Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-27 . . � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 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 5 1 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 1 Kristi Hanson X 5 1 Neil Lingle X 2 4 Richard O'Donnell X 4 2 Chris Van Vliet X 6 0 John Vuksic X 6 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: March 13, 2001 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the minutes of March 13, 2001. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None IV. CASES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 95-10, PP 95-6 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS� TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 i . . . � �: � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 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 �� .6'�''�� Ronald Gregory, Chairman X y� ,2,��/ ,3� Kristi Hanson X �2� ,7 ..�'�,/� Neil Lingle X L � ..�y Richard O'Donnell X 2� Z � � ,y Chris Van Vliet X L� � f�,�' � John Vuksic X (� �' ,2�1� 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: March 13, 2001 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the minutes of March 13, 2001. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None IV. CASES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 95-10, PP 95-6 APPLICANT jAND ADDRESS): TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 � . • • . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of color scheme for art galiery LOCATION: 45-188 Portola ZONE: C-1 The Commission continued the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to display his color scheme. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to display his color scheme. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. 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 LOCATION: 74-745 Leslie Avenue ZONE: R-1 M Staff reported that the carport shown in the pictures had been completely removed. The replacement carport will be moved back further and shored up. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed some concern that the proposed carport doesn't look as though it ties in with the house. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2 . , , � . � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: CUP 01-07 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI: MIKE KOCOUR, 77-640 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary/final approval to build 40' x 44', 18' high storage garage for recreational vehicles LOCATION: 77-640 Robin Road ZONE: RE 40,000 The applicant provided the Commission with elevation site plans for the proposed garage to be located in the rear yard of the one-acre property. The garage is being built to house the recreational vehicles. It has 18-foot setbacks to the rear and sides. Staff expressed concerns about the box-like look of the structure and the potential view of any roof-mounted equipment. Mr. Kocour intends to match the stucco and the color of his existing residence. Mr. Kocour distributed color photos of his property as well of similar garages on surrounding properties. Directly behind him is a well- screened two-story home with motor home in its back yard. There are a number of motor home garages in the nearby neighborhood. The motor home is about 12' 4", with antennas and roof-top equipment, the garage door should be about 14 feet, with an additional 3-4 feet for trusses. Commissioner Hanson asked why he had a two-story storage area and suggested he could drop that roof. The applicant responded that he was using his existing garage for storage and he wanted to install racks in the new building and put everything in there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the plan were flipped and the storage area lowered, the low side would be facing the neighbors. Mr. Kocour responded that, behind him, there were a huge trees which prevent the neighbor from seeing into his area. Commissioner Gregory, stating the Commission's desire to match the existing architecture, asked if a roof detail similar to the other garage and the home could be added and still maintain the size of the building. Commissioner Vuksic sketched a suggested revision showing a 14-foot door, a gabled roof, stepped the storage back 3 , • . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES instead of having one flat wall and put another shed roof on that. Now, the architecture compliments the existing architecture and softens the box. Mr. Kocour pointed out that he would heavily landscape the area to where it would be completely hidden within two to three years. However, he admitted he could go back to the designer, pay another $1,000 for revised drawings, and bring it back to the Commission. But this is what he wanted and this is what is in the neighborhood. He's only trying to match what everybody has. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the nature of the applicant's home and neighborhood is very residential. The proposed building is more commercial-type building. Structures other than the primary residence should be as residential looking; accessory structures should not be commercial looking, but rather have a softer look to them. Mr. Kocour responded saying that he has contacted all his neighbors and they have all been notified. The neighbors are all happy to see that he is going through the process because they want to see what goes on as some of them want to put in similar structures. Mr. Alvarez stated notices would go out prior to the Planning Commission meeting, but that this Commission has to approve the architecture. Mr. Kocour stated he had considered adding a tile parapet (ie, eyebrow) around the building to match the roof on the house. Commissioner Hanson's issue is that the building is 18 feet tall at the setback of 18 feet. It is a very tall building that looks like a box. It takes away the residential character, adding a tile eyebrow around the building will not fix the problem. Mr. Smith explained the applicant had two choices: 1) He can choose not to follow the direction of the Commission. In which case, he should ask the Commission to deny his request so that he can file an appeal to that action. 