Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-22 � � � � �-����� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 8 0 Kristi Hanson X 6 2 Richard O'Donnell X 7 1 Chris Van Vliet X 8 0 John Vuksic X 7 1 Ray Lopez X 8 0 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 8, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of April 8, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . , �, ;�,�,+` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22,2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: SIGN RESOURCE, P.O. Box 549, Maywood, CA 902700 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised sign program for Best Western Palm Desert Resort. LOCATION: 74-695 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the ARC originally looked at the sign program for Best Western at the meeting of March 25, 2003 where the case was continued to allow the applicant to make specific alterations. Toni Ginn, Sign Resource representative, has returned with plans reflecting the requested changes. The Commission was provided copies of the minutes of March 25, 2003 to review the direction that was given at that time. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he had a few comments relative to the size of two of the signs as proposed. Commissioner O'Donnell complimented the applicant on the changes that were made. They did an exceptionally good job with the monument sign. However, he had issues with the size of the letters on signs #4 and #5. He would prefer to see them at 18" instead of 24". Commissioner Hanson commented that signs #2 and #3 still extend 14" away from the building. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that since they did such a good job removing the logo and all the other requests, that this wasn't an issue with him. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the sign utilized a raceway that goes all the way across. Ms. Ginn stated that it's a raceway covered by an architectural feature. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to letters on signs #4 and #5 being reduced from 24" to 18" in height. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: STEIN AND ASSOCIATES, GORDON STEIN, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite K, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 2 , , � "� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of architectural plans for a single family dwelling and accessory buildings. LOCATION: Palm Ridge Drive, Bighorn ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that Francisco Urbina will present the case to the Commission. Mr. Urbina stated that the home is approximately 14,000 square feet and will be located on two lots (#74 & #75) in Bighorn. The applicant is proposing to merge the two lots. There are also four guest suites that will be built, as well as an attached servant's quarters and a detached servanYs quarters. The Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Control Committee has certain corrections that they want made and that is a condition of staff's approval. Also, relating to this, the property owner of lot 73 to the west has written a letter that was included in the ARC packets consenting to the raising of the pad by three feet on lot 74 as long as the applicant raises the neighbor's pad by 1'/2' subject to review by the Bighorn Landscape and Architectural Control Committee. Staff's recommendation is that the ARC approve the applicant's proposal subject to the recommendations by staff, including filing a parcel map waiver to merge two lots into one lot. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the section of the letter from the Bighorn Association stating that "the Committee looks forward to your next submittal which is related to issues that the Committee commented on." Commissioner O'Donnell wanted to know if the ARC will see the plans after those issues are dealt with by the Bighorn Association. Mr. Smith commented that typically the plans would not be seen by the ARC at that point. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he just wanted to know what the process was as far as the protocol relationship between the Bighorn Association and the City's ARC. Mr. Smith stated that if they were to impose what we deem a significant change from the proposed plans, then we would make it a point to bring it back to the ARC for consideration of the revision. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 3 , , `� '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WESTFIELD CORPORATION, 72- 840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of sign program and reconsideration of two entries into Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that he asked the applicant to bring in plans that had dimensions on them. The Commission did receive copies of the two entries to review. Keith Ray, Westfield representative, was present and stated that he is in charge of the architectural group for Westfield. They have increased the height of the entries that are facing Highway 111 by 5' and also extended the parapet walls back 15' on either side of the entries. They have complied with all of the issues previously discussed by the ARC. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he had any information on the sizes of the proposed signage. Mr. Ray distributed packets to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the signage for the parking structure is part of the submittal. Mr. Ray stated that it is part of the submittal. He commented that there was discussion that the signs that are on the parking structure were approved. Commissioner O'Donnell asked to continue the request for approval of the signage to give the Commissioners an opportunity to review the sign locations in detail. Commissioner Gregory asked if it could be put at the end of the agenda. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the Commission hasn't had a chance to review the sign program since they just received the plans. The signage has always been a critical issue with the ARC. Commissioner Hanson stated that the issues include the amount of signage, where it goes, size of signage, etc... Commissioner Vuksic stated that the same cap detail that's shown on the front of the entries should continue down the sides with the overhanging cap. