Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-13 , , � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 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 4 1 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 4 1 Kristi Hanson X 4 1 Neil Lingle X 2 3 Richard O'Donnell X 3 2 Chris Van Vliet X 5 0 John Vuksic X 5 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Daisy Garcia, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27, 2001 Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the minutes of February 27, 2001. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None IV. CASES A. FINAL DRAWINGS i � `� Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes 1. 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, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a revised double-face internally illuminated, free-standing cabinet sign in an existing planter LOCATION: 74-380 EI Camino ZONE: R-3 (4) The Commission had been provided colored copies of the updated sign. Commissioer Vuksic re-stated his preference to have the phone number, "major credit cards accepted", and the rental information removed. If those were removed and the remaining information re-proportioned, it would be fine. Ms. Nancy Cobb, the applicant, stated that the owner thought he had made considerable concessions. He felt he needed the phone number on the sign because in the summer people don't want to get out of their cars. Day-Week-Month is important because most people think it is daily. Commissioner Vuksic asked that if the phone number were on the sign, when the people called they could be told that it was Day-Week-Month and that major credit cards are accepted. Ms. Cobb responded that maybe some of the people would not call if they didn't know if it was Day-Week-Month. Commissioner Hanson thought the Day-Week-Month was OK, but felt that people could look up the phone number. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the intent of the sign was. Staff noted that motels/hotels are given a wider range of latitude in the Code of what their signs can contain. In this case, the applicant applied every piece of information permitted. When the Code was written, it was not expected that every piece of information would be placed on a single sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that it seemed all the information continues to be on the sign, it is just being moved around. 2 , � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner O'Donnell noted that there is a lot of signage around the property. It is not lacking in signage. If this particular sign were smaller and indicating on there some of the information that wasn't on all the other signs, ie, "office". Ms. Cobb pointed out that the other signage was to direct people to their units. The reason this sign is being kept at this size is because they are using the existing structure. Action: Commissioner Vuksic made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the signage subject to removing "Rentals - Day/Week/Month", "major credit cards accepted", and the phone number and that the remaining items are re-proportioned to fill the space or that the sign size be reduced with the same deletions in information. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): GARDEN HEPBURN, 72-915 Skyward Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Rear Patio Cover LOCATION: 72-915 Skyward Way ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Drell presented a revised plan of the applicanYs rear patio shade structure noting that he had gone to a 2x6 Alumnawood as the cross members to be used as the trellis roof. His base structure is what he has now and he intends to put the 2x6 horizontals on top every three inches. Staff will clarify that there is a 3-inch space between the Alumnawood slats. It will be painted to match the house. Commissioner Hanson's only concern was the knee braces which aren't needed if the proper hardware is used. It was suggested that the applicant work with the Building Department on a design that doesn't require the knee braces. The structure will be attached to the house and meets the setback requirements. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the exposed hardware. Discussion followed stating that exposed hardware can look good, if it is beefy, and painted, however, the plans show utilitarian 3 . , , , � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes hardware. The Commission suggested using decorative hardware using bolts instead of nails if it was to remain exposed. The Alumnawood members are 2x6, the posts are 4x6. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission had not approved any 2x6 on a trellis. It looks like a thin looking member built out of left-over studs. Since they are closely spaced and the neighbor is looking at the 6-inch dimension, it is believed that in this case the 2x6 members would be acceptable. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the plans based on the reduction/removal of the knee braces and to use decorative hardware using bolts instead of nails if the hardware is to remain exposed. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 01-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT'S SHOES, LLC, 73-725 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage LOCATION: 73-725 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 The Commission was provided color photos of three sides of the retail building. With the exception of the EI Paseo marquee awning sign, none of the signage had been approved or permitted. Mr. Alvarez reported that 1) the north side signage is in excess, creates clutter and is inconsistent with the building, 2) the east elevation is between two buildings, 3) on the south elevation facing the parking lot, there are two signs - one should be removed. Mr. Robert Barnes, the applicant, stated that he believed the sign locations had been grandfathered in when he bought the location as the same locations had been used by the prior business. He was unaware he had to apply for a permit in order to re-install the signs with new information. He believed the two signs in the front are grandfathered from the previous owner. They are very 4 � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes important because the store is re-named and people are having a problem finding them. He stated that if the Commission wanted more elaborate or quality signs to change the aesthetics, he would be happy to do so. In the configuration of the building, there are arched recessed windows. If they put their name on the inside, with the reflection of the glass, you wouldn't be able to see their name. The only place it would be visible is on the facia. The next- door restaurant has a similar canopy awning, but they put a facia against the outside of the building with their name on it. If the Commission would prefer that he put up a facia with his name on it, he would do so. He wants to comply, but feels that the current signage is in keeping with the other signs on the street. Staff reported that there is no "grandfathering". When new