Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-14 � r � w�v ��� CITY OF PALM DESERT - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MAY 14, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:32 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 7 1 Kristi Hanson X 7 1 Neil Lingle X 5 3 Richard O'Donnell X 8 0 Chris Van Vliet X 8 0 . John Vuksic X 7 1 Ray Lopez X 6 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 23, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved with additions submitted to Ms. Quaiver, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to approve the minutes of April 23, 2002. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS � A. None 1 . • � ��rr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 02-64 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): NEWPORT CLOCK GALLERY, 73- 255 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to extend awning to curb in front of store. . LOCATION: 73-255 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that there are no other awnings extending to the curb on this building, but they are on the building to the east which is approximately 100 yards away. He commented that the proposed awning would extend out to the curb and there are palm trees east and west of this location. Michael Jacobs, owner, stated that previously there was an awning that extended out to the curb, but it was taken down. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there will be signage on the awning. Mr. Jacobs stated that there is signage on the existing awning and there will be signage on the new awning with the store name on it. Commissioner Hanson asked if the new signage will match the existing signage. The applicant stated that it will match and will probably be a little smaller. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 02-59 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT TRUCK TOPS, 74-849 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of freestanding sign. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R020514.MIN 2 , , � `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES � LOCATION: 74-849 Joni Drive ZONE: SI The applicant was not present. Commissioner Hanson suggested � denying the proposed business signage because it needs to be substantial. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it needs to have a base and needs to be a nice, well-designed monument sign. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign is in the lawn area and would require an encroachment permit. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the sign is not appropriate and does not meet design guidelines. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to deny the request to create a more substantial monument sign. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 02-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARRY HOPKINS, 45-975 Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new front on office building in conjunction with City of Palm Desert Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-925 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 Garry Hopkins, applicant, was present. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant approximately what year the building was built. Mr. Hopkins stated that it was probably built in the 1950's. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the stone is the same on the proposed plans as the stone on the existing elevation. Mr. Hopkins stated that they are covering up the old stone with stacked stone. He stated that he is also going to add stacked stone on the front on the west end of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned with the eyebrows with large plaster surfaces with cornice detail on the top. He stated that he was wondering what was going to happen on the edge on the front. He commented that it looks like they have cut back G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020514.MIN 3 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES the existing fascia and are putting on a larger one. He stated that there are pretty massive eyebrows that shoot off on the side of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's looking at the mass at the corner of the building. Mr. Hopkins stated that he is planning to cut off the overhang and is trying to raise it up to give it more of a modern look. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the cornice detail. Mr. Hopkins stated that it turns and goes back around the corner approximately 2'-3' . Commissioner Vuksic stated that he is concerned about what it's going to look like in 3-D. He commented that it looks okay in elevation, but in reality he's not sure what iYs going to look like. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he is concerned with the weight of the eyebrow sticking out and more concerned with it on the back. He commented that this is a massive element to have over such a small walkway. The cornice needs to go back far enough to look substantial. Commissioner Hanson stated that the cornice detail looks different in the front and the back. Mr. Hopkins stated that he's re-doing the front and depending on how much it costs, he may not do the back. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he's not really sure that the cornice detail works on this building. He commented that cleaner lines might be more appropriate. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he felt that the existing building has some redeeming value, even though it's old. He suggested staying with the 1950's-style architecture whEch would compliment the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that he could do something really simple, such as eliminating the cornice and leave the fascia. She felt that the simplicity of that is good and adds to the building itself. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was trying to raise it up a little bit, especially in the back to hide the air conditioning equipment. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with the comment by Commissioner O'Donnell. He stated that there is a lot of concrete masonry on the building, which is contemporary and doesn't tie into the proposed style of architecture that the applicant is starting to develop. Mr. Hopkins stated that it was suggested to him to break up the office buildings. He G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020514.MIN 4 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 . MINUTES stated that there are six doors on the front and it was suggested to him that he put something over each one of the doors. Commissioner Gregory suggested giving the applicant some positive direction so that they can either address it or have their architect present during the next meeting. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the applicant would like to pursue this direction, he does not understand what the arched eyebrows are. Mr. Hopkins stated that they was intended to break up the front and identify each of the office spaces. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would like to know how far out they, what the material is and how does it work. Commissioner Hanson suggested trying to incorporate the signage into those areas to make more of an entry statement. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he agreed with Commissioner Van Vliet's comments regarding keeping with the 1950's-style architecture with clean lines. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) simplify the architecture with cleaner lines, (2) eliminate cornice, (3) incorporate signage into the design, and (4) re-evaluate eyebrow and proportions. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant bring his architect with him to the next meeting so that he can respond immediately to some of the suggestions. 4. CASE NO.: SA 02-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ALEC GLASSER, AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP, 72-800 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. LOCATION: Palms to Pines Shopping Center G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN 5 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the signs are going to be located on Highway 111 at the entrance and exit of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center. He stated that the proposed monument sign is 10' in height, which is too high based on the code. He commented that the can sign can't go any higher than 6'. He stated that the proposed can sign is over 7'. Brandon Johnson, Account Representative for Signs by Quiel Brothers, was present. Commissioner Hanson asked why they can't just have � one monument sign since it's designed in a triangular shape. Mr. Johnson stated that traffic goes in both directions and if it was parallel to the street, it's not as readable as if it were facing head-on traffic in both directions. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the monument signs are too close together. Commissioner Hanson that the sign is a triangle and will be visible from vehicles going in either direction. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why they need two signs. Mr. Johnson stated that for design purposes, this is all they have for signage. He commented that there may be different tenants on each side of the driveway. He stated that he doesn't know who the tenants are going to be at this point. Commissioner Hanson stated that the monument signs are too big. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant get away from menu signage. Mr. Smith commented that code only allows for one monument sign per street. He stated that they could put one monument sign on Plaza Way, one on EI Paseo and one on Highway 111. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to see less of a can sign and more of a stylized sign. She stated that she would like it to go along with the building and felt that the roof was following the architecture as well as some of the materials, but she felt that they could go a bit further. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) reduce size of sign, (2) get away from menu signage, (3) design it so that it's less of a can sign and more of stylized sign, (4) monument sign should complement the building architecture, and (5) propose a maximum of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020514.MIN 6 . , � �` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES one freestanding sign on each street frontage. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 02-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID J. GIBBONS, 42-940 Wisconsin Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting carport structure 20' from curb. LOCATION: 42-940 Wisconsin Avenue ZONE: PR-4 ' Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has an existing single-car carport with a side entry. He stated that the applicant would like to enclose that structure to create habitable space and create another covered parking space. The applicant has proposed a carport structure across the front of his home in line with what will become the new front wall of the house where the carport currently exists. Commissioner Hanson asked if there are any pictures. Mr. Smith passed pictures around to the Commission. The applicant has shown them a couple of pictures of homes in the neighborhood with similar carport structures. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has approval from the homeowner's association for this. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the proposed carport would have a flat roof. David Gibbons, applicant, stated that it is a flat roof. Mr. Gibbons stated that it will be a wood roof and will have tile to match the roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it matched other carports in the area. Mr. Gibbons stated that it's similar to others in his neighborhood. Commissioner Lopez commented that some other carports in the area have been made of plain wood or stuccoed. Mr. Gibbons stated that the beams are going to be wood and the roof will be shingled. Commissioner Gregory suggested that if the applicant meets the guidelines of the PDCC and if he can meet the City requirements, could G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR020514.MIN 7 . , � ',�,` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES it go through for staff approval. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that the applicant was on the right track. Commissioner Gregory stated that in concept it appears that this is not creating any problems. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to staff reviewing final details. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: CUP 02-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, MINAKSHI V. HEMLANI, 4300 Latham Avenue, Suite 103, Riverside, CA 92501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of cellular site with installation of a 57-foot monopalm. LOCATION: 74-000 Country Club (Cornerstone) ZONE: OP Hugh Jorgenson, applicant, was present and stated that at the last meeting they had discussed having a variance of height in the live palms and continuing them around on the site plan. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he re-worked the generator area and developed a landscape plan that will hide the tower. He stated that he lowered the building and changed the roof line to give it more of a contemporary feeling. Commissioner Hanson asked if anybody made a call to the golf course to find out whether or not some palms could be added to the golf course property near the fence. No calls had been made. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he has a problem with the building that houses the equipment being right on the property line. He stated that they do not allow that in any situation and it has to be offset from the property line. He stated that the proposed mono-palm on Magnesia Falls has designed a building that's only four feet above grade and he suggested that if the building is right on the property line, it shouldn't be seen at all and be much lower profile. Mr. Jorgenson stated that his client does not want to have to use a sump pump. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN g ' . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Jorgenson stated that he had spoken with Martin Alvarez some time ago and since the property at Cornerstone is surrounded by commercial zoning, there would be no problem putting the equipment shelter on the property line which is why he went in this direction. Commissioner Gregory asked if any response was obtained from the golf course regarding the addition of palms on their property. There was an e-mail response that stated that the golf course was concerned about blocking views. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he's looking at the installation, which includes the equipment building. He commented that the building is the architecture and there are some issues that are troubling to him including the height of the building and having the building on the property line. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if they could sink the equipment building down then it wouldn't be an issue. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he would have to talk to his client and get verification that they will allow him to sink the building by 3' below grade and add a sump pump. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if they sink the equipment building lower, then he would suggest having a flat roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the golf course would plant additional landscaping to screen the tower. Commissioner Hanson suggested approaching the golf course from the staff level and explain what we're suggesting. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to having palms planted on golf course, if the City consents to it. Motion failed 3-3-0-1 with Commissioners Van Vliet, Hanson and O'Donnell opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) equipment building recessed below grade with top of building below wall height and (2) palms planted on golf course, if City consents to it. Motion carried 4-1-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed, Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN 9 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: CUP 02-02 . APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: VERIZON WIRELESS, MINAKSHI V. HEMLANI, 4300 Latham Avenue, Suite 103, Riverside, CA 92501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of cellular site with installation of a 57-foot mono-palm. LOCATION: 42-275 Washington Street (Jiffy Lube) ZONE: CPS Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant submitted new plans with the addition of live palms. Hugh Jorgenson, Architect, stated that the equipment building is the same and is in the same location as previously submitted. He stated that they added live palms with varying height and additional landscape to soften the area. He commented that the exterior equipment building colors are the same as the rest of the shopping center. Mr. Jorgenson stated that the mono-palm will be designed to� resemble a robusta and will be 24" in diameter at the base. He stated that initially his client had given him a diameter measurement of 48", which was an error. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: SA 02-77 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�, IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage including attached sign and monument sign. LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane, Stor N Lock G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN 1� . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting an illuminated, through-the-face lettering 56 square feet sign on the building. He stated that the applicant is proposing an 8" raceway with 5" letters and 13" projection from the wall. Mr. Bagato stated that a freestanding sign is also being proposed. The monument sign will be an illuminated can sign. Jim Engle, applicant, was present. Commissioner Hanson asked why the developer didn't figure out where the sign was going to go and plan for it so that they didn't hay.e to use a raceway. Mr. Engle stated that he doesn't like to use a raceway, but there is office space and storage behind the wall. He stated that there are 16- gauge I-beams along the back wall. He commented that the only way that he could put this sign in this location is by using a raceway. He stated that in trying to make it as inconspicuous as possible, he has made it a thin raceway and stuccoed to match the building. Mr. Engle stated that Mr. Bagato had suggested making the raceway similar to the sign at Del Rio's at the corner of Cook Street and Country Club. He stated that he would be happy to do that but this site is on Hovley in a light commercial/light industrial area and is not on a main public street. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could use a non-illuminated sign on the building. She asked what materials are going to be used on the monument sign. Mr. Engle stated that the base is a composition of aluminum with a stucco finish to match the building and the cabinet is the same, but it has a lex-sand with the application of the copy on the back and is illuminated. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the white portion around the sign is illuminated. Mr. Engle stated� that it is illuminated. He commented that he tried to make the blue portion as big as possible to mitigate some of the white border. Commissioner Hanson asked if he could reduce the sign down to 3'-3'/2' . Mr. Engle stated that he could do that. Commissioner Hanson stated that the white border should be equal on the top and bottom. It was suggested to make the white border opaque. Commissioner Hanson suggested using a non-illuminated sign on the building, which would eliminate the raceway. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN 11 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for approval subject to (1) wall sign being non-illuminated and (2) make white border of freestanding sign opaque with equal border on top and bottom. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Mr. Engle asked why the Commission didn't want the wall sign to be illuminated. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that this is due to brightness and size and doesn't seem to be necessary on that type of a business. Commissioner Hanson stated that the sign is in proportion to the building, however, since it's red and illuminated it looks huge. Mr. Engle suggested changing the color to blue. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that what concerns them is the raceway. Commissioner Hanson stated that even though the size of the sign is in proportion to the building, it's still a very large sign. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making the sign a little smaller and that the raceway could be designed like Del Rio's where it becomes an element with the lettering recessed into it. Commissioner Gregory stated that he does not have a problem with the raceway, but would prefer that the sign not be illuminated on the building. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 02-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� STEVEN KATZ, 40-743 Cabana Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of screening of duct work on roof of single family residence. LOCATION: 40-743 Cabana Court ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R020514.MIN 12 . . �,r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES 10. 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: Approval of 65' wireless telecommunication antenna tower designed as a mono-palm with associated equipment shelter. � LOCATION: 72-876 42"d Avenue (Stor America Self Storage) ZONE: S I Mr. Smith stated that the tower increased in height due to the fall that occurs on the site from north to south. He stated that the location has been changed, but he's still not satisfied with the building design and the fact that there's only one other palm tree within 200 yards. He stated that if those issues could be taken care of he felt that it's in the right location. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that this be approved by staff. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) adding palms to Landscape Manager's satisfaction, (2) maximum 24" diameter base of tower, (3) equipment building below height of wall, (4) architecture of equipment building approval and (5) choice of stealth palm manufacturer.approved by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Spencer Knight commented that he did not feel convinced that they can substantially reduce the impact of the tower. Todd Smith, applicant, stated that there are some existing palms near the site. Mr. Knight asked the applicant if he has chosen a manufacturer for the mono- palm. Todd Smith stated that he has not chosen a manufacturer. Mr. Knight stated that some are better than others and he may want to modify the mono-palm a little bit, possibly with the addition of extra fronds. Todd Smith stated that he would probably chose a date palm, even though Mexican fan palms are on the site. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN 13 . . `�" `'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES 11. CASE NO.: RV 02-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DANA CARNES, 43-550 Palmilla Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: RV screening LOCATION: 74-015 Aster Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant came before the ARC several months ago, went through the entire process and was rejected by the City Council. He commented that the applicant is going back through with the RV in the same location and trying to obscure the view of it. Francisco Urbina stated that the RV is located on the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Desert Star Blvd. There is an existing 6' high light grey block wall with two 7' wide gates. The applicant is �proposing to plant six Indian laurel trees (24" box). The applicant is also proposing to plant some cat's claw vines on the inside of the 6' high block wall and adding a 4' high wood trellis to the top of the wall. Mr. Urbina stated that staff's recommendation is that the applicant replace the six Indian laurel trees with acacia sulcina trees because there's only a 4' wide distance between the block wall and the sidewalk. He commented that the Indian laurel trees have a very invasive, spreading root system. Mr. Urbina stated that staff is proposing that the wooden lattice fencing on top of the block wall be replaced with wrought iron fencing, including having some horizontal tubular bars so that the cat's claw vine can wind through it. He stated that staff's recommendation is to approve the proposal for additional screening of a recreational vehicle, subject to the three conditions of approval as stated above. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about moving the RV to the east side of the property. Mr. Urbina stated that the home is being used as a daycare center. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he was suggesting that there may possibly be an additional site to park the RV, as opposed to on Portola. Mr. Urbina stated that the east side could be an alternative site. Mr. Carnes, applicant, stated that the east side is only 22' long and the RV is 27' long. Commissioner Hanson stated that they will run into a similar problem because the east side is on Aster Street. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that Aster Street is not a high profile street like Portola and maybe could be screened a little bit G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R020514.MIN 14 . �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES differently than what is being offered. Mr. Carnes stated that the east side of the property is a parking area for the staff of the daycare. Commissioner Gregory stated that he does not feel that the proposal works. He commented that the ARC tries really hard to make these situations work, but he feels that they are straining so hard to make it work and from an architectural perspective he does not see it working on one side or the other. He commented that the applicant is trying to cram too much stuff into too small of a space. He stated that it's not only a horizontal problem, but it's a vertical problem as well. He stated that the proposed screening is not the type of look that he would want to see along a major artery in the City. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant could appeal the Commission's decision and take it to the City Council, if the decision turns out to be negative. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the request since the RV will not be adequately screened from view from a major street in the City. Motion carried 6-0- 0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 12. CASE NO.: MISC 02-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: STEVE CASHIN, 40-868 Avenida Solana, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for increase in lot coverage from 35% to 39% and roof height of 18'. � LOCATION: 40-868 Avenida Solana, Lot 10, Tract 29045 ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 13. CASE NO.: PP 01-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: FEDDERLY & ASSOCIATES, 45-350 San Luis Rey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN IS . . �w' `�+'" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscape for 12-unit luxury apartments, EI Paseo Villas. LOCATION: 73-825 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the landscape plan has been approved, however, after reviewing the architectural plans with Commissioner Hanson they discovered that the previously requested changes had not been made. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to make the architectural changes previously requested, including the addition of gables to the rear elevation, keeping the rafter tails at their previously approved size or at least 4 x 6 and using paneled garage doors instead of slab doors. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 14. CASE NO.: CUP 85-2 A#1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI W. HANSON, ARCHITECT, INC., 44-850 Las Palmas, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plan. LOCATION: Florine Avenue, Sacred Heart Church ZONE: P Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval by minute motion, subject to comments by landscape manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 30269 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA MONICA G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN 16 . . �' v�►�, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES 3 DEVELOPERS, LLC, 1223 Wilshire Blvd., No. 802, Santa Monica, CA 90403 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for sixteen single family homes on cul- de-sac. LOCATION: Jeri Lane @ Shephard Land ZONE: R-1 Andy Suzuki, Architect, was present. He stated that there are two different floor plans for sixteen single family homes. He commented that each of the floor plans has a standard condition as well as a condition that will accept an attached casita. He stated that the homes are designed with a monochromatic landscape scheme. Plan 1 features the Santa Barbara look with exposed rafter tails, smoother stucco, CDI trim as well as a courtyard. Plan 2 features a courtyard and brick veneer. Bernie Cain, applicant, stated that the setback is designated with the front of the garage. He commented that the casitas do not project out in front of the garage. Commissioner Hanson stated that she understands why they would want to use the Santa Barbara-style architecture with the pitched roof at the end. The problem is that if there is only 6' on each side of the property and the roof lines meet, which creates a long corridor view. Mr. Suzuki stated that he's trying to stay as authentic as possible and with the Santa Barbara-style architecture you really don't see too many hipped roofs. Commissioner Hanson suggested picking sections, such as over the great room so that it's not such a broad expanse of roof. Mr. Suzuki stated that there's a standard covered patio and he does not want to put a flat roof over the patio. Commissioner Hanson asked if the walls were drawn at 2 x 4. Mr. Suzuki confirmed this. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the issues that the Commission typically has is how the windows are addressed and do not like them flush with the walls. She suggested thickening the walls. Mr. Suzuki stated that he could look at the site plan and see that there are probably a few areas for which trim may be appropriate to thicken that kind of shadow reveal. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why they don't make the walls 2 x 6. Mr. Suzuki G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R020514.MIN 17 . . �rr+�' "�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 � MINUTES stated that the cost estimators said that the 2 x 4 wall performs thermally and structurally as well as a 2 x 6 wall and is a little less expensive. The Commissioner asked how is could perform thermally as well. Mr. Suzuki stated that by the time they put in insulation it works just as well. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he thought that R21 insulation requires a 2 x 6 wall. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is the desert and we have extreme climate here. He commented that he would guess that there's a significant difference in an R13 and R21 thermal wall. He stated that they can achieve both the aesthetic look of having windows and doors recessed and also improve the thermal performance of the building. Mr. Suzuki stated that they would comply with anything T24 requires. He asked which windows should be recessed. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't discriminate against elevations. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that on the side walls there are very few architectural details and minimal details on the rear elevation. He commented that the front looks nice but the sides don't look nice at all with nail-on windows. Mr. Suzuki suggested adding trim. Commissioner Hanson stated that trim doesn't necessarily do the trick. She suggested being consistent throughout the house. Mr. Cain asked if she's looked at the houses in the adjacent area. He stated that all of the homes in that area that have been approved by the City have the same application. She stated that they have been very consistent over the last year with what they approve. Mr. Cain stated that these are new homes that are just being finished and they're all flush nailed. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the other homes have gable end roofs that are side to side. Mr. Cain stated that some of them are gabled and some are combination. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they usually look very carefully at how houses abut to each other. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with Mr. Cain and recalled that in the past they've allowed trim around the windows on the sides and haven't made them have deep walls. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he personally doesn't like trim because it looks cheap. He stated that they'll be required to have a thicker wall, either by using a 2 x 4 and foam or by using a 2 x 6 stud. He commented that this will give them the ability to have some recess in the windows. He suggested not having the side windows flush with the wall. Mr. Suzuki commented that if other projects in the area don't have to do that, then he feels that they shouldn't have to. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the other homes don't have trim or recessed windows then something happened because he doesn't think they passed them that way. Mr. Suzuki stated that he'll do what the Commission requests. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R020514.MIN 18 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they would like the houses staggered along the front setbacks. Mr. Cain stated that they're going to be including pools in the backyards so they tried to maximize the backyard spaces. He stated that Plan 1 is a shallower plan and they could push it back a couple of extra feet so that there is more undulation at the front section. A discussion was held regarding the retention basins at the back of each lot, which is required by the City. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the front walls are lacking relief on the front walls of Plan 2. He commented that the wood eave won't last long and suggested using stucco. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that aesthetically the Commission would like to see the openings recessed and it's up to the applicant on how to do it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they are referring to the three sides of the home other than the front. He commented that they need to have thick walls on the front of the house with recessed doors and windows that are visible from the street. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he probably won't vote for this motion because of the lack of hip roofs. He stated that his objection is not based on style but he's more concerned about the visual space between the buildings. He stated that many builders in the valley have adopted the hip roof concept to fit into their plans. Mr. Cain asked about coming up with a scheme that shows a wider building-to-building separation. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he didn't feel that there was enough room to do that. He stated that the gable ends, as they butt to one another and rise up to 18' eliminates the sky view and he is concerned about the visual space. Commissioner Lopez commented on how every garage is front loaded. He stated that having an occasional side loaded garage breaks up all the garage doors in a row. He suggested changing Plan 1 to a side loaded garage. Mr. Smith commented that the front yard setback is 16' if the garage is side entry. Commissioner Lopez stated that trash locations need to be called out in the future. He commented on valves that are above ground right at the entry. Commissioner Lopez commented on having patios in the front of the houses to put a couple of chairs and a table. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020514.MIN . 19 . . `'�r✓' `�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscape design seems to be attractive and in conformance with the materials which we know do well here. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval of architecture only subject to 1) staggering houses 2' along street, (2) walls thickened to 2' x 6' with 2' x 4' nailers, (3) walls in final drawings on street side to be 12"-18" thick at major windows and entry doors, (4) plaster eaves on Plan 2, (5) shift houses to avoid having 6' minimum setbacks adjacent to each other, (6) address visual space between buildings, (7) show trash locations, (8) make sure above ground valves are not at main entry, and (9) explore possibility of adding patio to front of homes. Motion carried 6-0- 0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� KLAFF REALTY, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 6064-3501 PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74-020 Allesandro, #C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised parking layout and revised preliminary landscape plan for EI Paseo Square. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111, northwest corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. EI Paseo Square ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval by minute motion, subject to comments by landscape manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lingle absent. � 3. CASE NO.: PP 02-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MCCOY CREATIVE CONTRACTORS & INTERIORS, INC., 6390 Meadows Court, Malibu, CA 90265 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 10,000 square foot, two-story ofFice/warehouse building. (7,500 square foot office; 2,500 square foot warehouse) G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN 2� �'' `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES LOCATION: Ritter Circle; Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 17191 ZONE: SI Mr. Smith displayed the revised color elevations. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he likes the changes with the exception of the trim around the windows and doors and feels that the trim is not necessary. Mark Valentino, architect, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Vuksic asked what style this building is. Mr. Valentino stated that he doesn't have a label for it and it just evolved. Commissioner Vuksic asked what he does with the stone veneer with all the openings punched out all over the place. He asked if the stone wraps through the openings. Mr. Valentino stated that they wrap from the outside portions to the inside of the holes, but the back is plaster. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the arch really doesn't have any reference point and just "happens" which again is the issue of the windows and doors. Commissioner Hanson suggested taking the arch out and leave the surround on the windows and doors. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested bringing the arch back down and take out the trim around the windows and doors. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell. Commissioner Hanson asked if they have to have the little arch on the top of the window surround or could it just be straight. Mr. Valentino stated that he could make it straight. � Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't push any style, but he stated that this tooks like it doesn't know what style it is. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval subject to (1) removing trim around windows and doors and (2) remove arch on the second floor. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent. 4. 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. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR020514.MIN 21 . . � � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES LOCATION: 46-200 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Tom Firek, applicant, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Vuksic asked the Commission if he could consolidate the comments on this case. He stated that the stone on the front elevations mysteriously disappears on the sides. He stated that they have to figure out how to terminate it properly and not just have it end on the edge of the building. He stated that the front wall needs more depth to approximately 12"-18" and the rafter tails need to be 3" x 6" minimum and continue around building by approximately 20'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the chimneys need spark arresters. He stated that there are several plans with entry towers and in some cases there are doors that really don't need to be recessed that far, but the tower windows need a deep recess. Mr. Firek commented that at soon as he finishes the wall cap on the perimeter wall he will take care of all the grout joints. He stated that he knows that this is in his scope of work and doesn't mean to put it off. He stated that he will clean up the whole wall and everything will be done on both sides and, hopefully, this will be acceptable. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the 2 x 4 walls. Mr. Firek stated that he's only been on this job for four weeks and he hasn't seen the Title 24 calculations yet, which would determine what kind of a wall he needs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the other three walls of the house they would like to see 2 x 6 walls with 2 x 4 nail-on windows. Commissioner Hanson commented that the dining rooms are too small and she suggested that they take out the walls that go around them in the hallway. She suggested that instead of the living room, call it an alternate office. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested taking a look at the color board as some of them are too bright. Commissioner Hanson stated that the top three colors should be eliminated which are aspen, crystal white and oatmeal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they will look stark white. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they could add more variation of plaster colors. Commissioner Hanson stated that he should not be afraid of color. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) make front walls 12"-18" in depth, (2) stone on front can't end suddenly, but G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020514.MIN 22 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES should wrap around, (3) rafter tails 3" x 6" minimum and extend back approximately 20', (4) chimneys need screen (spark arresters), (5) tower windows need to be recessed more, and (6) re-study building colors and delete the following exterior plaster colors: aspen, crystal white and oatmeal. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Commissioner Gregory left the meeting at this time. 5. 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 for a 700,000 square foot commercial shopping center. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey Avenue (Southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) ZONE: PC-3 Martin Alvarez stated that he is presenting a 700,000 square foot shopping center to be called Desert Gateway. He stated that the development team is here to make a brief presentation and orientation on some of the items and some of the buildings on the site. He stated that they have a proposed Sam'sClub and Wal*Mart, which will be the major anchor tenants. The Commission was given design and signage guidelines in their packets to review. Mr. Alvarez stated that they would like the Commission's comments. Bill Carver, developer, introduced the team working on this project. Mark Giles and Mike Caretti are architects with MCG. They are the architects on the site work and all the buildings with the exception of Wal*Mart and Sam's Club. Steve Eberra is the architect for Wal*Mart and Sam's Club. Robert Curley is the landscape architect. Tom O'Neill is the construction supervisor. Malcolm Riley is Mr. Carver's partner and they are putting up the money. Mr. Carver stated that it's been a long time since getting started on the project. He commented that he has tried to incorporate as much as possible to the following: PC-3 zoning with the idea of the freeway commercial overlay zone tied in with a development agreement that was signed between the City and the property when it was next to the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020514.MIN 23 ��rr � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES City of Palm Desert. He stated that this development agreement in effect says that all uses, with the exception of architecture and signage, are to be considered under the County zoning. Mr. Carver stated that he has tried to develop the center as if it were in the PC-3 zone with the freeway commercial overlay zone. He commented that they have tried to place the huge buildings on the east end of the project. He stated that they also wanted to do something along the entrance to the City so they have broken up the buildings along Monterey, adding as much interest as possible. Mr. Carver stated that it's very difficult to understand when looking at this particular site plan is that the property is going downhill so the project is on different levels. The south end is the high end and the north end is the lower end and there are three different levels. Some of the buildings along the front are either below grade or at grade. Mr. Carver stated that Sam's Club and Wal*Mart are on the east side. He stated that they are developing this in two phases with phase one being built on the northerly 50 acres. The southerly 20 acres will be improved all the way around it but will leave the development on the inside of that until they get other tenants and this will be phase two. Mark Giles stated that he has struggled with the site plan changes for over a year. He commented that they developed the design guidelines to help the developer, the City and the architect control the development of the project. He stated that the guidelines are there as a way for the City to enforce what the developer intends for the project. Mr. Giles stated that they have broken the site up into different districts. Steve Eberra stated that the Wal*Mart and Sam's Club buildings are Santa Barbara mission-style architecture. They have integrated white walls, tower elements, false windows, arches, Spanish tiles and decorative lighting, which will be used throughout the center. They have introduced landscaping with a river rock pattern, palm trees, etc... The facade is all plaster with no exposed masonry block. �The back side will be masonry block. Mr. Eberra stated that Wal*Mart is a two phase building. He stated the phase one is the prototypical building with a garden center. Robert Curley stated that he has been working with Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger. He stated that he is trying to do something out of the ordinary of a large shopping center. He did not want to keep all the same trees down the rows all the way through with all the end islands the same. Mr. Curley stated that he has looked at the way people park at shopping centers and they always park in a semi-circle near the store entrance. He stated that he has put the small canopy trees in the front and they get denser and larger as they go to the rear of the parking. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN 24 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES They are trying to push people a little further back in the parking. He's trying to get away from uniform repetition and make it look a little more natural. He stated that he's used stamped concrete with a'river rock design, similar to Desert Willow and also a mountain design in another stamped concrete. There are small retaining walls that meander in and out. Commissioner O'Donnell thanked Mr. Riley and Mr. Carver for coming and bringing their professional staff with them. He stated that this is a very significant project for the City and also for the Commission. He stated that they will be responding today to the design and layout of the parking, etc... He was hoping to give each member of the Commission an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he can't tell where the architectural planes are and he's hoping that there's some pretty good relief in the architectural elements throughout the project. He stated that he appreciates what they're doing by breaking it up with different colors, textures and hopefully the relief will be adequate for the scale of the huge buildings. He commented that signage is so important and his initial impression of the plans is that some of the signs look really big and wanted to encourage them to consider using reverse channel signs. Mr. Carver stated that some of the signs are 1000' from Monterey. Mr. Curley stated that there is also a lot of landscaping including large trees. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are a lot of smaller boutique-style buildings in the front and he's concerned about them putting up additional signs. Mr. Giles stated that they will be given the design guidelines which will outline the sign requirements. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant about the mechanical equipment. Mr. Giles stated that they're scattered throughout the project and won't be visible on the roof. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that iYs important to make sure that they stay away from the "movie set mentality" on the architecture where one side looks really good and the back side doesn't look so good. He commented that he sees a lot of that in their design. He stated that he feels that they should have good architecture all the way around so that there really is no back side of the building. Commissioner Lopez suggested staying away from trees with thorns. He asked about water retention. He stated that there's a lot of concrete on this project and wanted to know if the water has to be retained on site. Mr. Carver stated that he's trying to divide it up into three sections that would retain the water on site. He stated that there's going to be a pipeline that goes under Dinah Shore for any excess run off and it will G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN 25 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES tie into a storm drain that goes along the railroad tracks. Commissioner Lopez suggested that they speak to Sun Bus regarding the bus shelters. He commented that the bus drivers have to be able to see the people waiting. He stated that some of the bus shelters are very nice but the bus drivers can't see them and drive right by them. Mr. Carver stated that they're having a problem designing the bus shelters to protect the people from the wind. Commissioner Lopez stated that the benches should face forward so that they can see a vehicle coming toward them. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would challenge Wal*Mart and Sam's Club to emulate more of the Santa Barbara mission-style architecture. She feels that this is a significant step from a normal Wal*Mart or Sam's Club but she feels that it was to go just a little bit further. She felt that in general she was overwhelmed with the amount of information that the Commission was given. She stated that the Commission does not discriminate against any elevation, all are important. She commented that the light fixtures seemed very small in scale and would like to see them in a size that's more appropriate to the size of the building. She stated that signage will be an issue. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he agrees with Commissioner Hanson regarding the Santa Barbara mission-style architecture on the big buildings. He asked why they chose this style of architecture. Mr. Carver stated that it was his idea. He stated that a few years ago he had a project designed by Louis Berigon which was approved by the Planning Commission. The architecture of this project caused a lot of problems with the neighbors so he tried to do something more typical and not try to be a pioneer again. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he was concerned about the queuing of vehicles at the proposed gas station. He suggested that they study this very carefully and see how to make this work. He stated that the big, long views of elevations need more articulation and 2' is not enough. He commented that we need depth, shade and shadow that showcases the architecture and breaks up the lines. He also commented on the horizontal element that's quite long which has been popped up a little bit in spots, but he feels that there may be more modulation on the top. He stated that he likes the idea of the shade trees in the parking lot , but suggested breaking up all of the parking with some covered parking in certain places with solar panels. He felt that this would be a unique concept in parking lot design. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he realizes that there are long views toward some of the signage but when you get really close, the signage is "scary". He stated that he hopes that they will look at the signage in such a way that you realize that people are going to recognize the buildings and the signage becomes less important as far G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R020514.MIN 26 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES as the scale of it. He suggested making it a little more "human scale" friendly. He stated that they have done that with other design aspects of this project, which he thinks works very nicely. He stated that the Commissioner would be very concerned with the size of the signage and the design of it. He commented that he likes the monument signs and they are going in the right direction. He stated that they should hold to the details and if it's going to be Santa Barbara mission-style make it as authentic as possible with architecture on four sides. He stated that he wanted to compliment them on the two bus stop locations and the bus shelter design. Mr. Giles stated that MCG had an easier job in designing the small buildings and had more of an opportunity to play with the buildings because they have no tenants. He stated that the Wal*Mart and Sam's Club buildings are big boxes and there is a limit on how much they can articulate on the building. He stated that 2' is something that they can accomplish fairly easily but 8'-10' involves a lot of additional cost. He commented that he understands four-sided architecture. He stated that some of the buildings are significantly below grade and some are significantly above grade. He stated that some are 10' below the street level with landscaping all around it going down Monterey. He stated that you are mainly going to see roof at that point and none of the elevation. He stated that they need to take a look at where the pieces fit and where the dollars make sense. The grade for Sam's Club and Wal*Mart is above Lucas Way. Mr. Alvarez stated that they are still working with the Engineering Department on this matter and will bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this project is titled appropriately by calling it the Desert Gateway. He stated that this is significantly high profile. He stated that they need to extend themselves more than the ordinary and give us the architecture that the project really deserves, specifically for the "big boxes". He stated that the people who are going to visit are going to be at pedestrian level and that's the scale that they will experience. He stated that they still have to have all the detail that's not visible from the street, visible from the pedestrian level. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested they talk to Pat Conlon, who does special projects for the City of Palm Desert, regarding the solar panels for the covered parking. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested doing some pedestrian friendly things in the parking lot since the project is so massive. � Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) use reverse channel letters for signs, (2) reduce the size of signs, (3) add G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R020514.MIN 2� . • � �+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES architecture to all sides of the buildings, not just the front, (4) benches in bus shelters should face forward, (5) emulate more of Santa Barbara mission-style architecture in the big box tenant buildings, (6) light fixtures should be larger, (7) re-consider location of Sam's Club gas station to allow for appropriate queuing of vehicles, (8) need more than 2' articulation on big box buildings, (9) break up parking lot with some covered parking with solar panels, and (10) hold to the Santa Barbara mission-style architecture details, make it authentic. Motion carried 5-0- 0-2 with Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 02-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: WINDEMERE DEVELOPERS, INC., 3 Mesquite Ridge Lane, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for a four-plex. LOCATION: 44-560 San Rafael ZONE: R-2 Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a patio cover to break up the roof. She suggested adding a window in the garage, possibly with a shutter element and adding detail on the chimney. She also suggested adding a window in the living room and punch out the dining nook to make it larger and adding two high windows. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of architecture only subject to (1) adding patio cover, (2) adding window with shutters on garage, (3) adding detail on chimney, (4) pop-out window in living room, and (5) adding two high windows in living room. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SABBY JONATHON, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020514.MIN 2g . i�" "w�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised roof color. LOCATION: 42-595 Cook Street ZONE: PC-2 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the Commissioners to go to the site to view the roof color. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 GORDON STEIN, 44-858 San Juan Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of adequacy of fulfillment of Planning Commission Condition of Approval relative to privacy screening. LOCATION: 73-720 Alessandro Drive (commercial), 44-858 San Juan Avenue (residential) ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Voce is building an office building on Alessandro at San Juan Avenue. He commented that the easterly side of the project is across the street from Mr. Stein's home. He stated that when the matter went to Planning Commission, they imposed Condition No. 11, which was included in the ARC's packets, requiring an increased degree of screening of the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated that the condition from Planning Commission was not conveyed to the Landscape Department when they approved the landscape plan for the project. He stated that the landscaping is our typical desert-scape. He commented that the matter went back to Planning Commission last week at Mr. Stein's request to see if they had met the intent of the condition. He stated that Planning Commission requested that the ARC look into this to see what can be accomplished in this area. He stated that Mr. Voce has revised his proposal and is prepared to add a couple of trees, but he has not shown Mr. Smith a plan that shows that change. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR020514.MIN 29 . • � "�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES Carl Voce, applicant, was present and stated that he would like to add a 3' berm to provide the screening that's required. He stated that car headlight height is approximately 28". He commented that if he provided a 3' berm and put in two additional trees and shrubs, the headlights would not be a problem. Mr. Voce presented a photo of Mr. Stein's house and commented that there is only one window in front of his house, which is his bedroom window and is closed all the time as it's facing west. He stated that there is no way that he could see any headlights. Commissioner Gregory questioned whether there is sufficient width to accommodate a 3' berm. He commented that it may be too steep to hold the slope. Commissioner Lopez suggested putting shrubs on the berm. He stated that the trees would be high and wouldn't screen the headlights. He suggested using shrubs and Texas ranger on the berm. Commissioner Gregory stated that generally on parking lot screening the City does not rely on plant material since it may be there when it first goes in but as the years go by the plants may die. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a normal headlight would probably be lower than a 3' wall, but may not be on a SUV. Mr. Voce stated that the parking lot is already 6" below the curb. Mr. Voce stated that he does not want to build a wall and doesn't believe in walls. He commented that this is a big area and he could add some beautiful landscaping. He stated that he told the Planning Commission that this is a $4 million dollar project and he's not going to let it die. He commented that he understands Mr. Stein's problem and would like to provide for his needs. Mr. Gordon Stein stated that this is not just a headlight issue. He commented that he assumed that the access in and out of the commercial site would go onto Alessandro, which is a commercial thoroughfare, but instead the design took the ingress/egress out into the residential area. He stated that he's impacted a great deal because his house is right across the street from the office building. Mr. Stein stated that his big concern is separation from R-1 from commercial. He stated that what he sees is a severe-looking parking lot. Mr. Stein commented that he wanted to look at other projects with similar conditions so he drove east on Alessandro where there is a project at the corner of San Jacinto and Alessandro whereby the houses on the neighboring side streets are blocked off with a permanent block wall, as opposed to landscaping. He stated that he drove in the other direction and went to San Gorgonio Avenue and San Antonio, just off Monterey Avenue near Walgreens and again facing the streets on the R-1 side there were block walls with landscaping in front of them. He stated that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R020514.MIN 30 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES � he feels strongly about screening the parking lot situation and soften it so that there is still a bit of an R-1 feel. He is suggesting the addition of a 5' block wall and landscaping to soften the wall itself, which is similar to what he has seen elsewhere. Mr. Stein commented that Mr. Voce may have a hard time putting a 3' berm in this location as it would be too steep. Mr. Voce stated that the sprinklers are already installed and his landscape plan has already been approved. He stated that adding the wall would cause an economic problem. He stated that there were already so many restrictions put on this building and he ended up with very little room for landscaping on the inside where people are working. He commented that now there is a lot of landscaping on the outside and nothing on the inside and now this is the only island where he could add nice landscaping and now he may have to put a wall there. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a typical solution to how the City looks at conflicts between commercial and R-1 zoning. He stated that adding a wall would be an easy way to resolve this situation, but Mr. Voce doesn't like walls. Mr. Smith stated that there is an ordinance that says that parking lots are to be screened from the public streets to a height of 36". He stated that Mr. Stein came to the Planning Commission hearing to request mitigation to obscure his view up into the site, however, the specific request of building a block wall was not made at that point. Mr. Smith stated that the ARC is being asked to come up with a mitigation. Mr. Smith commented that the City has been urging the two parties to try and resolve this amicably between themselves, which has not happened. Therefore, it's in the hands of the ARC as to what it would take to achieve the intent of the condition. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where this goes after the ARC. Mr. Smith stated that if the Commission approved it as it has been shown in the packet, then the decision could be appealed by one of the parties and would go to the City Council. He stated that the same thing could happen if they approved a wall, then the other party could appeal and go to Council. Mr. Stein stated that he tried to talk to Mr. Voce about this matter and he also dropped plans off at the architect's office, with no response. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that both parties gave very convincing proposals and were both very well prepared. He commented that he has a personal view on this. He stated that the Gardens at EI Paseo is a big impact project onto a residential neighborhood. He stated that the importance is to preserve the quality of the residential zone and this needs to be considered by the commercial zone. He commented that G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020514.MIN 31 � � � `�wr✓' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES he sees nothing wrong with the proposal for a 5' wali. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that both issues and concerns can be satisfied by adding the wall with very nice landscaping to shield it to make it look good from the residential side and also the commercial side. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would vote in favor of this proposal of a 5' wall with the right kind of landscaping. Commissioner Hanson agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell. She stated that unfortunately the commercial developers are under the hardship of having to satisfy their neighbors. She stated that recently she had to present a project which required access onto a residentiaf street and the Planning Commission denied it. She commented that she can understand why they denied it because of the residential issue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Voce commented that adding a wall would take away what little landscaping area he has left. He suggested having a meandering wall with pockets on both sides for some nice plantings. He stated that this may satisfy both parties. Mr. Voce stated that he doesn't want a wall since he's already been approved. He stated that he conformed with all the rules. He commented that Mr. Stein said that he gave plans to the architect and the architect said that this is a lie and he never received anything. Commissioner Gregory stated that when he built his building right next to an R-1 zone the neighbors were complaining and he did everything they asked for. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that from the pictures that were shown to the Commission, the landscaping around the commercial building is very arid, desert landscaping. He stated that he doesn't know how that kind of landscaping could provide the screening that needs to be accomplished. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to recommend approval of addition of a 5' wall (meandering or straight) in the planter area at the northeast corner of property at 73- 720 Alessandro with the appropriate landscaping, subject to approval of Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that all of the things that Mr. Voce wanted could be incorporated into the design including rock, trees and shrubs. He commented that the composition itself, including the wall, will look very nice. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020514.MIN 32 � . - �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MAY 14, 2002 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020514.MIN 33