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of revised plans for two entries subject to cap detail G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030422.MIN 4 , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22,2003 MINUTES continuing down sides with overhanging cap and continued the request for approval of sign program to allow ARC to review proposed signage in detail. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: HAROLD SCHULTZ, 189 Madrid Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of remodel of store front in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-734 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Jorge Conreras was present representing the applicant. Commissioner Hanson stated that the facade remodel is very nice. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the signage should be moved down so that it's centered. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the signage should be incorporated into the structure of the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant should make sure that power is provided in the area where the sign will be installed so that they don't have to tack a sign on the outside of the building. The applicant should create a space for the signage. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to creating a space for signage. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 03-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� RICHARD MILLS, 68-525 Risueno Road, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting approval to construct a 5-foot high block wall (30.5 lineal feet)with a stucco finish and a 3-foot wide wrought iron gate near front door entrance to a professional office building. LOCATION: 44-300 Monterey Avenue, The Vein Doctor G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR030422.MIN $ . . �rrr+' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22,2003 MINUTES ZONE: R-2 Francisco Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 5- foot high stucco finish block wall facing Monterey Avenue approximately 26' lineal feet around a secondary exit, which is for employees only. The main entrance to this two-tenant building is on the south side facing the parking lot. Staff has some concerns about the proposed wall detracting from the architectural element on the west elevation. The applicant stated that he is willing to put a decorative cap on the proposed wall. There is some concern as to whether or not the proposed wall could restrict egress in the event of a fire. However, the applicant stated that he consulted with Bruce Pelletier, representative of the Fire Department, and he was okay with the wall and wrought iron gate as long as the gate would not be locked. Staff thinks that approval of this wall would set a precedent for other buildings in the vicinity along Monterey Avenue which would detract from architectural elements, therefore, staff is recommending denial. Commissioner Gregory asked if the proposed wall meets setback requirements relative to height and setbacks to property line. Does the wall conform to code? Mr. Urbina stated that it does conform to code. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was an aesthetic issue. Mr. Urbina stated that this is correct. The wall is more than 15' from face of curb. Richard Mills, general contractor, was present to address the Commission. The owner of the building, Mike Homme, wants to keep the Spanish look of the building and not detract in any way from the overall appearance. There is a building to the northwest that has an entrance with a wall enclosing it. They're trying to keep all the architectural elements including matching the stucco and paint. The cornice trim on the windows and on the building itself are a different color from the color of the building so he is proposing matching the trim to the wall cap. There is a two-fold purpose to this wall. One is to cut down on the noise coming into the office space from Monterey, but they also want to put signage on the wall. A sign application has been made by John O'Hea Signs. If you drive down Monterey in either direction, it's very difficult to see the existing sign on the building. It's a safety hazard to crane your neck to look at the sign. Mr. Smith stated that we're not looking at signage today and we don't have a sign application. Mr. Mills stated that originally he was called in to build a sound attenuation wall. During the course of the discussion with his client, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030422.MIN 6 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES they mentioned that they were thinking about putting a sign on the wall. The location of the wall is around the secondary access door that's not used on a regular basis. The plans show a latchless iron gate and there is an adjoining sidewalk to the City sidewalk that runs along Monterey up to the sidewalk around the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant how far the building is from the property line. Mr. Mills stated that it's 15' from the edge of the sidewalk to the proposed wall. The wall is well within the required setbacks. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he thinks that the request fails on both counts. He doesn't see it as a sound attenuation wall. There's a glass wall in this area that's 5' in height. Sound doesn't distinguish between a glass wall that's 5' or 8' or 10'. He would never approve any signage on that wall. There is no reason for the wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the applicant submitted a plan that shows a wall that is aesthetically adequate and meets setback and height requirements, then he doesn't see how the ARC could turn it down. The current proposal is not aesthetically adequate. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested possibly lowering the wall and adding some berming or landscaping. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he's looking for approval of the wall or signage. Mr. Mills stated that the most important thing at this time is the sign. He hasn't had time to discuss how the sign will be installed unless he puts it on the wall. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Mills if he realizes that the wall is in the same plane as the building so the sign won't be any more visible than it is on the wall. In fact, it will probably be less visible because it's lower and cars and landscaping will block the sign. Mr. Mills didn't agree. He commented that it will be much more visible. The sign will be further out and at eye level. If traveling in a northerly direction, a person wouldn't see the sign until they passed it. Commissioner Hanson stated that if a person was in a car the sign would be parallel to the car. Mr. Mills commented that as a car comes up to the sign it can be seen up ahead because it's further out from the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant needs to present what he really wants. If this was meant to be a sign-type wall, then show the sign. The wall as iYs designed right now is probably not enough aesthetically to make the ARC feel comfortable with just the wall itself. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN � . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES if a sign is coming later, he guessed that the sign would be turned down. If they approve the wall, it's not a sign approval. If the sign comes later, the ARC would tend to be adverse to it. If the wall and the signage were proposed at one time he might have a better chance of approval. It may be hard to get a wall with a sign approved if his basic goal is really to have a sign. He suggested going with a monument approach, whether it is parallel or perpendicular, although it still may be difficult to get approved. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if the applicant proposes to go forward with coming up with a more aesthetically appealing wall and they would like to put a sign on it, could this possibly be approved? However, if the applicant chose to add a wall without the sign, could this possibly be approved? Commissioner Hanson commented that a wall could potentially be approved. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant proposed to add a monument sign, would there be hope for that without the wall? Commissioner O'Donnell commented that a monument sign, based on what he's heard from the Council, may not be approved. The Council was concerned about the amount of signage along Monterey. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the ARC still approves nice looking monument signs. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that a monument sign could possibly be approved with the condition that the wall sign be removed. Mr. Mills stated that he could forget the wall proposal and ask for approval of an appropriate sign. The original purpose of the wall was not to add signage, however, as time has passed he has discovered that this is what his client really wants. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to reconsider the long term purpose of the proposed wall. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ART KOTZ, 73-260 Willow Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for reconsideration of approval of chain link fence batting cage. LOCATION: 73-260 Willow Street ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN g . . � ,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that this request was presented to the ARC at their last meeting on April 8, 2003. The applicant was not aware that it was going to be discussed that day. Therefore, he has requested to come back and present his case to the ARC. Art Kotz commented that he regrets not being able to attend the April 8 meeting. He thanked the Commission for putting his request back on today's agenda. He distributed a supplementary hand-out to the Commission. The significance of this hand-out is to replace the view looking east on his plan sheet. He had drawn the easterly view from the inside of his property and he didn't take into account that the only people who will see it from this view are his own family. He has submitted a picture of what the cage will look like from the outside of his property. The highlighted line on the picture represents the proposed top of the cage. It is significantly reduced from the way it currently exists. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Kotz if he's proposing to move the cage in from the property line to 13'. Mr. Kotz stated that this is correct and it is currently 1'/Z from the property line. Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant was going to plant anything behind it or to the side of it. Mr. Kotz stated that he intends to add two 24" box trees to fill in the missing gap. The type of trees will be of his neighbor's choosing. He had the opportunity to go into his neighbor's house and look at the batting cage from his vantage point. By lowering the last 20' length of the cage, it will match the height of the neighbor's masonry wall. To the extent of the vantage point from his house, that satisfies his concern. From the standpoint from the back end of the cage, the two proposed trees would fill the remaining 30% void that exists there now. There are existing trees that block approximately 60%-70% of the cage. His neighbor was happy to have two more trees to complete the picture. The rear of the cage will have a row of proposed honeysuckle vines for screening, as suggested by Spencer Knight. Commissioner Hanson asked how Mr. Kotz would screen the part of the cage that will still be visible. Mr. Kotz stated that 2' of the cage would still be visible and he suggested using vines for screening. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for clarification of the setbacks off the side property line. He asked if Mr. Kotz intended to move the cage away from the side property line or leave it at 1'/2. Mr. Kotz stated that it is currently 1'/2' from the side yard property line and he intends to move it away from Grapevine and also lower the overall height to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030422.MIN 9 . . � �t ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES comply with the sports courts ordinance that states that a maximum of 10' height is allowed. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the applicant is not in conformance with the ordinance. Mr. Kotz stated that he is not in conformance along the eastern edge of the cage where it's close to the eastern property line. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he was in conformance from the street. Mr. Kotz stated that he is in conformance. Mr. Smith commented that he is not in conformance from the street. The sports court ordinance requires 20' from the street. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees on the plans that the cage is 13' from the existing wall. Mr. Kotz commented that his wall is on the property line. Commissioner Vuksic asked for verification that the sports court should be 20' from the property line and not 20' from the street. Mr. Smith stated that this is correct. Depending on the height of the structure, if the cage is 10' in height the side yard setback would have to be 10' from the property line. If the cage were depressed into the ground so that the cage wasn't higher than 6' above the ground, then it could be as close as 5' from property line. Commissioner Gregory stated that they have a problem with the east property line. The cage is too close. The setback on Grapevine is 20'. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the cage is only 13' from property line. Mr. Kotz stated that he is in disagreement with the 20' setback. He stated that a lot which is bounded on all sides by streets may have no real lot lines. All means all. He has streets on three sides of his property, not four. If he had streets on four sides it would be "all". At that point he would have to comply with the 20' setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that codes aside and assuming that the neighbor is happy, the biggest concern for the Commission really is the view from the street. The City has pretty strict rules about visible chain-link fencing from public streets and this is the main aesthetic focus of the ARC, not code. However, if he works out the setback from the street and setback from the neighbor's shared property line, how do we mitigate the view from the street? Commissioner Vuksic asked how high the cage could be if the it were 20' back. Commissioner Hanson stated that it could be 10' in height. Commissioner Gregory commented that he realizes that anything done after the fact is a hassle. The applicant seems to have a huge yard. If 7' made all the difference in the world as far as getting it approved, would there be room inside to move the cage back an additional 7' for a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 1� . . �r�' `,,,�,�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES total of 20' from Grapevine? Mr. Kotz asked if this meant leaving the eastern edge as is. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was trying to come up with ways to make it work. He doesn't know if this is the answer, but he's just bringing up ideas. Mr. Kotz stated that he does have the availability of going an additional 7' to the south. He has much less tolerance to go to the west because he has installed a baseball field and the cage would encroach on first base. Mr. Kotz stated that he has been involved with PDYSA for seven years and has coached and managed as many teams as he can possibly handle. He has two sons, ages 13 and 11. He has a passion for the game. His sons have a passion for the game. He has this passion because baseball is very analogous to life. Baseball is a game that's built on failure. If you think about it, when you're in the offensive game of baseball if you succeed 30% of the time you're in the Hall of Fame. There aren't many other facets of life where if you're 30% successful you could be put in the Hall of Fame. If we make money on only 30% of our jobs we won't be in business. He relates his passion for baseball to life. He tells all his kids that baseball is like a game of life. If you can conduct your life in the same way that we play this game, then it will make them better off for it. The reason why he's telling the ARC this is because when they get into their baseball season the City only has so many resources for fields and practice facilities which severely cuts down on the availability for them to practice all the way down to a point where they cannot practice. That aspect was a portion of the reason why he built this little project in his backyard. This is not to say that he's going to turn his backyard into a commercial City facility. ThaYs not what he's going to do, but at least for the benefit of two teams that he manages, they're gaining that extra that the other kids don't have. He's trying to do a little "give back program" to the community. He wanted to share this with the ARC because when he put this plan together and had the cage set up it was done for those reasons and in no way was done to ignore the neighbors, ignore the City or ignore rules. He was in another mind set and it didn't occur to him that he better get the project approved before he built it. Unfortunately, it has ruffled the neighbors feathers but that was not the intent. He did solicit the advice of Jim Ferguson. He was in the yard and looked at it with him. On his recommendations of making it right with his next door neighbor and moving it back away from Grapevine he has translated those ideas onto his paperwork. Commissioner O'Donnell commended Mr. Kotz on what he does with kids because is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, he understands how you can get emotionally involved in something and forget about ordinances and building permits. It would set a good example if he G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030422.MIN 11 . . � �, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES were to meet the code requirements, not just for the neighbors but for the children involved. Commissioner O'Donnell has seen the batting cage and stated that he was