Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-26 `�+' � ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MARCH 26, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:15 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 1 Kristi Hanson X 5 1 Neil Lingle X 3 3 Richard O'Donnell X 6 0 Chris Van Vliet X 6 0 John Vuksic X 6 0 Ray Lopez X 4 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 12, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of March 12, 2002. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent and Commissioner Hanson abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Smith introduced the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, who was present to talk to the Commission. Mr. Erwin stated that he has been going to all of the Committees and Commissions in the City to have a short 1 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES discussion about the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act of 1974 regarding the Fair Political Practices Commission and Conflict of Interest. He stated that before people were appointed to a number of the City committees and commissions they had a meeting in the evening going over all of this. He commented that some of the newer appointments have been to those meetings. The City has realized that there are a lot of people who have been on these committees and commissions for a number of years before the City ever started this process. The purpose is to familiarize them as a precaution so that nobody gets into any trouble. He stated that the Commission is, in the definition of the Brown Act or Open Meeting Law, a legislative body. What it says is that the meetings need to have an agenda which has to be posted ahead of time for a certain period of time and the Commission acts upon those items that are on the agenda. He commented that if there are items that are not on the agenda that they want to act on, it has to come up under certain circumstances so it can be placed on the agenda. He stated that one of the things that the staff is particularly good about is making sure that the agendas get posted. He stated that there are usually some areas for a commissioner to bring up items that are not on the agenda and they can usually get them on at the next meeting, or something of that nature. He commented that they must be on a public agenda. Mr. Erwin stated that the whole focus of the Brown Act is that the public's business will be done in public. He stated that what he has been seeing lately is a very strict interpretation coming out of the court system on the Brown Act. He commented that the most recent case came down two weeks ago going to great lengths criticizing the San Diego City Council for some of their meetings in closed session that dealt with Qualcomm Stadium and negotiations of that. The City Council was not cited criminally, but there were injunctions issued against them requiring them to tape the closed sessions so that they did not have any violations in the future. He stated that the court went to great lengths to make sure that they don't violate the Brown Act. Mr. Erwin stated that the whole purpose of this is that there are certain things that can be done in closed session, but unless you find a specific reason for being in closed session you need to have it out in the open. Such that if anybody wants to walk in, they can walk in. They can see the agenda and can see what is going to be talked about. He stated that assuming that the Commission does get into a closed session, 2 , �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES there are certain items if they take action that must be reported afterward. He commented that it is unlikely that this Commission is going to be iri any closed sessions, although that possibility does exist, particularly if they get into some sort of litigation that might involve decisions made by this Commission. He stated that so far we have not had to do that, but the possibility does exist. If that occurs, either Mr. Erwin or somebody from his office will be present and they will guide the Commission. He stated that the courts are looking at the Brown Act even more strictly now than they have done in the past so it is probably a good reason for him to be around to remind the commission of it. Mr. Erwin stated that potentially a meeting can be a quorum of this body in any place talking about anything within their subject matter of jurisdiction. This is not to say that they shouldn't be at various meetings with other members and can certainly talk about anything, but he would like to caution the Commission not to talk about any item that is coming before them. He stated that it can be very innocent, but talking about any items on the agenda is a violation of the Brown Act. He stated that the commission should be cautious about this. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what is considered to be a quorum. Mr. Erwin stated that since there are seven members of the Commission, therefore four would be a quorum. He stated that there are a lot of events where all of the City Council is invited, so this is much more likely to occur with the City Council. He stated that he would like to caution the Commission about e-mails and telephone conferences. This happens when one commissioner talks to another commissioner who talks to another commissioner, etc... Mr. Erwin stated another scenario is when the first two talk and they each talk to one other commissioner. This could potentially be a meeting and they may have violated the Brown Act if they are talking about that subject. He stated that they have to be particularly cautious about sending e-mail. He commented that the City does get Public Records requests for copies of e-mail that are on the City system. He stated that the City is required to produce these. Commissioner Vuksic asked if this happens at the City Council level. Mr. Erwin stated that he's sure it does and he constantly talks to the council members about it and questions them about it. He commented that they are much more likely to be targets than the ARC members. Mr. Erwin stated that Fair Political Practices is an issue where you have conflicts of interest. Each member of the commission has been asked to fill out the normal conflict disclosure forms each year indicating what has occurred over the last year. He stated that this is a requirement 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES that has been put in place by the voters of California in 1974. They wanted to make sure that the public officials are not doing anything bad and if they are they want to know about it. Mr. Erwin stated that the filings of those forms are public record. Anybody