Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-11 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 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 16 3 Kristi Hanson X 16 2 Neil Lingle X 13 5 Richard O'Donnell X 13 3 Chris Van Vliet X 18 1 John Vuksic X 18 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 27, 2001 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of November 27, 2001. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 97-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL HOMME, P.O. Box 258, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for Building E. LOCATION: 74-000 Country Club, Building E; Cornerstone ZONE: OP Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion carried 6-0-0. 2. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, THE HOME COLLECTION, 74-273 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two awnings on store front. LOCATION: 74-273 Highway 111 (Corner of Highway 111 & Panorama) ZONE: SA 01-140 Mr. Bagato stated that Mr. Hernandez would like to improve his signage on his store front. The building is an older building which is tan in color and is located on the corner of Highway 111 and Portola (the old Truly Nolan building). He would like to add a beige and black awning with signage. The drawing shows that the awning is higher than his roof, which may be of concern. Commissioner Hanson stated that the awning needs modification. The plans should be revised so that both awnings project 3' and should not be higher than the roof. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to modification so that both awnings G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 2 NOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES project out 3' and the top of the awnings are not higher than the roof and that the revised plan be worked out with staff. Motion carried 6-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 00-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KENNY LUCKEROTH, 77-555 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of detached accessory structure in rear yard. LOCATION: 77-555 Delaware Place ZONE: RE (40,000) Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant changed the roof on the north elevation and added a tile portion, which matches the hip roof on the main house. The applicant is present to answer questions. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there is a small overhang sticking out on the east and west elevations. He commented that there needs to be a parapet so that water does not run directly off the roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there is a parapet, which is wrapped around two sides and then it just ends. The roof surface will jut the water off at the side of the building. The draftsman has not designed anything on the back of the building. The parapet should wrap all the way around the building. It's like a stage front has been designed and they have ignored what the neighbor sees from the back. The building will not be attractive to look at with a built-up roof, which is unsightly. You do not do a rock roof off the back and then put a parapet on three sides of it. The parapet should wrap all the way around and crickets should be built so that the water will run to 2-3 roof drains, which should run down the inside of the wall to the ground. The back of the building needs to be taken care of. The planes need to change on this elevation. You may want to introduce some smaller elements such as small tile elements, possibly over the doors to make it have more of a pueblo style. He suggested introducing some elements to soften up the "box" look. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Luckeroth stated that this is basically a garage and it is supposed to look like that. This is what he's looking for. He stated that all of his neighbors are 3' above his lot so he is looking at their ugly fences. This garage will look beautiful compared to their ugly fences that he is looking at now. Another neighbor has an old home that is right up against the fence and he is not doing any improvements to his area. Mr. Luckeroth stated that his neighbor just built a garage across the street that is identical to the one that he wants to build. He stated that he does not see the point of dressing up the building any more. His - neighbor built their home on the front of the lot with a 1,200 square foot home in the corner when the property was still with the county. The rest of their lot is empty and has no landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that somebody could develop this property in the future and an unsightly building would be detrimental to their value. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the reason why the applicant is here is to ask for an exception not to meet the 50' rear set-back. The applicant is asking to place this building 20' from the rear property line. In doing that, it sets into motion some different standards. The Commission is trying to make certain that all four sides of the building have architecture to them. Whether it be now or for the future, we want to say that the applicant did what he could to improve the neighborhood. The Commission is not trying to add cost to the project but they just want the applicant to make it as nice as the rest of the property, which is outstanding. Commissioner Gregory stated that an approval could be given subject to specific modifications. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) offset garage 12", (2) add parapet to south elevation, (3) add internal roof drains to the ground, (4) offset columns 12" toward south elevation, and (5) add trim around garage doors. Motion carried 6-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: SA 01-142 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PARAGON SIGNS, DON SWINDELL, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 30" x 8' illuminated sign on building fascia. LOCATION: 74-115 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez stated that this is the newly remodeled building on Highway 111. A couple of months ago, the Commission approved a unique can sign for Complete Home Entertainment Systems on the unit to the west. At this time, Blinds etc... is proposing a sign on their store front. Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed sign is 30" x 8' and the entire can would be illuminated with red lettering for Blinds, etc... and smaller brown lettering for Carpet and Upholstery with an ivory-colored back. Mr. Bagato recommended to the applicant come up with an interesting- style can or possibly individual channel lettering. The applicant is present as well as the Don Swindell from Paragon Signs. Mr. Swindell stated that the applicant has moved her business from the other side of Highway 111 where she had a can sign, which worked for her for years. They chose colors which would be consistent with what she had used previously. During the remodel, the power was stubbed out for a can sign and could possibly use channel lettering. Mr. Drell commented that the City spent $25,000 to contribute to the enhancement of the store front, therefore, we have a greater interest in making sure that the sign looks nice as well. The sign does not have to match the architecture of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the neighbor's sign that was approved was a can sign. He commented that it is extremely rare that a can sign is approved in Palm Desert. He suggested that the easiest solution to have the Blinds, etc... sign approved is to go to individual letters. Otherwise, the Commission would require a very creative can sign, like the one next door. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that he does not have a problem with raceway-style signage, as long as they are handled cleverly. He commented that the sign should look architectural and tied in somewhat with the feeling of the building. He stated that by having a clever raceway, he could come up with a sign that would not look like just a typical can (i.e. be a little more clever without incurring too much more cost). Mr. Drell commented that a raceway has a background with a design on it for the lettering. Other people have routed out the lettering. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that changing the case of the lettering from upper case to lower case makes the sign more interesting, instead of having all upper case lettering. The etc... being lower case does help the look of the sign. Commissioner Gregory commented that there are typically three colors allowed for the sign program. The Commission would request that the applicant match the red used on the sign next door. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for continuance to allow the applicant to incorporate the following recommendations, (1) needs more style and interest, (2) use both upper and lower case lettering, and (3) use the same color of red for the lettering as the red used on the Complete Home Entertainment Systems sign. Motion carried 6-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 01-135 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEMPLE SINAI, 73-251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign at entry of temple. LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ZONE: P.R. Mr. Alvarez stated that the signage consists of non-illuminated letters which have already been installed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 6 sow *so' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Wiley, who is representing residents near the Sinai Temple, is present. The neighborhood position is that before new items are approved on the building, they would like to see some of the existing previously approved improvements completed (i.e. turf; maintenance and weeding of the landscaping that is already installed, etc...). The initial landscape concept was that there be enough trees along the west side of the temple facilities to screen the residential view of the facility. The trees that have been planted were probably fifteen gallon citrus trees, which are unlikely to provide screening in the near future. We would suggest adding more trees and apparently the temple is cooperative. Currently, the residents are looking directly at the side of the temple sanctuary. If there was some landscape screening of the temple, it is possible that the objection to the signage would disappear. The residents would also like the landscaping to be maintained better in the future. The temple is obligated to comply with these requests, based on the previous approval. They are willing to enhance the landscape screening with additional trees. The residents would like the sign be approved subject to the temple committing to the above requests. There is basically a residential use next to an institutional use. One of the things that is unique to an institutional use is that there is signage. We do try to disguise the institutional nature of its use when it's adjacent or inside of a residential neighborhood. The intent of the original landscape plan was to try to create a landscape barrier. The landscaping was supposed to be completed at the time of the school opening, which was one year ago. Due to funding, the landscaping has been installed piece by piece. Turf needs to be planted where there was an expectation that there would be turf and the trees that are already installed need to be maintained more carefully. Jerry Wiley was present and stated that he lives on Avenida Estrada. He represents