Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-25 r � � �• \ CITY OF PALM DESERT - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MARCH 25, 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 6 0 Kristi Hanson X 4 2 Neil Lingle X 2 4 Richard O'Donnell X 6 0 Chris Van Vliet X 6 0 John Vuksic X 5 1 a.- Ray Lopez X 6 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 11, 2003 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of March 11, 2003. The motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN RESOURCE, P.O. Box 549, Maywood, CA 90270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program for Best Western Palm Desert Resort. LOCATION: 74-695 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the Best Western is located at the former Vacation Inn at the east end of Palm Desert. The request is to replace the existing freestanding sign near the entrance, a sign over the porte cochere (can sign) and a sign over the easterly end of the porte cochere which faces Highway 111 (can sign). From an area perspective, the signage is within code. The issue that staff would have is that we're going from a mostly individual channel letter program to one that's basically can signs. Toni Ginn, Sign Resource representative, was present and stated that the signs over the porte cochere are individual channel letters. There are two can signs proposed, which are part of the Best Western logo which they are required to have. Signs #2 and #3 are not can signs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the existing monument sign looks a lot more appealing than the proposed monument sign. He can't imagine why the Commission would approve having it removed and be replaced with a sign that has no design to it. He has an issue with the raceway on sign #2. There are certain basics to what the Commission will approve or not approve. Exposed raceways generally don't get approved. Sign #4 has gone from individual letters to a can sign. Ms. Ginn stated that her client requires that the logo can't be modified or changed. It's a registered logo and the can sign is part of their logo. A portion of the existing monument sign can be altered. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission approves logos, but most of the sign is made up of the words "Palm Desert Resort". Ms. Ginn stated that their logo is 30% with 70% name and includes the entire can sign. Each Best Western has their own d.b.a. name and their d.b.a. name in G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030325.MIN 2 � �, �; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES this instance is "Palm Desert Resort". Commissioners Vuksic and O'Donnell did not agree with this. Commissioner Gregory stated that the sign didn't bother him that much because it's tastefully small. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he wouldn't have a problem having "Best Western" in a can sign, but everything else should be individual letters. Commissioner Gregory stated that the current monument sign has some form of architectural purpose to it and the applicant would like to replace it with a freestanding logo monument sign, which doesn't have the same kind of interest as the existing sign. Ms. Ginn made a suggestion that she could work with some of the existing material and incorporate her client's logo onto it. This may be an inexpensive solution. Commissioner Vuksic suggested putting the logo on the monument sign in can form and use individual letters for "Palm Desert Resort". Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the sign over the porte cochere. The sign, including the raceway, projects out from the building facade 13". He suggested that the sign only would have a 5" projection and the Commission probably wouldn't have a problem with that. He would like to see the Best Western logo not project above or below the facade on the porte cochere. It should be flush at the top and bottom. Ms. Ginn commented that there is no electrical access to do individual letters. The existing gold portion of the sign is hiding the raceway. Commissioner Gregory commented that the old sign exceeded the top and bottom of the fascia, but because it had a strong architectural element it was okay. This might be a way that the applicant could retain the size of the sign and also hide the raceway. He suggested a different font style with more elegance for the "Palm Desert Resort" portion of the sign. Commissioner Gregory asked if the entire sign on page 8 was internally illuminated. Ms. Ginn stated that it is internally illuminated. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if Best Western has any other options for their logo sign besides a can sign. Ms. Ginn stated that their logo is the entire rectangular box. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he was referring to the Best Western portion with the crown on top. Are there any other sign options for this portion besides the can sign? Ms. Ginn stated that there are no other options available. There is an option of having "Best Western" on one of the signs in channel letters as long as they have their logo with the rectangular can G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030325.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES sign somewhere within the property. Best Western requires that they have a 50 square foot sign and she could incorporate that in the monument because iYs already in the shape of a rectangle. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that sign #4 in the porte cochere doesn't do anything to help the architecture. Ms. Ginn suggested using just "Palm Desert Resort" in channel letters in this location. The Commission felt that this would be an improvement. Commissioner Vuksic suggested using channel letters that look bronze in the daytime and has a very soft, warm, white glow at night. Ms. Ginn stated that if she uses halo lit letters she won't use white letters. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if on signs #2 and #3 the logo would be deleted. Ms. Ginn stated that the logo will be deleted. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested letting staff review the comments and approve the request. Commissioner Gregory commented that some of the variables might be the size or what the architectural element is over the porte cochere. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to make the following alterations. (1) Sign #1 to use existing monument sign. The words "Best Western" may be a can sign with top of can matching form of logo (not square) and "Palm Desert Resort" to use individual channel letters. Height of monument sign not to exceed 6'. (2) Eliminate or camouflage raceway by creating architectural element on signs #2 and #3 and delete logo. (3) "Palm Desert Resort" will use individual channel letters on sign #4 and eliminate logo. (4) Sign #5 will have logo only with the shape of the can matching logo. (5) The Commission prefers use of halo lit reverse channel letters or day/night signage. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Hanson and Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DAVE HOKANSON, WESTFIELD CORPORATION, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030325.MIN 4 `i"'ry � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES 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 the entry towers into the mall and the tower at Pat & Oscar's should be viewed by the Commission in concert. Dave Hokanson, Westfield representative, was present to answer questions. Mr. Hokanson stated that Westfield was asked by the Commission at their last meeting to increase the height of the mall entry facade by 5' as well as taking it back between 12'-15'. What they have actually done for both the elevated entry facade by JC Penney to the east and the entry facade to the west along Highway 111 near Robinson's May is that they have increased the facade height by 2' and have returned the elevated facade by 8' to carry it back across the roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked for clarification that the applicant is increasing the height by 2' with an 8' return. Mr. Hokanson stated that this is correct. The entire entry has a large transfer beam that extends about 12' into the Pat & Oscar's space. Pat & Oscar's facade is designed so that the tower basically hangs off the existing building and it has pretty much maxed out the capacity of the structural system without getting into major complications. In that particular area as well as the one near JC Penney, both of those are two-level structures. As they make the modifications, they're making them not only in the transfer beam and at the roof but also down through the lower level as well. Right now when you look at the Barnes & Noble facade, which is center of all this, they're back 12' on that particular piece but up substantially higher than the actual parapet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far he could go back. Mr. Hokanson stated that they're at 8' but they could go back a little further on some form of an overhang if they can open it up. The concern there is primarily wind load. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if there was some way to alleviate some of that wind pressure, they could go back further. Mr. Hokanson stated that conceivably they could. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would really like to see it go back further. It's a massive element so 8' isn't much, relative to the size of the structure. He's concerned about it looking too "facade-ish". Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. 12'-15' is the number that the Commission requested. Mr. Hokanson asked if there was some way to use a perforated panel rather than plaster. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR030325.MIN $ �� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES Vuksic asked the applicant if he has explored this idea. Mr. Hokanson stated that the engineers have looked into this. Commissioner Vuksic stated that something perforated was his first thought but he couldn't imagine how they could integrate that into what they have in that area. He wondered if there was some way they could introduce some vertical slots to the form as it continues to go back. Mr. Hokanson stated that they could probably do something like that and then cantilever over. It's really a question of where to put the pipe column that's going to support the back end of that returned wall. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission was given plans showing the Westfield signage proposal, which has been implemented for the most part. The major department store signs are not installed. Mr. Hokanson stated that he's introducing the Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert signs over the entries. In addition, they are modifying the location and design style of the Westfield Shoppingtown sign that was shown on the facade plan. What was silver backing with Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert will now be a sign thaYs integrated and more consistent with the monument signage that was approved for the project. The proposed signage uses individual channel letters. The Westfield signs on the parking structures have been installed. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Hokanson if there are any dimensions for the signs. Mr. Hokanson stated that he does not have dimensions. He is looking for approval of locations. In terms of sign sizes themselves, there is a width of the panel that serves as the maximum sign area that each of the individual department stores will utilize. Each of the department stores will submit their own sign application so that they can be addressed individually. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the proposed sign program is for the Westfield signage only. Mr. Hokanson stated that it is for the Westfield signage and also for shifting the location of the JC Penney, Macy's and Robinson's May signs from where they were shown on the March 29 submittal to the locations shown on the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't have any details included in his packet. Mr. Hokanson stated that there were no details. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how the Commission could address the request without any details. Mr. Drell asked the applicant about the size of the signs that were installed on the parking structures. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the signs were never approved by the ARC. Mr. Hokanson stated that he didn't know if they were approved or not. They typically contract with a sign contractor. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they were never approved and they seem really big. He asked the applicant if they were illuminated. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030325.MIN 6 �rr'' �„�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES Hokanson stated that they are back lit. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that the signs on the parking structures are way too big. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't have a problem with the size of the Westfield sign on the east elevation on page three. However, he stated concern about the size of the signs below the Westfield sign which are competing in size with the Westfield sign. He wondered if they could be made a little smaller. The Westfield sign should be like the monument sign and the other ones should be a little submissive to that one, instead of all being around the same size. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the Westfield signs on the parking structures look funny with the trellis structure above it, which look very spindly with the huge sign underneath it. It seems totally out of scale. Mr. Drell stated that electrical permits weren't pulled for the signs. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested dealing with the signs for Westfield separately from the signs from the tenants. Mr. Hokanson stated that the tenants will come in with their own signage but they will have to be placed in the approved locations. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there's a lot of uncertainty about the locations, especially in respect to the Westfield signs. If the ARC can deal with the Westfield signs and then when the stores come in with their signage, then they can deal with them one at a time. The piece-meal information that the ARC has been getting on this project is really confusing. The ARC never saw the parking structure signs. He doesn't want the ARC to become immune to the fact that they're so oversized. We've got to start establishing the signage on the mall and right now nobody is in agreement with the Westfield signs. He doesn't see how they can make a decision on where other signs are going to go at this point. Mr. Drell commented that the plans show all the proposed signage on the parking structure. Commissioner O'Donnell did not agree because "all" is not the final word. This is being reconsidered from a previous approval. This is not the final approval. It was recommended that the ARC receive a site plan showing all the signage that's existing at the site, signs that are going to be moved, the size of the signs and the detail of the signs before he has anymore discussion on this. All they have is photocopies with no details. They don't have a sense as to the scale of the signs. He still hasn't seen the lights dimmed inside the parking structures. Mr. Hokanson stated that he submitted a proposal in conjunction with the sign program. The ARC didn't receive a proposal for the lighting of the parking structures. Mr. Drell stated that there was a paragraph in a letter that was a very generalized statement talking about what they had mentioned doing, but there was nothing specific. Mr. Hokanson G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030325.MIN 7 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES commented that he thought it was specific. Mr. Drell commented that there's no actual plan or proposal. Mr. Hokanson agreed that there is no plan. Mr. Smith commented that we do have a site plan with all of the sign locations shown on it. We do not have a detail on the size of each sign in each location, which we typically have when we review them. Also, in the plan that shows Westfield, Penney's and a t.b.d. there may be dimensions but they're barely visible due to the artist's rendering of the landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that he doesn't think dimensions are shown. Mr. Smith stated that we do need to know what the background size is that the signs are going to be placed on. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would like to give Mr. Hokanson the opportunity to bring back a more detailed sign program. They want to know where the signage is going, the size of the signage, how it's going to be installed, the materials used for the signage, the colors, etc... He would like to make a motion to continue this request. Commissioner Gregory commented that now is the time for Mr. Hokanson to make comments for discussion. Mr. Hokanson stated that it's been a delight working with the ARC. Friday is his last day at Westfield and he wishes the ARC well. Commissioner Vuksic asked who his successor is. Mr. Hokanson stated that his successor is to be announced. Commissioner Gregory wished Mr. Hokanson good luck. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request for the sign program to allow the applicant to return with (1) plan showing signs to be moved, (2) plans showing size and details of signs, and (3) dimensions of areas where signs are to be placed. The request for approval of revisions to two mall entries was continued to allow applicant to increase height of towers by 5' with a 15' return. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: C 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PAT & OSCAR'S, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030325.MIN g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES Reconsideration of request to remove subordinate tower at Pat & Oscar's. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Len Fisher, Pat & Oscar's representative, stated that the main tower is up and most of the improvements are in. The wall to the right of the tower currently is off-white in color, which is the shell building color of the mall. They are considering doing a striped banding similar to the main tower (P-1, P-2) which is on the original color board. It's a very soft yellowish/creamy color and a little darker color. They are considering painting those bands all the way across the portion which is now white to tie it back into the improvement of the Pat & Oscar's space. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there seem to be two different versions of the tower. One has the facade going up closer to the roof and one has it further down. Mr. Fisher stated that the one that was permitted was the one that structurally worked and how it was supported and tied back into the existing building. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Hokanson and Mr. Fisher if they were in agreement with their respective towers. Mr. Hokanson stated that they have resolved their issues. Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Fisher if the trees have been installed at Pat & Oscar's. Mr. Fisher stated that they are supposed to go in this week. The trees are Desert Museum and are in 30" boxes. Commissioner O'Donnell wanted to specify that there be no signage on this facade. Mr. Hokanson stated that he didn't have a problem with that. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they are using fry metal reveals. Mr. Fisher stated that it's masonry and they intend to paint the building. The horizontal lines are grout joints. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Fisher if they're going to try to cut a line with two different colors on a slump stone wall. Mr. Fisher stated that the two different colors are very close in color. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it won't read like the plans show. Mr. Fisher stated that it'll be very subtle and won't be a heavy line like you might imagine. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it seems like a painting nightmare. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030325.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES Vuksic stated that he's a little concerned about the colors. The colors being proposed at Westfield have a "Wrightian", earthy flavor to them and this proposal for Pat & Oscar's "bucks" that. Mr. Drell stated that Pat & Oscar's wants to look different so they look like their own business. The colors actually look different in the field than they do on the color board. They're warmer than they're showing on the board. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't think that they'd be as bright as what you might think. Commissioner Van Vliet inquired about the neon lighting along the roof structure. Mr. Fisher stated that there is a neon band in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the Commission had approved the neon band. Mr. Fisher commented that it was part of the signage package. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't recall a neon band included in the approval. He asked where the neon sits on the roof structure. Mr. Fisher stated that it's located on the front face of the arch. There are also two recessed up-lights. Mr. Smith clarified the request by the applicant. He stated that Pat & Oscar's is requesting approval to delete the second tower. Staff suggested adding the alternating yellow banding to enhance the facade. They could just leave it the way it is which is a blank wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the only thing that's making it look okay to him is that it has two big trees in front of it. Something that the Commission is careful not to do is approve architecture because it's going to be covered up by trees. Mr. Drell suggested that Pat & Oscar's keep the awnings that had previously been proposed. Mr. Fisher stated that some of the awnings would be screened by the landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that the awnings would go between the trees. Mr. Fisher stated that there is a raised planter in this area and they have added stone veneer to the face of it. Currently, one tower has been built and the wall has been repainted off-white in color to clean it up. Commissioners O'Donnell and Van Vliet commented that they don't have a problem with adding the yellow color to the facade. It draws it away from the other Westfield tower. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he has a problem with the exposed red neon on the face of the roof. He doesn't recall approving the neon lighting. He saw it in the field and it "jumps out at you". Mr. Fisher suggested putting a shield over it so that it's not as bright. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it just seems to start a precedent and the more neon we allow exposed encourages everyone G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030325.MIN 1� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES else to come in an ask for it and pretty soon it will look like Las Vegas. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't want to backtrack and disapprove something that they've already approved. The colored banding needs more interest and this could help with this large blank wall. Mr. Fisher asked if it would help if it was broken up horizontally. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the Westfield striping has more interest to it. They didn't use bands of exactly the same size all the way from the top to the bottom. Mr. Fisher suggested increasing the band � width so that they're half if quantity and one color is two widths versus a multitude of bands. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there are other ways to play off of what's on the tower without repeating it exactly. Commissioner Gregory suggested making it all the darker color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would be a good place to start and then add a couple things to it. Mr. Fisher suggested making the parapet the darker color so that it has a top to it. Commissioner Vuksic suggested doing something else in the middle to break up the monotony of the wall. He would have a hard time approving it the way it looks right now. Mr. Fisher stated that if he's concerned about the colors, they are actually very muted out in the daylight. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's more than just the colors. IYs the way they're breaking up that huge wall. Mr. Fisher stated that this was the purpose of the existing planters and the plant palette was meant to break up that area. Mr. Drell asked Commissioner Gregory why he used a canopy tree instead of a more vertical tree. Commissioner Gregory stated that the canopy trees should get large enough to take up a lot of space on the wall. Mr. Drell commented on the trees at the Amago Gallery that have been there for 3-4 years. IYs going to be a while before they have a significant impact. Commissioner Lopez agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. The blank wall should be broken up in some way and the trees sometimes have a tendency to get trimmed back or moved. Something needs to be done with the wall, whether iYs color, awnings or both. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the Commission needs to resist solving this right at the moment and should give the applicant a chance to work on it. They're obviously very capable and the Commission doesn't want to design it for them. He wouldn't be too happy if someone started designing his buildings for him. He asked the applicant to take the comments and take one more pass at it. Mr. Fisher stated that the reason why they want to remove the second tower from the plans is because it didn't carry the weight that everyone thought it would. It was originally intended to increase visibility from the street. They found that it was fighting the main tower and becoming a repetitive element. It would look like there are two entries. They are asking for the City's approval not to build the second tower because G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030325.MIN 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES right now that would be a mistake. Mr. Fisher stated that he is an architect and it would be an aesthetic mistake to build the second tower. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. A lot more consideration needs to be given to the wall area and how it's treated architecturally and not just with a paint job. We did not create the problem. We're trying to work with the applicant to solve the problem, but so far this is not going to be enough. Mr. Fisher left the meeting to make changes to the plans and returned later with revisions to present to the Commission. He colored the parapet course of 8" block in the P-3 color (reddish color) and increased the banding from the two courses of block to 24" of block so that the banding is even more subtle. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for clarification that the facade is made up of a slurry coat split-face i block similar to the walls of the City Hall. Mr. Fisher stated that it's � similar, but more of a slump block. It's smoother than what was used at the City Hall. It's not precision block, but it's not split face. It's slump block and you can see the grout lines on it. It's painted and if they want to accentuate the joint they can do that by painting the joint black. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that if there was no dark line the bands will just blend together. Mr. Fisher stated that it'll be soft. If you go inside the restaurant there's a wall covering that matches the drawing and there's no joint between the banding. From a distance you don't see the banding but as you get closer you will notice the difference between the two tones. Commissioner Gregory stated that it really does simplify an interesting idea without being "in your face". Maybe it's a matter of proportion. When you look at the size of the wall you don't have the complexity of so many stripes and it's less taxing. It does make the wall more interesting and the tower blends in with it. Mr. Fisher stated that their original scheme had a large Pat & Oscar's sign in channel letters on the wall. They scratched the idea because they felt that Robinson's May, Macy's and the City would all have a problem with it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it needs to be a simple design because there's so much going on and there needs to be relief. There's still too much of the same thing. Why couldn't there be a thick band, another thick band and maybe a thinner band. Mr. Fisher stated that there's an existing band of stone about 7' in height and then there's a stepped planter. The wall is a big, blank, off-white wall that doesn't really bother him because it ties into the rest of the mall. He suggested adding the two tone banding with a riglet or paint a 1/4"joint in black to make it read every 24" on center. Commissioner Gregory asked if it can be painted so that it looks straight. Mr. Fisher stated that it'll be straight. The grout joints are straight. Commissioner Gregory asked if he would want to paint it black or something dark. Mr. Fisher stated that they could paint it brown if it's needed. He suggested painting it G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030325.MIN IZ � � without the joints to see what it looks like. They can always add paint. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's worried about it looking too striped. Mr. Fisher stated that it doesn't look striped. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he has to go to the site to look at it. He can't make a decision today. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he feels bad not approving the request after the applicant has been hustling for the past hour, but let's consider this to be another step that he's gotten out of the way. Mr. Fisher suggested leaving the revised plans with the Commission while they go look at the building in the field. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the applicant fax any changes to the Planning Department. Mr. Fisher commented that the restaurant is already open but they won't get their security deposit back until this issue is resolved. He wanted to let the Commission know that they have good intentions and want the landscaping to go in per plan. They're starting on a national roll out of a chain so they're not going to second guess and conditions imposed by the City. The landscape should be going in this week. Mr. Fisher stated that he wants to focus on the elimination of the second tower element. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thinks that the elimination of the tower is okay, but they have to figure out what to do in it's place. Mr. Fisher commented that Westfield has a landscape plan for the whole parking lot and will be reconfigured so it'll make the street elevation look different than it is today. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the south face of the Border's book store at The River in Rancho Mirage. There's a 25' high block wall and it looks really nice. The issue at Pat & Oscar's can be solved easily. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant to bring in information regarding the exposed neon. He's not so sure that it was approved on the plan. He'd rather not have any exposed neon on the building but if iYs going to remain there should be some kind of screening to help filter the light. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans for the area east of the existing tower element. Motion carried 4- 0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�• PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R030325.MIN 13 � � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval for four awnings with signage. Cameron & Instant Cash LOCATION: 44-710 & 44-720 San Pablo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the business requesting the awnings is located at the corner of San Pablo and San Gorgonio. The request is for new awnings; two in navy blue and one in kelly green. The copy on the blue awning will be white. The copy on the kelly green awning will be gold. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were any photos of the location. There were no photos to view. Ernie Brooks, Palms to Pines Canvas representative, was present and stated that he didn't take pictures because the building is currently under construction. The 4' overhang was removed because it was sagging and the existing awning was removed because it was in bad shape. There's a flat wall there now. Two doors down, he did three new awnings. The proposed awnings will not be lighted and the signage is going to go on a valance so it can be replaced if the tenant moves out. The signage is 7'/Z" tall on the first letter and the rest of the letters will be 4"-5" tall. Commissioner O'Donnell asked the applicant how the facade is going ,..r to be finished. Mr. Brooks stated that it will be the same as the building two doors down. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't like the scalloped edging. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred. Mr. Brooks suggested using a straight awning. Mr. Drell commented on the temporary sign for the welding store that was never approved. It's an illegal sign that has to be removed. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet granted approval of straight-line awning (no scalloped edging) and the removal of the temporary free-standing sign. Motion carried 4- 0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 03-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEN STEMMER, 74-290 De Anza Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030325.MIN 14 � � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of revised elevations for an exception to roof height of a single family residence at 16'. LOCATION: 74-290 De Anza Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has returned with revised plans. Mark Valentino, architect, was present to answer questions. The request came before the ARC previously with a different type of architecture. Mr. Valentino stated that originally the plans showed three garage doors along the front elevation. The revised plans show two garage doors and hip roofs with tile. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the walls on the front building need some depth. Right now it shows 2 x 6 walls with windows nailed on to them. There's some foam trim around the windows but the front building needs to be a little more substantial. Mr. Valentino stated that there's a courtyard wall in front of this elevation that will break up some of the height. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the ARC is concerned about what is seen from the street. If there's just a wall with nail-on windows with no depth to them, it's something we don't accept on tract submittals. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a single family home and we're concerned about how it relates to the homes next door and about having three garage doors facing the street. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that whenever we can approve the aesthetics of any building there is an opportunity for them to improve the aesthetics. Mr. Valentino stated that the walls are framed with 2 x 6's. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that this is a great opportunity to inset the windows. Mr. Valentino stated that he can nail the windows from the back side to inset the windows. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of revised elevations subject to windows being recessed. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 03-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOEY VILLANURIA, 42-005 Cook Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of four awnings. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R030325.MIN I S � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES LOCATION: 42-005 Cook Street, Alkobar Quick Stop ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is requesting the addition of four forest green vinyl canopies on the north and south elevations of an existing building at the corner of Cook Street and Velie Way. There will be no signage or backlighting. Staff is recommending approval. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to Velie Way elevation canopy being inset between columns and broken at columns. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JEWISH SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER, 73-251 Hovley Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a two story, 54-unit senior housing facility. LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane, Temple Sinai ZONE: PR, PR-SO pending Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is requesting preliminary approval of the revised plans for the 54-unit senior housing facility on Hovley Lane. Pam Touschner, architect, was present to address the Commission. Ms. Touschner stated that one of the issues that the ARC had commented on was that the building looks too commercial and doesn't look residential. There were also issues with the color. The Commission did like the site plan and the massing of the building. The two-story section of the building is set back 100' from the property line. She brought some photos of the existing site showing the vegetation. She looked at the issue about color and how to de-commercialize the building. The original elevation had banding of color, which added to the horizontal look of the building. They looked at the colors, the banding of the colors, how color was used and also the balconies. They had proposed that the balconies have stucco walls that you couldn't see through. Typically, in a residential project you might use G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030325.MIN 16 `� V ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES railings. There are some areas where there are railings but they might use different materials. They went out and studied those materials and they came back to stucco. They could change the color of the stucco so it gave them some opportunity but it also allowed them to hide the clutter that happens on the balconies. They're still using block for the balconies and have wrapped the block around the corners. They're not asking for any additional roof height. They looked at the eyebrow piece thaYs coming out and starting to define the balconies of the units and realized that by reducing it they were detailing the underside. By reducing that, they were able to lower it and get more of a cornice piece on top of the eyebrow. Ms. Touschner showed the Commission an artist's rendering that shows the west elevation and the south elevation. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there will be different textures on the plaster eyebrow elements. Ms. Touschner stated that they've talked about all the plaster having the same finish. They haven't explored changing the texture and are using color to separate it from the rest of the building. They wanted to use a smooth finish on the balconies so that people can touch it. Details of the railing at the porch area and the eyebrow element were provided for the Commission to review. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how far the eyebrow projects from the building. Ms. Touschner stated that it projects 3' from the building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the project is very sensitively done with the two story element being that far away from the residential portion. He commented that he's really "taken" by the architecture. He asked the applicant how the parapets are going to be finished. Ms. Touschner stated that it's going to have a sheet metal cap thaYs painted to match the stucco. In some areas the stucco is coming up and wrapping so that there isn't a line. The building needs to have the sheet metal flashing. Commissioner Vuksic asked if she would consider not having it. Ms. Touschner asked if it was preferable to wrap the parapet with stucco. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it is preferable. Ms. Touschner stated that they could look at it but it may bring some issues from a forensics point of view. Commissioner Vuksic drew a sketch of a parapet detail where the plaster comes up with sheet metal on top that crimps back. There is still sheet metal on top but there is no cap. Ms. Touschner commented that she could never get it past her forensics department. It would become a water problem and all they're doing is caulking it. Don Wexler, architect, was present. He commented that he's on the board and building committee for this project. Pam and WWCOT has done an excellent job. There is no problem using a metal fascia. He's G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsb4gminWR030325.MIN 1� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES built a lot of steel buildings and steel homes and there's absolutely no oil canning. If the Commission would like to see building after building that way, he will take them. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested wrapping the plaster up and over the top of the parapet. Ms. Touschner stated that this is something that they can look at but this is an area where water gets in and that becomes a big problem. Mr. Wexler stated that the metal is on the top of the building so if it did oil can nobody would see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the detail that he personally drew, you wouldn't see it. However, the detail shown on the proposed plans shows a piece of capped flashing that comes over the top of the plaster. Mr. Wexler agreed with Commissioner Vuksic and will use the detail that he sketched during the meeting. Commissioner Vuksic asked if all the mechanical equipment was located below the parapet wall. Ms. Touschner stated that the equipment is on the roof with mechanical screening. She had proposed chopping up the screening and showing it in pieces, but she now feels that it needs to be one continuous screen so that it reads as a cap on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are mechanical wells on the building. Ms. Touschner stated that there are no depressions for the equipment. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there isn't a lot of distance between the parapet and the glass line. He asked how much parapet is there and how they intend to vent the roof. He wondered if the roof vents would be visible. Mr. Wexler stated that the parapets are all back at least 10'. All the venting and mechanical equipment will be behind the screens. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested making the whole element above the entry 2' higher than the roof line. Ms. Touschner stated that they're trying not to ask for any additional height. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that in the scope of the building they could possibly have one small element that comes above the 22' height limit. Ms. Touschner commented that the roof height is already 24'. Mr. Drell stated that flat roof building height is 22'. Recently, buildings have been approved by the City Council above height limits based on architectural merit. Mr. Wexler stated that he appreciates all the comments made by the Commission and he agrees with many of the things that they talked about changing. He wants to keep the building as low and unobtrusive as possible. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that at the last meeting he had said that he liked the building and he would like to see it approved at the next levels. He's trying to make comments that would not be against the design that the applicant is trying to create. Mr. Wexler commented that he's not looking to win any awards. He would like to build a very G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR030325.MIN 1 g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2003 MINUTES competent, compatible building that will work in with the rest of the surroundings and with the campus. Good design is good design. If it's approved at this level, it should go through and be approved at the next level. Commissioner Lopez asked if the landscaping is included in the request. Ms. Touschner did mention something earlier about landscaping. Ms. Touschner stated that there are a few things that need to be worked out with the landscaping. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of architecture only subject to having parapet flashing crimped back so that it doesn't wrap around front of facade. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR030325.MIN 19