Fedderly stated they wanted more detail toward the street and faced gables in that direction. Commissioner Vuksic responded that the side elevations did not need anymore detail as they aren't that long and there was a lot going on. Yet, they lost a tremendous amount on the rear elevation. Mr. Fedderly stated that the rear elevation would not be seen by anyone. The Commission noted that there was an apartment building behind them and they would see it. The Commission does not like flat, long uninteresting roof lines and suggested the applicant carry the details around to the rear of the building. It would like to some see the gables put back on the rear elevation. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the previous version had had substantial rafter tails while this version look like they are 2x4s or 2x6s. Mr. Fedderly will make sure that the original rafter tails are kept intact. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that the garage doors in the previous version were better than those shown in the present version. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval subject to adding gables to the rear elevation, keeping the rafter tails at their previously approved size or at least 4x6, and using paneled garage doors instead of slab doors. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 01-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRANK URRUTIA, FRANK URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, #201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised plans to enhance the entrance to the Palm Desert Council Chambers LOCATION: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: P Staff requested and the Commission agreed to review the plans for the exterior entrance to the Palm Desert City Council Chamber. Mr. Frank Urrutia and Mr. Burt Bitanga displayed a 3-D model of their plans which extends from the Council Chamber to the street. The model's main feature was the proposed cover extending from the street to the Chamber's entrance. There were two options: The first featured a full transparent arched roof with wood beams seen from under the arch. Concern had been expressed about birds nesting on the beams and the resultant mess. The second option presents an arched trellis structure with wood or metal beams. The arch is not as high as in the first option and therefore, not as imposing. The second option was preferred. Under the cover and between the north and south wings of City Hall, the walkway from the street to the entrance would be designed in the and/or interlocking brick. The entire covered area will be large enough to set up dining tables and chairs for up to 200 people. Along each side of the walkway, would be waterways stepping down from the entrance towards the street. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMINWR010828ag.wpd 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES The theme of the area in front of the Chambers is that of a date grove which will include turf, date palms, and the running water. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of the revised plans for the entrance to the Council Chambers. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Van Wet abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010828ag.wpd is