Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-12 err►, 'rri" CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES AUGUST 12, 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 13 2 Kristi Hanson X 12 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 5 Chris Van Vliet X 14 1 John Vuksic X 14 1 Ray Lopez X 14 1 Karen Oppenheim X 6 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 22, 2003 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of July 22, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner O'Donnell and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 err v� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: RV 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JACK C. GUERRIER, 43-220 Texas Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request permission to park RV (21' x 8' long, 9' high) in front area of house. LOCATION: 43-220 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that staff met with the applicant. While driving southbound, the RV is screened by landscaping which is on the neighbor's property. The applicant would like to add landscaping on the north side and felt that it would be sufficiently screened. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the specific language in the ordinance regarding RV screening. Mr. Bagato stated that the ordinance reads, "if space is not available behind a wall in the front driveway it requires City approval for hard surfaced area and existence of a fence. The Architectural Review Commission shall have a public noticed hearing. ... an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets." For the record, the public was notified and he did receive one letter from a neighbor who was in favor because he felt that the City shouldn't tell people what to do with their property. A lot of the houses in Palm Desert Country Club were built with 5' and 5' setbacks, which was the old county standard and RV's won't fit on the side of the houses. Commissioner Hanson asked the length and height of the RV. Mr. Guerrier stated that the RV is 22' long and 9' high. He stated that he planted some ficus trees to block the view, but they'll take a while to grow. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if there's any way that he could move the RV back further into the side yard. Mr. Guerrier stated that if he moves it back further he will have to move his air conditioner. He was hoping that he could avoid that. Commissioner Vuksic commented that from the photo, it looks like there's space to park the RV in the side yard. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would lose a tree and have to do some mechanical equipment revision. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES He doesn't see any way to adequately screen the RV in the front driveway, unfortunately. It's almost impossible to screen an RV. Very few get approved because of that problem. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission has seen requests like this many times and there hasn't been one approved like this in the front driveway, as painful as that is to say. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the RV is screened from one side but the other side is going to be open. Commissioner Vuksic commented that even with landscaping, it wouldn't make a difference. The applicant has the opportunity to store the RV on the side of the house, even though there will be an expense involved. A lot of people don't have that option. Mr. Guerrier asked how much time he would be allowed to move the air conditioner and relocate the RV. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would be given adequate time. Mr. Bagato asked the applicant if he could get the whole RV behind the fence if he moves the air conditioner. Mr. Guerrier commented that it would fit behind the fence. Mr. Bagato stated that he would give the applicant a couple of months to make the changes and he should keep in contact with staff. Mr. Guerrier stated that he understands that rules are rules and a law is a law. He just wanted to see what he should do before he goes any further. Commissioner Lopez asked about the height of the RV. It's 9' tall and the fence will be 6' in height. Will it be screened from the street even though it's behind a gate? Commissioner Hanson stated that the thing that the commission always looks for is if the RV is reasonably screened. As long as there's a gate in front of it and the RV is protected by the house then it would be an approvable solution. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. It would be a negative impact on the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Guerrier stated that the neighbors on either side don't have a problem with the RV. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to move air conditioning equipment so that the RV can be re-located behind the gate in the side yard. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GREGORY L. BARRETT, 43-180 Texas Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of wood fence in front yard. LOCATION: 43-180 Texas ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the fence was put up recently. The applicant had an old wooden fence that had been there for approximately twenty years. He's allowed to do some maintenance but over time it required a total rehaul with wood. He assumed that this was just a maintenance issue so he put up the new fence without a permit. Code Compliance brought this to the attention of Planning. The applicant is here requesting approval because the code requires that any new fence within a front yard setback or street side yard on a corner lot to be constructed of wrought iron, stuccoed block wall, decorative block, picket white fence or open split rail fence. A wooden fence was put up, which should be 15' from the curb. The front yard setback is only about 9'6" from the curb so it's in the public right of way. Staff is recommending denial because this doesn't meet any of the standards of the code. The landscaping was done well on the Wyoming side, but because it's a corner lot the height of the landscaping violates our line- of-sight ordinance for corner lots because there can't be anything over three feet high in this area. The applicant, Gregory Barrett, stated that he moved the fence line in a couple of feet from the street to allow for landscaping in the front. There was no way that he could leave the old fence there and replace the posts and some of the rails. He used the proper material, but not according to the City. He used treated material which has all been sealed and stained. It's a twenty year fence. Mr. Bagato commented that the code states that the ARC can approve other standards to the wall code if they feel that it's attractive. In this special circumstance, he's talked to Public Works and if the ARC approves the request they're willing to approve an encroachment permit for the front yard fence. The landscaping may have to be changed so that it doesn't exceed 3' in height or has to be maintained below 3'. Per the code, the neighbors GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 AGENDA were notified and no calls were received in favor or against the submittal. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the fence was an issue for the line-of- sight ordinance or is landscaping the issue. Mr. Barrett stated that the radius of the fence starts at 20' setback. Commissioner Lopez commented that the fence looks good. The applicant just didn't do his homework as far as setbacks. He agrees that the landscaping has to be looked at for sight lines. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned with the precedent that this sets. The ordinance is clear and why is this one different. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's an existing fence. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it exists in the exact location. Mr. Barrett stated that the fence in the front was closer to the street and he moved it back. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he actually tried to make it nicer. He will vote in favor of this request, but with the warning that he'll probably vote against the next one that comes in. Commissioner Hanson suggested sending out a notice to the homeowners in Palm Desert Country Club because that's where most of these requests come from. It would be a reminder that if they intend to build another fence the plans need to be brought in to make sure that it conforms to current standards. Most people don't realize that they need a permit to replace a fence. Commissioner Lopez stated that Palm Desert Country Club has a newspaper that they put out so staff could have them publish it in their newspaper, which would make it really easy. They have a Planning Commission at P.D.C.C. He asked if the Planning Commission approved Mr. Barrett's plans. Mr. Barrett stated that they didn't see the plans. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to fence meeting line of sight requirement and landscaping must be kept below 3' in height. Motion carried 5-0-0- 2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 03-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 255 Palowet, Palm Desert, CA 92260 GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 5 ` ftol ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised shade cover over the electrical panel for a private well site. LOCATION: 42-600 Chia Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: C 02-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TED GROULX, P.O. Box 14083, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations. LOCATION: 73-261 Highway 111 (Tarbell Realty building) ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY, 72-811 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised exterior colors. LOCATION: 72-811 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES The applicant, Bill Blummel, submitted new color samples for the commission to review. Mr. Drell commented that the samples are very similar to the colors on the Tweeters building. Some are the same and some are different. Three colors are the same as Tweeters. The applicant is suggesting adding a blue color. The other buildings will be a combination of these colors with different planes being emphasized. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the Staples red is only used at the sign location. Mr. Drell commented that the existing red tile is only used as a background for the sign. The other red hue is a terra cotta color. Commissioner Hanson asked about the teal color on the metal roof. Mr. Drell stated that the roof is a baked-on finish and it will not be re- painted. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the four colors look good. Commissioner Hanson suggested using a less primary color for the blue, possibly a greyer, dustier blue. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the proposed colors would be an improvement over the current colors. Mr. Drell stated that he still doesn't have a drawing that shows how the colors are going to be applied to the sides and back of Staples. Mr. Blummel showed Mr. Drell a drawing showing these views. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if they're set on using blue. The applicant stated that they wanted to offset the earth colors and bring it out to the street because it's so far from Highway 111. If they used only earth colors it would fade into the background. Commissioner Hanson commented that the center stands out a lot more with all the remodeling. The applicant stated that the Tweeter's management said that people think that they're closed because the windows are so black. Mr. Drell commented that retail stores shouldn't have tinted windows. Tweeter's doesn't need tinted windows since it's a northern exposure with a big overhang. The applicant stated that it cuts down on the air conditioning. Mr. Drell stated that those windows are shaded 95% of the time. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to changing blue to dustier blue and consulting with staff. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: MISC 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID YAGHOUBIAN, 72114 Follansbee Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an addition and remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73950-73956 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to concealing the flashing detail on top of the cornice. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HENRY A. GOTTHELF, NSD VENTURES, LLC, 7916 Paseo Del Ocaso, La Jolla, CA 92037 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for buildings A & B. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: Mr. Bagato asked the applicant for revised plans for the commission to review. Mr. Gotthelf, applicant, stated that he's not coming here with any plans because he has submitted a redraft of a drawing that was submitted on Friday, two and a half weeks ago and the only thing that he's gotten back so far is one comment from Commissioner Vuksic saying that "they haven't gotten there yet". Kristy said that she was going to be available for comments. Commissioner Hanson had responded to the applicant "that they weren't there yet". Matt Brady, architect, confirmed that he had received this comment and he had G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES spoken to Commissioner Vuksic on the phone. Mr. Gotthelf asked what that means. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this was not his comment. Mr. Gotthelf stated that the comment made by Commissioner Vuksic was about a flat wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had a few comments. Mr. Gotthelf stated that everybody said that they were going to be involved in this, but it doesn't seem like anybody is involved. It seems like what we have is a drawing that everybody would like to see changes, not to design his buildings, but they really would like to design his buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that the commission has offered plenty of suggestions and they started along the line, but it wasn't quite there yet. Mr. Gotthelf asked Commissioner Hanson if she would like to design the building? Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is what has been the struggle. The commission doesn't want to design the building, but he feels that the applicant wants the commission to tell him exactly what to do and the commission is not going to do that. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he doesn't want the commission to tell him exactly what to do. What he'd like the commission to tell him is what's wrong with the building. Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson stated that they've tried. Mr. Gotthelf asked what's wrong with the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's too flat, it doesn't have enough stepping from Gerald Ford... Mr. Gotthelf interrupted and commented that the building is 100 feet from Gerald Ford. Commissioner Vuksic commented that what Commissioner Hanson means is that side of the building isn't stepped enough. She doesn't mean it's not stepped back enough from Gerald Ford. She means that that street elevation is important and it needs to have more three dimensional layering to it. Mr. Gotthelf commented that what the commission would like him to do is to change the interior of the building so that the exterior is more stepped. Commissioner Hanson stated that she did not say that. She said that the interior of the building is fine, but to add something to the outside of it. She gave them suggestions, some of which have been incorporated, but they only did it in certain areas and it wasn't enough. Mr. Gotthelf asked when is it enough? Commissioner Hanson commented that if he wants her to design it she could tell him when it's enough. Mr. Gotthelf commented that he thinks what you folks have really done is you've taken them from a position when they came in here the first day and you said the back buildings are fine. The front buildings needed some steps. They put some steps into the front building. I will tell you, it's $50,000 worth of steps. $50,000 worth of steps and now you want more steps. If you don't think you're redesigning our building, you're wrong. You're redesigning G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES our building. And furthermore, I have a problem with you (Commissioner Vuksic) reviewing my project. You are in conflict. You have a project in this City competing with mine that was on the calendar before I was here and you are reviewing my project and you're across the street with a competing project. That's a conflict. Commissioner Hanson asked why that would be a conflict. Mr. Gotthelf commented that it's a conflict because he represents somebody that's in competition to me. That's why. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't think that's a conflict with the City. Only if there's a financial gain involved. Mr. Gotthelf replied,"a fee, a fee to that man for his services". Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he didn't want to argue the point. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he will argue the point because he has spent thousands of dollars. He has gone into escrow and is in a situation where he has lots of money at risk. He is here now for the third time and he has submitted drawings and he has submitted changes and the comments that he got back really are not adequate. They are not adequate. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that people have come through the ARC five times before. Mr. Gotthelf stated that all he hears is that the commission wants him to keep stepping the building. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that the commission did the applicant a favor by trying to say that they didn't have to resubmit over a two week period, that they could actually get some feedback from certain commission members which is something that they don't typically do to try to help him along in the process. Mr. Gotthelf commented that when the commission says they're going to give help and they just say that it doesn't come to the level of what they want, that's not help. All that's doing is telling them to go back and try and figure out another way. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant has to have the incentive to take it to the next level. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he has a lot of incentive. He has a hell of a lot of incentive. He has thousands of dollars invested in this thing and he has spent thousands of dollars on the project. Please don't talk about incentive. Mr. Drell asked if we could put the exhibits up on the wall so that we can look at them and make some very specific comments. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission has made specific comments. Mr. Drell asked the commission if they could review them. If there is uncertainty about what they mean, then clarify them. Mr. Gotthelf stated that Kristy recommended that they add a trellis structure to the front of the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that that was not specifically what she recommended. She said that was G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES one avenue and they only did it in a certain area. It was a nice start, but it wasn't finished yet. It doesn't have enough stuff to it. Mr. Gotthelf asked what is finished and what is enough stuff is really the question. Commissioner Hanson stated that if she tells him exactly what that is then she's designing it for him and she doesn't want to do that. Mr. Drell stated that this is not the commission's job. Commissioner Hanson stated that the revisions to the plans "didn't get there, but it's a start". Mr. Drell