Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-25 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JUNE 25, 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 10 1 Kristi Hanson X 9 2 Neil Lingle X 8 3 Richard O'Donnell X 11 0 Chris Van Vliet X 10 1 John Vuksic X 10 1 Ray Lopez X 9 0 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 11, 2002 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the minutes of June 11, 2002. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25,2002 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: Reconsideration of reflective glass. LOCATION: 74-900 Gerald Ford Drive, Hampton Inn & Suites ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Smith stated that this was before the Commission two weeks ago. The Commission approved the change in the window frame color, but did not approve the reflective glass. The Commission was given a packet of information regarding the reflective glass and the applicant has brought in glass samples for review. Chuck Bhakta, applicant, was present and showed the Commission three glass samples. Commissioner Gregory stated that he looked at the building at the corner of Portola and Highway 111 which used reflective-type glass. One thing that struck him was that on a small building, such as that one, he didn't find it a problem but was concerned about having a lot more reflective glass on a large building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that it's also a matter of the style of architecture. On a more contemporary building, it would be somewhat appealing. On a more traditional-style building, it would be less appealing. Commissioner Lopez commented on reflective coating over a clear window. He saw a home recently with mirrored windows. The Commission needs to know how much is not good. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's very hard to tell in a dark room what the samples shown are actually going to look like. Commissioner O'Donnell has seen enough large buildings with reflective glass to know that it wouldn't work with this type of architecture. He doesn't think that they could prevent homeowners from tinting their windows. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked why Mr. Bhakta is showing the Commission three different samples with different types of glass. Mr. Bhakta would like the Commission to chose one sample. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the information that was given to him was very difficult to understand. Commissioner Hanson stated that they all know that it's possible to get glass without reflectivity that has energy efficiency. It's not a mandatory requirement to have reflective glass. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he doesn't feel that the reflective glass is suitable for a hotel building. He's opposed to using reflective glass on this proposal. For this type of architecture and this hotel he would say no. Commissioner Hanson agreed. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't mind. reflective glass on a commercial building on a nice, contemporary high rise in New York City. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission feels comfortable with other types of glass that aren't so highly reflective that would still provide energy efficiency. Commissioner Hanson stated that tinted glass is okay, but reflective glass is not. The applicant stated that the owner wants to save as much money as he can in the long run. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't feel that it would make that much of a difference regarding energy conservation if the windows were reflective. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are options available that do not include the mirror that are as effective. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they understand the issue of economics of energy efficiency, however, the Commission has to look at this from the point of view of aesthetics and that's what they're commenting on. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of tinted windows with no heightened reflectivity (no mirror). Motion carried 7-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 02-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELTA GROUPS ENGINEERING; TODD SMITH for AT&T WIRELESS, 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised wall design. LOCATION: 74-876 42nd Avenue (Stor America Self Storage) ZONE: S I Action: Commissioner .Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion subject to the base diameter not exceeding 24" and adding palms in quantity, size and height to the satisfaction of the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELTA GROUPS ENGINEERING, TODD SMITH for AT&T WIRELESS, 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine, CA 92688 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised wall design. LOCATION: 74-700 Highway 111 ZONE: PC/PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion subject to the base diameter not exceeding 24". Motion carried 7-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 02-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEANNE AKIN, 73-910 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of modification to exterior elevation on an existing building. LOCATION: 73-910 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260, HILLIS FURS ZONE: C-1 The Commission received revised plans in their packets. John Stanford, architect, was present and stated that they put the signage above the windows. He took a photograph from across the street and superimposed the drawing onto the photograph, which shows that the signs are visible above the windows. He felt that the visibility of the signs were not an issue. Commissioner Gregory stated that they were concerned whether or not the applicant has sufficient room or visibility for signage so they don't come back later with an impossible situation. Jeanne Akin, applicant, stated that they have much more visibility with the new plan than what they have now. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is an unusual situation because the Commission is trying to help the applicant in the event that they're not satisfied later and want to change something. They're trying to give the applicant every opportunity to make sure that they feel comfortable about what's being proposed. Sonia Campbell, tenant, was present and stated that she would like to have the ability to move the sign to the parapet if she's not happy with the sign when it's placed above the window. Commissioner Gregory asked if the sign that would be proposed above the awning different than the currently proposed sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked if she wants to take the same sign and putting it on the parapet. Ms. Campbell stated that the letters that she has on her awning now are 13" and 10". Ms. Campbell is proposing only moving one sign to the parapet. Ms. Akin wants to keep her sign below the awning. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that where two store fronts are tied together with one fixed canopy, such as this, he would prefer the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES signage for both store fronts be at the same location, either underneath the fixed canopy or above the fixed canopy. The height, projection and color of the canopy is the same as the original proposal. Ms. Campbell is concerned about whether her sign will have the visibility that she wants. Ms. Akin agreed that both signs should either be. above or below the canopy for the sake of continuity. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if the signage was placed above the canopy you probably won't be able to see it as well from the street level. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they should build the structure and then look and see which location would be best. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wanted the applicant to understand that the size of sign that they're allowed to have isn't what they're going to get and won't be able to get with the plan the way it is. Commissioner Gregory stated that they won't get the maximum size that they're allowed to get because of other constraints. Commissioner Hanson stated that everyone who comes in and wants a sign wants the biggest possible sign that they can have. They won't be able to get the largest possible sign architecturally with what they're proposing. The allotted area of space for signage is smaller than what they're allowed to have. Ms. Campbell stated that if the signs don't work below the canopy they can move them above the canopy. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of architectural design and signage location with the applicant having the option to move both signs to parapet above the canopy if they are not visible at the approved location below the canopy with Architectural Review Commission approval. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRY KIM, MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTS, 1110 112T" Avenue NE, #500, Bellevue, WA 98004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for a 15,510 square foot addition. LOCATION: 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive, COSTCO WHOLESALE ZONE: PC G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion subject to Landscape Manager approval. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 02-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOST HORSE MOUNTAIN, LLC., 45- 445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of an 18,960 square foot commercial/retail building located on Cook Street just north of Gerald Ford Drive. LOCATION: West side of Cook Street, northerly of Gerald Ford Drive and fronting on Technology Drive ZONE: PCD (Planned Community Development) Francisco Urbina stated that this is a .3 acre site to the northeast of the Hampton Inn. This site is part of a larger master plan of development called Wonder Palms. The master plan of development has design guidelines. The architectural style called for is custom contemporary desert influence which can include a variety of traditional styles such as Mexican, Southwest, Mission and Spanish. This is a tenant office/warehouse building of approximately 19,000 square feet. The applicant's objective was to try to create an architectural style which was not a typical strip mall type of development. To accomplish that the architect has varied roof styles including hip, shed tile and flat roofs. There are colonnades along the east, south and west sides approximately 6' deep. Some of them are covered by solid roofs and others by trellises. The building also includes a lot of 'offsets to distinguish each of the separate tenant building facades. The applicant did not submit colored elevations or a materials board yet because he would like input from the Commission on the architectural style. Staff recommends, at the applicant's request, that the ARC continue this review to the July 91h meeting but he would like to hear their comments on the architectural style being proposed. Commissioner Hanson stated that part of the building is contemporary Mediterranean, but then there's a southwestern element that didn't fit G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES in. She asked what's going in to the north of the site. Matt Johnson, applicant/developer, stated that he's going to be designing all the buildings to the north and along Cook Street and 1-10 for the next 3/4 of a mile. As the buildings transition from north to west they'll be working more to the "industrial flavor" with primarily 10-20% of office and the rest primarily warehousing. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's a wall with no answer to what might actually go there with a very stark face. Mr. Johnson stated that they've added quite a bit of architectural relief in that area. There are pop-outs around the roll up doors. There is a reciprocal driveway between the building site and the parcel to the north. The building to the north will have its roll up doors face that driveway. The problem with the site is that it's hard to tell the front from the back. Cook Street is on one side and Gerald Ford is on the other with Technology Drive on the west. If he does two buildings back to back, then he can keep the trucks in one area and everything else would go on the outside. Commissioner Hanson commented that the issue that he's going to have is people coming down Cook Street and looking into the site. The area would need to be screened somehow, possibly with landscaping or walls. Mr. Johnson stated that Cook Street and Gerald Ford are at grade level and then it continues up. At the rear of the building, Cook Street is 18' above the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how much of a separation there will be between buildings. Mr. Johnson stated that the driveway will be 24'-30' and about 20' to the buildings with a total of approximately 60'770'. The corridor will be visible. Mr. Johnson stated that this is his second set of elevations. He was told that the first set was "destined for failure". He had 4-5 meetings on this and was informed that he should give each tenant space their own identity, which is what he's attempted to do so that they don't need a big, gigantic sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned about the north elevation. It sounds like you will see it. There is a 2:1 slope. If a person is driving south looking down over the shoulder it will be very visible and suggested "taking it up a notch" on the north elevation. Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Drell suggested they look at some of the buildings on El Paseo for ideas. He suggested screening this area with landscaping. Commissioner Hanson stated that sometimes the landscaping "goes away" and then they're left with the visual corridor. Mr. Johnson stated that he put fingers around the back on the east and west sides of the building for landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he took it one step further it wouldn't be so hard to screen. He GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES can't depend on landscaping to screen this area. Adding depth would make a lot of difference. On the plan, this is a completely flat wall the entire way. He showed things that looked like pop-outs, but the plan doesn't reflect it. Mr. Johnson stated that his architect didn't get it done in time for the meeting. Mr. Johnson stated that he intends to have an overall site plan available showing Arco, the Hampton Inn, the restaurant site and the proposed building site for the Commission to review. He has instructed the engineer to coordinate the grades and elevations and get the landscaping plans from both Arco and the Hampton Inn and instructed Ray Martin to review these. He's trying to coordinate his project with the colors, textures and materials so that they're similar to the surrounding buildings. His intent is that when someone pulls off of Cook Street and looks at all three buildings and landscaping that they all look like one project and harmonious. This is his goal and has been his direction. Commissioner Gregory stated that before a decision is made on the architecture of the building the Commission should see the proposed landscape design. The landscape plan is not complete. Spencer Knight stated that he shouldn't take too much off the Hampton Inn landscape plans because they haven't been approved. Commissioner Lopez stated that Mr. Johnson's plant list looks fine, but it looks like there's a lot of area that's empty. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that Mr. Johnson submit a roof plan and make sure that the roof-top equipment isn't sticking up over the top or put them someplace else. If you're higher than eye level with the parapet and you can see the equipment on the parapet you're up above the building, but if you're at eye level or lower you should not see the equipment. Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Johnson to elaborate on the comment he made earlier when he said that this is the first building and then are planning on building out on Cook Street and along 1-10 and wanted to know how many buildings he's talking about. Mr. Johnson stated that he's planning on putting in 17 buildings. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the proposed building is the prototype for the rest of the buildings. Mr. Johnson stated that it is not and that the other buildings are industrial in nature and are "just going to be boxes". G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES Mr. O'Donnell stated that there's very little in this presentation of architecture that excites him. He's seen it all before and it's somewhat boring. He feels that it needs to be distinguished by something more than what's existing nearby and trying to match it. He wouldn't mind it if he made a major departure from the other buildings that are there. He feels that he has a lot of opportunity to do something else. Every retail space looks the same. He's venturing into new territory at this site and he would hope that he would so something with far more distinctive architecture than this. Mr. Johnson stated that the intent of this building is to try to service the local area and all of the business that are going to be located in the industrial section of the project. He's tried to "doll it up" to point where it's retail oriented. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would like to see something more distinctive with more detail to it. He would hope that Mr. Johnson would come back with something different. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's looks too generic. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the building is book-ended by two towers and everything is predictable. There's nothing that's going to encourage somebody to go into the building that's different from any other retail space. Commissioner Hanson remarked on the Lighthouse near Costco, which she felt was a very exciting building. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that a building like that causes people to wonder what's in there. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the new Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, which is so radically different but causes people to look at it. Commissioner Gregory stated that in the architects' effort to use elements from all different types of design actually creates a blandness because of that. Commissioner Hanson stated that some of the more interesting buildings on El Paseo have very plain back sides, but they skew something off a little bit which causes a break in plane and make it more interesting and it essentially becomes a facade. This is exactly what the Lighthouse did. That was basically a box that they just planted things on but did things that either made it very tall, very narrow, changed the planes, etc... Mr. Johnson stated that what this architecture was attempting to do was provide individual tenant identification so that they don't need a gigantic sign so that part of their building was their sign. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was disappointed in the direction of the architecture. It reminds him of a Moreno Valley strip mall-type of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 10 • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES architecture. The other issue is the box-type buildings that Mr. Johnson had commented on earlier. The architect could do some unique architecture there as well. Just because it's an industrial area doesn't mean that you can't do some really high-quality architecture. Other places, such as Orange County, have some really spectacular industrial buildings. Mr. Johnson stated that he went to the Irvine Spectrum and duplicated one of the buildings in Thousand Palms. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to give the applicant the opportunity to reconsider architecture. Landscape plan must be available for further Commission consideration. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: TT 29692 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CYPRESS ESTATES, LLC, P.O. Box 1686, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for eight homes. LOCATION: 46-200 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he met with the applicant and made some changes on the plans. The Commission was shown a set of corrected plans based on Commissioner Vuksic's comments. Tom Firek, applicant, was present and stated that the changes have been made. They added pop-outs around the windows giving them depth and extended the exposed rafter tails, which are 4 x 6. They put 2" x 6" surrounds around everything. They re-proportioned the windows in the towers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wasn't sure what to do in cases where there was stone and then when you go around the side of the house there was nowhere for the stone to stop. In these cases, they took the stone back to some reasonable distance and then furred out a 12" wide x 6" column that went right up to the eave from the bottom and let the stone die into it. Commissioner Hanson stated that she thought that it was odd that they have stone in the exact opposite locations where she would put it. She would put it on the entry tower and accent elements and not the background. The projections would be stone and the background G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U N E 25, 2002 MINUTES would go away. Mr. Firek stated that if he got approval he would do that. Mr. Smith asked about the status of the surrounding wall. Mr. Firek stated that their plan is to finish the front of the wall around Portola and go right around the back as long as they have the crew there. All the wall caps need to be put on and the owner of the property wants to make it look good. Mr. Smith stated that there have been questions relative to the exterior of the wall as it adjoins other properties. Mr. Firek stated that he knows about that. What happened is that when they originally built the block wall they didn't line the grout lines in so they (the property owners) have to go in and actually grind it down and make it look good. Commissioner Lingle stated that this was done on the wall on his property and it doesn't look good and he's indicated that fact and he won't vote on anything relative to this project in terms of approval until it's appropriate. He's been messing around with this problem for months and it's absolutely unacceptable. Nobody has been in contact with him from the company. Mr. Firek stated that he could give him Mark Ladida's phone number. Commissioner Lingle stated that he doesn't need his number. He doesn't know what information is being provided to Mr. Firek and Mr. Alexander but he thinks that they need to know the truth. The truth is that there are some very unhappy property owners and his sense is that they'll be in court and they'll have to file an injunction to stop this development and this is what he intends to do. They can fix it and go on with their development or he'll see them in court. Craig Alexander suggested that he be advised what he prefers and he will do everything possible to work with him and rectify the problem. He wants to keep the neighbors happy so that he doesn't have any problems. Commissioner Lingle stated that he has problems. Mr. Alexander stated that he needs to hear about them. Commissioner Lingle stated that he's hearing it and he'd be glad to invite him up to his home so that he can take a look at it and see the wall for himself and see if it would be acceptable for where he would live. Mr. Alexander stated that if it's bad then he'll definitely fix it. Commissioner Lingle stated that he can assure him that this is the case. If they intend to fix it he'll take their word for it but his sense is that it's not going to happen. Mr. Alexander stated that he would like to schedule an appointment with him right after this meeting. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to reversing the application of stone on elevations so that stone is placed on the accent elements (not background) and also add stone to three chimneys. Motion carried 6-1- 0-0 with Commissioner Lingle opposed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2002 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 02-88 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Alessandro, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised landscaping for new office building. LOCATION: San Pablo (north of San Gorgonio) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Gregory abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020625.MIN 13