2) If the applicant thinks he would like to pursue the Commission's direction, he should ask for a continuance so he can go back to his designer, have him make the changes, and bring it back. Then he is going to the Planning Commission with an endorsement of a concept by this Commission. Going the other route is typically more difficult. Mr. Kocour agreed stating he was just trying to get his motor home protected and was making arrangements so that the neighbors won't have to look at it. At the same time, he showed pictures of what he has to look at, ie, a sailboat, two other boats, a cement 4 � . , �1rwr` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES mixer, a jet ski, and several motor homes. Yet, he was the only one trying to alleviate the problem. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission was not opposed to the applicant's concept. It would prefer making the building more approvable. Mr. Kocour stated he would take the Commission's suggestions to his designer, see what he can do, and see what he is going to be charged as to whether he can afford to make those changes. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to install a 14-foot door, gable the roof, and step the storage area back and add another shed roof, and match the stucco finish and color of house. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 01-05 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): TODD BESANT, 73-930 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval for wall encroachment into 15' setback requirement due to irregular shape of lot LOCATION: 73-930 Shadow Lake Drive ZONE: R-1 12,000 The applicant is requesting approval to build a 6-foot wall 7 feet back of the curb to replace an existing fence. There will be a 16- foot gate. The setback code limits the wall height to four feet. He is requesting another two feet. To meet the code for a 6-foot wall, it should be located 15 feet back of the curb. Next door, there is a 6- foot wooden fence that runs the entire length of the adjacent property. The bordering fence is the neighbor's rear yard. The applicanYs existing fence is also wooden and has become weathered. Mr. Besant distributed photos of the existing fencing and noted that the palm trees would remain and be cleaned up to become part of s , , . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES the landscaping. He is attempting to model after the Indian Lakes Villas in Bighorn with stacked stones on columns. He is going with bronze fittings and patina gates. Commissioner Gregory stated that if there were ever a case to allow this type of exception, where the adjacent house is reversed and has its back yard to the applicant's yard. The neighbor's wooden fence is 6-foot high. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant's property sloped. Mr. Besant responded that yes, the property is slightly sloped from south to north (ie, right to left). He stated that is was just enough to barely change the footing at the last three feet another eight inch dip. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that if the wall was to be stepped, that it be off-set to make it look like two interlocking walls. Mr. Besant does not intend to step the top edge of the wall. The step will be in the footing. The wall will be consistently one level. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the space between the wall and the street. Mr. Besant provided a basic landscape plan indicating a little lawn area with more palms added in, probably staggered, one on the street side and one on the other side to provide a grouping. He will plant desert shrubs and bougainvillas on the street-side of the wall. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, Commissioner Connor seconded, to grant approval that the wall height will be no more than six feet high from adjacent grade. Should applicant decide to step the wall, Commission requests an "inter-locking" look. Applicant will plant minimal lawn, additional palms, bougainvillas, and desert shrubs between the wall and street. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 6 , . �rr►�'` �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: MISC 00-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): O'DONNELL & ESCALANTE ARCHITECTS 121, South Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 227, Palm Springs, CA 92262 for TRI-A-BIKE, 44-841 San Pablo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior remodel for TRI-A-BIKE LOCATION: 44-841 San Pablo Avenue ZONE: C-1 The Commission was provided renderings of the proposed exterior remodel. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 6. 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 Mr. Smith noted the concerns of the Commission during its first look at this case was what would happen when the existing oleanders were removed and its request for additional detailing on the carport structure that would reflect some of the detailing on the existing residential units. Mr. David Gray, the President of the Homeowners Association, noted the concerns and recommendations. During their Board of Directors meeting, they approved a resolution to either build a wall or install landscaping that would be approved by the City that would restrict the view from Hwy. 74 of the parked � , � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES cars. He noted that the City is contemplating building a sidewalk on Hwy. 74. In relation to that action, the applicant is considering building a wall around the entire perimeter of Sandpiper, including Hwy. 74 and EI Paseo. They would prefer building the wall rather than installing landscaping. Mr. Gray stated the second concern regarded the addition of facia around the carports so make it more consistent with the units within Sandpiper. The plans include an 8 inch facia around the perimeter of the carport. Commissioner Vuksic questioned the use of the straps. Mr. Gray responded that it had been suggested by the carport's designer and noted that they could be eliminated. Mr. Smith indicated that the structure would be 20 feet from the curb and will be 7-8 feet high. There are 14 feet from back of curb to the future wall where landscaping could be installed to screen the wall. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to granted approval subject to removal of the straps. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON/02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, 8300 Utica Avenue, #245, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of condition requiring 8-foot equipment shelter height LOCATION: 77-850 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC The Commission had previously approved the plans to install an artificial mono-palm on the backside of Desert Country Plaza (Country Club Drive and Washington Street). The approval included lowering the equipment shelter building to 8 feet. The applicant has been able to find an 8-foot high structure that could s , . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES be used due to the topography sloping away towards the retention basin. The Planning Commission has approved the request, the 8- foot wall, and recommended that the shelter maintain it's 10-foot height, but be painted to match the surrounding wall color and texture. It is in the back of the shopping center and will not be visible. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed with the Planning Commission's comments in regards to color and texture. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant approval that the equipment shelter be 10-feet in height with the condition that it be finished (color and texture) to match the surrounding wall. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: PP 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� GHA HOLDINGS III, INC. 68-936 Adelina Road, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscaping for a 4,751 square foot office building LOCATION: 73-081 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Commission reviewed the revised architecture plans for the office building as presented by staff and the applicant. Staff was given direction to approve the working drawings on the landscaping. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant approval to the architectural drawings. Approval does not include landscaping, but staff may review final landscape plans. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 9 . . . �"` �rrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: SA 01-34 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JERRY MURDOCK, ULTRASIGNS, 5450 Complex Street, Suit 307, San Diego, CA 92123 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 50 sq.ft., 6-foot high monument sign at Pines to Palms (VONS) LOCATION: 72655-675 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1 The applicant proposes replacing the existing Von's monument sign at the same location on Hwy. 111. Mr. Alvarez distributed drawings showing the colors, fonts, and sizes of lettering. Staff would prefer seeing other colors to blend in with what is out there. The monument sign background is stucco finish. Staff suggests using the stucco finish throughout the entire monument sign. Staff asked for the Commission's suggestions on how the tenant signs should be treated? Opaque backgrounds with stucco finish and routed-out letters or interchangeable panels? Mr. Murdock, the applicant, stated that the tenant signs are currently planned to be aluminum route-out with push-through letters with an aluminum background. The push-through letters are all that will be illuminated. Staff recommends that entire background be stucco finish. The existing sign has opaque stucco background with routed-out VON's letters, externally illuminated. The new sign will have just the VON's (internally) illuminated as well as the letters on the tenant signs. The Palms to Pines at the top of the monument sign will also be illuminated. Everything will be pushed-through, illuminated routed- out letters. For the VON's section, the full face will be aluminum and routed out. Then plex is added and routed half way down and pushed through so there is some depth. Commissioner Hanson noted that there was no correlation with the architecture that is out there now. A typical monument sign ties in with the buildings surrounding it. The colors are not as dynamic as they could be. She asked if it wouldn't be nicer just to have a thick stucco cap on the top to anchor it so it won't look like a box set in between two columns, ie, similar to the TGI FRIDAY's sign on the corner of Hwy. 111 and EI io . . '�►' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES Paseo. Commissioner Vuksic stated he liked the contrast on the existing sign as they matched the building behind the sign. With a stucco finish, the lettering could be used to provide the color. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the sign was massive at 13 feet wide. The VON's wording is overwhelming large. Mr. Murdock stated that VON's was the anchor tenant. Commissioner O'Donnell likes the re-design of the sign, but feels it is too big. If it were down to a total width of ten feet including the columns. It would make more sense with the VON's letters being sized down appropriately. The PALMS TO PINES lettering should be larger as it is the center's identification and VON's should be smaller. Colors should be warmer colors that tie into the existing buildings. The VON's red is acceptable. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to continue the case to allow applicant the opportunity to revise the signage according to the Commission's recommendations, including: adding a cap on top which may mean having wider pillars, reducing overall size to ten feet in width, and colors should coordinate with buildings in the center. 10. CASE NO.: SA 01-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: FRED BEATTY, 6521 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92845 HOKE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, 1955 N. Main Street, Orange, CA 92865-4101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two monument signs for Las Sombras Center LOCATION: Northwest corner of Hwy. 111 and Fred Waring ZONE: C-1 The case is for two monument signs for the Las Sombras Center where the Olive Garden and Bananaz are located. It is a reverse design center with the backs of the buildings facing Hwy. 111. In �� . . . � ',�+` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES June, 1999, the ARC Commission approved two monument signs. The case is before the Commission again because it has been over a year since that approval was given. The revised signage is the same size as the originally approved signage, ie, 6 feet high; 8 feet, 8 inches wide; with two feet on each side for the pillars. The pillars at each end of both monument signs are turned 45 degrees with caps. The tenants' monument sign, to be located along Hwy. 111, where there is in excess of 1,100 feet of street frontage, will be centered between the two corners. The sign will have individual tenant identification panels with flex backgrounds. The rest of the monument is stucco with routed-out letters for the words LAS SOMBRAS CENTER. Staff asked the Commission if they preferred the stucco routed-out letters or the maintain the flex background with vinyl letters. The applicant stated he could make the background opaque in a dura-mounted bronze that would compliment the rest of the monument sign. Mr. Beatty explained that he would like to use a Lexan (plexiglass) face done in a vinyl so that the individual tenant copy can be illuminated and replaced as tenants move in and out of the center. Commissioner Hanson asked why a tenants' sign was needed on Hwy. 111 if all the buildings have their names on them. Mr. Beatty replied that most of the minor/medium tenants do not have their names on the buildings. The restaurants in the center do have their names on the buildings, they will not be listed on the proposed tenants' sign. The project monument sign will be located on Fred Waring Drive at the driveway. Commissioner Hanson stated it needed to be stucco with the routed-out letters and the colors have to match the new building colors (which have just been repainted). If the background is stucco, the applicant prefers individual tenant plex face letters with opaque background with white copy. The only thing to be illuminated will be the tenants' names. Mr. Beatty would like to use a brown opaque vinyl material that would compliment the rest of the other colors. The Commission agreed that would be acceptable on the tenants' sign, but the project monument located on Fred Waring Drive would have a stucco background with routed-out letters. 12 , • . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the two monument signs subject to the larger Las Sombras Center sign having a stucco background with routed- out letters and that the tenants' smaller identification sign being removable, with opaque background with just the letters showing through. The colors must compliment the existing buildings' colors subject to staff approval. Only the letters on the tenant sign will be illuminated with an opaque background with routed-out copy with textured finish. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUART HILL, 83 Durango Circle, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 SEAN KEARNEY, PO Box 3123, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised 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 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the two-foot parapets may not be high enough to hide roof-mounted equipment located behind them. The high parapet should be brought around and boxed in as a form because it will be visible, the others should transition from lower to higher and made thicker. The only roof area that will probably be viewed from Beacon Hill is the left-hand side. However, there is a line of 20-foot oleanders in between. Commissioner VanVliet felt there would be a good view of the roof from Beacon Hill. He asked if the top of the roof-mounted equipment would be below the top of the parapet. Mr. Kearney said it would be. Most of the roof- mounted equipment will be located in the area where there is 22- foot high parapet on a 16-foot roof. 13 , . . v�,, � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Kearney described the layout of the land behind the proposed building: at the property's edge (39 feet beyond the building's foot print, there is a five-foot retaining wall in front of a 45-degree uphill slope to a parking lot with oleanders along the ridge between the slope and the parking lot. The eyebrow has been reduced by one foot. Commissioner Hanson suggested reducing it another foot. She stated the "L" shaped eyebrow over the front door and along one side should be reduced by one foot to four feet, thereby giving the frontage windows more prominent than the side windows. The building will be painted the colors as presented on the color sample board. The Commission found the colors to be acceptable. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval to the revised plans subject to reducing the "eyebrow" (top portion of the "L") by one foot and screening all the roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. 