could come in and request to see them and the City would have to produce them. He stated that basically the Political Reform Act is there for the purpose of reflecting and causing those individuals who have an economic interest in the decision to abstain from that decision. This commission probably gets into that area more than any other committee or commission in the City because of their professions. He stated that they are always involved in this sort of thing. He commented that if there is a concern, then abstain. An abstention solves all the problems. Disclose the problem and abstain. Mr. Erwin stated that he has a chart which he will send to the Commission. He commented that he will have to enlarge it as it is very small, but shows all of the economic interests that could create a problem. Mr. Erwin also spoke to the Commission about Government Code Section 1090. He stated that this is a prohibition and it prohibits any City officers or employees from entering into a contract with the board or a body of which they are a member. The 1090 carries criminal penalties and it also carries some very severe civil penalties. An example is a case called Thompson vs. Kohl where one member of the City Council decided to buy property from him. He went through a very elaborate scheme of organizing a couple of corporations and ultimately it was him through the shells of the corporation. A taxpayer got wind of it and sued the City and the individual. The result was that the individual was found to have violated 1090, he was put on probation, he had to give back all the money that the City had paid him and the City got to keep the property. Mr. Erwin stated that each member of the Commission could individually go out and deal with the City directly. He commented that if the contract comes through this body and is recommended by this body, then there is a real problem. He stated that you just don't want that connection. It is the connection between the individual and the committee or commission that they are a part of. Mr. Erwin stated that there is a case that just came down last week where they have extended this to an employee. They said that an employee cannot have anything to do with a contract that is entered into between a developer and the City if the employee's spouse has some connection with the developer. He commented that is a 1090 violation. They are in effect saying that because of that, this developer cannot enter into a contract with the City because an employee's wife works for another company who deals with that developer. 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Erwin stated that if the Commission has any questions, that they shouid feel free to call him. With respect to adoption of the minutes of March 12, 2002, Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to be clear regarding the action on Dyson & Dyson. He stated that the first action may be appealed. He asked if the reason why the Commission was reducing the sign height to 15" maximum was due to the color change and the contrast that it was creating. He asked that if that was not the Commission's finding, then we will take that out of the record. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was because of the proportion of the sign relative to the facade that it was being mounted to. The minutes were corrected accordingly. A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: CUP 97-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHAUN HYMAN, WALGREENS, 44- 830 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revision to sign program. LOCATION: 44-830 Monterey Avenue; Walgreens ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that Walgreens has recently obtained approval to be open 24 hours and are adding the words 24 hours to their wall signs and they are changing the face of their existing freestanding sign. Shaun Hyman, applicant, stated that the plans have been redrawn with a red background with white letters but it can be reversed. The sign will be wrapped in masonry all the way around and the words Drive Thru Pharmacy have been removed. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant to explain how the transition is going to work out between the existing split face and the new split face. Mr. Hyman stated that the sign is going to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. � G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020226..min.wpd 5 `�` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES The Commission discussed the color of the background. Mr. Drell stated that it's located in a pretty bright environment. Commissioner Hanson stated that she goes by there a lot and she doesn't even remember that sign being there. She stated that she is more focused on the building than on the sign. Commissioner Gregory asked what color the background is now. Mr. Drell stated that it's red. Commissioner Gregory commented that if the sign has not been a distractive influence on them, then the sign face is probably okay. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the white background might be more offensive. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of revised plans showing the addition of split face block around the sides and top to match the building. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 02-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): QUIEL BROTHERS SIGN COMPANY for PRECISE SIGN, 272 South "I" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Frazee Paint LOCATION: 39-760 Garand Lane, Suite A ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith stated that the location of this business is in the industrial park off of Country Club and Washington. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is here with a request for a 40 square foot sign. He is proposing a sign with one extra color but because iYs smaller it has met the reduction standard. Mr. Bagato commented that he felt that it was a little too high on the building and they are removing a light fixture and should be moved down and be installed in the center of the facade. He stated that the applicant is also proposing a raceway which is 8" deep and he felt that it was too thick and should be redesigned in a different manner. He also commented that it doesn't line up with the lettering and the background will blend in with the building and would like to see them all line up evenly. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020226..min.wpd 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson asked about the dimensions. Mr. Bagato stated that according to the plans, the raceway is 8" deep. Commissioner Hanson suggested using a remote transformer. Dale Teague, permit technician for Quiel Brothers, was present and stated that the reason why they proposed the exposed raceway was to reduce the number of holes drilled into the new building. He also stated that they had some concerns with where the roof line is for access to the back side of the roof. He stated that he has no problem conforming to the recommendations of the staff as far as the overall height of the raceway or adjusting the placement of the sign. Mr. Teague stated that the overall projection of the sign itself including the raceway and the letters would be 12" minimum including the letter and the raceway. Commissioner Hanson asked if he could do a remote transformer and eliminate the raceway. Mr. Teague stated that the main question would be where the roof line is. If it falls right in the center of where the letters are you can't drill holes through the roof line. He stated that is the main reason why they would use a raceway like that. He stated that the property owner asked that he use the raceway, therefore he would only need one hole through the wall for the primary power supply and the raceway would contain all of the electrical. He stated that with a channel letter he would have to drill two holes through the building for each letter. Mr. Teague stated that Quiel Brothers is doing this for another sign company that is based in Arizona that handles Frazee's sign account nationwide. Mr. Teague stated that he is handling the permits and installation for a company called Precise Signs. Commissioner Vuksic asked why he couldn't get permission to go and look at the condition of the building. Mr. Teague stated that the building was brand new and there was no tenant inside. He commented that he surveyed the outside of the building and were not able to get inside. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could have a raceway that would be just big enough to accommodate wires and then all come out of one area and put the transformer somewhere else. Mr. Teague stated that he could, however, wherever the back side of the wall is, that is where the roof line comes through and is where he would run into problems with accessing that side of the letters. Commissioner Hanson stated that they might have problems, but it is not necessarily impossible. He stated that he really won't know until he does a specific survey and he was unable to do that. He stated that initially, aside from those problems it was really at the request of the property owner just to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020226..min.wpd � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES reduce the damage to the building in case a new tenant comes in and there will be one hole, as opposed to as many as twenty. Mr. Teague stated that he needs access either from the backside of the parapet above the roof line or from the inside of the building below the roof line, possibly in the drop ceiling area. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doubts that there is a hard ceiling and is probably a drop ceiling or open ceiling. He wanted to know why they would have trouble getting access to that area. Commissioner Gregory commented that he assumed that the applicant is taking the safe way with this request. Mr. Teague stated that he is following the direction that was given to him from the other sign company. He stated that he spoke to them after he looked at the staff report to get an idea of what they can do, what is possible and what they have agreed to do through Frazee. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they have a probfem with the use of a raceway in an industrial situation. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that a sign of that size is a problem. He commented that he does not understand why it has to be so deep. He asked why they couldn't go up through the inside and penetrate below the roof line. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the Commission give the applicant an opportunity to physically inspect the building understanding what the concerns are and then continue it for a couple of weeks so that he can come back and give them something closer to what the Commission looks for. He stated that from his perspective, if you have a raceway, squish it so it's not so thick. Mr. Teague asked what the maximum projection would be. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he wanted to put the Commission's concern into context. He stated that in ten years he has never seen the ARC approve a raceway that is 12" deep. In recent years they have negotiated with sign companies down to a 4" projection from the building. He stated that the Commission will be looking for a maximum projection, from his point of view, of 4". Mr. Teague asked if it was for the raceway only and then the letter itself would be 5" deep. Commissioner O'Donnell said that he wants a total projection from the building of 4". Mr. Drell stated that he does not think that they've ever had a raceway with a total projection of 4". He stated that maybe he could go from 7" to 4" on the raceway, but the letter is still going to be typically 5". G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 AGENDA Commissioner Hanson stated that she does not want it to look like a big can stuck up there. She commented that they approved the Del Rio's sign and that looks like it has a little bit of a detail to it so it looks like it's supposed to be there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a car wash came by not that long ago and proposed a can sign and the Commission did quite a bit to it. It turned out to be sort of a "disguised" can similar to the Del Rio's sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that she did not agree with centering the sign between the palm trees. She suggested centering it above the doorway. Mr. Teague stated that the actual entrance to the building is not even on that elevation. Commissioner Hanson stated that the palm trees could die. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the proportions shown on the diagram are fairly accurate. Mr. Teague stated that the diagrams are to scale. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that this is a big sign at 4'6" x 6'4". Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic granted approval subject to maximum 4" deep raceway, 5" or less letters, add design element on edge of raceway and center sign above doorway. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 3. 