horrified. He wondered how this happened without approval. Minimum setback requirements set the standard for the aesthetics. In other words, to keep certain things a distance away from other things. The interpretation of the front of the property can be argued with staff. The point is that the applicant built the batting cage pretty much on top of a neighbor's property line. He would be very upset if he was that neighbor. As far as any compromise, he's not one to feel like there is any compromise. He should meet whatever the code requirements are. Commissioner Lopez stated that he's not sure if vines will adequately screen the batting cage on the Grapevine side. He agrees with Commissioner O'Donnell that it should conform to the code. He's doesn't see adequate screening along Grapevine. Mr. Kotz stated that it was recommended that he use honeysuckle vines to screen the cage but he's could use a different type of vine. Commissioner Lopez commented that he wasn't sure if vines would screen the structure adequately. It would look like chain link with a vine on it. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that she feels would be somewhat acceptable is if he was to move the fence back 20' from the Grapevine property line and if his neighbor is inclined to be fine with planting additional trees and leave the batting cage where it is along the eastern property line. If he was to move the cage away from Grapevine and plant a tree or something else in front of it so that it really wouldn't be visible from Grapevine. She would be inclined to approve the structure with the above mentioned conditions. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell. The applicant would have to meet the code requirements for both setbacks if he wanted an approval. Commissioner Vuksic concurred with Commissioner Hanson. He suggested that the applicant take another section off the front and put it on the back and lower the structure to 10'. IYs between Mr. Kotz and his neighbor if he's okay with it being close to his property line. Mr. Kotz stated that his neighbor's main concern was looking out his bedroom window. What he sees currently is an 8' long and 4' high worth of material. It does impair his view of the mountains. He will lower the cage so that it becomes invisible to his neighbor. His neighbor suggested that Mr. Kotz put two trees in his front yard, which is the applicant's back yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the neighbor was okay with that. Mr. Kotz stated that he wouldn't bring this G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R030422.MIN IZ , . �► `�;' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES proposal to the ARC if his neighbor was opposed to it. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kotz if he received copies of the letters that were sent to the Planning Department. Mr. Kotz stated that he did not receive any letters. Mr. Smith commented that he will make copies for him. Mr. Smith asked which direction the kids hit, towards the street or away from the street. Mr. Kotz stated that they hit towards the street. Mr. Smith suggested having a tiered batting cage and dropping one end of it so that they hit from a lower level. Mr. Kotz stated that he had proposed a similar plan but he had it reversed. He doesn't need the height where the batter stands. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if this project came before the ARC without it being built it would not have been approved. The neighbor won't live in this house forever. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the neighbor will have to understand that he is accepting this impact when he sells the house. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that another neighbor two streets down could ask to do the same thing. He doesn't see any problem with asking the applicant to meet the minimum setback requirements. The aesthetic design as part of that only makes it a better finished product. He realizes that there are other issues involved in this now because it's already installed. Commissioner Gregory commented that one thing that was brought up at the last meeting and has not been discussed yet today is the possibility of lowering the finished grade. Mr. Kotz stated that three of his utility lines for phone, electric and water are directly under the cage. They're only two feet below grade, therefore, he would have major utility issues to relocate them. There is a method where he could excavate down to the 2' elevation and pour a concrete encasement over the utility lines to protect them. This would enable him to lower the top an additional 2' from his proposed plans. This would just about eliminate it from view from Grapevine. Commissioner Gregory stated that they always worry about precedent. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested a time limit as to how long the cage will stay. He stated that the applicant's youngest son is 11, therefore, in 8 years he'll be 19. At this time the cage should be removed. It should be recorded on the deed so that it'll show up if the home is sold. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to applicant meeting minimum setback requirements. Motion failed 3-3-0-0 with Commissioners Hanson, Vuksic and Gregory opposed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 13 . . ,�✓: � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to (1) moving structure 23' from Grapevine property line, (2) lower top of cage 4' from original submittal showing 12' height, (3) landscape sufficiently relative to trees as opposed to vines, under direction of staff, (4) written approval from adjacent neighbor, and (5) remove structure in eight years (recorded on deed) or upon sale of property whichever occurs first. Motion carried 4-2-0-0 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez opposed. 