signage goes up, it has to be approved. Mr. Alvarez stated that when the awning was applied for, there was no other signage on the walls for this business. Mr. Luis Cabanas stated that he worked for the previous owner in that store for seven years. The previous owner left, she took all her signs. Therefore, when the awning was applied for, there was nothing there. Mr. Barnes stated that if there were any adjustments to the current signage, they would be happy to do that. They do need the identification. Originally, they had asked for the awning to go out to the street which was denied. They still have customers who are having difficulty finding them. Commissioner O'Donnell asked staff to re-state its recommendation: 1) north elevation - remove all signs except the approved marquee signage, 2) east elevation - approve the signage as proposed, and 3) south elevation - approve only one of the awning signs. The applicant stated that the signs on the east elevation cannot be seen from the street. He also stated that there had been three signs on the south elevation, but they had taken one down, leaving two. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the applicant accept the approval and if they want more signage to come back with a new submission. The applicant agreed. Commissioner Hanson stated that the reason people may be having a difficult time seeing their signage is the graphics, ie, the awning is too much the same color as the building and the graphics are too narrow. Mr. Barnes stated that it was the City Council that picked the colors. She stated that having three signs doesn't make s .. , "�Ilr�" `�rrr� Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes them anymore visible than having one appropriately done. A revision to the canopy might be necessary. Mr. Barnes stated they could not do that. Commissioner VanVliet stated that the biggest visible portion is the awning. Mr. Barnes disagreed stating that because of the restrictions they had been given, the awning signage is so narrow they had a tough time getting the name "Robert's" in there. The entrance to the store is hidden behind the pillar, therefore when you drive by what you see is a window, not the door. Mr. Barnes asked for some guidance from the Commission. Since his awning sign has restrictions, they have to have some kind of identification on the sides of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked for some information on the City Council's decision for the awning. Commissioner O'Donnell stated it was a difficult building to put signage on. With the history that the signage has with the Commission and the City Council, it was suggested that the applicant consult with someone to give them a better idea on how to sign the building. The applicant stated that the questionable signage was not an issue at the time the City Council was considering the case. The issue was the awning. The signs were up. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the applicant take the approval of the signage and then re-submit it and the Commission would give as much guidance as they can on that design. The applicant was informed he could discuss this with staff. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the signage according to the staff recommendations: 1) north elevation - remove all signs except the approved marquee signage, 2) east elevation - approve the signage as proposed, and 3) south elevation - approve only one of the awning signs. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: VAR 00-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: SHELLEY M. ARMOUR, 74-745 Leslie Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport structure 6 ,. . � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes LOCATION: 74-745 Leslie Avenue ZONE: R-1 M Applicant requested that the case be moved to the next meeting. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to March 27, 2001. Motion carried 5- 0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 00-18 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� BERNARD DEBONNE, PO Box 1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261 c/o BOB RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Peter Latourette, PO Box 12798, Palm Desert, CA 92255-2798 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscaping plans for 10,004 square foot office building LOCATION: 44-901 Village Court ZONE: OP Commission was provided landscape plans for this office building. Landscape Manager has reviewed and discussed with the applicant. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the landscape plans per the Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 6. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Gary DeFreitas, Lee Investment Group/WestVest, Inc., 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 350, Newport Beach, CA 92660 � . . `�r�` '�r�+' Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVA� SOUGHT: Approval of revised working drawings and landscape plan for two single-family models for Waring Court subdivision LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, Tract 25304 Waring Court/Phyllis Jackson ZONE: R.P. 6 Revised working drawings and the landscape plan were presented to the Commission. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the landscape plans per the Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 FRANK URRUTIA, URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, #201,Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of City Center Atrium plans LOCATION: City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: P Mr. Urrutia presented a 3-dimensional model presentation for the proposed Civic Center Atrium re-model. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the project noting the Commission preferred the steel structure. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. g . ,. �+�rr�` � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE FOUNTAINS, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tucson, AZ 85704 FRANK URRUTIA, Urrutia Architects, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of expansion to the existing assisted-living/skilled-nursing facility at The Fountains at the Carlotta LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 The Fountains proposes to build independent living casitas, assisted living units, and Alzheimers units. The new units will be located on approximately ten acres of vacant land on the west side of the site. The single-story, 19-foot high independent living casitas will be at the northwest corner. The two-story, 24-foot high assisted living unit wing is located at the southwest corner. The single-story Alzheimer facility is located along the south side of the site. Around the perimeter of the site, a two-way driveway system will provide access to the units and for parking. Mr. Todd Pratt noted the existing facility off of Carlotta Drive has two gates into the property. The main gate brings you into the porte cochre which houses a lobby, 60-bed skilled nursing wing, with a 22-bed assisted living on the south side. It is all one-story with a rose garden and amenities. On the north side is a two-story 110-apartment unit for independent living. It has its own courtyard and amenities. There is a rear service area. Mr. Pratt stated that they intended to keep the existing building as-is with the exception of a little more parking and tying onto the existing building with a link to be able to walk from the porte couchre through the building to the back of the assisted living facility. The new building is one-story, 32 independent casitas that are 4's and 6-plexes around a center courtyard with perimeter parking. There is a two-story V-shaped assisted living buitding with 52 units. 