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: Approval of LED stripe on canopy and building. LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. ARCO ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Mr. Smith stated that several weeks ago the Commission approved the working drawings for Arco. At that time, they had included a detail G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R020226..min.wpd 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 AGENDA which we didn't understand, calling for an LED stripe around the overhang on the entrance and around the perimeter of the canopy. He stated that he now has an example of the stripe. Mr. Smith stated that it is a small neon tube done LED style, which uses less energy and it is set into a reveal. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how bright it will be. Mr. Smith stated that the brightness is equal to neon. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it could be dimmed. Mr. Drell stated that this is right at the freeway interchange, so this is going to be a highly lit area. Mr. Smith commented that at the other freeway entrance we have the theaters in Rancho Mirage and this is a much smaller application. Mr. Smith stated that it shows red in the example but he thought it was white. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval with the understanding that the stripe is white. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 02-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NORBERTO F. NARDI, AIA, 122 South Vine Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof height of single-family residence. LOCATION: 73-300 Grapevine Street ZONE: MISC 02-05 Mr. Drell stated that this is an addition to an existing house on the corner of Grapevine and Desert Lily. There is a berm on Desert Lily. If you measure from the top of the berm the addition is 15' high. If this was measured from the original grade it would be over 15'. Just the peak of the tower would be over 15'. Norberto Nardi, applicant, is present and stated that the roof material is clay tile but it's sunken. He dropped the cone down and added a gutter around it. He stated that he is connecting the internal courtyard. He commented that one section is partially sunken to minimize the impact. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R020226..min.wpo l� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 AGENDA Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: TT 30030 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS�: BOULDERS AT PALM DESERT, P.O. Box 1901, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscaping. LOCATION: 37-801 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR 5 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has received preliminary approval subject to changing lots 8 & 9 to have three-car garages instead of four- car garages. He stated that according to the elevations, that has been changed. He commented that landscaping has not received final approval. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission had also based their preliminary approval on having the drainage through the wall and the plans show scuppers. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could have non-operative decorative scuppers. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would be much better to have the drainage through the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that scuppers make a mess on the landscaping and stain the wall. Gabriel Lujan, Architect, was present and stated that he made the four- car garage into a three-car garage with a workshop. He added a window and recessed the doors. Commissioner Vuksic commented that this looks like a four-car garage that was converted into an extra room. He suggested doing the detailing so that it looks like a three-car garage and the extra room looks like a different element. Mr. Lujan stated that he could do a little pop-out there. Commissioner Hanson stated that they did not want to give the homeowners any indication that they can change it back to a garage. Mr. Lujan asked the Commission if they could condition the roof drains to where they can be decorative scuppers or roof drains. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he does not even understand why they would even do that for cost reasons. The architect stated that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd 11 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 AGENDA the owners wanted the scuppers to cut corners. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the roof drains should be in the walls. Commissioner Hanson stated that the scuppers could stay as a decorative element but they should not work. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to modifications made to differentiate between garage and added room and designing roof drains into walls with the understanding that the developer may retain non-operative decorative scuppers only. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 02-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three awnings with signage. LOCATION: 44-760 San Pablo ZONE: C 1 Mr. Smith stated that the existing overhang on the building is five or six feet and is in the process of being torn down. The applicant has come up with a proposal for a six foot awning and contrary to it looking like it's stepped, due to the grade change, it will be one level. Mr. Drell stated that the awnings should be all different designs with unique awnings for each storefront as opposed to making them look almost the same. Mr. Drell stated that the whole point of awnings is to make the storefront look different. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested continuing the request and giving the applicant some direction. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is not present. Commissioner Hanson suggested either make them consistent or make them different. Mr. Drell stated that different would be more interesting. Commissioner Hanson stated they could be different as long as they worked together. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is reminiscent of the building on the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring that they painted green and took the signs off, which looks so much better without all the signs. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the properties on San Pablo have a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd 12 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES lot of window signs. Mr. Drell suggested having deeper valances so that there is more room to put the signs. Commissioner Gregory asked if this is so impossible to deal with right now. He stated that this is really not a big deal and no one seems to be really put off with the style. Commissioner Hanson stated that the awnings should be similar and design the sign either into it or limit them only to window signs, but don't do an accent band so that it's written into the awning like at Teriyaki Sticks. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that since it's west facing they could lower the awnings a little bit to give them a place above to put the signs so that he can have an elegant awning. Commissioner Hanson suggested going right under the top of the windows with the top of the awning and come down almost to the door level. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't really like the fact that the awning comes to the top of the parapet. Mr. Drell stated that he would like to encourage the applicant to be a little more creative in the design. He suggested a blade sign and change the colors of the awning. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the case to allow the applicant to revise plans pursuant to details outlined in the minutes. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. NO.: PP 85-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� THE LAWRENCE GROUP, 319 North 4`h Street, Suite 1000, St. Louis, MO 63102 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for expansion/renovation of ROBINSON'S MAY. � LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111; Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Drell presented the landscape plan for Robinson's May which was based on their first drawing. They made a presentation to the Retail Committee and they said that this is the best that they're going to get. Mr. Drell relayed the position of the ARC to the Retail Committee that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd 13 � '�M' "�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES they felt that the other slightly enhanced plan was better. He aiso said that without any increased cost they could expand the overhang and raise it up to break up the horizontal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the thing that's frustrating about this is that this is our shot here. This is what we're going to have to live with for the next 25 years. Mr. Drell stated that Robinson's May thought that the changes that the Commission had suggested would cost them an extra $300,000. He stated that they are spending $27 million on this renovation/expansion. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if Mr. Drell wanted an action from the Commission. Mr. Drell stated that he would say no. He had hoped to get better exhibits. He suggested that they re-affirm their previous motion. Mr. Drell asked Robinson's May if they could produce some nicer exhibits for this meeting but they didn't bring any in. Mr. Drell stated that scheme "C" was created when he asked them to do a little bit more and maybe the Redevelopment Agency could pay for part of it as part of the facade beautification program. Apparently, the way that the prevailing wage and redevelopment laws have changed since we initially did the deal for the parking structures is that any public money taints the whole job and the whole job becomes a prevailing wage job. The parking structure deal was done before that law went into effect. Mr. Drell stated that Robinson's May has told him that they have stretched their budget far enough, however, the whole interior will be new. Mr. Drell stated that he was given the current plans under the assumption that the City would conceivably pay for it. They would never have provided it if they thought that they would have to pay for it. Mr. Drell suggested making a motion to give them direction that they're on the right track, but they have to go further (as shown on scheme "C") and breaking up the horizontal and expanding the shade structure. Commissioner Gregory agreed to make the motion in a positive way. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that they were very specific in their concerns about the architecture in general and they were looking for the improvements that they have actually shown them on scheme "C". He would like to re-affirm their position with the current proposal being unacceptable. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the case and indicated that scheme "C" reflected an acceptable solution to the issues identified at the previous meeting G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R020226..min.wpd 14 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES and that scheme "B", while it was an improvement over scheme "A", was not adequate. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that this is the only opportunity that they are going to have for the next 20-25 years to see any architectural improvements on this building. He also stated that there is a relationship between the attractiveness of the architecture in retail to draw people in and he feels that they would be making a big mistake by "short-schrifting" the front entrances. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could not, in good conscience, approve scheme "B" when scheme "C" seems like it would require a relatively small amount of money in relation to the budget, is a significant improvement. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 3-21-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DALE MYERS, 77-765 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211-8018 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of request to install a 3' high split rail fence 5' from the curb face. LOCATION: 77-765 California Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the split rail fence has already been installed, as shown in the photos included in the packets. Mr. Drell stated that split rail is an approved material. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant needs an encroachment permit and they are prepared to do so if this group acts favorably. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the property line is. Mr. Bagato stated that it's 12' and this fence is encroaching about 7'. Commissioner Hanson stated that the issue is if they have to dig up the right of way. The applicant maintains the grass and the fence does not create a visual obstruction. Mr. Drell stated that it would be weirder if the fence was sitting five or six feet back across the lawn. If it was a block wall, it would be totally different. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that this is a unique situation. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd 1$ - , �` '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if there is any reaction from neighbors. The applicant stated that he has not had any negative reaction from the neighbors. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to approval of an encroachment permit by Public Works. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:42 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020226..min.wpd 16