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: Approval of working drawings and revised landscape plan at Monterey Shore Plaza LOCATION: Monterey Shore Plaza, Lot 5 Parcel Map 24616, Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Drell stated that these should be final working drawings. The Commission reviewed the final working drawings and the revised landscape plans. 14 . . , �. � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant final approval of the working drawings and revised landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� KLAFF REALTY, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 6064-3501 PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74-020 Alessandro, #C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of retail buildings on southwest corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo, EL PASEO SQUARE LOCATION: 73-411 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1 The redesign of the center bordered by Hwy. 111, San Pablo, and EI Paseo includes a restaurant at the northeast corner of Hwy. 111 and San Pablo and a two-story building on the southeast corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. The two-story building will have 16-space underground parking intended for the use of the 2"d story tenants. Elevations were provided for the two-story building only. The building will follow the structural grid that is there and keep the existing roof to some extent although some of it will be taken out to insert some popped-up areas. The central area that wraps from EI Paseo to San Pablo is 32.5 high. Commissioner Hanson asked if the color palette would remain on the "soft" side. The applicant agreed that it needed more "punch" for accent. Commissioner Hanson asked if the second floor would be utilized as office space or as a restaurant. The applicant responded that they would have preferred using it as a restaurant, but they did not have the parking to support it. The existing Coco's restaurant (along Hwy. 111) landscape and hardscape will be tied in. They are proposing to remove the retail is , � . . `�1rr' '�rM� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES buildings north of Office Max so a side of that building will need to be addressed. The south wall of Office Max will stay as-is. The loading/trash area is right in front of the new furniture store. Alternative locations are limited. This projecYs loading/trash area needs some good walling - maybe split face and tucked back a little further. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the architecture was stunning. However, he stated he had concern with the background of the existing building's north and south elevations once the retail space is remodeled. Commissioner Hanson suggested applying some relief. The current texture on that building may not work as it is a heavy trowel texture. She noted that the openings in the stair wall could be eliminated and replaced with stone. This would result in a stone wall that anchors the center. There will be 7,600 sq.ft. of 2"d story space. Mr. Alvarez asked if the client had considered using the 2"d story as a restaurant and use the proposed restaurant building facing Hwy. 111 for office space. Diners like the upstairs restaurants because of the possible views. In addition, a restaurant in the two-story building would overlook EI Paseo instead of Hwy. 111. The restaurant traffic is already on EI Paseo. Commissioner Hanson suggested considering some access to the 2"d floor off EI Paseo rather than making the diners walk around. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about ingress/egress into the center. There are existing driveways. The driveway off Lupine Lane is "clumsy" and could use some improvement. When the case comes before the Commission next time, it will include grading and landscaping. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval subject to incorporating the Commission's suggestions: adding accent colors to palette, improving the blank north and south walls of the Office Max building, tying in the Coco's restaurant with landscape and hardscape, consider a decorative wall around the trash/loading area, removing the stair wall windows, consider improving the 16 . � . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES Lupine driveway. Should the second floor become a restaurant, having access from EI Paseo. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. 4. 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 revised elevations and landscaping for 1,308 sq.ft. addition to restaurant, Andreino's LOCATION: 73-098 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1, SP The Commission reviewed the revised elevations and landscaping commenting that the applicant had done a good job. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval of the revised elevations and landscaping. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: TT 29444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 for SIX KIDS DEVELOPMENT DAVID SCHRIVER, PO Box 926, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of casitas on finro lots in College View Estates I, 12'6" high, 5' off property line LOCATION: 74-098 College View Circle East �� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�ISSION "'�`� MARCH 27, 2001 MINUTES ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to add this case to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lingle absent. Mr. Alvarez reported that the casitas are in the rear yards and meet all the setback and height requirements. The architecture ties in with the houses' detailing. Action:. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval of the casitas. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER �g