Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-09 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 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 20 3 Kristi Hanson X 20 3 Chris Van Vliet X 22 1 John Vuksic X 21 2 Ray Lopez X 21 2 Karen Oppenheim X 13 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 25, 2003 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the minutes of November 25, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent at the time of the motion. He arrived at 12:32 p.m. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-27 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an irrigation well site for the Stone Eagle Development golf course. LOCATION: Golden Rod Lane, Lot 2 ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is proposing the addition of a structure to go over an irrigation pump at an existing well site. All of the landscaping is existing. Commissioner Gregory commented that the ARC wants to make sure that it's well screened. Nizar Farhat, representative for Stone Eagle Development, was present and showed the commission photographs of the existing landscaping on the property, which is between 7'-9' in height. There is a chain-link fence around the entire property surrounded by oleanders and pyracanthas. There are residents on both the north and south side of the site. There is an existing pump which is approximately 45'-50' away from the curb. The applicant is proposing to build a structure over the pump for the purpose of reducing the noise level and screening the pump. They have submitted an ambient analysis test which was done last week. When they install the pump and the structure, they will do another sound analysis which will be submitted to the City. Commissioner Hanson commented that it doesn't appear that there's a chain-link fence in front of the oleanders. Mr. Farhat stated that the landscaping is screening the fence. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's concerned about the viability of oleanders because the mature ones generally get Pearson's disease. This might be a good time to address the viability of these plants because they may not be there in a few years. Mr. Farhat commented that they are in escrow on this property. This well site is owned by CVWD and they are buying it from them to supply G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 2 'low *00V ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES the water for the Stone Eagle golf course. The applicant cannot change anything on the property while it's still owned by CVWD. He asked the commission for any recommendations. Commissioner Gregory stated that they could approve the request subject to a landscape plan being submitted and approved by staff. There are two issues. The oleanders probably will die and also this is their only opportunity to address something that otherwise would never get done. Mr. Farhat asked if he should copy the existing landscaping on Golden Rod. Commissioner Gregory commented that it sounds like Mr. Farhat is asking if they should replace the soon-to-be-dead oleanders with some other plant or should they have the landscape enhanced so it has more in common with the landscaping on Golden Rod. Mr. Farhat commented that with the Reserve, they had one well site on Candlewood where they installed a pump, ran the line to the Reserve and installed new landscaping with the existing landscaping and they still maintain it today. They are responsible for maintaining their property. If the oleanders die in the future, the City could add a condition stating that the applicant has to replace any dead landscaping material. Commissioner Gregory commented that he would rather be pro-active. It's not if they die, but more like when they die. As part of the approval, it should be understood that enhanced landscape be installed. The well site has been there for a long time. It was there before a lot of homes were developed in that particular area on Golden Rod. Mr. Farhat asked the commission for recommendations on specific plants or trees to use in the landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that his landscape architect will know what to use. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to submittal of landscape plan and approval by staff. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES & LUCILLE FEIRO, P.O. Box 12980, Palm Desert, CA 92255 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 3 `'"o ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a single story office building. LOCATION: 44-675 Deep Canyon, northwest corner of Deep Canyon and Ramona Avenue. ZONE: R-1, O.P. pending Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to landscape approval at a later date. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a Wendy's fast food restaurant with a drive-through. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Mr. Smith stated that the commission had a couple of questions on this project. Commissioner Hanson stated that she had two comments. The trellis element over the dining area should be lowered a little bit. It's at the same height as the trellis over the drive through and it doesn't have to be that high over the dining area. She also suggested removing the trellis element over the service door which is facing Washington. She congratulated the applicant for changing the site plan so that the drive through lane is away from Country Club Drive. Sam Spinello, who is on the development team, was present and stated that Craig Smith couldn't make it to the meeting due to travel issues. Mr. Hensen, from Wendy's International, has allowed them change their team a little bit. Mr. Finkel is now the lead architect. They tried to listen to the comments made by the commission at the last meeting and made the suggested changes. Ultimately, they would like to gain a condition of approval on the elevations and the site plan. They have not done the landscape plan. They wanted to get some good direction G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES about where they're going before they commissioned the landscape architect. Commissioner Hanson restated the suggestion to eliminate the trellis element over the service door that faces Washington. Mr. Drell commented that the applicant could paint the service door. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's no point to having a trellis in this location. The triangular awning over the door will add shadow lines and the trellis just adds clutter. Mr. Finkel stated that he added the trellis as a buffer element between the street corner and the building to create a fronting element that your eye would see through before they would encounter the service door. Mr. Drell stated that the trellis is too tall to effectively screen the door. Mr. Finkel stated that he could make it shorter. Mr. Finkel stated that all the trellises will have something growing on them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that on the roof plan, some of the tallest elements don't wrap around. Mr. Finkel stated that they should wrap around. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are three-sided elements and there are breaks in the line. Mr. Finkel commented that when he looked at the plans he misinterpreted a can strip as being a wall. All of the elements will be four sided. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the east elevation, the stone element is popped up higher than it is on the other elevations which could be an error. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's actually dimensioned the same. Mr. Finkel stated that the east tower should match the others. Commissioner Gregory asked about the height of the trellis on the Country Club facing patio. He was wondering if they might lose intimacy in dining with the trellis so high. Mr. Finkel stated that he wasn't sure how high the umbrellas will be over the tables. He has no problem lowering the trellis. Mr. Drell stated that the idea of a trellis is to create an enclosure. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant would lower the Washington-facing trellis as well. Mr. Finkel stated that he would lower this trellis but leave the drive though at the current height. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how high the drive through trellis is. Mr. Finkel stated that they usually have a 9'6" clearance. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a very nice project. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval subject to lowering all trellis elements. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 5 *for *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRES DEVELOPMENT, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of sixteen industrial/commercial buildings. LOCATION: Monterey 10 Business Center; S.E. corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Leilani Way ZONE: Commercial/Industrial Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing sixteen light industrial buildings on a ten-acre site on the south side of the future extension of Dinah Shore, approximately a quarter mile east of Monterey. The applicant had a couple of pre-application meetings with staff and it was emphasized that superior architecture for the four front buildings was necessary. They should resemble more of a professional office building. Instead of standard concrete tilt-up industrial buildings, the applicant has done a commendable job. Some suggestions were made in the staff report to enhance the east and west elevations of the front buildings. The applicant agreed to this suggestion. Staff did not request any changes to the rear buildings since they'll be far less visible from Dinah Shore than the front buildings. There are some site plan issues related to the Fire Department. Some of the dead-end aisles exceed 150'. The applicant's objective is to lease some of the spaces to landscape and construction contractors. The site plan will be revised to address the Fire Department concerns. The Public Works Department also had some comments stating that they didn't like to see the dead-end driveways and recommended a looped driveway. Staff has asked for some cross-section drawings of the southerly elevations. The City's Landscape Specialist is requesting revisions to preliminary landscape plans. The applicant has agreed to make the desired elevation enhancements requested by staff. This project is before the commission in order to gather comments from the commission members so that the applicant has as much input from all affected parties as possible when he makes his revisions. Gary Levinski, developer, was present and stated that he's been working with staff for a long time and has created a pretty nice project. It's been a good experience working with different departments in the City. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 6 1400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked if there are two-story elements. Dan MacDavid, architect, stated that on the two corner front buildings (1 & 12) are going to offer a mezzanine level. The tower elements will probably be a combination of smaller office space with a mezzanine above it. The rest of the building that appears to be two stories can be a combination of vision glass or faux glass. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he has some concerns that the buildings are so large and he can't really tell how much relief there is in the walls. Mr. Urbina stated that one section is setback 18". The windows are recessed approximately 6". Eric Aubort, architect, stated that any place where there might be an exposed edge on a parapet, they will turn 90` and bring it across the roof to give it the appearance of depth so you'll never see an exposed parapet. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the concerns that she has with tilt-up buildings is that they have beautiful score lines drawn on the plan and sometimes they don't actually represent themselves as boldly as they are on the plan. Therefore, one of the things that she would like the applicant to do is to really look at how that detail is done so that it really appears to be what it is. The architecture on buildings 15 & 16 is nice, however, the tower element on building 12 doesn't look right. She suggested expanding the architectural style of buildings 15 & 16 to the other buildings. Mr. MacDavid stated that because buildings 15 & 16 are smaller buildings they almost appear as one from the street, but there will be a break in between. They were asked to create varying degrees of architecture and not to create one theme throughout the whole process. The color of the glass is all the same and the building colors are all a tannish-beige. They wanted to create "book-ends" to the project identity on Dinah Shore so they came up with a vertical form. He thought that maybe the towers were too high for the scale of the buildings. Commissioner Hanson suggested possibly using a curved roof on the towers, rather than a peaked roof. Mr. Aubort commented that buildings 15 & 16 are the only buildings that have parking available for quasi-retail use. He thought that there might be a service deli in one of the buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated that even if the property is zoned service industrial, they still want a presence for their front door and they want it to feel like it's more important although they may be at the back end of the building. The elements on buildings 15 & 16 are very exciting and very different and not a typical thing that you would see. She suggested making those elements reflect that on the other buildings in some way. Use a similar theme without being exactly the same. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory commented that the tower elements with the high peaks lends to a "castleated" feeling. Whereas, buildings 15 & 16 have a more fresh and modern quality to them and that's why there is that contrast. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant has done a pretty good job of undulating some of the panels and creating some shadow lines, but she felt that they're not accenting with the colors as much on the end units, which might be nice. Also, pull some of the slate the insets at the entries. Mr. MacDavid stated that they had talked about using slate at the bottom portion of the tower and the discussion went to using some kind of contrast, whether it's paint or some kind of offsetting colors. This could certainly be done to the rear buildings. Some tenants want to be in the back of the project so that they have a useable space at a reduced rate. They're trying to provide a mix with the higher end being a little bit more expensive because they have frontage with visibility. Mr. Urbina commented that on the slate issue, the applicant had intended to add slate to the overhang line but after some further thought, staff isn't committed to some areas of slate and they could leave it out. Mr. Drell stated that they can achieve the same thing with color. Commissioner Hanson concurred and stated that she thought that they could add some detailing to the tower to make it important. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if they intend to paint all the pre-cast concrete. The applicant stated that they will paint everything, inside and outside. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant had mentioned a 3/4" deep reveal and wondered if they could get more depth than 3/4". On a big panel, 3/4" is not much of anything. Mr. MacDavid stated that the top of the towers are more of a plain offset. The reveal will be 3/4" x 2" high and they'd be happy to submit photographs showing what it will look like. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he was concerned about it being substantial enough. Mr. MacDavid stated that when they transition the color at that reveal, it really does create an edge. They're going to create a fair amount of color changes which will enhance the plan considerably. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was really concerned about the lack of architecture on the back buildings and doesn't agree that if it doesn't show up from the street then it's not important, architecture- wise. There will be all types of different tenants in the back buildings and it's important that the architecture looks good. So far, the applicant G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES has not done this. Everyone wants to have a nice office, no matter what their business is. They want to have a nice entrance and they want to have nice looking buildings around them. It's important to put a certain degree of architecture into those buildings. The buildings in the back are just flat boxes and they will be visible internally in that development. Mr. MacDavid stated that the buildings aren't that big. If they were bigger, the wall would be hundreds of feet long but it's only 120' long. There's a lot of architecture in other areas of the project. There will also be landscaping in front of the buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how the back side of building 11 looks. Mr. Aubort stated that they don't have an elevation for that building. He suggested doing some color changes and adding landscaping. They could also do some parapet changes. He feels that there's a lot of architecture on the back buildings and aren't "second-class citizens". The landscaping is going to be nice and they have a mini-park in the project. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant incorporate some of the style elements of buildings 15 & 16 in the larger buildings. Mr. MacDonald stated that they can do that. All comments are welcome from the commission. Commissioner Lopez commented that the sidewalk on the landscape plan was all curb adjacent. He asked if the property had on-site drainage, or is it all outside. Mr. Drell stated that given a choice, we'd rather not have the sidewalk curb adjacent. Not many customers will be parking on Dinah Shore. The more you can bring landscaping to the edge of the street, the nicer the street looks. If you put your sidewalk curb adjacent, you're in essence widening the concrete expanse. Mr. MacDavid stated that they can pull it away from the street and undulating the sidewalk. Mr. Drell commented that there's no reason to undulate it back to the curb. If you're off the curb, you should stay off the curb uniformly. Commissioner Lopez suggested that the applicant think about the location for the monument signage and also wall sign locations. Mr. MacDavid stated that they're working with a sign company and trying to come up with a theme for the park. At that point, they'll try to tie the monument signage into the theme for the art work. Commissioner Lopez suggested adding some outdoor seating. Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Lopez if he'd like to see the mini-park near building 2 developed into something usable. Commissioner Lopez stated that that would be nice, especially if they intend to have a service deli on site. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR03120g.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Levinski commented that he has to rethink the proportion and character of the towers. Mr. MacDavid asked the commission if it would be more favorable to have the windows recessed to break up the elevation. The commission agreed that recessed windows are always favorable. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans which show the use of the design elements from buildings 15 & 16. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Smith asked the commission if they would be available to attend the scheduled meeting of December 23, 2003. Three of the commissioners would not be able to attend, therefore, there won't be a quorum. The meeting was cancelled. The next Architectural Review Commission meeting will be held on January 13, 2004. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:58 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031209.MIN 10