The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-05-27 f � � i� �� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' ' MINUTES MAY 27, 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 10 0 Kristi Hanson X g 2 Richard O'Donnell X 9 1 Chris Van Vliet X 10 0 John Vuksic X 9 1 Ray Lopez X 10 0 Karen Oppenheim X 1 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 13, 2003 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of May 13, 2003 with revisions. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . �, � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 02-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KW REAL ESTATE, LLC, 74-750 EI Paseo, Suite 2A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 5,052 square foot office/medical building. LOCATION: 44-550 Village Court ZONE: PP 02-13 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of office expansion. LOCATION: 73-626 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 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: Request for consideration of revised color scheme for exterior. Pat & Oscar's. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R030527.MIN 2 1 t �� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that Len Fisher, representative from Pat & Oscar's, is present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission doesn't like the plain wall but the applicant could do something to alter the proposed paint scheme. It was suggested that vertical lines could be added to break it up a little bit. Commissioner Vuksic showed Mr. Fisher a photo of a wall at The River as an example. IYs a blank concrete block wall and they've articulated it and made a big, plain wall pretty interesting. Mr. Fisher commented that sales are extremely soft. They're trying to create their brand statement that they have at all the other restaurants. He could do what the commission has suggested, but he doesn't want to take it too far to divorce themselves from the original design. He could see doing the vertical elements in a terra cotta color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the verticals could give him an opportunity to stagger the horizontal elements, rather than having the proposed huge bands. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to modifying the painting pattern. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: C 02-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Alessandro, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Revisions to approved renovations of commercial remodel. LOCATION: 72-760 EI Paseo, south end of Palms to Pines central. ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that the building faces EI Paseo. The applicant, John Vuksic, stated that they had some cost issues with this project so they G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030527.MIN 3 . �'�`'" `�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES made some modifications that would still do what they wanted to do architecturally but would save the owner some money. Mr. Vuksic showed the commission the details that have been changed. He simplified the conical element and the trash enclosure won't be angled. Some of the columns don't come up over the fascias. On the east elevation, the columns are battered but they don't come up over the roof line and he has reduced the amount of glass. On the EI Paseo elevation, he has maintained the original architectural intent as much as possible. The entry has been redesigned, which is an improvement over the original drawing. There's a section through the main entry that takes you from EI Paseo into the courtyard where there was a large roof element made of tube steel and corrugated anodized aluminum. This has been simplified. The opposite elevation in the courtyard has had a couple of columns removed and has added an accent color, which is an improvement. The glass line has been dropped on the elevation facing Highway 111. The brick that was proposed on the facade will be replaced with a raked plaster finish with an accent color. Some of the colors will be modified and some of the accents went to a richer purple. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the equipment will be roof mounted. Mr. Vuksic stated that it will be in a well on the roof that runs the length of all three wings. Commissioner Gregory stated that the changes are relatively subtle, but it resulted in a lessening of the cost. It still looks good. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the subtlety of the changes are really improvements. He likes the new entryway and it has a better scale. Commissioner Hanson asked where the signage will go. Mr. Vuksic stated that one part of the building is going to be occupied by Palm Desert National Bank and he has an idea of where the sign will go. Commissioner Hanson asked if there's any other general signage that will go throughout the project. Mr. Vuksic stated that he wasn't aware of any general signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that the renovation looks very nice. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030527.MIN 4 � ��'" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ERNEST RAMIREZ, 12188 Central Avenue, #269, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Preliminary approval of revised plans for a new 1,811 square foot oil change facility. Jiffy Lube LOCATION: 72-499 Fred Waring, Toys R Us Shopping Center ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the ARC commented on the proposed Jiffy Lube at the meeting of May 13, 2003. The applicant has revised the plans, including the site plan in which he's created a couple of landscape areas in the parking lot. The building has been lowered considerably so that the main portion of the building is at 19' with the tower at a maximum height of 25'. Ernest Ramirez, applicant, stated that he revised the plans based on the comments of the ARC at their last meeting. He dropped the height of the tower and building. The tower has a little bit more mass and pops out 1'/Z' instead of 6". The wall thaYs visible as you're going west on Fred Waring will be popped out. The stucco has been changed to a painted surtace so that they can use a darker color. Parking spaces have been removed to create landscape areas. Commissioner Hanson stated that in the area between the #2 and #3 parking spaces, there is a cross hatched area. Mr. Ramirez stated that this is an existing space which he could probably move over. Commissioner Hanson stated that 3' isn't sufficient for a handicap area. Mr. Ramirez stated that he could probably move it over to the left hand side and cross hatch a bigger area which would be 8' and van accessible. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's only a 1'/2' sidewalk in front of the cars at the pop outs. Mr. Ramirez stated that he could pull the sidewalk over so that they have extra room. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parking spots are longer than they need to be and can be reduced by 1'/2. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030527.MIN $ , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that the space between the tops of the walls and the arches looks too thin. Everything needs to come down and instead of having two openings in the small part they could have three openings so that it's proportionately correct. Thicken up the other opening and make it come up and out and put a tile detail on it so that it looks like it was supposed to be that way. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the top portion of the tower seems to be out of proportion and could be lowered. Commissioner Hanson stated that it could come down and allow for a space for signage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he could take out the top row of glass. The ceiling height is 12' and the glass is at ceiling height. Commissioner Hanson stated that it may be better for the applicant to have the glass line a little bit lower so that they could accommodate shades, which they're going to end up having. Lose one bay of glass at the front. Mr. Ramirez agreed that he could do this. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the gfass and wondered if it was a store front. Mr. Ramirez stated that it is the store front. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the door gets cut in or does it line up with some of the vertical mullions. Mr. Ramirez commented that they will line up the door with the mullions. Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic suggested moving the curb 7' from the building to allow for adequate sidewalk space. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the stucco finish. Mr. Ramirez stated that it will be sand finish. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant not to have a big piece of cap flashing going over the cornice detail on the working drawings. Mr. Ramirez stated that there will be a 2" cap flashing. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he would consider not having any cap flashing. Mr. Ramirez asked if he should stucco the top. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could either stucco the top or crimp the flashing back at the top. Mr. Ramirez stated that he's done it in the past without a flashing and sloped it slightly so that there is drainage. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to (1) move curb 7' from building to allow for adequate sidewalk, (2) move handicap parking spot to left side which is van accessible, (3) bring space down between tops of walls and arches and have three openings in the small part instead of two openings, (4) thicken wall on east elevation and add tile detail, (5) lower tower proportionately and allow space for signage, (6) remove G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030527.MIN 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES one bay of glass on front elevation, (7) add grid for vines on east elevation, and (8) no cap flashing over cornice detail. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JOYCE A. WAYMAN, 76-835 Roadrunner Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of remodel of exterior storefront in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-290 EI Paseo; Hartman Jeweler's, His Lady Golf, Grand Slam Gallery, frame shop. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this is a business on EI Paseo. Francisco Urbina will be amending his recommendation. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is applying under the City's Facade Enhancement Program to remodel the front of the existing building. The tenants have complained that with the building being recessed back from the sidewalk and being low in scale that it doesn't get noticed as much as they would like by motorists and pedestrians. Their proposal is to increase the height and bring the elevation forward. They are using a faux travertine design with a stucco perimeter. However, after the staff report went out and looking a little bit more closely at it, iYs hard to understand how the cross sections relate to the front elevation. The other issue that staff has is where would the signage be located on the front elevation. As a result of that, staff would like to amend the recommendation to continuance. The architect is not present, but he would like the applicant to address the issues of where the signage would be located and also show how the building cross sections would relate to the front elevation. Staff would like to obtain input from the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that staff is not recommending approval. It looks odd architecturally. One of the objectives when you do store fronts is to differentiate the stores and this plan does the opposite. It obscures the differentiation befinreen the two store fronts. The consideration here is not simply just someone wanting to improve their building, but they're asking the City to pay for half of it. The Redevelopment Agency relies G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030527.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES on this commission to make the determination whether this is appropriate for a City investment, therefore, staff and commission have a higher threshold to cross before approving the request. Commissioner Gregory stated that the ARC would be of most help to the applicant if they were direct. Joyce Wayman, applicant, was present. Mr. Drell stated that if the project is approved by the Architectural Review Commission, the City will pay half of the cost of the improvement up to $35,000. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission would be helping Ms. Wayman the most if they suggested that her architect contact City staff to get pointed in the right direction. Ms. Wayman commented that she has spoken to staff and she's willing to make the storefront attractive. The signage would be placed on the cubes that come out from the building so that the signage would be visible from the sides or the front. She also has places for signage in front of the doors. The doors will remain at an angle, as they are now. The whole purpose of the renovation is visibility. The Dansk building next door drowned out Ms. Wayman's building. They're not at all visible and people can't find them because they're shadowed on both sides. She stated that she doesn't understand why the proposed plan isn't appealing or doesn't fit in and wanted the commission to explain it to her. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his initial reaction is that the building height is "height for the sake of height", which is what she's trying to do but what ends up happening is just an area thaYs "stuck on there" to create an impact. Proportion-wise it's hard to justify the height. The Dansk building is done in a way that it works. Commissioner Hanson elaborated on what Commissioner Vuksic was saying. What happens is that the cubed elements appear to be very heavy compared to the rest of the building. The proportions are off. While she understands that the applicant may want to put some signage on the facade, if what she's proposing is faux stone you're not going to want to drill anything into it because if the store changes there will be holes and you'll have to replace the stone. This material is a problem and will become an issue. Ms. Wayman commented that the drawing that was distributed to the commission is a very poor drawing. It should have been drawn more like a dome. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's not drawn that way at all in any of the drawings and it's not the way that it's going to come across. It's going to be built exactly the way it's drawn on the plans. Ms. Wayman stated that she has a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030527.MIN g . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES visual image in her mind and the plans show the technical aspect. Commissioner Hanson stated that she understands wanting to have an element hanging in the front but she's not sure what it actually does for the project. The fixture can be okay but what is it? What is it trying to be? A lot of times store fronts or facades have things on them and there's a purpose behind it. It's there and it's an element, but what is it and why is it there? It seems like it needs a purpose. Ms. Wayman asked if she would receive a report that she can give to her architect who is in Mexico. She asked if her architect could be with her at the next meeting. Commissioner Hanson stated that she will receive a list of comments for her architect and he could make the adjustments and come back to the ARC. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the architect should talk to staff. Commissioner Hanson stated that she agrees that she needs to do something because of the building next door. Pushing out the front of the building is a smart idea. It brings the store front a little bit closer in and it needs to be executed slightly differently. The proportions need to be changed and adjusted. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a good idea but they need to take another pass at it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the black tile on the facade. Commissioner Vuksic stated that iYll look fike a facing. Mr. Drell commented that he doesn't think that they want to use black on a southern exposure. Ms. Wayman stated that it's not really black. It's a dark grey but it has the appearance of black. Mr. Drell stated that he thinks that it'll get very, very hot and radiate heat. That side cooks to begin with and to have a darker color would make it really hot. Ms. Wayman stated that this is one reason for the cubes which will provide some shade in the display area. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if she understands the detail that Commissioner Gregory was asking about. If you have the travertine tile on one side and the corner, where the cube has an edge on it and the tile doesn't return, it will look like you've just pasted a thin tile on there and it doesn't look as rich as it would if it had some depth to it. Commissioner Gregory stated that there wifl be no feeling of depth there unless the travertine tile returns. Mr. Drell commented that it's really not tile. It's faux plaster to look like travertine. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they were talking about it as a cube, but it won't read as a cube because iYs two dimensional. Mr. Drell stated that this is a subtle detail, but there are more significant issues here in regard to proportions. What is the chandelier and what is it really hanging from? Ms. Wayman stated that this will be an object of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030527.MIN 9 � � � `�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REViEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES art, but she doesn't know what it will be at this time but it will probably be something in stainless steel. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the comments that the commissioners are making are the details that are another layer of how they're going to look at it. When you substantially increase the building height, it's important that it look three dimensional where it comes back around far enough so that it doesn't look like a stage set. The Dansk building returns way back until we can't see it anymore. This is what the commission will be looking at on Ms. Wayman's building as well. Right now it looks like it returns back about 6', which is nothing for the scale of this building. Ms. Wayman stated that she would like for her architect to come in and talk to the commissioners and staff. Time is of the essence because she would like to have the improvements done in the off season and she has tenants moving in and out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission can look at rough drawings as far as giving her some feedback on the concept. There's a difference befinreen concept and final hard drawings. If the architect doesn't have time to generate drawings, the ARC can certainly look at some sketches to comment on. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) change proportions to improve scale to reduce "top heavy" appearance, (2) create area for signage, (3) architect to talk to staff, (4) add depth and shadow, (5) avoid dark colors on south elevation due to heat radiation, and (6) consider creating individual store fronts. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• RUSSELL RUMANSOFF, HERRON & RUMANSOFF ARCHITECTS, INC., 530 St. John Place, Hemet, CA 92543 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Exterior remodel of Guaranty Bank. LOCATION: 72-625 Highway 111 ZONE: PC G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030527.MIN l� �wr� �r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 27, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030527.MIN 1 1