7. CASE NO.: SA 03-52 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: A & A SIGNS, 33124 Turner Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of business signage. Barnes & Noble LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown, Barnes & Noble ZONE: P.C. 3 Tony Bagato stated that the proposed sign is for individual channel letters reading "Barnes & Noble" stacked above another set of individual channel letters reading "Booksellers". The total square footage that they are proposing is 147 square feet. Per our sign code ordinance, they're only allowed 111 square feet. Staff's recommendation is for them to reduce the letter size for "Barnes & Noble" from 48" to 36" so that they can meet the required allowable signage. Keith Ray, Westfield representative, was present and stated that it would be an issue for them to reduce the letter size to 36". He's concerned about the visibility from Highway 111. He wants them to be very successful. Signage is everything for a retailer. He would like to keep the letter size at 48". It works from a proportional standpoint on the face of the building and doesn't feel that it's oversized. Commissioner Hanson asked if they would eliminate the Westfield sign on the parking structure. Mr. Ray stated that he would get in a lot of trouble for that one. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it was put up without ARC approval. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 14 . , �r' '�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory commented that the Commission does not have the ability to exceed the maximum allowable square footage as noted in the sign ordinance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the sign looks too big, scale wise. Commissioner Hanson commented that everyone sees the new addition from Highway 111. Mr. Ray asked if they could use 42" letters. The Commission commented that it has to meet code. Commissioner Gregory stated that the ARC could possibly approve the signage with 36" letters and then the applicant could appeal the decision and go to the City Council and see if he could show them how critical it is. Mr. Ray asked if it could be continued so that they could go back and look at the letter size and reduce the letter size to a little over 36" and still fit within the square footage. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how far out the sign will project from the building. Mr. Ray stated that iYll project 35/s" from the building. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he likes that. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing reduced letter size from 48" to 36" in height. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 4,971 square foot office complex. LOCATION: North side of Fred Waring, 390 feet east of Monterey. ZONE: O.P. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the equipment will be. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's on top of the first floor, which has the ability to have high parapet walls that house the package units. The G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR030422.MIN IS . . �" vrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES first floor has some units that are split system where the air handlers are in the attic and the condenser units are on the roof of the first floor. They're all below the top of the parapet. Mr. Bagato stated that the building does meet the height requirements. Commissioner Hanson asked why one of the offices upstairs doesn't have a window. She suggested possibly using glass block to let in natural light. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CHOICE ENTERPRISE, 74-925 Highway 111, Suite 14, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a four-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-3 Francisco Urbina stated that this is an in-fill lot on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive west of the Mojave Inn. The applicant is proposing to do four three-bedroom apartments 1,583 square feet each. Each of the four units will have their own two-car garage accessed by a common driveway. Each of the units will also have a walled patio area. The applicant revised the plans from his original submittal to include a solid roof covered patio area off the master bedroom. There will be a 6' high perimeter wall around the project that will be stuccoed. Each of the patio areas will have a 6' block wall for privacy. Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions outlined in the staff report including additional plantings in the courtyards. The Landscape Specialist has corrections for the applicant to make on the preliminary landscape plan. Commissioner Hanson stated that the project is very cleverly done but she has an issue with all the concrete in between the two units. She felt that this would be too harsh and suggested creating a landscaped island with one way direction on either side. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 16 . . �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory suggested using an enhanced-type of concrete (possibly stamped) to make it more of a courtyard. Gabriel Lujan, representative, was present and stated that he could use a decorative concrete. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the windows be recessed. Mr. Lujan agreed that he would recess all the windows. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding some sort of decorative detail to the wall that faces the driveway. Mr. Lujan commented that he could add some sort of decorative tile to the wall to add some character. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested bringing the stonework up to the underside of the pop out. Mr. Lujan agreed and will cap the top of the stonework. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the wainscot has to have some dimension and needs to come out from the building. Commissioner Gregory commented on the column thickness. They look a little spindly. The garage surrounds look a little more proportional. Mr. Lujan stated that he can make the columns thicker. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the stone would look better if it wasn't the same everywhere. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding a focal point at the end of the driveway so that as you drive in you see something other than just a wall. Also, there's probably no need for a sidewalk running along the end. Something else could be added in this area, such as a water feature or raised planter. Commissioner Lopez stated that there are probably going to be kids living in the units because it's a rental. He suggested creating an area with a bench or a table for people to gather. Mr. Lujan commented that he tried to do that with a grassy area but it doesn't meet the Palm Desert code. Commissioner Lopez stated that there should be a separate set of water calcs for an apartment complex. Diane Hollinger commented that he can have the lawn in the back but she had suggested that he remove the lawn at the two corners in the front. Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't recommend lawn right up against the building. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture subject to (1) add landscape median to driveway subject to Fire Department approval, (2) use decorative concrete on driveway, (3) recess all windows, (4) add decorative detail to driveway side elevation, (5) bring stonework up to horizontal line of windows, (6) thicken columns, (7) add focal point at end of driveway, (8) eliminate sidewalk at end of driveway, and (9) create sitting/play area. The landscaping and site plan were continued to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 6-0-0- 0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN l� . . ,� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DENNIS MELILLI, 3465 La Campana Way, Suite 3, Paim Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a new 8,840 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: 73-399 EI Paseo, southwest corner of EI Paseo and Lupine (formerly the Vintage Garden Cafe) ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that plans have been submitted that show the former Vintage Garden Cafe demolished and replaced with a retail commercial building on the corner. The Commissioners received the plans in their packets, including the revised site plan. Staff was less than enthusiastic about the proposed elevations, therefore, the plans were brought to the ARC in an expedited fashion so that the applicant will have time to be able to make necessary changes. Dennis Melilli, who represents the owner, is the contractor and was present to speak to the Commission. What he's trying to achieve is a simple, but semi-elegant building that will allow the tenants show their own wares. The glass in the front is 12' tall with gold frames. There will be molding along the top and bottom of the building. The soffit projects 2' and is underlit so that the lights wash the walls all the way around the building. He is proposing to use 24" square travertine tile with brass fry metal between each piece. They're going to produce an awning program which will be submitted to the Planning Department as the tenants move in. The signage will go above the awnings across the facade. He was told by Planning that he will have to decrease the frontage on the corner. He's back off the corner by 28' and there's an overhang that comes out to give them a height of 14'. The air conditioning units will be mounted on the roof and hidden from sight. There will be a sand finish on the exterior with a two-tone color scheme. The sidewalks will be removed all the way around. They will replace the sidewalks with a matt stamp and two-coat concrete. The existing building sits 5' above grade. They intend to remove the existing restaurant and drop the building down to street level. The parking lot will be approximately 4' higher than the building. There will be a handicap ramp at the rear of the property. There will be under sidewalk drains to take the water out to EI Paseo. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030422.MIN i 8 � _ '�r+ � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thinks that it's possible to have a building that's very simple and tasteful, but he doesn't think that this is an example of that. It's simple but it looks like a government building. It doesn't have the texture and flavor that he can see a hint of further down along EI Paseo. This building looks like iYs on the wrong site. Mr. Melilli stated that he followed the other buildings that are on EI Paseo, such as Dansk and Edith Morre. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he knows those two buildings and those are simple and tasteful. There's some skill in making something simple and tasteful. The proposed plan needs a lot of work. The whole flavor of it is off. Commissioner Hanson stated that the one thing that she actually likes is the proposed colors. The cap on top makes the building look like a building with a cap on it. She doesn't think that it adds the detail that's appropriate or applicable. The overhang at the entrance is just sort of winging out there and wonders why it's there. There's a big blank wall right up against the sidewalk. The Edith Morre building is tall but it has a scale that's brought down to the human scale. Mr. Melilli stated that the reason why he added the overhang at the entrance is because there's a City ordinance stating that every foot in height puts the building 2' back. If they take the height of the building at 30' they would have to be back 60' off the corner. The reason why he added the overhang is to make it the first height of the building with a roof area. The roof area would then start at 14' which makes the setback 28' from the corner. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there are other ways to mitigate the problem. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are multitudes of ways to accommodate the same thing but done in a much different way. Mr. Mellili stated that he could come up with another roof design, but he'll still have something sticking out at that corner at the 14' height to give them a 28' setback. He has to use a permanent structure at that point, as opposed to an awning. Mr. Smith commented that the building has to be 56' from the street at the corner regardless of the roof structure over the entrance. Mr. Melilli commented that this is not what he was told by Phil Drell. He stated that he was told to measure from the first roof height. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant really needs a qualified architect to give him input on this building. It doesn't look like he's done that. He has a good site with some great opportunities. He likes the fact that they're lowering the grade. He feels that he really needs a qualified professional to give him good input on it. Commissioner Hanson stated that Tommy Bahamas has windows opening up off the side, which is a really nice aspect. Anybody who G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030422.MIN 19 . . �, �; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRI� 22, 2003 MINUTES walks by can at least look into windows. Mr. Melilli commented that there will be landscaping in the way so that people can't walk up to see in the windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't have to walk up to look in, but it's the fact that you can actually see in the store. The Daily Grill has the same situation where they're down lower and you can still look into their building. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the proposed corner location is in the village part of EI Paseo, whereas, on the east side the scale is a lot smaller. The proposed building seems out of context for the area. The building seems to be too massive for the site. The building at 30' in height with a cap running all around it doesn't seem to fit the location. He concurs with Commissioner Vuksic. He thinks that he can design a simple building. It doesn't have to be loaded with all kinds of expensive elements. It can be made to fit in a lot better than the current proposal. There's nothing on the east elevation that's attractive at all and yet that street is used quite a bit. Mr. Urbina asked the applicant why the building is as high as it is. He asked if it was a two-story building. Mr. Melilli stated that it's not a two- story building but the owner wants height in case one of his tenants is an art gallery. He doesn't want to limit the kind of tenant that goes into the building. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that by doing this he's making it look like a warehouse, as opposed to a retail center. Mr. Melilli commented that he could lower it. Commissioner O'Donnell asked who the architect is. Mr. Melilli stated that Joel Brown is the designer and he also hired independent designers to look at it. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wanted to caution the applicant that the suggestions that she made are not the only things that they have to do. It's going to take more than her suggestions to make this the type of building that she feels is appropriate for EI Paseo. Commissioner O'Donnell made a point regarding the architect. He doesn't know who the applicant hired to help with the design work but they really need to have somebody who has a flair for this and can understand the difference between Edith Morre and the proposed plans. Mr. Smith strongly urged the applicant to speak to Mr. Drell again. The intention of the ordinance regarding height and setbacks was to create a stepping back from the corners. It has nothing to do with where you might put out the first floor. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the ordinance has nothing to do with the first element that you happen to come to. At that point, it doesn't nullify the rest of the height requirement. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030422.MIN 2� . - � �, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the applicant has some major re- design work to do, not just "fix-up" with some of the comments that were made. It needs another look. He doesn't want to hurt anybodies feelings about design because he knows that people see things differently. He doesn't think that the proposed project, even with the suggestions that were discussed today, would even help much. Commissioner Lopez concurred with the other Commissioners. When he first saw the plans he thought that it doesn't really fit in the proposed location. This design may work somewhere else, but not on EI Paseo. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the applicant has a tremendous opportunity here because this is one of the few remaining corners available on EI Paseo. The applicant should keep in mind that people walk in this area and he should keep it to human scale. This is one reason why it's out of context. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing major design changes. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. Mr. Smith commented that he has one item that came in late and he would like to ask the Commission if they could add it to the agenda. Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add the following item to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: TT 30801 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: COLLEGE VIEW ESTATES III, P.O. Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of exception to approved roof color. LOCATION: Shephard Lane & Portola ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that this is a tract of homes located off Shephard Lane. The applicant would like to add the color green as an acceptable tile color. The tile has been loaded on the roof of one home. It was not the developers choice but was at the request of the purchaser. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030422.MIN 21 . • '� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he drives down Portola everyday and there is a house in a different tract with a green roof and it shows up like a beacon. When he was driving by the other day he noticed another house that was loaded with similar color tiles. Commissioner Gregory asked if this could be a code enforcement issue. There are approved roof materials and this is outside the approval and the applicant is violating the approval. It's just one house with such a radical departure, therefore, how can we possibly approve it? Motion: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to deny the request because it doesn't fit into the rest of the neighborhood and is too contrasting. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030422.MIN 22