stated that in general, the problem was the uniformity of elements in the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's too straight across, it didn't step from the street or from the parking lot. Mr. Brady commented that one element is an accent panel with a stone-like form liner is stepped out in front of the building and is lower than the height of the building. Additionally, other elements were pulled up. Commissioner Hanson asked how far it steps out. Mr. Brady stated that it steps out two feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the trellis looks like an afterthought and doesn't really have any relationship to the building. His other comment was to step out certain elements and then return back to the regular plane. Right now the facade is very flat and is all on the same plane. The only thing that's protruding out are small elements. Another comment was that he thought that the applicant would have more success if they got away from the module which is all around all five buildings and did something that created a little more variety than that. Mr. Brady stated that this would make each building different, but all relate to each other. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he told Mr. Brady that it wouldn't bother him to see an element that was special that actually came up higher as long as it was special and something different than this very repetitive system that's around. His other comment was to play more off an element that's an architectural piece of the building to create the horizontal aspect that could help to break down the scale instead of just adding an alien form to the front. He also asked about the depth of glass because he understood that the glass was flat to the surface and there was no reveal. He wanted to know about that because it impacts the sense of depth. Mr. Brady stated that it's an 8" panel and the glass is about halfway back. It's not flush to the front. Commissioner Vuksic asked if his comments sounded overly vague. Mr. Gotthelf said "no". He accepts the fact that he misunderstood 'and he apologized for that, but these are industrial buildings. This is not a commercial building. He is not sitting on a major highway called 111. He is not on El Paseo. This is an industrial building. If the commission wants to make this into a shopping center, go with someone else. Don't go with me. Mr. Drell commented that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 11 rrr+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES this is across the street from a state university which we are trying to face outward. Mr. Gotthelf stated that with all due respect, go out and look at the building that's there and he will guarantee you that his buildings will look better than them by ten times. He doesn't think that that building is any level of what one would call fine architecture. It is plain, vanilla-type architecture and he said that if that's what we're trying to live up to then you're living in a different world than he is. Sorry. Mr. Drell stated that he agrees that it's not going to win any awards in his book but it is a considerable step above Mr. Gotthelfs proposal. Mr. Gotthelf stated that if he wants to notch up an industrial park to what is a school building, again, he's in an apples-to-oranges administration of justice relative to architecture. This is an industrial park. It is an industrial park that might have offices in it. He is trying to develop some design in the front to make it look pretty, but it's an industrial park in any way you cut it. That's what it is. Rent is all a function of cost. If you want projects to be successful and you don't want empty buildings and see-throughs, they have to live up to cost administration. He can only do so many dollars worth of design and then you have overloaded the project. He doesn't have to give them his MBA of forty years in this business to tell them how it works. But I have to tell you what. You can only do so much with so many dollars for such an element called an industrial park versus a shopping center versus an office building. I think that what you're asking for is for him to design buildings to a level which it is not administrative in dollars. That's why he's backing off to where we are because Mr. Casden was trying to build a building that was not going to make the rent. It was going to be a nice building, but it wasn't going to make the rent. There would be empty buildings because people would not pay the rent. That's what this world's all about. That's what he's trying to live up to. He does it all day long, all over southern California. I don't think I'm too damn dumb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't want to profess to be an expert on cost. Mr. Gotthelf interrupted and said, "We are! We are experts. That's what we're here for and that's why we've done what we've done for forty years and done it successfully." Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is why he isn't going to challenge it. Mr. Gotthelf stated, "Please don't." Commissioner Vuksic commented that the commission is here to try to ensure a minimal aesthetic standard and he does design a lot of buildings. He hasn't seen financial problems with them so he feels that it can be done. He doesn't think that having things arranged in a way that's pleasing has to cost a tremendous amount of money. Mr. Gotthelf interrupted and stated that what he did the last time around cost $50,000 for just the change that he put on to the building. $50,000 right there. $50,000. That's a dollar a square foot GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 12 wrr�" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES for each building that they did it on. What does a dollar a square foot translate to? Ten cents a square foot in rent. Mr. Drell stated that as he sees it, the sort of changes that the commission is talking about are not dramatic and they're the ones that they feel that are marginally necessary for them to vote for the project and the applicant can decide to either give it another shot or not. If he doesn't want to give it another shot and this is the extent of the effort then that's what the commission will take a vote on and there's an appeal process to the Council. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he's sitting here in the unenviable position of having spent five weeks trying to mastermind the design. It is very frustrating and I know that you hear it in my voice and the tenor of the way that I'm speaking. I believe that we have a project that can work, but if he keeps on going forward seeking design gingerbread on the front of the building that keeps on trying to change that front of the building, we go noplace because he doesn't know where to go until he comes to the meetings and each time he gets here there's another little element of being out 3', back 2', wanting a little bit of design this way and that way. All that I can do is ask the ARC for the vote on what he's done and he'll have to see if he wants to risk anymore money because he's spent a hell of a lot of it. If he goes out he's lost a lot of money, Mr. Casden doesn't sell his project and you don't have a project in the City of Palm Desert. I'd like all of you to know one other thing. I live in this city, just so you all know. I might have an address in La Jolla. I own real estate in this city. I have a vested interest in everything I do here, so just know it. I'm not a tourist. So please be aware. I live here. So every time I do something or any time I will do something in this area, if I ever do anything in this area, my face, my reputation is on the line in this area. I just want you to know it. I'm not from out of town. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the ARC doesn't treat people differently for where they live. He stated that he doesn't understand Mr. Gotthelf's comments. Commissioner Lopez stated that the commission doesn't give any preferences if applicants live in town or out of town.- Mr. Gotthelf stated that he just wanted to let the commission know that. I don't walk in from out of town without a lot of interest in what he's doing here and with a lot of heart and soul in trying to go into it. He's not trying to just walk in and scrape from Palm Desert and just move on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to make one more comment about the discussions he's had. The suggestions he made were all made with the expressed understanding that they were suggestions and that he didn't want to dictate what exactly was done. He was trying to provide enough information to move it along and those suggestions should be weighed. You have a talented designer who should do what he feels is right. Mr. Gotthelf stated that the comments G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 13 *4010 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES about not wanting it to look like an Orange County building. Industrial buildings are industrial buildings. It has nothing to do with Orange County, it has nothing to do with anything. It has to do with what buildings are and what they do. Mr. Drell stated that this is where he's gone wrong. There is a desire in this town for architecture to respond a little bit to the local environment. People have been able to do that without making a lot of dramatic changes to their designs. If that's Mr. Gotthelf's perspective, that's where he's going wrong. There's a desire in this town that when people drive or do anything in Palm Desert they know that they're not in Orange County. We're in a different place and the applicant has got to be sensitive to that. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he'll be sensitive to it only to the extent that he recognizes that this is what you would like. The only thing is that if you don't want to be like Orange County but you want to be like Palm Desert, then I will tell you this. Eventually all your buildings will all look the same and you will look like Palm Desert and everybody will say the same thing about you as you say about Orange County. They don't want to look like Palm Desert. You will create the same element without any differential in design. You will always then create through your architectural review the same elements. Mr. Drell disagreed. He stated that if you look at the buildings that this board has been approving for the last twenty years, there's a wide diversity of design. There is an attempt to make them somewhat unique. Mr. Gotthelf stated that the buildings are unique in a sense that it's Palm Springs unique. Mr. Drell stated that you're not confused over where you are entirely. The things that he's heard from Commissioner Vuksic in terms of suggestions are not particularly dramatic. They're not changing the essential character of your building. Mr. Gotthelf commented that he did what he did in the first go `round, that was $50,000. just for that alone. There's a lot more that's being asked for and it will go well beyond $50,000. for two buildings. If you want to start extending that out, I will tell you that it's going to go dollars and cents-wise out of kilter because that's why he drew back from Henry Casden's approach. There were dollars and cents that could not be substantiated. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it may be best at this stage to deny the request and let them appeal to the City Council if that's the route that they want to go. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he's not going appeal. There's a lot of grey hair up here and I'm not gaining anymore grey hair by trying the appeal route. That's not the way I operate. If I can't get in on the staff and Planning Commission side of things, then I walk away from the project and I take my lumps and say good-bye. That's my choice. This is not an element of looking.to go to somebody else to appeal your decisions. I'm here because I want to try and get it done on an Architectural Review Commission basis, but I feel very frustrated because the tenor drives us in directions that I have a hard G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES time being able to administer. All that being said, I think you should take your vote based on what we've done and then we'll have to make a decision whether we come back and deal with the issue anymore or whether we're gone. I hate to say it, but I've spent a lot of money and if that's what I have to do and I can't find another answer then that's too bad on me. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't feel that the project was too far away from what the Commissioners have been suggesting. It's your choice. If you're not going to make an effort to make some adjustments. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he freely admits that he's frustrated. He says that in all honesty and you can hear me whether you like me or not, that's too bad. Mr. Brady asked if the only course of action after the vote to appeal. We've been here and we've been back so does that push us out of the process? Mr. Drell stated that this is your choice. Commissioner Hanson stated that they can either make a motion to continue the request or make a motion to deny it. It's really up to you. Mr. Brady asked if it's denied then the only way to go about it is to completely resubmit because Hank may not do this project but somebody may call me up and I may wind up back here under a separate submittal, or Mr. Gotthelf could appeal it? Commissioner Hanson stated that this is correct. Mr. Drell stated that this board meets every two weeks. It takes ten days to get back on the agenda. Even if they were to start over, it's not a big deal. The big deal is coming up with a solution that works. If you've gotten to the point in your mind that you've gone as far as you're going to go or you've run out of ideas or you don't have an understanding of what they want, then maybe it's just not going to happen. Mr. Gotthelf stated that besides the design issues, which has nothing to do with you but has everything to do with the project is that I have a contract. I have deadlines. I have legal commitments to the seller. This is my last meeting at this point relative to my legal commitments. I have to have a vote that tells me where the Architectural Review Committee is on what I've submitted and then if I come back in it will only be through the good graces of the seller deciding if they want to extend. I've run out of time with the seller and so I have to have the Architectural Review Committee make their decision and then I have to take that decision back to the seller and the seller has to make their minds up. Also, I have to make up my mind about what I'm going to do. That's where we're at, at this point. We do have to have a decisive vote one way or another today on what we've submitted. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he wanted to say one more thing so that Mr. Gotthelf won't leave the meeting with the wrong idea of what is expected of him. We do not try to dictate style. If you see some of the projects that are approved, you'll see that we're trying to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES maintain a standard of architectural quality. For an example, look at the Cuistot building that's under construction right now on Highway 111 and El Paseo on the west end. If you think we're trying to dictate a style, you'll see that we really try to make an effort not to do that. That's not our place to do that. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he accepts what Commissioner Vuksic is saying, but we're building an industrial park that I think you would be proud of. We're trying our best to provide something that's quality and will really look good. I'm going to be proud of it because I'm going to be responsible for leasing of the project. I don't just look away. I'm involved in making the tenants happen in that project. I'm an owner that has a residence here. I've got a lot in my bag as it relates to the relationship of the project. I think I've done some good things in my life. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the commission for a motion. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for denial because the project did not meet minimum architectural standards. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 5403 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for two-story office building and revised site plan. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane West ZONE: OP The applicant was not present. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the building on Cook Street was shifted back from the street, which it was. Commissioner Hanson stated that an entry canopy was added and it has been stepped. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PIERLUIGI BONVICINI, AIA, 2901 W. MacArthur Blvd., #111, Santa Ana, CA 92704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture of single family residence on mountain lot. LOCATION: 149 Tepin Way ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to using non-reflective glass. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-19, Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, 7143 Katella Avenue, Suite B, Stanton, CA 90680 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for building #9. LOCATION: 77-880 Country Club ZONE: PC Commissioner Hanson suggested repeating the trellis element on the north elevation since it faces the major portion of the center and a major drive aisle. The applicant stated that the only reason why he didn't add a trellis to this location is because it's on a north-facing elevation and it doesn't need shade. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not looking for shade, she's looking for breaking up the elevation. It could possibly just come out a couple of feet but it needs something to break up that elevation because it's such a big face. The applicant agreed. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to repeating trellis element on the north elevation. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL RODERICK, 73-380 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof height exception for a single family residence. LOCATION: 73-380 Pinyon Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add the following item to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 03-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY CHANEY for ROGER FULLER, 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for exterior color change. LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo, Daniel Foxx building ZONE: C-1 Gary Chaney, applicant, was present to show the commission the proposed color samples for the exterior of the Daniel Foxx building. There's a wood fascia with a tile roof. The commission reviewed the color samples. The property owners have been experimenting with different colors inside the corridor. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that they try again with different colors. Mr. Drell suggested looking at colors that are more compatible with each other. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant should keep in mind is that they have a specific tile color to work with. She suggested looking at Dunn Edwards colors in warm tones. Mr. Chaney stated that the awning at G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2003 MINUTES the entrance is going to be removed completely. Mr. Drell suggested that the applicant start by bringing new color samples into the Planning Department for review. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with colors that blend with roof color. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:47 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030812.MIN 19