Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-12 � '� ���'� CITY OF PALM DESERT �� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 2 1 Kristi Hanson X 3 0 Neil Lingle X 2 1 Richard O'Donnell X 3 0 Chris Van Vliet X 3 0 John Vuksic X 3 0 Ray Lopez X 1 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of January 22, 2002. The motion carried 4-0-3 with Commissioner Lingle, Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Lopez abstaining. 1 ' "�+' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Commissioner Lopez was sworn in by Deputy City Clerk, Rachelle Klassen, and welcomed to the Commission by Chairman Gregory. A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-21 (Steve) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STATE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK PARTNERS, 74-770 Highway 111, Suite 201, Indian Wells, CA 92210 FRANK URRUTIA, FRANK URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 73-555 Alessandro Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for Building B. LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, 1,000 feet +/- east of Cook Street, COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK ZONE: PCD Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 02-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WHITECO RESIDENTIAL, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument design for Canterra Apartment Homes on Hovley Lane. LOCATION: 74-401 Hovley Lane East, Canterra Apartment Homes ZONE: P.R. 17 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 2 • � v��r' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to moving the sign out of the public right of way. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. 3. 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: Final approval of architectural plans for 16,000 square foot office/industrial building and landscape plans. LOCATION: 42-595 Cook Street ZONE: PG2 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 02-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): 28K SIGN MFG. CORP., 1406 Virginia Ave., Suite 103, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint colors. LOCATION: 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Pak Inn Buffet Restaurant ZONE: P.C. (3) G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R020212.min.wpd 3 ' ,+�' V�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the Commission has approved the signage and now the applicant is looking for approval of exterior paint colors. The applicant has submitted color proposals for the Commission to review, which consists of cream, wildfire and rust. Commissioner Hanson stated that when the sun hits the building the paint will look very light, therefore she suggested using a darker color for the main part of the building. The applicant returned with additional color samples, which the Commission reviewed and approved. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve revised color chips on file. Motion carried 7-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-17 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI: FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES, ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscaping for automobile fuel station and convenience store. LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. ARCO ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval, excluding signage, subject to comments by the Landscape Manager. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES, ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of signage for automobile fuel station and convenience store. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd 4 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. ARCO ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Commissioner Hanson had a question regarding the LED laser light. She wanted to know what color it is, what it looks like and how bright it is. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thought that this signage was fine as long as they could find out what the LED laser lights were. Mr. Smith suggested approving the signage without the LED laser lights and the applicant will have to explain what it is. Commissioner Hanson commented that she is not against the LED laser lights, but just needs to know what it is. Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve signage subject to clarification of LED laser light. Motion carried 7-0-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP 01-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRE LA ROCCA, PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring, Palm Desert, CA 92260 JEANNE LEDUC, PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P.O. Box 3958, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscape for 40-acre, 162-unit affordable rental housing development, Hovely Gardens. LOCATION: Between Avenue 42 and Merle Drive, west of Cook Street. ZONE: R-1 M Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020212.min.wpd 5 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-28 APPLICANT jAND ADDRESS): HUGH JORGENSEN, 40845 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised canopy for fuel station. Albertson's Express LOCATION: 42185 Washington Street, Palm Desert Country Club Shopping Center ZONE: M, P.C. 2 District Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted preliminary approval to the revised canopy design. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-28 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): HUGH JORGENSEN, 40845 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of signage for fuel station. Albertson's Express LOCATION: 42185 Washington Street, Palm Desert Country Club Shopping Center ZONE: M, P.C. 2 District Mr. Alvarez inquired about the detail on the "Express" portion of the logo which states that it will consist of clear plex faces. He wanted to know if this meant that it would have clear faces with illumination. On the current proposal there are four signs, one on each elevation of the building, the overall height including the logo is 22", the size and locations are acceptable. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was confusing as there are two different drawings. She stated that one of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd 6 . � "�,'` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES the drawings shows the signs to be very large. Hugh Jorgensen, applicant, was present and stated that the drawings from Tate Associates is not correct. The other set of drawings is the one that he would like approval of. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the word "Express" does not have to be included on the canopy. He stated that the "Albertson's" logo could be used by itself. The overall length of the sign is 144", which is 12'. Mr. Alvarez stated that the individual letters will have clear faces with blue internal illumination. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they are proposing individual "can" letters with colored neon behind them. The letters will come out 4" from the building as opposed to 10", which was previously proposed. Mr. Jorgensen would like to have approval of the letters using either the logo and "Express" or just the logo on the canopy on all four sides. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the ladder that was originally designed to go on the outside of the building has been moved to the inside. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of signage, subject to having the logo only on the canopy. Motion carried 7-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-02 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): MCCOY CREATIVE CONTRACTORS & INTERIORS, INC., 6390 Meadows Court, Malibu, CA 90265 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 10,000 square foot, two-story office/warehouse building. (7,500 square foot office; 2,500 square foot warehouse) LOCATION: Ritter Circle; Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 17191 ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the subject property is on Ritter Circle off of Cook Street and is the last vacant parcel on the cul-de-sac. The proposed building is 10,000 square feet which will be 75% office and the remaining footage will be used for warehouse space. The building height is 30', which is the maximum height for that area. The general architecture has Spanish-style elements including a tile roof with light tan colors on the building. One issue that came up with Building and Safety Department was that the stairway was open and located next to an existing building. The stairway would have to be enclosed or set G:Planning\Donna Quaiver�wpdocsWgmiMAR020212.min.wpd 7 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES back 5' from the property line. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, has given preliminary approval of landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he appreciates that he is adding some style to the area, however, he is concerned with the Spanish type of architecture of the building. The cantilevered balcony that goes all the way along the front of the building with pilasters looks odd having it "hanging out there" and feels that it would make more sense to have the pilasters come down to the ground to create more of a column effect. He does not understand the fascia, which looks very boxy. He feels that it would be very easy to do something with that. Commissioner Vuksic is also concerned with the pitch of the roof. He feels that it looks very much like a mansard roof. He suggested lowering the pitch so that it looks a little bit more natural. Commissioner Hanson stated that the biggest concerns that she has is that the building does not fit in with the neighbors and also the blank wall across the back. If there was a building up against it, that would be different but there isn't. Mark Valentino, Architect, was present and stated that there is an alley in the back of the building and was not concerned with the back at all. There is an existing building in the area with a blank back wall on the zero line also. He would be willing to add some different colored block to break it up. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted to know why he went in this direction for the architecture. Mr. Valentino stated that the original drawings were a different style and his client wanted a Spanish-style building. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he did not feel that the building fits into the neighborhood. He stated that something a little more creative could be done to fit more into this industrial area. Mr. Valentino stated that his client builds high-end homes and they did not want an industrial-type of building for their offices. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they could still build a high quality building with an industrial orientation to it. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he thought that stylistically the proposed building is ill-fitting to the location. While Commissioner Vuksic has been willing to illustrate some changes to style, he would not even go in that direction. He suggested strongly that he re-think the project. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd g . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that he could emulate similar characteristics of this building that would give it a more industrial feel. She suggested "boxing out" the arches and using a metal roof. Mr. Valentino stated that his client wanted to have a house-oriented type of building. He stated that the materials were upgraded from the standard office building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it is important to tie into the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory stated that they were getting into a non-eclectic approach toward a specific architectural style in an industrial neighborhood. He stated that the general feeling of the Commission is to match the other buildings, which are basically low-cost tilted boxes. If the applicant were to go with this approach but make it look more like a high-end residential-type quality, would this be possible? Commissioner Hanson commented that she did not feel that you can take a Spanish-style building and put it in this location without making everything else around it look really bad. Mr. Valentino stated that being on a cul-de-sac with a wall in front of it, the building is pretty hidden. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he drives by there everyday and it is not hidden at all. He stated that it is really exposed. Commissioner Hanson stated that a more contemporary building would fit in better in this location. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that when the Commission sees architecture that works, it "flies" through the A.R.C. The resistence here is that it obviously doesn't work. He does not feel that they are trying to dictate style but they are probably challenging the applicant to use a little more creativity with this building. He realizes that this involves communicating with his client. Commissioner Hanson stated that she could think of three or four different styles that would be very appropriate for this location. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to continue the request to allow the applicant to redesign the building to be more consistent with the neighborhood. Motion carried 7-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 9 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: C 02-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROB SANFORD, REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, 78060 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary/final approval of a 7,500 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon ZONE: PC 2 Mr. Smith stated that the proposed building is located on the Albertson's site on the corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111. Previously, there was an approval for up to three pads along the east side of Deep Canyon and this is on the corner pad. Mr. Bagato stated that the architecture of the building picked up some of the existing architecture in the shopping center, as well as adding some new design elements. He stated that the proposed building meets all the code requirements. No landscape plans have been received, but he is expecting those soon. Mr. Bagato expressed some concern regarding the corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111. He stated that this is a very visible corner and it looks like a back of a building. Mr. Bagato stated that the Pier 1 building used spandrel glass to make the back of the building look like a front. Commissioner Hanson stated that she did not understand the "weird" roof form where there is a double roof on one part and it was not repeated. Dave Prest, Architect, was present and stated that this structure was patterned after the Starbucks building, which is across the parking lot. He stated that he has three towers on this building and two of the towers have been designed to potentially house mechanical equipment. Commissioner Gregory asked whether there were any comments regarding the spandrel glass idea, which was suggested earlier. Mr. Drell stated that he felt that it needed more than spandrel glass. He commented that the reason why the spandrel glass works well at the Pier 1 building is because it is under the arcade. The arcade creates the effect as well as the glass. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 1� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Prest stated that he did not feel that this was an opportunity to create a different kind of architecture for the shopping center. He felt that he had to keep the design of the center. He commented that this is a pretty sensitive corner and there is a very strong landscape and piece of art on the corner and he and his client really wanted the building to become a backdrop to that. The least articulated side of the building is that corner because he felt that the strength of that corner was way more important than the building behind it. He stated that he tried to put the architecture on the other three sides of the building. Mr. Prest commented that the one thing he did which was different than any of the other buildings is that he did bring out a lower element. The Starbucks building is a very tall and massive building with no lower elements to it. He feels that this was one of the things that he did was bring in a secondary element. He has added an outdoor shaded seating area. Mr. Prest stated that some of the architectural elements come out two feet and three feet, but could add more depth to that element. He commented that potentially you could add spandrel glass to the rear elevation. Commissioner O'Donnell addressed one of Mr. Drell's concerns relative to Pier 1, if the projections are two feet and three feet now, would that be sufficient to have a similar effect as Pier 1? Mr. Drell stated that there may not be enough depth. Mr. Drell commented that when you create a big arch and then brick it in, it's almost like it was supposed to be open but it got closed off. It's almost like a window architecturally but with concrete over it. Mr. Prest stated that potentially there could be a couple of doors on the rear elevation. Mr. Prest commented that he simplified some of the details of the building and changed the colors by bringing in some warmer earth tones. Commissioner Hanson stated that the signage location should be designed into the building so that it does not become an issue later and create a sign program for the building. Rob Sanford, applicant, stated that he is not sure who his tenants are going to be or how many tenants he will have. Mr. Sanford stated that there are existing palo verde trees are getting fairly large and he suggested adding additional palo verde trees. Mr. Drell stated that this is a street frontage and it should not be hidden with landscaping. The buildings should appear to be facing the street. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the west elevation and having doors added to this elevation. He was concerned about having tenants use the area outside the rear door for storage or deliveries. Mr. Sanford stated that there will not be a sidewalk on the rear elevation and the only way a door would be added is if it was code mandated. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020212.min.wpd 1 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES The door would not be used for deliveries or placing items outside the door. He stated that the space created for food service is on either end of the building where outdoor seating areas have been designed. Exits there could be created on the north and south efevations. The only doors that would possibly go in on the rear elevation would be in the center section, if the space is over 1,500 square feet for fire exit only. Mr. Prest suggested that they could add spandrel glass to three areas on the rear elevation with room to design a space for doors. Mr. Drell stated that it is still odd to him to have a big arch with a black wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that if the architect could work it in to what is the lower section, then she would be okay if he left the middle section alone. She suggested pulling the grid down and planting vines to cover it. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he would like to see more depth on the architectural elements to 3' and 4'. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for preliminary approval subject to adding spandrel glass to rear elevation, increase depth on rear elevation to 3' and 4', finish hipped roofs so they are symmetrical. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., P.O. Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 44- 555 San Rafael. LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael ZONE: R-3 Mr. Smith stated that three weeks ago, the A.R.C. granted preliminary approval subject to the applicant returning prior to Plan Check with detailing. He stated that Mr. Filing and Mr. Jackson have been working on the detailing and would like to know if they're heading in the right direction. Mr. Filing, applicant, was present and stated that he is going to the Planning Commission on February 19, 2002 with the conditional approval that he received at the last A.R.C. meeting. He stated that he wanted to let the Commission know what he is doing with the changes G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 12 . `�r� �,,,r' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES based on the direction that he received at the last meeting. He commented that he would like to go into the Planning Commission meeting with a non-conditional situation. He commented that there were a couple of items that were of concern and wanted to let the Commission know what he is doing at this point. Mr. Filing wanted to know if there was still anything that was out of place or needed any adjustments. He stated that he realizes that he has to return before Plan Check for approval. He is looking for input on anything that is not acceptable. Commissioner Hanson commented that she was the one who was insistent on adding columns, but she is not sure what the columns are doing on the current plan. She stated that if the columns are not actually doing anything, don't put them in. Add the columns if they make sense. Mr. Filing stated that it may be advantageous to have the columns. One of the main conditions of approval was to see a re-working of the pop-outs on the back of the building in a larger scale. Other conditions included location of the support columns, darker fascia and re-work the walkways so that they flow better around the columns. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they are seeing changes that reflect comments or requests made at the last meeting. The windows have been inset and the trim has been done away with. Commissioner Hanson stated that she is okay with the revised plans. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would still vote "no" just to be consistent. He feels that the applicant needs a lot more architectural input on the project and he does not feel that there has been any significant change from the last meeting. Commissioner Gregory commented that originally they had discussed a strong landscape plan but hasn't seen it yet. Mr. Smith stated that he does not think that they have been working on the landscape since they were waiting to get some resolution on the architecture. Mr. Filing stated that he had spoken to Diane Hollinger and she has not had a chance to review the landscape plans that have been submitted. He is going to have a meeting with her next week to discuss the landscaping. He stated that he has made some changes to the landscaping plan and it has been re-submitted. Commissioner Gregory stated that approval would be of architecture only. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to accept modifications based on previous conditions. Motion carried 4-2-1 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd 13 . �ti�' �" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., P.O. Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans and landscaping for a 12-unit apartment complex at 73- 811 Santa Rosa Way. LOCATION: 73-811 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 SO (See comments for previous item. Case PP 01-24) Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to accept modifications based on previous conditions. Motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Van Vliet opposed. 6. CASE NO.: PP 01-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� KLAFF REALITY, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 6064-3501 PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74-020 Allesandro, #C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary landscape approval for a new single-story retail building located at the northwest corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111, northwest corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. EI Paseo Square ZONE: C-1 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted preliminary approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 14 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for Visitor's Center. LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Entrada) ZONE: OP Reuel Young, Architect, was present to comment on the revised architecture of the Palm Desert Visitor's Center. He stated one of the things that caused the change in architecture was the fact that there