ten homeowners on this street, which is adjacent to the Temple Sinai. He stated that approximately two years ago, he met with Burt Kaplan who was the president of the Temple Sinai at that time, the Rabi and Mr. Gregory. There were commitments made about a "good neighbor policy" working with the homeowners and being a benefit to the entire neighborhood. Mr. Wiley stated that over the last 1-1'/2 years that has not happened. He stated that he has sent letters and made calls to the temple, but he has not received any response. He has been working with Mr. Drell and he has not pursued this issue again until recently as he had hoped that the church would eventually take care of these issues. They have a problem with blowing sand in the neighborhood, which has continued for over one year. The temple has complied with some things that the residents have requested. There G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES are several issues that still need to be resolved, which are all part of the Conditional Use Permit. The homeowners would like to tie these issues in with the sign. They will agree to have the sign if the landscaping issues are resolved. Mr. Drell has recommended acacia trees, which are dense and fast growing. The residents are requesting that the Temple Sinai maintain the property and plant new trees. Commissioner O'Donnell inquired as to whether these matters could be worked out with the leadership of the temple and resolve a time line that would make everybody happy. Mr. Wiley stated that they have tried that, but it has not worked. He has received no response from the temple in the past. Mr. Wiley stated that Mr. Gregory met with Mrs. Wiley and another neighbor on the tree issue. Originally, they were told that they could choose from 5-6 types of trees. However, Mr. Wiley stated that Mr. Gregory told them that they could only plant citrus trees. The citrus trees were planted, but they did not work out. Some are dying or dead and they don't screen the building. Mr. Drell stated that he does not feel that there is disagreement between the temple and residents, however, the relationship would be enhanced if what has been planted is improved. He feels that the homeowners and the temple have to get together to decide on exactly what the temple is willing to do and what the neighborhood wants so that there is no confusion. This could be facilitated here to address the above issues. The maintenance issue should be addressed immediately. The turf, or some alternative ground cover to stabilize the dust, should be installed immediately. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to grant approval subject to (1) the City take the initiative to get the neighbors and the temple management together to resolve the landscape issues as soon as possible, and (2) the condition that staff look at code issues specific to following the approved planting plan. Motion carried 6-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: SA 01-142 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Ave., #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. LOCATION: 73-580 El Paseo (Mephisto) ZONE: C-1 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 73-811 Santa Rosa Way LOCATION: 73-811 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 SO Mr. Alvarez stated that this case has been continued from the previous ARC meeting on November 27, 2001 . Mike Filing was present and he stated that they did address some concerns of the Architectural Review as far as attempting to acquire some relief on the front and back planes of the building. He stated that they were able to devise the relief by bringing the wall out 6" and running it from floor to ceiling. They anticipate altering the color by using a two-color plastering effect to get some definition and depth. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Filing stated that he was dubious about bringing the wall out more than 6" because of the walkway restriction. He feels that he can get the relief that is needed by coming out 6". The configuration of the building is staggered to accommodate the feeling of individuality of the units, but still keeping with the consideration and sensitivity to the park-like effect that they are trying to create for the tenants in front of their units. Mr. Filing stated that they have tried to address the concerns of the ARC with the color changes, pop-outs around the doors and also changing the roof on the rear elevation instead of having a flat wall across the back and also adding some protection from the weather. Commissioner Gregory stated that one problem that they are incurring in regards to the request to the articulation of the building to create more interest is that they have a sidewalk abutting the building, which creates a situation where people might have contact with any deviation of the building. Typically, sidewalks are not adjacent to the actual building elevation itself. Most developments have a sidewalk somewhat away from the building and there is a landscape area of some type next to the building which creates a softening effect. Commissioner Gregory stated that they do not have the opportunity for softening of the buildings in planter areas because the walkways abut the buildings. At the same time, there is no articulation of the buildings which might create some interest in the buildings themselves. This is one reason why there is enhanced concern about some movement of the buildings. This is not something that cannot be worked out. Mr. Filing commented that the articulation of the plane is amplified by popping out the areas around the doors and having relief around the windows. This border around the windows could be styrofoam or 2" x 6". Mr. Filing stated that he does not have a problem with moving the sidewalk 18"-24" away from the building and creating a planter area next to the building. He is trying not to protrude into the center landscaping area as much as possible. Commissioner Gregory stated that he is not sure if that is going to solve his problem but he is trying to address a concern. The goal of the ARC is to get an approved project so that Mr. Filing can move ahead. Mr. Filing stated that he does need to move forward or else lose control of the property. He stated that he does not know how to address the concern regarding relief in the building. The property on Santa Rosa has been given relief by staggering the building. The only people who can see the face of the building are the people who enter the project. It is not visible from the street because of the distance from the street to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 10 .no, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES the face of the building. Mr. Filing feels that this building is presented well. The building on San Rafael has three units in a row and they have tried to include a backyard. If they staggered these units, he feels that some of these yards would have to be eliminated. By having the break- up of the plane with pop-out doors and the changing of the colors, he does not feel that this would be objectionable to those on the outside. He has tried to address these problems but he is restricted as to how much he can move things around and still accommodate the theme of the project, which is the water features and landscaping. Commissioner Gregory commented that the ARC does not only look at the street side of a building, they .look at everything. They will be looking at the interior views as well as the end views. Even if someone on the outside cannot see it, the ARC is concerned about the architectural integrity of the building. The ARC would like for them to move ahead, but they have to be open to suggestions. They are going to have to yield somewhat. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees a lot of awkward relationships. It looks like ideas were not carried through. The windows all have identical trim detail around them, again. Where there are popped out elements (i.e. around the doors) there should be careful consideration about proportions. Some of the elements are very spindly-looking. The elevator tower, which is visible from the street, has odd proportions with spindly-looking details and elements. He stated that when you have a very tall element with an opening in it, such as a door, and the popped-out element only extends one foot beyond the door on either side and there is a tall element on top, it doesn't look structurally sound or aesthetically proportionate. Commissioner Vuksic would like to see the fascia detail because his concern about this is pretty high. He was also concerned with the nail-on windows in regard to how they would work with the trim detail around them. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in his opinion, with some good design help this building concept could be made acceptable. Commissioner Hanson commented that she does not believe that anything that is being discussed will incur additional cost to the project. She stated that every time that this project has been presented, only one or two suggestions made by the ARC have been applied and not done in an architectural manner. The suggestions being made are intended to help the applicant, however, they are not being implemented properly. Mr. Filing stated that he has attempted to address everything that the ARC has brought up and every time they come back they bring something else up. He commented that he feels that this project will be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES the star of the whole neighborhood. He feels that they are not down- grading the neighborhood. He is not clear as to what the Commission wants him to do. Mr. Drell commented that architectural solutions are more encompassing than tinkering with a little detail here and there. He feels that the Committee members have been too polite in their criticism. He does not feel that the problem is one which is a matter of a little detail here or there. The basic canvas does not provide a lot of opportunity to do something interesting. Mr. Drell does not think that anything applied to these buildings will make that much difference to this Committee. Commissioner Hanson stated that the last time this project was presented to the Commission they were planning to use the thin fascia detail from another project. She went and looked at that project. The reason the thin fascia detail works on that project is because they have a metal roof. This project shows a concrete the roof, which is a much heavier-looking roof. She does not think that the thin fascia detail necessarily works. Also, the other project uses stone and this project does not, therefore, you have much more of a stucco box. You can't take one element from a project that you like and apply it to a different project. There are a lot of long, thin, narrow, punched out openings that state they are a "wrought iron mosaic detail", which is not clear as to what that actually is. She does not feel that the long, narrow details necessarily help the project, whereas some other shape might reduce the height and narrowness of the building. She feels that with slightly different proportioning of some of the elements, this project could work. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant can go to the Planning Commission. The applicant can request a denial and then go on to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would look at the site planning, comment on the architecture and then it would go on to the City Council. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the comments by the ARC are similar to those made previously. He recommended professional architectural guidance. The site plan is nice, however, there must be good architecture whether you see it from the outside or the inside. It does not mean that it will cost more money. Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for denial. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for denial. Comments made on 73-811 Santa Rosa Way apply to this project as well. Motion carried 6-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEW BISHOP, ARCHITECT, 44-645 San Onofre Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for 3,794 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: 73-330 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez stated that this item was continued from one month ago. The Commission was given revised plans to review. Mr. Bishop is present to answer any questions. Mr. Bishop stated that in response to everyone's concerns about the buildings next door, he photographed the adjacent buildings and tried to locate the places that were mentioned previously. In the process, it was pretty clear that the ability to increase the amount of landscaping at the rear elevation of the building and how it ties in with the landscaped courtyard area and provide some type of cover that would break up the tall back wall. He took the front porch element with a tin roof and added it to the back side over the walkway in the rear. Mr. Bishop stated that the only disagreement he had with the ARC was with the west elevation. He did not change anything on this elevation. The building next door has exactly the same conditions with a blank wall on their west side. He feels that with the addition of the headers over the top of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 13 **Sol ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES the doors, additional window lights in the upper floor area and additional parapet height. The landscape plan has not been submitted. The stucco on the exterior will be typical lumpy texture with heavy eased edges. Commissioner O'Donnell remarked on the west elevation. He wanted to know where the adjoining building ties into his building. Mr. Bishop stated that it adjoins at the end of the garden wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the north elevation needs articulation as there are only trees there. Mr. Bishop stated that he moved the parking lot back 9' in order to provide a big enough planter area that could handle a couple of large trees. He added windows at the top so that it is not just a blank wall. Commissioner Vuksic inquired as to whether it makes sense to change plane where the parapet height changes. Mr. Bishop commented that he would not have room to do that. If he articulated this elevation out it would take up the whole ramp area. Even by adding 12" pop-outs, he will still lose the parking space at the end of the parking lot. Commissioner Hanson asked if the opposite elevation could be moved in or out. Mr. Bishop stated that he does not see any reason for it. He feels that by adding 5' of porch on the front it will break up the whole side of the building and the large trees on the other side will break up that side of the building. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval for architecture only, subject to adding articulation on the north elevation by changing the plane of a portion of the rear elevation. Motion carried 6-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: TT 30030 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOULDERS AT PALM DESERT, 73- 426 Dalea Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of three residential models for 16-lot subdivision. LOCATION: 37-801 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR 5 Mr. Alvarez stated that this subdivision was approved north of Frank Sinatra on a newly-created street named Shephard Lane. This is a cul- de-sac subdivision consisting of sixteen lots. The set-backs, heights, coverages and all City requirements are met. There are some G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 14 N"010 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES comments on the landscaping, which will be forwarded to the applicant. There are three models with different exterior colors and roofs. The architect, Gabriel Lujan, is present to answer any questions. Commissioner Vuksic complemented Mr. Lujan on the architecture. He stated that he was concerned about the end of the cul-de-sac. There are four houses in the cul-de-sac and each home has a four-car garage. There is a sidewalk along the street and a cul-de-sac with (16) garages facing each other. Mr. Lujan stated that they designed 16' garage doors instead of 8' to reduce the number of doors. He suggested possibly articulating the garage doors and he could make them deeper. Mr. Drell commented that the garages could be on the side of the homes so they are less visible from the street. This would give them a lot more opportunity for architecture with an actual house front instead of garages. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could flip the plan and do a side-loading garage. Commissioner Van Wet commented that this would give them the opportunity to add more landscaping in the front. Commissioner Vuksic suggested staggering the sidewalks to allow room for trees close to the street. He also commented that a tree could be added in the middle of the cul-de-sac. The Fire Marshall would have to be contacted. Commissioner Lingle thought that there have been too many situations with vehicle pursuits or people who have been drinking and driving and run straight into homes in cul-de-sacs. He stated that putting a tree in the roadway does not seem like a good option. A concrete paver circle in the center was suggested to break up the asphalt. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that everything is very linear. The set- backs are all the same so that when you look down the street, all you see are the edges of the garages. He suggested doing some different set-backs for some of the lots to create some interest. This would add a more interesting approach into the project, which may help to sell it faster. He also agreed with Mr. Vuksic on trying to make the sidewalk move a little bit instead of having it linear. If the homes are flipped on the cul-de-sac to change the location of the garages, a different type of planting at the end should be considered. Some interest could be created at the end of the cul-de-sac with interesting planting. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned about the detailing on the windows on the rear and the sides. Mr. Lujan stated that they were using nail-on windows with plaster and no detailing. He stated that they will add some reveal around the windows. Commissioner Van Wet G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES also inquired about the roof drains. The drains should come down inside the walls. Also, there is no shading over some of the rear windows. There is a central overhang but the other windows don't have any coverage. Mr. Lujan commented that the homeowners could add a covered patio or wood trellis. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the architect pre-design the wood trellis and make it an option for the homeowners, which he agreed to do. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval of plans for architecture only subject to (1) turning houses so that four-car garage doors do not face the street, (2) consider meandering sidewalks to allow for trees along street, (3) undulations with 3'-5' set-backs,(4) add detailing on remaining side and rear elevations, and (5) roof drains to be internal. Motion carried 6-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and conceptual landscape plan for Visitor's Center and Chamber of Commerce buildings. LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Estrada) ZONE: OP Mr. Alvarez stated that this project has been brought before the ARC as a master plan. The individual buildings have to go back to the ARC and the Planning Commission for review. There are color elevations to review. The architect, Reuel Young, was present to introduce the project. The project started with the City owning the 12-acre site and wanting to place the Eric Johnson Garden at the corner, which is very unusual. A high profile corner would normally be developed with architecture, rather than landscape. His first thrust in terms of the master plan was to assume that there would be pads opening off the lane. He thought that it was very important that there be a breakdown in scale from Highway 111 to the area that would be surrounded by these buildings. He felt that the scale should be small so that twenty people would feel comfortable or 200 people would feel comfortable. One other criteria is that from the corner, there should be a view past the garden into the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES "plaza". The first building to be designed is the Visitor's Center. It was discussed at length as to where the pad should go. Mr. Young stated that the building has two uses; one is the Visitor's Information Center which is 6,000 square feet and the second is tentatively the Chamber which is approximately 2,000 square feet. What generated the building was the idea of having an intimate relationship from the building into the garden. This is one of the reasons why there is a faceted, articulated front along that side. In addition, they felt that it was very important that the public entrance be close to the garden and close to the Information Center, rather than on the opposite end of the building. What that generated was a public area, which has retail and information distribution. There is also a lounge area and a small video theater. The goal was to create as much exposure to natural light as possible. The component of the natural light had two difficult situations. One is that the public now faces west and the second is that on the north there is nice light, but it also faces Highway 111 and this is where the offices (back of house) are located. Mr. Young decided to use faceted windows as ways of taking the relationship from the inside to outside in intimate areas. Where it is more public (i.e. in the lounge) it has a more straight-on view. What generated the roof is that the plan is quite active and he felt that it was important to have a relatively simple roof line that would unite these two buildings and give clear expression to what this high space was. The rest of the roofs are parapeted and flat. Part of it is for the equipment and potential panels. The parapeted roofs were designed with some sort of office presence in mind and the sloped roof was designed to have more of a "family" feel. The facets on the street side for offices are open between the two buildings to create separation. There is a small catering kitchen that can serve functions inside and outside. The shape of the building was intended to create an edge to the lane and because it is facing west there is quite a bit of blank wall with clear story. Commissioner Hanson inquired as to whether the primary focus of the building was the view toward the garden and the water features. Mr. Young stated that the way that this could be accomplished, since it would be facing east, would be to utilize the faceted windows to see through into the garden. It was important to have side lighting to eliminate glare. Commissioner Hanson was concerned that the average visitor may never see the garden unless they actually go into the alcoves. She feels that this could be a major issue. There is no single picture view. She wondered if the average visitor would actually go into those alcoves and have that experience or are they just there to get their information and leave. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR01 121 1.min.wpd 17 "400" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that part of the beauty of the design is to "discover" the garden. If the garden cannot be seen visually because of the small view windows, perhaps the staff could direct the visitors to them. He does not feel that it has to be so explicit in that you have to have a picture window there to see it. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he liked the idea of the way the facets move and the visitor would get framed views through these windows. George, from HSA Design Group, stated that the garden itself is going to be designed so that once you are in the garden that it will also have its own intimate setting. This will not be like a botanical garden where visitor's would go to an area where there is a kiosk. What generated the memories of Eric Johnson was a lot of detail, natural movement in the ground itself, natural movement in the boulders and textured elements. The outside of the garden will have some significant mounding and back dropping with support of some massing of shrub material. HSA Design Group thought that it was very important to have the opportunity to look up from the intersection at a natural arroyo. At this time, HSA is looking for direction from the ARC on movement, presentation and separation. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that every time he is at this intersection on Highway 111 it is very busy with multiple lanes and cars going everywhere and does not feel that he would look up to get a glimpse of an arroyo. He is also concerned about whether the highway would be visible from the buildings through the open view corridor. Will visitors look out and see the traffic at the intersection? George commented that there will be filtered views of the highway from the buildings. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the walkway from the entrance to Highway 111 meanders east and terminates at the intersection. He wanted to know why the walkway doesn't go back inside the garden. George commented that because of the activity near the highway, he does not want bicyclists or roller bladers to drop down into the garden area and not realize what they are dropping into. The shortest distance from the garden to the curb is 25'. Commissioner O'Donnell stated concern about why the meandering path does not continue to El Paseo. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he really likes the looseness of the design. He stated that there is not a single column on the exterior that lines up with anything, which he likes very much. He suggested switching the interior partitions, which actually block the view to the garden. Mr. Young stated that the partitions were added for display purposes. He commented that the windows are 5' x 8 . Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 18 ... '...11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Vuksic stated that once you get in each alcove, the positioning of windows are very good. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like the architect to find a way to give the visitors a "peek-a-boo" to what is happening outside in the garden. She stated that she is seriously concerned that even by a staff member telling the visitors about the garden, that if they don't get a chance to get even a glimpse of the garden then they are not going to go there. Mr. Young commented that he would probably change an angle to make the opening greater so that there would be a better view to the outside. He stated that he still likes the approach of sequential openings and creating an arc so that people are drawn into the space psychologically. Commissioner Hanson stated that the average person wants to come in, get their information and leave. Commissioner O'Donnell inquired as to when the solar panels would be installed. Mr. Young commented that the solar panels would probably be installed right away. The equipment room is large enough to house two fuel cells. Lauri Aylaian, Redevelopment, stated that the City Council is considering a proposal that would include a larger building and reconfiguring the area around it. Any subsequent development that is done here would tie together. At this point, there are suspicions that the project may be going in a different direction, either regarding the pad and zoning or potentially restaurants or a boutique hotel. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to grant preliminary approval of the architecture and preliminary approval of the conceptual landscape plan. C. Miscellaneous 1. Mr. Alvarez stated that the next ARC meeting is scheduled for December 25, 2001 and inquired as to whether the Commissioners would like to reschedule this meeting or cancel it. The Commissioners decided to cancel the meeting. The next meeting will be held on January 8, 2002. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES 2. Commissioner Lingle commented that there were three different occasions during the meeting today when people were speaking to the Commission and he couldn't hear them due to all the talking amongst themselves. He feels that as a courtesy they should not have side bar conversations when people are here specifically to see them and be heard by them. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna ouaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011211.min.wpd 20