Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-11 *tow low CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 11, 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 9 1 Kristi Hanson X 8 2 Neil Lingle X 7 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 0 Chris Van Vliet X 9 1 John Vuksic X 9 1 Ray Lopez X 8 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Martin Alvarez, Senior Management Analyst III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 28, 2002 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to approve the minutes of May 28, 2002. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP 00-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAMB ARCHITECTS, 426 N. 44T" Street, #25, Pine, AZ 85215 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Modifications to approved plans (exterior window trim and glass). LOCATION: 74-900 Gerald Ford Drive, Hampton Inn & Suites ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Bagato stated that the architect was not present at the previous meeting, therefore, the request was continued. Mr. Bagato presented a sample of the proposed glass to the Commission. The owner, Chuck Bhatia, and contractor, Bob Rogers, were present. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there was a sample of the window frame. Commissioner Hanson stated that it matches the color of the building. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he was concerned about losing some of the detail where there is glazing that's darker and the frame is now going to be the same color as the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it looks like they have divided mullions so against the dark glass the color would stand out more. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they've been through this before with the Marriott project where they really didn't have mullions. Mr. Rogers stated that there are no mullions on the windows. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he is more concerned about the glass than the color of the frames. Commissioner Hanson stated that she does not want the glass to be reflective. The color of the glass is fine but she does not like the reflective quality of the glass. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they have a general consensus that reflectivity is "bad". Is it interesting or is it bad? The Commission hasn't had this particular issue come up yet, other than in the hillside projects. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there's a level of reflectiveness that we're all used to seeing on buildings everywhere, but .some are more reflective, such as the A.G. Edwards building. He feels that the general consensus is probably that anything more reflective than the standard level that we're used to is really not desirable. G:PlanningOonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11,2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicant was concerned about adding the reflectivity because of the solar gain. Mr. Rogers stated that they wanted to insulate the building against the sun. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there could be another solution to shading the windows. Mr. Rogers used the new university building as an example of a building with reflective glass. Commissioner Hanson stated that the university building is a different style building than the proposed Hampton Inn & Suites. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission doesn't have any authority to make judgement on the university building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed building is very large with a fair amount of glass, which is a concern. There are different degrees of reflectivity with some being similar to a mirror, however, some glass has a very light reflectivity. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they're looking at the sample glass with light coming through it so it's deceiving. If it was separating the outside from a dark room it would appear much more reflective so we really don't know how reflective it is. Commissioner Hanson reminded the Commission of another similar situation they had with a proposal for blue glass, which was denied. She has no problem with the color of the glass, the color of the building and the window frames, but the reflectivity of the glass has to be reduced. Mr. Drell asked if there are different levels of reflectivity or a number to go by. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are different levels of reflectivity, but the Commission would have to see a sample. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he's not going to support this because he doesn't believe that any reflective glazing is appropriate. He would support a motion for the window glazing color only-and not a percentage of reflectivity. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and stated that any reflectivity concerns him. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant to show the Commission examples of what they're looking for, but right now they're hesitant because they don't wish to create something that they'll be sorry they did and, therefore, are being a little conservative. Mr. Rogers stated that he'll get a sample of a dual- glazed, bronze tint, non-reflective glass to show the Commission. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of the color of the glazing and window frames with no reflective quality of the glass. Applicant will bring in a sample for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Van Wet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 02-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEANNE AKIN, 73-910 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Modification to exterior elevation on an existing building. LOCATION: 73-910 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260, Hillis Furs ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is seeking some shade relief for her building at the front of her store. The proposed modification is going to increase the awning size and extend 64" beyond the roof line. It will have a copper roof with a green tint. They are also adding a green stone veneer to the building and would like to change the pavers to match the building. Staffs concern is that the modifications will cause problems from a retail standpoint. The proposed changes will make it look like one storefront and typically you would want to make two stores to be identified individually. The other concern is the possibility of problems with signage. There's no spot to put the signage. Staff doesn't recommend approval of this modification with the large overhang creating signage problems and store identity problems. Mr. Drell stated that he thinks it's wonderful that the property owner wants to do something but he feels that there are more effective solutions, which will be better for the tenant. Jeanne Akin, building owner, and Sonia Campbell, tenant, were present. Ms. Akin stated that the overhang comes down very gradually with very little intrusion on the building. They are planning to get rid of the Spanish tile. The new awning is much higher than the current awning and there is room for signage on a beam above the window for signage as well as on top of a corner window. Commissioner Gregory commented on the visibility of the signage if it was going to be on the beam on the side of the building under the overhang. He thought that it may be difficult to see the name of the store. Ms. Akin stated that she wanted as little intrusion on the building as possible. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem would be for future tenants. They are allowed a certain square footage of signage based G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES on the frontage of their building. The Commission then has to figure out a way to incorporate it to make it work to get that square footage. Commissioner Gregory stated that the sign visibility depends on which side of the street a person is walking on. If a person is walking on the same side of the street as the store, it would be visible. Commissioner Vuksic asked the architect, John Stanford, how much space is on the beam as it looks like it's 12" on the drawing. Mr. Stanford commented that it is approximately 12". Commissioner Vuksic stated that 12" is not very much. Commissioner Gregory stated that there has to be a gap on the top and bottom of the signage so it doesn't look crowded. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't have a problem with the design being one design across the whole store front. He feels that it's a very clean, simple, elegant design. It really comes down to the space for the signage. It doesn't look like it's adequate. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could raise the awning up slightly. Ms. Akin stated that they would have to change the whole structure. Commissioner Hanson stated that an 18" space would be adequate for signage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is the best presentation for a store front modification that he's ever seen. It makes it a lot easier for the Commission to understand what the applicant is trying to achieve. The point that was made to raise the roof overhang up to allow for signage probably should be looked at very carefully. He was wondering if they reduced the projection of the overhang from 6'4" to 3', it would provide a lot more visibility of the store front and also the signage. He likes the stone veneer on the building. Ms. Akin stated that everything that is displayed in her window is ruined by the sun. If the awning isn't out far enough it won't be effective. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the applicant also has the problem of reflectivity from UV rays that bounce off the concrete. If the length of the overhang is reduced and is raised up, it would give her better visibility for the signage. Mr. Stanford stated that it would change the structure of the roof by raising the overhang by even 6". Ms. Akin just put a new roof on the building and does not want to change it. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed modification is a very good effort, but the Commission is concerned about the visibility of the signage. Commissioner Hanson suggested coming up with a sign program for the building and also suggested creating elevations from eye level so that the applicant could see how visible the signage is. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to create adequate areas for signage. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 02-87 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN*A*RAMA, GALE MAXSE, 41- 905 Boardwalk "U", Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. LOCATION: 73-241 Highway 111, Palm Desert Kitchens ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the request had been presented to the ARC and was continued to allow the applicant to return with a proposed alternate design and also pursue the opportunity to look into the Facade Enhancement Program. The property owners were not interested in pursuing the Facade Enhancement Program. The applicant has come back with a new proposal for a can sign. The applicant is now moving the sign from the top of the metal awning and putting it on the white wall. It will be a fully illuminated can sign. Commissioner Lingle asked why it has to be illuminated. Mr. Drell stated that during the season it gets dark at 4:30 p.m. The tenant, Dennis McCallister, stated that if the sign is placed too low it will be useless as cars block it. He was disappointed that he couldn't have the sign going across the top of the building because height means visibility for people driving. This is not an area like El Paseo where people are walking. This is an area where people are driving G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES down Highway 111 and will see the sign and stop. In the evening, it's very important that the sign be illuminated so that when people are going out to dinner they will see the sign and walk over and look in the windows and come back the following day. Commissioner Gregory asked about the thickness of the can. He was told that it's 9". If they really try hard they can make it a thinner can. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that it has to be a maximum of 4" thick. The colors are green, brown and yellow for the logo with a white background. Commissioner Hanson asked if the background could match the color of the building so that only the logo and letters stand out. She also asked if only the letters and logo could be illuminated, rather than the entire can sign. Mr. McCallister stated that the building is off white. The entire sign has to be illuminated. Commissioner Hanson asked why the words "Wood Mode" are on the bottom of the sign. Mr. McCallister stated that he's a Wood Mode dealer and it's very important to have it on the sign. Commissioner Lopez stated that softening the white background is a good idea. Mr. McCallister stated that he could do that. Commissioner Hanson suggested matching the background to the stucco so that during the day it doesn't stand out. She suggested using an ivory color. Commissioner O'Donnell didn't want the sign to be too bright. Mr. McCallister stated that he could change the wattage of the bulb if it's too bright. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they should consider a sign that takes up the entire width of the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that if it were any smaller it would be too small. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to: (1) reducing can depth to 4", (2) changing the background color from white to ivory, and (3) City reserves the right to request reduced bulb wattage, if too bright. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 02-77 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 G91anning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of the proposed business signage. LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane, Stor-N-Lock ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the signage was approved as a non-illuminated 59 square foot sign. The applicant has returned with two alternate sign proposals which have been reduced in size by 30%. One proposal is a raceway that would be similar to Del Rio's signage and the other is a recessed raceway. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the signage could be inset into the building. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign, stated that he could inset it into the building. The reveal on the building is 5" but he could go one step further and put an alcove in the wall for the signage. If the Commission is happy with the Del Rio's concept, there is a 5" reveal on the building so from the side view, the raceway won't be visible. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he prefers the inset installation as it's less obtrusive. The inset will be 5" deep. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to signage being inset into building. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet and Commissioner Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 02-10 APPLICANT (ND ADDRESSh DERVIEUX, INC., 73-505 Juniper Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture. LOCATION: 12-acre site at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Highway 111. ZONE: PC G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES David Leiberman, architect, stated that he had briefly discussed his project at the last ARC meeting based on compatibility with the Visitor's Center, which has been resolved and the findings are that the buildings can co-exist with each other. Mr. Leiberman stated that Bernard is the chef and owner of the Cuistot restaurant. This is an upscale French restaurant. In designing the building they wanted to bring Bernard's personality and his concept and mix it with the desert community. The site is at Entrada Paseo at Highway 111 and El Paseo. They wanted to blend French country with a little bit of a newer, exciting twist of architecture. There are two sections to the building which are bridged with a middle section. One side is designed with old rock materials, wood beams, wood window frames which will be recessed so that the wall is thicker. This part of the building houses the dining room and bar. The other side of the building is the kitchen/service part of the building. This was designed in the same style of architecture with gable roofs, but the finishes on this section of the building are more contemporary with smooth plaster finishes that have score lines in them and circular windows. To bridge the two elements together, they created an arched parapet system with the roof line lowered in it to hide all the equipment that's necessary to operate a restaurant so that it's not visible from the street. This is a contemporary architectural statement with molding going across the top with a hole cut in it with score lines. A tower was designed to identify the entrance with a blend of some new elements and some old elements mixed together (i.e. stone, wood, plaster with score lines in it and a hipped roof line). There is an off-shoot part of the building that is a wine room. It can be used for wine storage, dining and private parties and is recessed underground slightly. Mr. Leiberman stated that the idea behind the landscaping was to embrace the landscaping. They've bermed up the landscaping to the building so that the building seems to be coming out of the landscaping. They've added trellises along the faces of the building, which protrude out from the ends of the building to give an opportunity to soften the architecture and also to embrace the landscaping and allow the landscaping to grow up and onto the building. They are proposing an herb garden in front which could be used by Bernard. The entrance to the restaurant is through the tower. The main dining room is exposed to the exhibition kitchen, European style. They wanted an indoor/outdoor relationship between the patio and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES dining room so they added doors that flow in and out. The main dining room has a fireplace as a focal point. The trellises protrude out off the two ends of each section. They are also proposing a large trellis on the rear elevation. There is an outdoor fireplace on the patio with a large settee with pillows and upholstered seats. It will be casual, yet upscale. The materials board indicates the coloration of the stucco. In the original submittal they had a barrel tile roof, which had a more authentic look to it. Because of the direction that they had gotten before to be more compatible with the Visitor's Center, they changed it to a slate roof. However, they would prefer a barrel tile roof for this building as it seems to work a little better. He wanted to bring this up since now there isn't a problem with the two co-existing. They're open to both types of roof, but they would prefer the barrel tile. Commissioner Hanson asked about the stair well that isn't represented anywhere else. Mr. Leiberman stated that originally it was going up to a storage area, which has since been abandoned. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was concerned about the elevation that faces El Paseo. If the stair well isn't going to be there, they need to do something on that face because it faces a major street. Mr. Leiberman commented that if the stair well goes away, then there would be a blank wall which would be made so that it doesn't look like the back of a stage set. This site doesn't have a back and all sides need articulation. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is one of several buildings that is going to built on this site. It's a very attractive building. The last time they discussed the question of compatibility he had difficulty with the question because he felt that the context of the question really didn't address the concern that he has, which is, "Are there design standards?" This is a City project and he would like to know if the City has developed any design standards. He had seen a draft of design standards. There are at least two more buildings following this one including one more restaurant and a hotel. He would like to know how this all fits into that context, specifically as it addresses or does not address any design standards for the site. Mr. Drell stated that the design standards have been drafted and up until this point, some version of contemporary was going to be the theme of the project. The committee looked at this particular building and wanted this tenant so the theme has been changed. The design standards were never formally adopted but there was a general G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES understanding. It was decided that different styles of architecture could be on the same site. Commissioner Gregory was concerned about a project being done piece meal and wanted to know if the Commission could assist in making some suggestions. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't know that it's necessary or important that there are different buildings that have different uses and different identities and just because they're adjacent to each other or on the same site, she didn't think that they have to be the same. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a good point because a lot of other people don't have that opinion. This is one argument for an eclectic approach. Mr. Drell stated that this was the consensus of the Commission in her absence. It's okay for the Visitor's Center and Cuistot to be on the same site. He didn't think that they could verbalize a formula that defines their compatibility. Commissioner Hanson commented that the adjoining factor could be something as simple as color of the stucco. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the landscape really is important in this project. There is a significant effort by the City in regards to landscaping and he thought that it would be incompatible with the style of architecture as shown by the applicant but more complimentary to contemporary architecture. He wanted to know how this all gets integrated into one whole. He would like to see the landscape integrate the whole project. Mr. Drell stated that this is going to happen. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how that will be done with a building like the proposed Cuistot restaurant. Commissioner Hanson thought it could work with desert landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that the Eric Johnson Garden is going to extend all the way down Highway 111 and all the way down El Paseo and around the corner at Painter's Path at a depth of 20'-30'. Commissioner Hanson stated that there can be different degrees of landscaping. For example, in Big Horn there are portions which are really desert and as you get in towards the front of the buildings and into the courtyards they are allowed to be more lush. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it depends on the selection of plants from the garden and choosing plants that compliment the architecture. Commissioner Gregory summarized the design suggestions as being paint color and landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to reiterate something that he said at the previous meeting. They had talked about using some of the same elements on different buildings to tie them together, which he disagreed with. He is concerned about trying to match the colors of the buildings because they're very different and they should be different. Commissioner Hanson commented that she was not suggesting that they match the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN I I *few *461le' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES colors, but maybe there's an element that has a similar color and it could be a very small element. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested using earth tones, which would all blend together. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned about a designer trying to match the colors. Commissioner Hanson stated that she thinks that it's important that each of the buildings has their own identity. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's okay with the request for the barrel tile roof instead of slate. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned about the roof top equipment being visible. Mr. Leiberman stated that when they get to the engineering they'll make sure that it'll be hidden. They'll do site lines and the parapet wall will be high enough to hide it all. They don't want to see any ugly equipment sticking up. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the stone in the photograph on the materials board. He hopes that they don't get the cobble stone at Home Depot and glue them on there. Keep it as authentic as possible. He prefers the slate roof over the barrel the roof. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was understood that they have suggested some form of very gentle design guidelines for the overall project, i.e. embracing color or landscape palate. Commissioner Lingle commented that when you have bodies that are going to change the rules to suit themselves then there's no use fighting it. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval with barrel tile roof. Motion carried 6-0- 0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Alessandro, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of new office building. LOCATION: San Pablo (north of San Gorgonio) ZONE: OP Commissioner Hanson stated that this is a very beautifully designed project. She asked Commissioner Vuksic if he could really get that many condensing units in the proposed location. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he went through this with Breeze Air Conditioning. They G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES raised up a platform because there was a problem with it being in a deep well. Breeze Air Conditioning has said that it's okay. Commissioner O'Donnell asked for a presentation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the shape of the roof has to do with those condensing units because typically you'll see two-story buildings around town and they have units on the roof. The problem he found with that is that it's really difficult to do that within the height limit and impossible without having 8' ceilings on both levels with really tight spaces to work in. He played by the rules and instead of having the units stick up over the parapets he decided to get them all off the roof. They put them in an architectural feature where they're really part of the second floor. Since there was no longer anything on the roof, they decided to curve the roof. The second floor of the building is off set significantly from the first floor. There are different angles of the various elements that you see and some of them are a very slight degree with a different shade on the colors. The first floor cantilevers over the back part. They are using desert colors with some nice variation. Commissioner Hanson asked why he didn't create patios in the upstairs spaces. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in talking to different people, he concluded that they really wouldn't be used, especially being on the west side. Mr. Drell reminded him that there are 6-7 months of the year where being out on the west side is fine. Mr. Drell stated that the color palate doesn't look as varying on the color board as it does on the rendering. He likes the rendering contrast. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is a handsome building. A discussion was held regarding the roof height. The allowable roof height is 25', however, the highest point of the curved roof is 26' with the lowest part of the eve being 23'. The applicant will ask for an exception for the roof height. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for preliminary approval of architecture only. Motion carried 4-0- 2-1 with Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 02-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES, LLC, 5302 189TH Avenue, NE, Sammamish, WA 98074-6201 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 33,310 square foot office building on a 3.9 acre site. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive. ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that there are seven individual buildings being proposed by the applicant. They are single story, maximum 20' in height. There will be a change of zone. The architect, Bob Riccardi, is present to answer questions. Mr. Riccardi stated that the landscaping plans have been submitted. Mr. Drell asked if the top roof lines have to be so uniform. Mr. Riccardi stated that he could lower them in the middle. He could raise some of them if the City would allow him to exceed the height limit. Mr. Drell commented that he's only at 18' and could go to 22'-24'. Commissioner O'Donnell complimented Mr. Riccardi on the parking structure. He would like to see some of the roof lines go up and suggested using a stone element. Commissioner Hanson stated that there appears to be a step detail on the columns but this is not apparent on the plans. Mr. Riccardi stated that there will be a step detail throughout to get some shade and shadow. There won't be signage on each building but will have the main signage at the entrance. Commissioner Vuksic complimented Mr. Riccardi on the buildings, but he was concerned about the planes. He stated that it looks like a few of them have stone and plaster and it looks like they're in the same plane. Mr. Riccardi stated that the main element is stone. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the east elevation of building B he sees stone at the highest level and then he sees plaster. Mr. Riccardi stated that when he comes back with the working drawings he'll have it all worked out including the roof plans. He's using ledge stone and a lot of glass. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the thickness of the parapet is going to be. Mr. Riccardi stated that at the top of the roof it will probably be 6" but when you're looking up from the ground it will probably look like 4'-5'. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it has to be more than 6". Mr. Riccardi stated that when you look at it, it looks thick from the front or the side. He was asked to return the parapet back. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 14 MENOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to: (1) create more roof line variety by revising selected parapet elements with adequate thickness and returns, and (2) submit roof plan illustrating design. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILEY/CARVER, LLC, c/o The Carver Company, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and signage for Wal*Mart and Sam's Club buildings. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey Avenue (Southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) ZONE: PC-3 Martin Alvarez stated that the Commission was given revised elevations for Wal*Mart. The architect, Steve Eberra, was present to review the plans. The rest of the Carver team was also present and would like to get some input on some of the conceptual design themes that they're proposing for the rest of the center and any other issues with the site. At the next meeting they will have a full report on the landscaping for the entire site. There will also be a complete report and recommendation on signage for the site. They have a design guideline for their tenants, but they will still have to come back to the ARC to receive approval. Mr. Eberra stated that based on the last meeting, there were just a few things that he had to change for Sam's and Wal*Mart. On the Sam's elevation there were some comments regarding the trellis. There was a request that they double up on the trellis, which they have complied with. There wasn't much to do on the front but they did include one additional column. They popped out two elements at the doors. On the south elevation, they included signage at the top of the doors. The east elevation (rear of the building) had a series of five arches and Commissioner Vuksic liked the previous design better so they changed it back. They popped out two elements on the north elevation (facing Dinah Shore) On the west elevation of Wal*Mart (front elevation), they included an additional arch element which will reflect what they did on the Sam's building and included another trellis treatment between one of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 15 ' `. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES entries and the main portion of where it says Wal*Mart. All of the trellises are similar in detail. They also increased the width of the columns at the Garden Center with the correct orientation of the signage, which has been reduced in size. The letter is now 5' rather than 7' as it was shown previously. On the north elevation, they included some more elements on the far right of the Garden Center to bring up some high elements at the corner. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there's one portion of the west elevation that he totally forgot at the extreme southwest end of the building. This is a 40' x 80' area with nothing but signage on it and it doesn't look good. Mr. Eberra stated that the original submittal had trellises and they can put them back. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the treatment on the southwest corner of Sam's Club on the west elevation to the right. There is a trellis at this location. Below it, on the south elevation, there's a tower element and the trellis is on the front. Mr. Eberra is proposing to do the same thing on the Wal*Mart at the southwest corner. Commissioner Vuksic stated that that would be enough. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the trellis facing west on Wal*Mart should be proportionately longer. Mr. Eberra stated that there will be a lot of landscaping in this area. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the wall is 35' x 80' with nothing there except for signage and the trellis is going to help a lot. Mr. Eberra agreed. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the proportions of the columns where the wrought iron is at the Garden Center and the need for some more solid elements. Mr. Eberra stated that it doesn't really fit within the program of Wal*Mart. They like to keep everything open as much as possible. Mr. Drell stated that they were going to put shade cloth there anyways. Mr. Eberra stated that he would have to ask Wal*Mart how they feel about adding solid elements to the Garden Center. Their general answer is that it's not their desire to put a solid wall around their garden center, even if it's panels. Mr. Drell stated that it would help with the wind. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he understands that a lot of the wrought iron fencing goes around the side of the building where you're not really going to see it, but the front portion is going to be visible and right now it looks so austere. This is one of the reasons why he wants them to thicken the columns. Mr. Eberra stated that Wal*Mart has never allowed this before but if it's a condition because of the wind factor they might consider it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt that it's important as an architectural element to add something to that really long fence. Commissioner Gregory commented that if they refuse to use some solid elements, then maybe they could be a little more clever and interesting and not just have a long, inexpensive fence. These requests should be taken seriously. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the west elevation of Wal*Mart. Something needs to happen to create some interest on this elevation. He suggested some insets, decorative medallions or tile accents. Mr. Eberra stated that there will be shadow. Commissioner Hanson asked what the experience will be for people walking through that space. Mr. Eberra stated that he felt that there was some experience for people walking through this area. He suggested putting landscaping planters in front of the trellises. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't have enough information at this time to make a logical read on it. There is concern about somebody walking through the corridor. While there's interesting stuff happening on the outside of it, on the inside there is a very flat wall with nothing happening there. Mr. Eberra stated that there is a wainscot material on that wall and cultured stone material. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the scope of the project requires the ARC to be as conscious of all the finite details of this as they possibly can. It's overwhelming in scope so it's hard to grasp it all and put all of these elements together. The ARC has asked the-architects to integrate as much of the detail that's shown on the smaller buildings as possible on the big buildings. They've accommodated the ARC by doing this wherever reasonably possible, even to the point of adding the rafter tails and double trellis, etc... This is the focus that he would like the architects to continue to keep and try to incorporate as much as possible to make the two large buildings as compatible as possible with the smaller buildings. He realizes that the scale is different but he thinks that the architecture is supposed to be Santa Barbara Mission- style and with these different architectural elements, the more detail that's integrated into each of the elements the more finished it's going to look and the less like big warehouses. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he doesn't have any idea what the east elevation is going to look like. It's going to be 25' from street level. Mr. Drell stated that they're probably going to be doing site line studies. You won't see the buildings at all from the street level. There the landscape plan is going to be the most important issue. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they're at a disadvantage because all the ARC knows is that the site from Monterey is going to be relatively flat now, which makes the east end of the site with a steep slope. This will be most visible from Highway 10 and also the delivery trucks. All the other elevations really should be as detailed and as compatible with the guidelines for the smaller buildings and meet the criteria of Santa Barbara Mission-style as possible. Mr. Eberra stated that he will take their comments and respond to them. He discussed signage with the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would prefer that the signage be integrated into the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES facade. Mr. Eberra stated that this is not your typical cabinet-type signage. There is some depth and it is tastefully done. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he doesn't want the facades to be billboards for signs. The architecture should be the dominant part of these buildings. Mr. Eberra stated that the largest sign is a 10' x 10' Sam's Club blue diamond. The secondary sign is an 8' x 8' diamond, which is proportionately scaled to the tower. The north and east elevations will have an 8' x 8' diamond. Commissioner O'Donnell asked that the signs be recessed. Commissioner Hanson asked about the "Always" sign on Wal*Mart. The back of the "Always" sign is cal wall. Mr. Eberra stated that this is a system they have so that in the daytime when there is no backlight, it's opaque. The "Always" is not illuminated. It's a back lit sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that she does not like that because it's a huge area and the whole wall will glow. Mr. Eberra stated that it would produce a white glow. Mr. Drell stated that at night it will be the most visible part of the building. Mr. Eberra stated that the only thing that's illuminated is the Wal*Mart sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that with the cal wall sign, that's technically illuminated. Mr. Eberra stated that it will silhouette the "Always". The other signs are plaques that are bolted to the wall. They will be visible during the daytime, but not in the evening. Mr. Alvarez asked about the "We sell for less" sign. Is it a registered trademark? Mr. Eberra stated that this is a slogan. Mr. Alvarez stated that the ordinance prohibits slogans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that now that the Wal*Mart sign is smaller, there seems to be a very large field of plaster between the Wal*Mart sign and the two windows that are on the edges. He asked if the windows should come in at all or does he like them where they are? Mr. Eberra stated that he could move them in a little bit. Commissioner Gregory suggested forming a subcommittee to go over the signage with the architect and then make a presentation to the ARC. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's very hard for them to review something when they get it during the meeting because none of them have had the chance to look at it and really think about it. Mr. Eberra stated that he would be more than happy to sit down with a couple of members of the Commission to work out the location of the signage. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that a Commission and/or City landscape person sit in on the subcommittee as well. The landscape is the responsibility of the shopping center but it should be integrated into the architectural design as well. Mr. Drell stated that at this stage we GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES probably don't need another landscaping person present besides Diane Hollinger. Commissioner Gregory was interested in the landscape planters. A landscape plan will be presented to the ARC at the next meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell appointed Commissioner Gregory to the subcommittee because of his experience. The Commission needs to have a more comprehensive look at how all of this project works together. The landscaping will be discussed at the next ARC meeting. The applicant would like to get the design guidelines endorsed by the Commission. This is critical for the future of the project so that the tenants and the City work together. From the last meeting and from the start of this project, there's always been concern about the grades. There is a 20' grade difference front to back and a 60' grade difference along Monterey. They have a couple of issues in that they have some fairly major buildings so they can't do a 2% slope across the front doors. By the time you go 2% across 800', there is a significant difference. You'll never see more than the top 10'-12' of the large buildings. You'll never see the loading docks unless you're in a three- story office building across the street. The conceptual landscape plan shows that there's a lot of landscaping. They're trying to go with a palate that's a little bit different. They don't have just a straight row of trees but have tried to have a grove of trees throughout the parking lot. Ms. Hollinger is working with the applicant in terms of what will grow in this location. One thing to think about for the next meeting is regarding the necessity for a 6' screen wall the entire length of Lucas Way. Fifty- six acres will be developed in the first phase. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the elevation difference is from street grade up to the top. The grade difference is 32'. All of the slopes will be landscaped. The material for the screen walls will probably be a crib wall. Commissioner Lopez stated that one thing that they'll probably have to deal with is areas where people may get behind and sleep. He's had to deal with this problem is certain landscaping areas, especially since it's near the railroad tracks. Commissioner Vuksic asked if transients actually travel on trains. The applicant stated that they intend to use a "green screen" which is a framework that allows for vines to climb on. Commissioner Hanson stated that whatever is planted behind the buildings will probably be fine but she suggested planting a small area in the front and water it now and see how it does because this is a very windy location. If it's in a windy spot she was concerned about how those plants will do on the green screen. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory was concerned about the 2:1 slopes between the retaining walls. It's very difficult to get the native soil to stay up there on that angle. Rounded particles hate sitting still at that angle. He suggested some kind of bench at the top and some type of swail at the bottom so that if there is rain or if the irrigation system gets stuck on will water go everywhere. They have 32' to make up in a fairly limited area so what will happen is that the retaining wall will grow to get a 3:1 slope, which means that there will be more wall exposed. Commissioner Gregory stated that it could be an interesting design feature, rather than something that's more standardized like the proposed plan with all the problems that may occur with it. Commissioner Hanson stated that she used a product made by Orco Block, which are interlocking blocks and the batter is very insignificant. They literally set into each other. The gaps are too small to plant anything in but a wall could be built pretty high and not take up a lot of depth. Commissioner Lopez stated that crib walls are used along freeways and around tunnels at golf courses and have gaps for planting material. After a while the wall disappears due to the landscaping. The applicant wants to eliminate the upper garden wall. Mr. Drell stated that a photograph is going to be created that's going to show different views of the buildings and their visibility from the roads. The retention basin is subterranean and will be under the parking lot. Mr. Alvarez stated that the landscaping is informational only at this point and will come back at the next ARC meeting with plans for recommendation of endorsement of the design guidelines, including landscaping, parking, pad buildings, colors, signs and locations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the parking access at the Desert Crossing shopping center is really bad and the proposed parking access for the Gateway shopping center is exactly the same and it will not work. At the entrance to Desert Crossing, it gets too congested with people trying to figure out which way they need to go in order to get to a store. It would be much more functional if a person could come in and then peel off to the parking and still have access points out off the main aisle. She is urging the applicant to really take a look at this because it's very important. Mark Greenwood has a problem with this as well. There are a lot of elderly people here and they get confused in the parking lot. Commissioner O'Donnell complimented the applicant on the impressive set of design guidelines. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture and signage, which will be inset, for Sam's Club. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for preliminary approval of elevations for Wal*Mart, subject to changes made on plans. Signage and exterior colors to be approved by subcommittee. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for continuance of landscaping, including site plan, to allow subcommittee to meet and review plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: VAR 02-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RAYMOND D. MOSER, 74-211 Peppergrass Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Variance to reduce front entry garage setback on the street side yard. LOCATION: 74-211 Peppergrass Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ZONE: R-1 Francisco Urbina stated that this is an older home on a corner lot at the corner of Peppergrass Street and Quailbrush Avenue. The garage has been converted to a utility room prior to the purchase by Mr. Moser. Mr. Moser stated that he wants to put his car under cover but he's running into problems placing the garage on the property because of the house location. The proposed garage would have an entrance off of Quailbrush and it has to be 20' feet from the property line which means 32' from the curb. He is proposing a breezeway and a garage. Commissioner Gregory stated that the garage door will be 22' off curb face. Mr. Bagato stated that they may change the code so that on corner lots, street-side garage entry 20' from the curb would be acceptable because the garage wouldn't be in the front of the house. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he met with Tom Firek from Cypress Estates to go over the comments made at the last ARC meeting. They attempted to implement them, but some of the things weren't implemented or were misunderstood so he red-marked the plans a second time. Today Tom Firek has shown up today and he's not on the agenda. He hasn't contacted the Planning Department. He's shown up to go over the plans. The Commission was asked if Mr. Firek should be added to the agenda. He was told that this is very unorthodox. Mr. Alvarez commented that if the Commission doesn't have enough information to make a decision they shouldn't put him on the agenda. Mr. Bagato didn't have a chance to review the changes. Mr. Firek didn't submit the plans in time to get on the agenda as he was informed last week. He was aware of the time frame and the process. The Commission agreed that they would not add Mr. Firek to the agenda today. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. TONY BAGATO PLANNING TECHNICIAN G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020611.MIN 22