9 . . � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Behind it, in the middle, will be a one-story common area with the amenities, the dining, lounge, theater, and activity bases. On the very south, is a one-story bungalow that has 21 beds for Alzheimer patients. Commissioner Vuksic stated that from a setback and height standpoint the plan is very sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. What is listed as 22-feet high on the two-story building, is really just the gables; everything else is lower than that. His only concern is the casita courtyard area. He sees a lot of very long roof lines. Initially, it looks like it needs to be broken up or have an element. There are gables around the perimeter and the outside, but the inside is real clean. Mr. Pratt responded that the courtyard would have a cabana trellis with landscaping so you wouldn't see a big expansive, plain sloping ridge line. You would see a trellis structure with trees and landscaping. Commissioner Hanson stated that there seemed to be an opportunity at the patio areas to push out and break up that roof line. The Commission prefers not to rely on landscaping to handle that issue. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the horizontal ridge line was begging for something to modulate it. Casita B has a roof-mounted turret serving as a design feature. The intent of the campus is to evoke a warm, secure, and comfortable environment. The Commission suggested adding dormers or the turrets to break up the roof lines on Casitas A & C. The exterior walls on the assisted living building will be 2x6. Commissioner Vuksic noted the colonnades provided some relief, however, there are expanses of wall that don't have windows. In those cases, he suggested that the walls be thickened so that there is a return and the windows are recessed and not on the face of the wall. Mr. Pratt stated there should be shown a 2" protruding foam relief trim that would be accent. The relief would be painted an accent color. Commissioner Hanson stated it would be much more effective if they did a double thickness wall rather than making it look like a 2x8 was nailed up and plastered over. Mr. Pratt pointed out that they had taken the facade along the longer portion of this building and undulated it so that it goes in and out. There are some popouts on the second floor as well as two-story popouts to create visual attraction. io . ._ �'' `�'` Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes There will be a flat roof with either parapets or ridge portions with any roof mounted equipment located behind them. Commissioner VanVliet stated that it was a little unusual to have the top of the horizontal parapets come in so high on the gabled roof elements. The applicant thought the parapets might be about 3 or 4 feet high in order to screen any roof-mounted equipment. It seemed that the parapets were too high or the gables were too low. The overall height is 24 feet and the parapets are canted in. It was asked if the gables could be gotten rid of. The applicant replied that they had looked at a straight roof and felt it was too southwestern. There was more richness to the sloping roof with the tile. Commissioner VanVliet agreed that the gables should stay. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he understood it would be cost prohibitive to have 12 inch walls everywhere. He asked the applicant to make his best effort and pick his spots and try to recess some of the windows, especially where there are large expanses of flat walls. There are lots of ins and outs creating shadows, but on the flat walls, thicken the walls in order to recess the windows. The applicant will re-submit with the landscaping and some architectural relief or dormer features on the Casita A & C roofs. In addition, they will study recessed windows on the two-story building's large expansive walls. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the case to allow applicant opportunity to add architectural relief or dormer features on the Casita A & C roofs; to study the possibility of recessed windows on the two-story building, and to present the landscaping plan. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� FEDDERLY & ASSOCIATES, 45- 350 San Luis Rey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 RGA Landscape Architects, 74-020 Alessandro, #E, Palm Desert, CA 92260 �� � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for 12-unit luxury apartments, EI Paseo Villas LOCATION: 73-825 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 The site consists of two two-story multi-family residential lots totaling 40,500 square feet to contain 12 apartment units. Mr. Alvarez was concerned with the height of the buildings which needs to be brought down one foot to a maximum of 24 feet from pad, the applicant has added an additional parking space to comply with requirements, the planter size on the west property line has been increased to provide more spacing for the trees. The setback standards are being met. The applicant is aware of the height issue. In addition to the increased planter size on the west side, the Landscape Manager has comments about plant spacing along the frontage and the applicant needs to pick out two additional shade trees to fit into the west property line. The plan currently calls for Desert Willows which are not provided for in the City's parking lot shade tree list. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it was a great looking project. He would like to see some of the windows facing the street have thicker walls. The car courtyard off of Larrea Street looks to be a tight turn into the garages. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval subject to the Landscape Manager's comments, lowering the building heights to 24 feet, thickening some of the walls facing the street in order to recess windows, and checking to the turning radius from the car courtyard into the garages. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 00-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTS c/o Lindquist Development, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110 12 � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for six apartment units on a 19,653 sq.ft. lot on the east side of Ocotillo Drive LOCATION: 45-500 Ocotillo Drive ZONE: R-3 (3) The Commission was provided with revised elevations and site plans. The applicant, Mr. Joe Holasek, provided a summary letter outlining the changes that had been made. They seem to address the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. By losing two parking spaces at the front property line, more landscaping has been added along the street and the carport has been detached from the apartment buildings. Commissioner Hanson expressed concern that by having the parking in front of the units between the street and the units the residential feeling was being reduced. She had made the comment about adding some walls and gates which aren't shown in the revised plans. Mr. Holasek replied that it had been discussed and he had recommended reducing the number of parking spaces in the front by four. His client agreed to losing two spaces, but he couldn't lose four. Mr. Holasek thought that by losing two spaces they could pick up about 4.5 feet along Ocotillo because they reduced the size of the courtyard area. He can add a small 3-4 foot site wall, but he doesn't want it to feel boxed in. Commissioner Hanson stated she wasn't sure a site wall would do it. The minute cars are put out in front of a project, it changes the character. Mr. Holasek stated that his first conception was to put the parking in the rear. Because of the dimensions of the site, they cannot achieve six units by putting the parking in the rear. All you end up with is driveways and lined up buildings which he did not want to have. From the last meeting, he thought everyone was amenable if they removed the four parking spaces. They came back by losing two. He could consider losing another two and increasing the landscaping. He cannot fundamentally change the layout of the site plan. There is 15 or more feet of landscaping along Ocotillo. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was desert-type landscaping which doesn't buffer much. Commissioner Hanson suggested some sort of architectural type wall in front of the project that creates an entrance into it that would help shield the cars. Mr. Holasek suggested a pilastered wall with 13 � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes some thickened 2x2 sections with stone caps, something that matches the architecture. The rear and side elevations are a little flat. Commissioner Hanson asked if some parapet details like the front elevations could be added for more interest and make the building whole. Mr. Holasek stated he could add some gable elements or some sort of parapet. Mr. Holasek stated the Commission had discussed thickening the windows on the street and courtyard facade which they did do. He would like to propose a 2x8 plate on the those walls and pull the windows in about 5 inches and work with the traditional 4 inch plate on the rear and side walls. If he turns the walls in, there is an irregularly shaped wall on the inside. If the Commission preferred, he could do an 8 inch plate all the way around if it wanted to see the recesses all the way around the building. That would work with the parapet as well. If he does 8 inch walls, the parapet will be 8 inches and he can turn the corners to wrap it around the entire building facade. The body of the parapet would be 8 inches thick. Everywhere it turned, he would return it back two feet in order to achieve a thicker look. Per Commissioner Vuksic's comments, Mr. Holasek agreed to push the bathroom window six inches over. Mr. Knight noted that his comments were minimal. There was a tendency towards massing which can be spaced out. The Italian Cypress will be replaced with another tree. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval for the revised architecture and the landscaping subject to 1) adding gables or parapet elements on the side and rear elevations, 2) thickening the walls, and 3) moving the bathroom windows over 6 inches, and 4) the Landscape Manager's comments, and 5) adding a decorative block wall with pilasters. The pilasters will be taller than the wall topped with a precast concrete shape, plaster reveal with a change in finish, or a material compatible to the building. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 00-25 14 � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTS c/o Lindquist Development, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for six apartment units on a 20,050sq.ft. lot on the east side of Ocotillo Drive LOCATION: 46-050 Ocotillo Drive ZONE: R-3 (3) The Commission was provided with revised elevations and site plans. The applicant, Mr. Joe Holasek, provided a summary letter outlining the changes that had been made. They seem to address the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. By losing two parking spaces at the front property line, more landscaping has been added along the street and the carport has been detached from the apartment buildings. Commissioner Hanson expressed concern that by having the parking in front of the units between the street and the units the residential feeling was being reduced. She had made the comment about adding some walls and gates which aren't shown in the revised plans. Mr. Holasek replied that it had been discussed and he had recommended reducing the number of parking spaces in the front by four. His client agreed to losing two spaces, but he couldn't lose four. Mr. Holasek thought that by losing two spaces they could pick up about 4.5 feet along Ocotillo because they reduced the size of the courtyard area. He can add a small 3-4 foot site wall, but he doesn't want it to feel boxed in. Commissioner Hanson stated she wasn't sure a site wall would do it. The minute cars are put out in front of a project, it changes the character. Mr. Holasek stated that his first conception was to put the parking in the rear. Because of the dimensions of the site, they cannot achieve six units by putting the parking in the rear. All you end up with is driveways and lined up buildings which he did not want to have. From the last meeting, he thought everyone was amenable if they removed the four parking spaces. They came back by losing two. He could consider losing another two and increasing the landscaping. He cannot fundamentally change the layout of the site plan. There is 15 or more feet of landscaping along Ocotitlo. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was desert-type landscaping which doesn't buffer much. is �' � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner Hanson suggested some sort of architectural type wall in front of the project that creates an entrance into it that would help shield the cars. Mr. Holasek suggested a pilastered wall with some thickened 2x2 sections with stone caps, something that matches the architecture. The rear and side elevations are a little flat. Commissioner Hanson asked if some parapet details like the front elevations could be added for more interest and make the building whole. Mr. Holasek stated he could add some gable elements or some sort of parapet. Mr. Holasek stated the Commission had discussed thickening the windows on the street and courtyard facade which they did do. He would like to propose a 2x8 plate on the those walls and pull the windows in about 5 inches and work with the traditional 4 inch plate on the rear and side walls. If he turns the walls in, there is an irregularly shaped wall on the inside. If the Commission preferred, he could do an 8 inch plate all the way around if it wanted to see the recesses all the way around the building. That would work with the parapet as well. If he does 8 inch walls, the parapet will be 8 inches and he can turn the corners to wrap it around the entire building facade. The body of the parapet would be 8 inches thick. Everywhere it turned, he would return it back two feet in order to achieve a thicker look. Per Commissioner Vuksic's comments, Mr. Holasek agreed to push the bathroom window six inches over. Mr. Knight noted that his comments were minimal. There was a tendency towards massing which can be spaced out. The Italian Cypress will be replaced with another tree. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval for the revised architecture and the landscaping subject to 1) adding gables or parapet elements on the side and rear elevations,.2) thickening the walls, and 3) moving the bathroom windows over 6 inches, and 4) the Landscape Manager's comments, and 5) adding a decorative block wall with pilasters. The pilasters will be taller than the wall topped with a precast concrete shape, plaster reveal with a change in finish, or a material compatible to the building. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 16 ., ,. � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74-333 Highway 111, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 GABRIEL LUJAN, GLS Group, 74-854 Velie Way, #5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture and landscaping for a 2-story (25- foot high) office building at the north end of Village Court, World Corporate Headquarters LOCATION: 44-600 Village Court ZONE: CG The revised plans seem to have met the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. In addition, they have met with the Landscape Manager. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that a significant amount of windows were added to the second level. Mr. Gabriel Lujan stated they had added windows to all of the upstairs offices except for two. The arches have similar radii, and the windows are centered on the arches. The building is now stepping down and stepping in and out. On the left elevation, the parapet wall has been lowered considerably and is centered over the two columns reducing the suspended look and allowing a view of the executives' patio French doors and trellis. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if Office 2 on the second floor couldn't have a window. Mr. Lujan said he would explore that idea. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the applicant had done a very good job in meeting the Commission's requests. Commissioner Vuksic was disappointed with the stair tower. He had hoped it would become some sort of element and all he sees is an awkward step halfway through the form. The flat wall steps up a little higher. Mr. Lujan pointed out that the interior balcony area created by the circular stairway overlooks the downstairs reception area. Originally, it was too tall, so he lowered it. He could go full round, but then the roof line might be at the 25 foot height. �� . �1�'" `�r� Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner Vuksic liked having it lowered but wondered if it could have been done more effectively. There are two different- sized windows at the second level next to each other. Mr. Lujan asked if smaller, but identical windows would be acceptable and by thickening the wall thereby giving the relief so it won't be continuous. Also by thickening the wall, he can recess the windows. Mr. Knight commented that he would be talking to the applicant about plant palette and adjusting the spacing of the plants. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval subject to modifications to the stair tower, thickening the adjacent wall in order to recess the windows and provide relief, have those two windows the same size, possibly adding a window to Office 2, offsetting of walls as discussed, and following through on the Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SABBY JONATHAN, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ALLEN SANBORN, SANBORN ARCHITECTURE, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP The project has been totally redone from a two-building to a one- building project with parking along the east and west perimeters. To address a Public Works concern, they have offset the access driveway on Sheryl to get it further from the corner. The former tower element was located at the corner of the building, it is now centered on the east elevation facing Cook Street. is , . � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Mr. Smith stated concern about the line of 16 parking spaces along Cook Street as they are not going to get an access driveway point from Cook. This creates a long dead-end situation. There is a turn-around area at the north end of the dead-end. A possible alternative is to cut off some of the north end of the building and create a one-way driveway system around and out towards the alley. However, the applicant does want to mix the traffic/parking areas as one is basically for loading/unloading. If the architecture is acceptable at this point, the Commission considered just acting on the architecture and referring the rest of the application forward to the Planning Commission/City Council with a recommendation on how to handle the parking situation. Mr. Jonathan stated that in going through the issues the Commission had last time, it became clear that it would be near impossible to fit two buildings sideways. By orienting one building toward Cook Street and having the two parking perimeters, he felt that the concerns of the Commission had to been addressed. They were: 1) The roll-up doors at the rear of Building 1 would be visible from Cook. That concern has been eliminated by placing the roll- up doors at the rear of the new building, facing west. 2) The apartment dwellers to the north seeing loading activity. There is a stairwell, two bathroom windows, and one balcony facing south onto this project. Now they are looking at the side of the building and may be able to see features of the front of the building. They are not looking at any loading activity. 3) The view of three residences to the west, one of those is not an issue because their 3-car garage is located at the back of their property. For the other two, the building has been moved far away from the property. The applicant would mitigate any of those issues with landscaping or up to an 8-foot wall. The traffic configuration works better because it keeps traffic away from the apartments and from the residences across the alley. Losing building space at the north end in order to install a driveway will not kill the project. Commissioner Connor stated it would be a disservice to people to the north and to the west to have a driveway on the north perimeter and to use the alley. The Fire Department has yet to see the traffic plan. Commissioner O'Donnell thanked the applicant for addressing the Commission's previous concerns, however, this is an entirely different project. Mr. Jonathan replied that it was the same architecture just in one building. 