The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-13 • 7 � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X 2 1 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 0 Kristi Hanson X 2 1 Neil Lingle X 1 2 Richard O'Donnell X 1 2 (bereavement) Chris Van Vliet X 3 0 John Vuksic X 3 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Jason Finley, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 23, 2001 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of January 23, 2001. The motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. IV. CASES A. FINAL DRAWINGS � • f r � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 *********************�*******************�****�*******************************�**�************* I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X �Z,2,6� �/ Ronald Gregory, Chairman X �2-�l 2'l� Kristi Hanson X �,1�9 �/ Neil Lingle X � �.8� .�Z' �u�Qr��'� Richard O'Donnell X /2�1' �o ��'� Chris Van Vliet X �2� 3�� John Vuksic X � ?�2� ,�1� Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Jason Finley, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 23, 2001 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of January 23, 2001. The motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. IV. CASES A. FINAL DRAWINGS � • ` � . �r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES 1. CASE NO.: SA 01-07 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� JUNE WACHS, CALENDAR GIRL SIGNS, 73-385 Hwy. 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to change sign criteria for 73-605 - 73-624 Palms to Pine Shopping Center LOCATION: 73-605 - 73-624 Palms to Pine Shopping Center ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez showed slides of the existing signage on the three building. The applicant proposes to change the existing can signs to internally illuminated individual channel letters with no raceways and a minor logo box. Applicant is allowed one square foot of signage for one foot of lineal frontage. Staff recommends that the letters be a maximum of 16 inches on the 28-inch facia in ivory, red, blue, and green. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the signage program of internally illuminated individual channel letters with no raceways and a minor logo box. Letters to be a maximum of 16 inches in ivory, red, blue, and/or green. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 00-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSj MICHAEL SULLIVAN, 72-185 Painters Path, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of KINGS RESTAURANT signage LOCATION: 72-185 Painters Path ZONE: Mr. Alvarez stated that this location was the former "House of Brews" which is now being occupied by "King's Social Club and RestauranY'. A drawing of the proposed signage as well as photos 2 . , • � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES of the building were presented. There had been some existing neon lighting across the top front of the building. That neon tubing ' is encased in a channel. The applicant proposes to enclose the channel with metal face matching the building with cut-out letters. At night, the three neon tubes would be exposed through the cut- out letters. During the day, a black 1-inch border around the letters would be seen. There is also a small logo which will be located to the left of the wording. Staff recommended that the applicant maintain at least a 6-inch border on top and bottom for the letters and a 12-inch minimum border at each end of the sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the words would be legible at night because of the neon colors coming through the letters. The applicant replied that the neon was very bright, so bright that at times they don't turn them on. The sign face is about 4 inches from the building face. There will be light bleeding through the top or bottom of the sign, just through the letters. Commissioner VanVliet expressed his concern with having three neon colored stripes going through the sign. The applicant responded that they wanted to expose them to a point, but wanted to expose mainly the 12-inch high letters. Commissioner Gregory asked if some sort of reflective plexi-glass could be put between the neon tubes and the letters that would disperse the light. This would address the Commission's concem about the brightness. The applicant agreed that an ivory-colored backing would help. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the signage subject to putting a translucent ivory backing between the neon lighting tubes and the letters and to reduce the lettering size to 12 inches with a 6-inch border top and bottom and a 12-inch border on the sides. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnelt, Connor, and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 01-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46- 120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 for INTERNATIONAL LODGE, 74-380 EI Camino, Palrn Desert, CA 92260 3 . ' . � � ,`�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a , double-face internally illuminated, free-standing cabinet sign in an existing planter LOCATION: 74-380 EI Camino ZONE: R-3 (4) The Commission was presented with photos and drawings of the proposed sign. The lodge extends almost a full city block from Panarama and Deep Canyon. There are a lot of signs out there indicating building and room numbers. The existing free-standing sign is located in a planter. Staff feels that the new sign as proposed has too much information and appears cluttered. They are allowed to display all the information. However, it was not anticipated that all the information would be on one sign face. Staff recommendation is to refer it back to the applicant with the direction to come back with less information. Commissioner Gregory asked for direction from the Commission to assist the applicant in planning for her return. He explained to her that there was so much information on the sign face, it became hard to read. He suggested that some of the information could be removed in order to help it read better. Commissioner Hanson agreed stating that there seemed to be a lot of information that could be made available in the office, ie, office hours, AAA rating, the reservation number, or the major credit card information. Nancy, of Imperial Signs, noted that the sign was in a planter out by the sidewalk and that the main point of this sign was that "this is the office". Since the facility takes up an entire city block, they need to know where they pull in for the office. Commissioner Hanson noted that the office canopy does say "office". However, since it faces the street and is not double-sided, you don't see it until you are at or beyond the driveway. Commissioner Hanson suggested ways to break up the information, by giving the key information precedence at the top, and placing smaller information below as well as eliminating some of the information. 4 �' . . . , � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic agreed, graphically, that if"Intemational Lodge - Office" was big and everything else smaller, it would be a improvement. But, then he questioned the need to have the smaller items on the sign. Commissioner O'Donnell had notified staff that he felt it was "too busy" and "unacceptable". Nancy responded that the client was trying to get the attention of the Canadians, especially with the AAA rating. She agreed that "major credit cards" or phone numbers on signs should not be on signs. Commissioner Gregory asked, for the sake of convenience, if the applicant could provide staff with a revised sign plan which could be faxed to the Commission members for their approval or disapproval prior to the next meeting. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case to allow the applicant time to revise the sign. Commission requested that applicant provide staff with a revised sign plan which will be faxed to the Commissioners prior to the next meeting. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. . 4. CASE NO.: RV-00-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: CHARLES O. CURRY, 74-450 Peppergrass Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park recreational vehicle in front yard of residence LOCATION: 74-450 Peppergrass Street ZONE: R-110,000 Mr. Alvarez displayed photos of the RV in the front yard which is in a cul-de-sac. The RV is 11 feet high and 36 feet long. The applicant proposes to create a barrier along the front of the RV with ficus shrubs. It cannot be screened from any other angle. They s , , . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MiNUTES have talked to their neighbors and have obtained their written approval which the Commission may want to consider. Commissioner Gregory stated that the code says there has to be substantial screening. Is the Commission looking simply at the neighbors' perspective, what about the next person who wants to get a permit to park their RV out front. It is important to know that the neighbors are for it, but is the Commission really abiding by the spirit of the ordinance in having substantial screening. Even if the ficus trees do grow tall, will they provide sufficient screening from most angles. Mr. Alvarez pointed out areas where mature ficus trees would substantially screen the RV from the street as you enter the cul-de- sac. There is one corner on the front right that could not be screened. The setback for a 6-foot masonry wall would be 15 feet, therefore, a ficus hedge would also be setback 15 feet as it is a "green"wall. If the proposed ficus hedge were to be planted just inside the curb where the existing shrubs are, would that still be in the spirit of the ordinance, where you essentially have a green wall right off the curb. The applicant stated that they are home maybe a month at a time, otherwise they and the RV are not home. Commissioner Hanson stated the proposed screening did not meet the code requirement of"substantially screened." � Commissioner Gregory explained that in adhering to the spirit of the ordinance, it has to be substantially screened, which is a qualitative expression. In most cases it doesn't work well because RV's are typically very large vehicles and this is one of the larger ones. To have it substantially screened means that it cannot really been seen. In planting a ficus hedge, it will messing with the neighborhood quality of the landscape appeal of this yard. It is still not adequately screening the vehicle. Part of it is due to the way the garage is laid out and the way the driveway turns. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was a huge mass and could lower the neighbors' property value. The neighbors may have a hard time saying they really don't want it there even though they don't want it there. This is an impossible situation to adequately screen. 6 . . , � �Il� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES Mr. Curry stated that if a neighbor wanted to sell their property and wanted him to move the RV, he would. He likes his neighbors, he wouldn't damage their property values for anything. The neighbors look after each other's houses when they are gone and the Currys are gone every other month with the RV. He ha$ 13 people who signed the letter stating they had no problem with it. The neighbors are concerned when it is not there. Commissioner Gregory asked about a combination of ficus hedge and some type of gate treatment so it is not visible from the mouth of the driveway. Mr. Alvarez responded that they would run into a problem trying to meet the property line setback putting the gate on private property because of the public right-away. Commissioner Gregory explained to the applicants that they could appeal to the City Council assuming this request was turned down by this Commission. This is part of the process and they are not stuck by this decision. They still have an avenue to talk to the people who can change the ordinance. Commissioner Gregory address�ed the Commission stating that it should make an attempt to have the City Council address this issue again because it isn't working very well. Mr. Smith responded that the Commission's duty was a design consideration issue. The City Council has approved several cases that this body has rejected where people have walked in with petitions and that weighs considerably. It is viewed in a different light. There are some instances where the RV's are not unacceptable in the front yard. The ordinance may not need to be re-vamped at this point, but the Commission needs to consider design issues. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request due to the inability to install substantial screening and the RV is taller than the residence making it incompatible with the residence and the neighborhood. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. � ' ' ` ' � `�rrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KL CHARLES &ASSOCIATES, 12631 E. Imperial Highway, Bidg. E, Suite 111, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 for STAPLES AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP/PALM DESERT, LLC, 301 Forest Avenue, #200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651for STAPLES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY LOCATION: 72-811 Hwy. 111 ZONE: PC-3 The working drawings were presented to the Commission. In April/May, 2000, this group reviewed and granted preliminary approval. At that time, we were replacing Rite-Aid. However, Rite- Aid is back in the game and have plans in the Building Department. The Commission will be reviewing both sets of plans for the same piece of property although only Staples is to be reviewed at this time. Mr. Smith expressed staffs' concerns with the drawings due to the change of architects, ie, the south elevation, on the back side of the building facing EI Paseo they have added signs that haven't been approved. However, this case does not include signage. It is also where the loading dock(s) are located. A utility door has been added on the west side facing Plaza Way. The Commission had requested a 6' wall to screen the delivery trucks. No roof plan was provided. Commissioner VanVliet expressed the concern that with a new architect they were starting from scratch. Mr. Smith responded that the exterior of the building looks the same, the towers were in the same location, the walls were the same. They did add the utility closet situation on the west which isn't shown on the plan. The Commission decided to continue the case to allow applicant to address and/or explain the changes of a few items on the elevations relative to the signage on the front, the heavy lattice work over the docking area, the connecting roof element on the s . . . � �'�r'" �� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES east elevation, and the missing detail on the right side of the south elevation Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow applicant to provide revised architecture plans indicating the intended changes from the previously approved plans. The applicant has the option of proceeding with the project as previously approved with no need to return to the Commission. The landscape plans may be approved by staff. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: CUP 00-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEE CHOITZ, RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., 1201 South Beach Blvd., Suite 207, La Habra, CA 90631-6366, for MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 3700 West 190th Street, #TPT2, Torrance, CA 90509 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for architecture and landscape plan for Mobil service station, convenience store, and car wash facility LOCATION: 78-005 Country Club Drive at Washington Drive ZONE: PI-2 (FCOZ) overlay This case was continued from October 10, 2000, to allow the applicant to address concerns presented in that meeting: revised plans indicating stronger southwestern desert theme on all four sides of the buildings; integrate the company's name within a monument sign that encompasses the southwest theme; and provide landscape plan for entire property including larger planter area along the Washington frontage near the south entrance. The applicant has provided more landscaping, but the landscape plans are not ready for preliminary. However, the applicant was asking for Commission comments. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the front parapet element looks "hokey". Mr. Alvarez responded that they were doing it to provide a place for the sign which is unacceptable. Mr. Alvarez has talked to 9 . . , , �" `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES the applicant about the sign and they have agreed to go to individual letters. The monument signs are located on Washington Street and Country Club Drive are unacceptable. They need to integrate some of the southwestern themed architecture into the monument signs. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they were going to have the finro monument signs, then the "On the Run" signs on the left and right elevations should be eliminated. If you get the monuments, you don't get the side signage. This is an example of over-signage. There is also a "Mobil" and "On the Run" signage on the rear of the main building. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was any way they could incorporate the architecture into the canopy. Mr. Alvarez responded that they weren't proposing any modifications and it wasn't raised last time. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was all existing. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a major landscape themed project. Mr. Knight agreed saying the landscape was real weak desert themed. In addition to a re-study, they can't just do a gas station style landscape meeting just the engineer's landscape criteria. It needs to have a very well thought out landscape because the landscape will be come a very important aspect of this project. Mr. Knight requested more quality and quantity in the landscape plan. He also pointed out that the southeast corner may have originally conditioned to be landscaped by this station because it is irrigated by it. It hasn't been maintained. Mr. Knight asked if the applicant could replant it and the City will maintain it. Commissioner Hanson asked if the palms in the planter at the rear of the building would remain. The response was "yes". She commented that the "Mobil" and "On the Run" signs would not be seen. Commissioner Hanson stated that they have come a ways on the architecture, but she commented that wood headers should be added with peeler poles at the glass line and maybe a free-standing trellis covered element over the front door so that it is not just a plaster box. Similar details should be added to the car wash facility. Commissioner Hanson asked if there were glass windows on the east elevation of the car wash facility. If so, the Commission would not approve as the glass would become corroded. If the applicant wanted it open, the glass should be removed and a trellis io . , . , �r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES installed at that area. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that they should be smaller, punched openings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they were going to keep the higher parapet, which is nice to break up the elevation, it should be made much thicker, ie, two feet thick. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case with the following comments: Landscaping - improve on the southwest desert theme by increasing the quality and quantity of plantings, replant the southeast corner and median (City will maintain); Architecture - Thicken front parapet to 2 feet; add wood headers; peeler pools at glass line; perhaps a free-standing colored element over the front door; remove glass from east wall of car wash, instead add trellis over openings or make smaller, punched openings; Building signage - remove "On the Run" signs on the left and right " elevations due to the existence of monument signs; Monument signage - incorporate the buildings' southwestern architecture. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HUGH JORGENSEN, 45-355 Taos Cove, Indian Wells, CA 922210 for SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS, 9200 Sunset Boulevard, Penthouse 9, Los Angeles, CA 90069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised monument signage LOCATION: 42-185 Washington ZONE: PC-2 The applicant requested a continuance of the case. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the case. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. ii � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: SA 01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: BILL SEALS, 44-215 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approvai of free- standing monument sign LOCATION: 44-215 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that Open System MRI operates at this location and has an existing 4' x 6' free-standing sign that reads "Open System MRI" and "Parking in Rear". The applicant is changing the business name to �Open System Imaging" and wishes to place that copy plus "Openview CT - Open MRI" on the new sign. The applicant would like to enlarge the sign to 4' x 8'. He stated that staff did not have a problem with the change in wording or the colors, however, staff did not think it should be any bigger or closer to the street. Mel Wachs, the applicant's representative, provided additional information. There is an 11-foot setback requirement and the existing sign is at 13 feet from the curb. The new sign would be a foot closer to the curb using the existing base with no increase in height. Commissioner VanVliet stated the lettering was too big, the existing lettering seems to be more tasteful. Commissioner Gregory stated that the border on the existing sign might be self-defeating because it forces the lettering into a smaller area. If they were to shrink or remove the border, they could make the sign larger on the existing face. Mr. Wachs responded that the logo in the existing sign is so large, the lettering had to be only about 5". As traffic goes by, it is difficult to read so that people are constantly asking `tirvhere are they?" Now, with the name change, they decided to eliminate the logo even though it is beautiful, it is not serving the purpose identifying them and that's the problem. Mr. Wachs suggested keeping the top and bottom borders and removing the side borders. The Commission agreed with this idea. Commissioner Gregory stated that if they were to maintain the 12 . . , . � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES existing sign size, it would probably be easily approved by the Commission. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the monument sign at its current size, background to match the building color with royal blue lettering, remove borders from each side. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DAVID GRAY, PO Box 3287, Palm Desert, CA 92261 for Palm Springs Garden Apartments, Unit #4 (Sandpiper) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport structure for 12 cars LOCATION: West side of Hwy. 74, south of EI Paseo ZONE: PR 6 Mr. Smith expressed staff's concern that the existing oleander hedge that would screen the carport structure will be removed shortly. He stated that the carport structure would meet the setback requirements. However, there is no indication of what would happen there long term. Commissioner Hanson stated that if it looked as though the oleanders were to be removed, the applicant would have to put in a block wall, or per Commissioner Gregory, ficus or Carolina Cherry, something to replace the bulk of the hedge. This is a very basic structure and is in keeping with the existing residences. Commissioner Vuksic stated that carport facia needed to be added to match the existing residences' facia. The posts are fine. There is no lighting shown on the information provided to the Commission. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case to allow applicant to add a facia to match the residential units and provide a long-term solution to the loss of the oleander hedge. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 13 . . . • '� "'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES 10. CASE NO.: TT 30087 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 for SIX KIDS DEVELOPMENT NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of six models for College View Estates II, a 32 single family lot development LOCATION: 36-275 Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 The Commission was provided with plans for six models for the College View Estates II project. These are the same plans as used for College View Estates I which have been before and been approved by the Commis,sion. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the submitted plans. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: TT 29444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 for SIX KIDS DEVELOPMENT NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape for College View Estates I, a 32 single family lot development LOCATION: 74-098 College View Circle East West side of Portola, north of Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 The Commission was provided with the landscape plans for College View Estates I. 14 . . . . '�r� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval for the submitted landscape plans. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 00-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARIEL I. VALLI, 81 Columbia, #200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture and landscape plans for an 88,550 square foot self-storage facility, STOR `N LOCK LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane East (befinreen Lino's Mercedes and the Post Office) ZONE: S.I. The Commission was provided revised architecture and landscape plans and full color drawings for this self storage facility on Hovley Lane. Mr. Smith noted that signage was not a topic of approval at this time as the monument sign is too big and the signs on the building are too high. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval for the revised architectural and landscaping plans. The approval does not extend to signage for the facility. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 00-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: LAMB ARCHITECTS c/o Mark Barbour, 426 N. 44th Street, #225, Phoenix, AZ 85008 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary plan approval of revised plans for a three-story, 88-room hotel on 2.1 acres (Hampton Inn) LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford Drive, 300+/- feet west of Cook Street 15 . . . . � � ARCHITECTLTRAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES ZONE: Approved Commercial District Mr. Barbour pointed out the changes that had been made according to the Commission's suggestions. Mr. Smith pointed out that the hotel building had been turned from its original north/south axis to a southwest/northeast axis. The parking around the building has been spread out. The proposed restaurant building on the west corner has been moved. The architecture of the building has remained the same. Mr. Barbour provided a list of items that had been made according to the Commission's suggestions at the last meeting: 1. Increased the landscape buffer along the street from 20 feet to 30 feet to comply with the zoning regulations. In the front of the building, there is as much as 40 feet in some places. 2. Followed the curve of the property by turning the building and creating curvalinear parking and landscaping. 3. Increased the landscape perimeter of the building from 5 feet to a minimum of 15 feet and as much as 40 feet. 4. Remodeled the pool from a rectangular shape to a free-form style to help soften the geometry of the building. 5. Relocated the service station building to the south and increased lush landscaping at the building's perimeter. 6. Further delineation of exterior facade with additional popouts. 7. Varied parapet height. 8. Created major interest feature by eliminating parking around the water fountain and increasing the landscaping as well as creating a circular driveway that further softens the building's geometry. 9. Provided substantial tree screening between the gas station and the hotel/pool. On the exterior facade of the building, a question had been brought up about the windows being recessed. Mr. Barbour has provided drawings to show that there will be deep-set windows. 16 . . . . �' �r' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson agreed that it shows on the color drawings, but does not show on the blueline plans. Mr. Barbour indicated he had not had time to re-do the plans, but that the windows would be recessed about 6 inches from the glass to the edge of the s#ucco. On the darker colored, first story, the stucco is scored with cornice at the base. The cornices are being carried further along the sides of the building; they need to return so you don't see the end of the parapet wall. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the cornice details along the parapets need to be carried back further. Commissioner VanVliet asked about the air/conditioning in the window units. Mr. Barbour explained that the window and the grill are all one piece. The width of the grill is the same as the window. There is no reveal befinreen the bottom of the window and the grill. So it appears to be one window with a grill beneath. It is all in one plane. Mr. Drell asked that photographs of this concept be p�ovided. Commissioner Gregory pointed out Mr. KnighYs notes on the landscape plan. In general, the Commission would rather not have a lot of turf on parkways. It should be changed to a desert-style landscape. It is OK to have turf in the interior planter areas, but not on the parkways. The landscape plan looks as though some areas overplanted. Commissioner Gregory encouraged the applicant to decrease the plant population with more space in between and to show symbols on landscape plan at mature size. The City's parking lot tree ordinance states one tree for every three parking spaces unless you have double-loaded parking in which case there is one three for every six spaces. Mr. Knight stated the applicant may have the proper number trees, but they are not providing shade to the parking areas. He suggested that some of the trees in the parkways could be moved closer to the parking areas. In particular, he noted the double-loaded parking area to the east of the pool, the double-loaded parking area between the west entrance and southwest comer of the building, and the parking to the north of the west entrance. Mr. Barbour stated the their landscape architect as the formula. Mr. Drell explained that it wasn't a matter of the number of trees, just adjusting the design. Commissioner Gregory noted a fair number of deciduous trees which is fine, but this being a resort-type area, people tend to like to see leaves on trees. Evergreen trees should be used wherever possible and use deciduous trees for bloom or foliage color for an accent. t� . . . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES The Commission commended the applicant for doing a good upgrade job in such a short amount of time. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to grant preliminary approval of the revised plans subject to the receipt of a design development set of plans prior to working drawings as well as landscaping plans. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 29469 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74- 333 Hwy. 111, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for three model homes to be located in a 16-lot tract, DAISY LANE ESTATES LOCATION: 73-770 Frank Sinatra Drive (north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Kaufman & Broad) ZONE: PR-5 The Commission was provided with plans for three model homes for Daisy Lane Estates. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to granted preliminary approval for the three sets of plans. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-02, C/Z 01-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROBERT ORR, 77-570 Springfield Lane, #D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping plans for office/bank complex, COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS CENTRE LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club Drive., north side of Country Club Drive, 450 feet east of Portola is , . . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES ZONE: PR 5 to be re-zoned OP This 2.3 acre site is located befinreen the Homme project and the Seventh Day Adventist Church (" the Church"). The applicant has designed the lay-out of this project to connect with the vacant site to the west at some point in the future. A zone change is needed as the property is currently residential. The City's long-term thinking along Country Club Drive in this area is to go to Office Professional. With that thinking in mind, we were looking for a Planned Office District where we would create campus or park-like settings to put o�ce buildings in. That's what we were looking for here. There is no way we can describe this project as park-like. While the staff doesn't necessarily think 2-story buildings are inappropriate, we need a park-like setting in order to support and encourage 2-story development. Applicant has asked to be on the agenda in order to get Commission's comments on this proposal. The 2-story bank building is located facing Country Club Drive, at the south side of the property. There is a 1-story medical office in the center and another 2-story o�ce building on the north side of the property that would be located about 40 feet from the Desert Willow Golf Course. Commissioner O'Donnell, who received the packet, in conversation with staff, stated that the proposed design is not distinctive architecture; it lacks scale, proportion, originality. In short, a new approach to integrate all elements of architecture and site should be considered. Commissioner Hanson asked staff what was meant by campus-like or park-like setting. Mr. Smith responded that we should see less building and considerably more landscaping. Mr. Ricciardi, the applicant's architect, having talked to Mr. Drell, stated that campus- like or park-like means more landscaping on the street so that the view from the street would be more park-like. He pointed out that in the City of Palm Desert all the Office Professional areas, especially those across the street on Fred Waring, are 2-story buildings 15 feet from the property line. That has been the typical Palm Desert Office Professional. The park-like concept which is kind of exclusive to this area is something new. Mr. Ricciardi continued that Canyon National Bank will be headquartered in the Country Club Drive 2-story building. The 15 19 . . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES parking spaces fronting Country Club can be removed which will increase the landscaping depth along Country Club. This includes the 20 feet of landscaping already planned. It also provides another 8 feet in the rest of development to get more landscaping near the buildings. There will be a meandering sidewalk in this area to match the sidewalk next door. The Church starts 70 feet from their property line. The 2-story building would be 100 feet from the applicanYs property line which provides for a lot more landscaping and few cars in front. The applicant has been talking to the Church which has indicated that it would like to use the business center's parking on special events and on some holidays. In return, the business center would share the Church's parking during the working day, if need be. This is similar to what Charlie Sweet is doing with his office complex. There would be finro ingress/egress points for traffic between the finro properties. Commissioner Gregory asked if another goal of the campus- like/park-like feeling would be more pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Smith stated that with the 2-story building in the front, it m ay be a difficult sell to the residents across the street in Silver Sands. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they had already talked with and met with the residents and had received positive responses. Mr. Smith stated that it was this same group of people who eventually required that Portofino grade below street level. Again, Mr. Ricciardi stated that everyone they had talked to had been in favor of the project. There are two issues at hand. The site plan and the exterior building elevations. For landscaping, Mr. Ricciardi stated that they had chosen a desert plan. The first building is 2-storied with lots of glass yet the columns have rounded corners. The overhang is 5-6 feet deep creating more shadow for the upstairs glass. These ideas are carried out to the other two buildings. This type of 2- storied office architecture is deserty, it does go with the desert, it does have the nice, rounded plaster comers. Commissioner Hanson stated she didn't have any real issues with the architecture as everything seems to work. On the single-story building, a similar depth parapet on the roof may want to bring it more in scale with that building's size as it seems heavy. Also, one of the things that could be done nicely is to do some decorative lantern light fixtures on the columns that would suite the architecture and add some character. Mr. Ricciardi responded that he believes that during the day, lights should not be seen. The 20 . . . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MiNUTES more you can hide the lights, rather than creating wall sconces, the better. Commissioner Gregory asked that the Commissioners not spend too much time on architecture until the site plan gets worked out. Mr. Ricciardi responded he intended to return to the Commission's next meeting with revised site and architectural plans. Commissioner Gregory asked that the applicant return with plans showing the setbacks from the neighboring projects/facilities so the Commission so it would have a better idea of how the applicant's circulation works. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out that the driveway is located on both the applicant's property and on the Church's property; therefore, it is already shared. Commissioner Gregory asked if the buildings could be shifted around in order not to have the north and south corridors on either side and if the Church's parking lot coutd be used for vehicular circulation to and from the applicant's property. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out that on a campus there are buildings and some cars, but basically people walk on a campus. Therefore, this project really isn't a campus. It is a concept someone is trying to get so when you look from the street it looks like a campus. If you look at Homme, some of it is campus, some of it isn't. Mr. Knight stated that the weight of the landscape compared to the hard scape is out of proportion for a campus-like environment. The planters are all very lineal without any variation which makes for an interesting ptanning situation. Mr. Ricciardi responded that by taking out the 15 parking spaces, they would be able to do more with landscaping along Country Club Drive. They could also create landscaped walk-throughs between the buildings with stamped concrete. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the building on EI Paseo and Hwy. 111 had some variation in the parapets and interlocking elements. In this case, there is a massive element all the way across on each building. It doesn't have to be a copy of the EI Paseo/Hwy. 111 building, but perhaps there was some way of � articulating these buildings a little more to get some more in's and out's on the parapets. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission does not look favorably on the use of signage on parapets, especially when they are so high. Code regulates signage to 20 feet in height. On the 1- story building, signage takes away from the architecture when the parapet is used as a billboard. The buildings will look a lot more elegant if the signage were not on the parapet and if the parapets 2i � . . . � "�,` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES were made proportionately smaller. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the parapets would have to be a good size in order to hide the air- conditioning. Commissioner VanVliet stated he would prefer not seeing a 2-story building right on the street. He would prefer seeing the 1-story there. Mr. Ricciardi stated that Canyon National Bank wanted their 2-story headquarters building located in front. Commissioner VanVliet stated that the building looks harsh and high. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was a hard design in theory but the way the building on EI Paseo and Hwy. 111 ended up is not bad because of the rounded corners and the in's and out's. Commissioner Gregory asked about whether the 2-story building's height was maxed out or was it something could be brought down a bit. Mr. Smith stated that in Office Professional the maximum height is 25 feet. Mr. Ricciardi responded that 25 feet doesn't work, it was something that someone picked off their head without having an idea how a building should function. Better architecture is not being created with these heights. Commissioner Vuksic agreed. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue continued the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to incorporate the Commission's comments: to provide updated landscaping plans showing: an additional 10 feet of landscaping at the front, and another 8 feet of landscaping around the buildings; the perimeter east wall removed and replaced with landscaping; a more pedestrian friendly environment especially befinreen buildings; on the site plan show: traffic circulation within the property and a connection with the Church; architecture plans show variation/a�ticulation in the parapets, indicate where signage will go. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Connor, and Lingle absent. V. MISCELLANENOUS A. CASE: � APPLICANTS (AND ADDRESS,�: Orr Builders, 77-570 Springfield Lane, #D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof- mounted equipment and screen for EL PASEO BANK (formerly Frontier Bank) LOCATION: 74-175 EI Paseo 22 , , . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13,2001 MINUTES ZONE: Mr. Smith explained that the bank building had been approved, built, and was looking good. He had contacted the builder earlier to discuss the green, 5-7 ton air conditioning unit on the roof that was not shown on any plans. His direction to the builder was to come up with a screening solution to present to the Commission at this meeting. The solution was a non-permitted screening system on the roof which didn't follow anything on the building. The Commission stated the building looks great but screening should contain architecture that works with the building. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, denied the roof-mounted equipment screening as implemented. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 23