were no longer two tenants. When that happened, he felt that it was important to make sure that the building read as one building. He wanted to simplify the building to make sure that the entrance and the public areas are clearly public realm and that the other areas are clearty offices and support. He stated that one of the comments made during the review process was that the building, as it was shown at the last meeting, needed to have some "civic sense". He reduced the sloped roofs and used a parapet approach instead and gave it a little more "ta da". He also responded to the criticism that the entry did not have a full view of the garden. He kept the vignette and oriented one of the windows so that it does look out into the garden. He picked up the faceting as he felt that it was one of the components that added character. Mr. Young stated that the rounded section of the building closes on itself and there is a window underneath into the work room. The front part of this section is flat. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making it curve all the way around, however, Mr. Young commented that he did not know how to do it. Commissioner Gregory stated that he felt that Mr. Young addressed some of the concerns that were brought up at the last meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he had previously made the walkway on Highway 111 somewhat curved and linear, but it is linear on EI Paseo. He felt that he could make the EI Paseo section "move" a little bit. Mr. Young stated that he could do that. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020212.min.wpd 1$ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he is concerned about the view into the garden. He feels that visitors will be disappointed if there is no clear view into the garden. He also stated that it is a beautiful building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the garden should be more visible. Mr. Young stated that there is a philosophical issue about vignette versus exposure. He commented that he does not feel comfortable surrendering what he started with, though he hears the concern. He stated that he still believes that the side-lighting and the vignette is desirable. Commissioner Hanson, speaking as a tax payer, wanted to know how much money was going to be spent on the garden. If it costs $500,000. or $1 million, she wants people to know that it's there and go there. Mr. Young stated that when people come to this building, they will see the garden from the front door. Mr. Drell commented that people will probably only spend a few minutes in this building. The view from the restaurant is where people will really see the garden. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he feels that the garden should be discovered. He does not think that it needs to be "in your face". He likes the concept of the vignettes and likes the direction that it is going. He does not like the idea of having too much glass to showcase the garden. He also stated that he agrees with the comments made about the other buildings and how they will have another view of the garden. Mr. Young would like a vote based on what they currently see and not a promise to change it. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0-0. 8. CASE NO.: CUP 01-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� POLLY JOHNSON, PLANNING/ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC., 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of telecommunications facility featuring three artificial boulders ranging in height from 8-10 feet and an 8-foot high supporting equipment shelter. AT&T LOCATION: West of Highway 74, adjacent to existing "cross", past the water tank. ZONE: HPR Mr. Bagato stated that the site was approved on June 26, 2001 by the Commission. The "lolly-pops" were approved, but staff was given G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd 16 . "�`' �r+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES direction to look at alternatives. The applicant has returned with current drawings. They are proposing three artificial boulders on this site. The boulders will be made out of fiberglass material and a sample was shown to the Commission. The company who produces these boulders have done work on the golf course at The Vintage Club. The applicant, Polly Johnson, is present to answer any questions. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was not sure how the antennae are going to be screened. Mr. Alvarez stated that they are going to be completely screened within the artificial boulders, which should match the color of the natural landscape. Commissioner Gregory commented that if there is a competent crew creating these boulders it will be beautiful and look natural. If you get a crew who doesn't know what they're doing, it will look really bad. He suggested that there be a series of inspections by staff to see that the project is heading in the right direction. Mr. Alvarez stated that with the Conditional Use Permit, conditions could be added to that effect. Mr. Alvarez stated that previously the Commission had requested the veneer on the equipment shelter match the rock colors. Also, any retaining walls should have split-face or veneer to match the shelter. Commissioner Hanson commented that she hikes in that area and she wants to be able to go up there and not know that it's there. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to periodic inspections by staff and matching the color of the boulders and veneer on the equipment shelter to the natural landscape. Motion carried 7-0-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 02-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JDH & ASSOCIATES, 68-487 Highway 111, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof height. LOCATION: 77-545 Robin Road ZONE: R.E. 40,000 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020212.min.wpd 1� . ,� '�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2002 MINUTES Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion made by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 7-0-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020212.min.wpd 1 g