19 , , � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nice to have the Cook Street elevation sloped roof element continue along the sides of the building, especially along the Sheryl Street side. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was around the doors and stated that when there is a jog in planes, there should be some differentiation in heights so that the parapet doesn't "zig" around. He suggested doing something so that the forms are interlocking instead having the parapet return. Regarding the concrete columns on the front elevation, it looks as though they are flush with the plaster above it. It would be richer if � the columns could come out, create a base, and have the upper piece sitting on top of it. Commissioner O'Donnell assumed that the loading would be a daytime activity, therefore, the three west side residences would not be experiencing traffic after the work day. He stated that there might be a need for a significant landscape buffer in layers between the parking and alley. Mr. Jonathan agreed their intent would be to landscape outside of the wall as well as meeting the shading and vegetation requirements on the inside. The wall can be made whatever height is required. They will see little to none of the activity on the westside of the property. This is not planned as a heavy industrial use. They are expecting to house furniture showrooms and design type tenants. They went with the larger roll- up doors to accommodate any types of special needs. Commissioner VanVliet stated it was important to screen the rear of the building which is 22 feet high with 14-foot high doors. The architecture on the Cook Street side is good and should be brought around to the other three sides to tie them together. Commissioner Connor asked if it would be possible to put a planting bed between the doors at the walls to get some vines on the wall. There are 4- foot wide planting pods between the doors. The roof-mounted air-conditioning units will be located below the parapet. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval subject to extending the metal roof to the south along Sheryl, increasing the thicknesses of the entry towers, staggering the parapet elements along the north elevation, with a strong recommendation for significant landscaping along the 20 t , � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes alley. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner VanVliet denying and Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 94-4 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WILLIAM HARRIS, ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 47-535 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PAM TOUSCHNER, WWEOT, 199 S. Civic Drive, Suite 10, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for the expansion of an existing school facility LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: P The Church is looking to expand its school facility with the addition of an early childhood education center. This will be located west of the existing parking lot and north of the administration building. The building will be single story, 19 feet in height, with a central clevestory element, 21 feet in height. This building will have exterior plaster over metal studs with a 3 in 12 roof. Along the rear of the site, adjacent to the channel, the applicant proposes a two-story four-classroom facility for 7th and 8`h grades. The height on this structure when viewed from the west varies from 28 feet to 34 feet. Height in the "P" zone is not limited, however, the City has always attempted to minimize the impacts of height on nearby neighborhoods. Staff recommends that if this building can be lowered, it should be done. Ms. Pam Touschner, the architect, noted that the garage door on the west elevation of the 2-story building was for storage space, not for under-building parking. Everything is being proposed to fit in with the existing architecture of the administration building which is different than that of the church. The early childhood building will be used to bridge the gap with a walkway ending in a tower element. The Early Childhood Buildinq and Bridge: The roof material will be painted wood, however, it could change to painted metal. The new 21 °�111� � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes school is block and it would be important to make the tie. There is masonry which goes into the building. It is important to pull materials from both. Ms. Touschner state she had intended to use the block limitedly so that it was special. Commissioner Hanson thought the columns could be block to tie with the school building. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the windows. They are double- hung in order to provide a residential look and have operable (ie, open) windows. He asked what happens under the central tower. Ms. Touschner explained it was the corridor and will provide floor plans during the next meeting. The concrete masonry wall comes all the way down. The future bell tower is proposed at 28 feet in height. Ms. Touschner explained that since it relatively flat along that area, it would add some volume. Commissioner Hanson thought there was too much going up and down and trying to be important and yet independent. Ms. Touschner stated she could remove the bell tower. She explained that the existing Karns Hall building located behind the proposed bell tower is very flat. The base of the bell tower is a nice block with the cross on it. With a little more height, it would provide a more character and denotes that it is an entrance into the courtyard. Commissioner Hanson suggested letting the Karns Hall building disappear, don't make it important and give importance to some of the newer structures. Commissioner Connor commented that it made the early childhood center appear too small. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the trellis would run across the entire front of the administration building. Ms. Touschner stated that the goal was to carry it all the way across. On the sides of the early childhood building, there are a couple of windows that seem random. Ms. Touschner stated that one of the windows was the kid's bathroom and the others are the end of the classrooms and they wanted to wrap the corners with the windows. She also commented that it would be stucco, so it wouldn't be just a flat wall. Commissioner Vuksic was not opposed to the bathroom window, it is just that it doesn't have any proportion on the wall or does not line up with the tower above. The 7th/8th grade classroom: On the west elevation, it is solid wall with three roll-up doors and pilasters to break up the flat facade. On the east (front) elevation, there are pilasters holding up the extended roof. The pilasters along the rear elevation carry that 22 � , � y� Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes motive around to the back of the building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the windows looked low. Ms. Touschner responded that the windows are proportionate within the wall. However, they could be raised up a little, maybe 6 - 12 inches, along with the height of the pilasters. Commissioner Hanson suggested popping out the pilaster elements a little further and adding a trellis-like line across the top of the elements so that vines could grow up along the rear elevation. This would help the view for the neighbors on the hill behind the classroom. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the east elevation was soft and acceptable. The west elevation seems to make a transition to a commercial looking building with its stark architecture. Perhaps Commissioner Hanson's suggestion of the trellis would soften that elevation. He was concerned about the overall height of the building, including its tower element, and the overhead doors. Ms. Touschner asked if smaller doors would be acceptable. The idea was to have the golf cart shuttle drivers have a remote to open and close the doors. They will look at having more decorative doors. In order to put the west elevation in perspective, the Commission would like to see it in relation the church sanctuary. Addition to the existing building, Leeds Hall: This is an existing one- story building running east/west on the site. The addition is proposed for the west end of the building. The architecture will continue on the addition. Doors will be added to access the mechanical units. The addition is going to be a science lab, therefore will need to have access to propane tanks. The ideas suggested for the west elevation of the new classroom building could be applied here. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the windows should be recessed. The applicant stated that they had had the intention to build a thicker wall because they were tight constraint-wise to make those rooms work as classrooms. How would she recess them? Commissioner Vuksic responded that they should return 12 inches around the windows. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the landscaping would be an integral part of consideration especially on the west elevation. It took quite awhile for the landscaping to take place on the east side of the property and still is not finished around the school area. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, continued the case to allow applicant the opportunity to add more block to the architecture to tie in with existing school 23 . � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes building, reconsider window locations/sizes; 7th/8th Grade Classroom Building: Raise windows and pilaster height on rear, add trellis-like element across top of pilasters, consider decorative doors in place of roll-up doors; Bell Tower- reduce in size or eliminate; Leeds Hall addition: attempt to recess the windows. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: PP 00-19, C/Z 00-08, GPA 00-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� RICK JOHNSON, THE MATINEE TRUST, c/o Rick Johnson, President, Rick Johnson Companies, PO Box 2130, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 21-unit single-story residential project, Cayman Court Garden Condominiums LOCATION: 44-680 San Carlos and 73-690 DeAnza Way ZONE: R-1 to R-3 Revised plans and elevations were provided to the Commission. The revised landscape plans have met the Landscape Manager's approval by keeping arid plant material at back of curb and then going to more lush landscaping towards the interior. The applicant has addressed the comments made at the last meeting. The one item that staff, the Commission, and the applicant are unhappy with are the fire walls sticking up between each unit. The applicant stated that he would go as low as the Fire Department would allow, ie, 2 feet. Commissioner Hanson asked if one of the units sharing each of the fire walls could be taller to accept the wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the ceilings could be raised. The applicant agreed with the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission would probably not approve the plans as shown with the fire walls. The applicant will need to find another solution. The size of the parking lot on the northeast corner of the property had been a concern during the last meeting. The applicant explained that there are 21 units with 22 garages. They have designated the garage at the south end the manager's storage unit and one of the eight uncovered parking spaces will be "compact". This would relieve the possible congestion at the bottom of the 24 � . � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes parking lot/garage area. Commissioner Connor thought the concern was the amount of paved area and wasted space. The idea was to get more landscaping out on the street frontage. It was suggested that five of the uncovered parking spaces swing to a more north/south axis and that the other three spaces occupy the bottom of the parking triangle adjacent to the manager's storage area. This would open up a large triangular area for landscaping between the five parking spaces and the street and at the north end of these parking spaces. With this arrangement, there is 30 feet of back-up space between the garages and the five open spaces. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the underground easement that runs north/south through the property. Mr. Johnson stated that he had talked to So. California Edison and since they were going to have to have to underground the lines anyway, they will re-route (expand the easement) around the buildings instead of it being a straight line. Action: ' Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval to the revised plans subject to 1) eliminating the fire wall extensions by either raising the units' ceilings, alternating the height of roof lines, or other options; 2) re- working the triangular parking area by reducing the back-up area between the garages and the 8 parking spaces to 30 feet by swinging 5 of the 8 spaces to a north/south axis and moving 3 spaces to the bottom of the "U", and creating more landscaping between the parking spaces and street; and 3) increasing to a 12 inch thickness around the sliding glass doors. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 9. CASE NO.: PP 01-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUART HILL, 83 Durango Circfe, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approvat of plans for a 5,526 sq.ft. industrial warehouse building at the northwest corner of Beacon Hill and Mayfair, Yankee Woodshop Warehouse LOCATION: 75-180 Mayfair ZONE: SI 25 � , � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Mr. Sean Kearnes was present on behalf of the applicant. The proposed industrial warehouse building will be located along Beacon Hill side of the site and will take access from Mayfair to the parking tot along the west side of the property. The building will be single story with a maximum height of 24 feet. The building will be pre-cast concrete panels. Along Beacon Hill, the wall be quite straight with a series of 17 windows and the roof height varies. There is an existing retaining wall along this side of the site. NAPA Auto Parts is across Beacon HIII. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the horizontal element on the west elevation were colored bands. They are painted and not a change of material. Commissioner Hanson stated that the facia on the south elevation (front) looks as though it is too heavy for the glass doors and windows that are below it. Perhaps like the elevations, it could be stepped back, narrowed, or extended further out from the building. Commissioner Connor asked how the slope of Beacon Hill affected the architecture. There is an existing retaining wall going from north to south with the lower end meeting Mayfair. With the retaining wall, the space between the retaining wall and the back of the building is limited. The applicant might be able to add some extrusions or undulations to give it some ins and outs and ups and downs. The east elevation has a linear roof that needs some variation or architectural interest added to it. The parking lot side (west) is acceptable as the building varies in height of 18', 20', 22', and 24'. What will be behind these parapets on the roof? Traffic coming down Beacon Hill will see the roof area and the back of the parapets. The roof-mounted equipment could be hidden by extending the front parapets to the back of the building thereby concealing the equipment Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue to case. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 26 � ,. � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes 10. CASE NO.: CD 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JM MADERA, LLC, 2842 Roe Lane, Suite 200, Kansas City, KS 66103 RAY LOPEZ, RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES, PO Box 12885, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised landscaping at Monterey Shore Plaza LOCATION: Monterey Shore Plaza, Lot 5 Parcel Map 24616, Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC The Commission was provided a landscape plan as well as an elevation showing landscaping. Mr. Knight pointed out along the east (front) and north elevations, the applicant has put in palm clusters. The tree count along the west (rear) elevation will be strengthened with 3-4 more trees. The Palo Verde species will be changed from Desert Museum to something another variety. Desert Museum is lacy and thin in its foliage. Mr. Knight stated that they had intended to go with a denser type of Acacia to get more screenage, but it is a high wind area. The more foliage , the more resistance to the wind, and the greater susceptibility to damage. The Shoestring Acacia, as planned, is light enough to allow wind movement. The Lighthouse is the only architectural element that the Commission has been concerned with at this meeting. The applicant is asking that the landscaping be looked at in its entirety as it will be started soon to get it going, especially along the west elevation. The front landscaping will be held until the buildings are up. The wall will extend from the PetSmart wall along the rear of the building. It will be finished with stucco and painted. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the landscape plans subject to modifications by the Landscape Manager including adding 3-4 more trees along the west elevation and changing the Palo Verde species. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 27 ^ � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes 11. CASE NO.: CUP 89-14/01-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):MICHAEL HURST, ARCHITECT, for Michael Castelli, 73-624 Hwy. 111, Suite F, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations and landscaping for 1,308 sq.ft. addition to restaurant, Andreino's LOCATION: 73-098 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1, SP Mr. Drell presented architectural elevations as well as landscape plans to the Commission. He stated that the rear elevation would need some architectural design even though it currently faces an alley, it will eventually become a parking lot. Given the amount of room proposed for the landscaping, there will not be enough room for all the proposed plants. Also, Cassina would be better than the olive trees. He asked the applicant, Mike Hurst, why the planter wall was at four feet. Mr. Hurst responded that the site drops off towards the rear, the 4' height compensated with the level of the first floor. The 4' height also helps the step back of the building which step backs again at the second level. Mr. Drell commented that as you walk along the 4' high planter, you are looking at the bottom of the tree trunks. He suggested it be lowered to 2 feet. There are no windows in the dining room. The are only windows for the office upstairs.on the west elevation. There are no windows in the existing building. The windows in the front are at the patio. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the exterior of the flat facade some interest be created. Mr. Hurst stated that was why he had gone with the steps on the alley side. On the interior side, as you entry the back door, the adjacent existing building is high and only about four feet away. That side of the restaurant will not be seen. Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant couldn't add some facia molding at the top or some other architectural detail on each level, ie, plaster mold, arches, or a mural. It was suggested a recess for a fake window could be added. Commissioner VanVliet stated they couldn't depend on landscaping to screen the flat wall. 2s � � � Architectural Review Commission March 13, 2001 Minutes Commissioner O'Donnell expressed concern about the safety within the 4-foot wide alley between the buildings being used as an access, especially at night. The applicant pointed out that it is gated and will only be open when the restaurant is open. He intends to mural both walls of the alley and to install a "cobble stone" stamped concrete walk. It will be an access for private parties instead of having them walk through the dining room. This is the most convenient route considering the valet parking is on the frontage road. The west elevation contains the loading/unloading service area to the kitchen. It also contains the grease traps which require a 5' clearance on either side. An "eyebrow" with kickers could be added and wrapped around to the rear elevation to help break up the mass. Perhaps the second-story window could be broken into several smaller windows instead of the one horizontal window. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow applicant the opportunity to lower the rear planter to two feet, to change landscaping per Landscape Manager's comments, to add some facia molding at the top or some other architectural detail on each level (plaster mold, arches, a mural, a recessed fake window), add an "eyebrow" with kickers on the west elevation, change single 2"d story window to several smaller windows. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 29