Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 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 16 2 Kristi Hanson X 15 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 8 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 16 2 Ray Lopez X 17 1 Karen Oppenheim X 9 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: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of September 9, 2003. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 err✓ "00 ; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL RODERICK, 73-380 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of revised roof plans for a single family residence, per referral by City Council. LOCATION: 73-380 Pinyon Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Smith stated that the request before the commission is for reconsideration of revised roof plans for a single family residence. The matter was before the ARC in August 2003 when the 18' gable roofed home was approved. The basis at that point was the significant setbacks, particularly from the rear property line. That decision was appealed to the City Council and was presented at the Council's last meeting. At that point, the applicant submitted option B, which is a hipped roof plan which is on display for the commission to review. At the same meeting, staff submitted a option C which is a roof concept to show how it could also be accomplished with a lower profile on the roof. The applicant and the appellant were invited to present their case and it was requested that the commission evaluate the options. Mr. Bill Roderick, applicant, stated that he purchased the property in June 2000. According to the development standards, a 20,000 square foot lot such as this, requires a minimum lot depth of 125 feet, minimum lot width of 90 feet, minimum front yard of 25 feet, minimum rear yard of 20 feet and minimum side yard 15 feet on each side. They have met all of this criteria and have, in fact, pulled the house forward so that they have 25 feet off the curb line on the street. They wanted to have a large backyard to accommodate a pool. When the ARC approved the plans they had a 93 foot ridge line that traversed the full length of the house. On second consideration, they've reduced the ridge line to 30'6". The house looks better with the revised roof line. He was issued a grading permit, which has been stamped. At the time, staff wanted about 900 yards of fill brought into the site. They compromised and contracted to put in 450 yards of fill and build the flood retention pond. They only raised the site about 6" above curb line, which gives it proper G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdoos\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 2 'err► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES drainage. When the grading plans were approved and stamped by the City engineer, they started to do the layout of the home and roughed in the plumbing. They did everything they could before they could get a permit. Mr. Roderick is a developer in Salt Lake City and he stated that he understands what can be done and what cannot be done before an actual building permit is issued. They've done nothing that has to be inspected, but they have been help up 2-3 weeks because of that. Unfortunately, the property of the neighbor to the rear goes down 5'-6' from the intersection. The neighbor's line of sight is lower than the applicant's lot. The applicant showed the commission an exhibit that shows where the house is in location on the lot versus where the neighbor's home is. It shows a line of sight that goes over the 18' roof. According to the code, the applicant could build the house 20' from the rear wall with a 15' roof height. The exhibit shows the line of sight as more of a detriment to the neighbor than a positive because it would be closer to the rear property line. He doesn't want to do this but it is a situation that could be done. There has been some discussion about lowering the pad. That is not an option because of the fact that they have a sewer situation there. To get the 2% fall that they need from the back bathrooms to the sewer would be very difficult if the pad were lowered. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the other houses along Pinyon and wondered if they were below the street. Mr. Roderick stated that they are a little bit below the street. What's happened is that the City has a new flood control plan and that's why his pad has been raised a little bit. However, the house to the west is about 17', the house to the east is 16'6" in height. His average roof height would be lower than that. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if his pad is significantly higher than the houses around him. Mr. Roderick stated that he doesn't think that it is. The City dictated the pad height. The pad is less than 6" above curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that some of the older homes had lower pads. Commissioner Gregory stated that his own house was the first one in 1987 to be affected by the new City ordinance where they have to be above the curb. He actually lowered his house because he had a complaint from the neighbor behind him and they weren't used to a home being higher all of a sudden but he was required to raise the pad by the City. In his case, they lowered the house so that they're even with the top of the curb, but it's been nothing but trouble since. He has flooding problems. The older homes were built at grade so they are lower than the street which has created flooding problems. That's why the City has tried to address this issue G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES with the relatively new ordinance. Mr. Roderick commented that he has commercial buildings that don't have as large of a retention pond. Commissioner Vuksic stated that looking at what Mr. Roderick presented as an alternate plan, this is a very reasonable compromise. Mr. Roderick commented that they have taken two-thirds of the roof off. There's only a 30' ridge that's at 18'. Carole Westrick and Tom Bomar were present and addressed the commission. Ms. Westrick stated that they drove around a six block radius and all the houses there are significantly lower than the proposed construction. She took a picture of the roof line of the house next door. There's an electrical pole (temporary electric) on the site which is 15'. Add a foot and this shows the impact on the next door house. This is very telling. The next door house on the other side is only 13' high and the house next door is 15' high. Before and after pictures were distributed to the commission which showed poles reflecting the proposed roof height. Ms. Westrick stated that her whole house unfortunately is oriented to the backyard. You walk in the double front doors and you look at this beautiful view of the mountains and palm trees. The first plan, when you walked in the front doors, all you saw was a red roof. The second plan, you walk in the front doors and at the very beginning all you see is a red roof and then as you walk in, you start to see a little bit of sky. We don't have a lot of options. We moved here in November of 2002 and bought the house because of the view. We walked in the front doors and thought the view was spectacular. We looked in other communities in the golf areas in Palm Springs and Palm Desert for twenty years. We came here because we thought that they would get the best of both worlds. You get privacy and a wonderful community feel and some protection for the mountain views and palm trees. Now with this proposed construction at 18', we lose a lot of that. Truly, the second proposal is better but unfortunately right where the 18' is, is right where their view is. The other impact is that the proposed project devalues property. If we keep allowing what is an impact of a two-story building, because it is 24' above our property. What are we saying to the neighbors if a two-story home above our property right in our entertainment/view area is approved and they want to build on an empty lot? Are we going to go ahead and just let people block everybody's view, or are we going to treat that as a compromised situation where we can give them the height that they want. We talked to an architect and we came up with several compromised situations that would give them their height inside and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 4 1%W11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES allow us to have some of our view left. That's all we're trying to do here is make a win-win situation. Tom Bomar stated that he had a written statement, an original and two copies, to be added to the file. There's really a lot going on here. The applicant's house is on the north side of the street, which means that it backs up to us. We look south at the applicant's house. The question that we really need to get to is, is 18' a right or is 18' something where we have to balance? 18' can be approved under certain circumstances and what are those circumstances? Maybe we should think about when 18' is an appropriate thing to do. If the house is on the non-view- blocking side of the street on the south side of the street, it really doesn't block anybody's view. Maybe 18' on those kinds of lots is okay, but an 18' house on the north side of the street completely dominates our view and blocks our view. We think that maybe that's the kind of situation where this committee's function, this committee's charter is to say that , "Well, we're not going to approve 18' all the time. We're going to approve 18' only in those situations where it doesn't unreasonably block somebody else's view." Let's talk about reasonableness. There are several ways to mitigate this 18' problem. Clearly taking the sides down does a little bit, but the 18' still completely dominates. The 18' is so unreasonable. It's 6' higher than the house to the left, 5' higher than the house to the west. Is this really something that we want in the neighborhood. We have suggested some ideas, i.e. reducing the pad height. I have spoken to the City engineer at some length and I've spoken to the applicant's civil engineer about ways to reduce the pad height. First of all, the City does not require you to be at the maximum pad height. I spoke to Mark at the counter and he said that if someone came in a plan that was a foot to two feet lower and wanted to do it, it's okay with me. We're not going to require it. We like it higher. Flooding is a problem. If somebody wanted to come in lower, it's okay. How can we make this happen? I have offered to grant a drainage easement across my property to mitigate that one in a hundred year flood, which might overflow the retention basin. This retention basis that the applicant is putting in and is required by the City is supposed to handle the 100-year flood. If it doesn't, and once in this great, great, great while there is an overflow, I don't want the applicant's house to be flooded. I will grant an easement across my property for the runoff. Applicant is not required to take this. It's just an option, but applicant's not allowed to just build 18' and say, "You know what? I don't want your compromise. I want to build 18' anyway. I don't care about your view." We've also talked to an architect and we have plans for a modified scissor truss structure. The applicant wants scissor G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES trusses. Scissor trusses are great. They are these big, huge high ceilings. This is a spectacular mansion of a house. I love it. It's beautiful. The problem is, the applicant has in his mind that he doesn't want a flat roof like many of the houses in the neighborhood or even a semi-flat roof. He wants scissor trusses, double trusses that crisscross which go up 18'. Our ceiling is 11'. Our roof is 11' and our ceiling in our sunken living room is 1 V. We love high ceilings. We're very partial to high ceilings, but 11' is plenty. You don't need 18'. What this would do is it would, without changing anything except the very top 30". There would be a flat roof portion right at the peak and that would be brought forward 10' and back 10'. These computations have been run through truss companies' computer. This would give us about 18"-20" of benefit. A letter from Debbie and Buzz Cox at 73-535 Pinyon, an original and two copies, was given to the commission. Their house is 13'. They also have a vacant lot in their backyard and they don't want to see 18' blocking their view of the mountains either. Is 18' necessary to do when it blocks people? I mean, what's the purpose of this Architectural Review Commission? When we bought our house we knew that there would be something built there and we'd love to build it. We could do it 11' or 12' and keep our great view and have a wonderful, beautiful house with high ceilings. We just wouldn't have scissor trusses. Be that as it may, we looked up the design criteria for houses in this area and we recognize that a house would have to pass architectural review. We asked,"What does the Architectural Review Commission supposed to do?" The code says that you're supposed to recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics. One house can't hurt another house. The commission shall find that it will not impair the desirability of investment of occupation to the neighborhood and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. We are the very neighboring property that you need to find is not going to be impaired by this development if you approve it up to 18'. 18' really hurts us. We don't think that it's reasonable for us to be hurt if there are other alternatives. Heck, the staff's proposal is a reasonable alternative. My proposal is a reasonable alternative. Dropping the pad is a reasonable alternative. None of this is something that you can force the applicant to do. What you can do is tell the applicant, "You know what? There are options, go work them out." Mr. Smith asked if the applicant wishes to rebut anything. Kevin Shaffer, was present and stated that he's the project manager and wanted to make some clarifications. The house next door is GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 6 *40e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES actually 16'10" on the left and the house on the right is approximately 13'6" and it also has some roof structures (swamp coolers) that reach approximately 17'. There are other homes in the area that are larger. We can go through and just pick out 12' and 13' homes, but there are homes in the area that are taller. He showed the commission a photo of a vacant lot across the street with an 18' house with 10' top plates. Ours has 9' top plates. We are concerned about our neighbors view. We're concerned about all of our neighbors. The view that you were looking at just showed a small section. A photo was shown to the commission of the entire view looking from the back of his property and he also had a photo looking from the other side as well. The neighbors have more than one window in the house. There are five sliding glass doors and three windows at the rear of the house. They all face south and they all get this panoramic view of palm trees. A plan was shown to the commission of the impact of a 15' roof height with a 20' setback and also a 15' roof height with a 40' setback. Poles were set up on the site with fluorescent tape across the top to show what an 18' roof line would look like. Ms. Westrick showed the commission pictures that were taken with the two poles set up on the site. Commissioner Gregory asked if poles were erected to denote the edge of the ridge line for everyone to see. Ms. Westrick commented that poles were set up showing the ridge line for about half an hour. There were no story poles done on the property. Mr. Bomar asked if there was a story pole ordinance. Commissioner Hanson stated that there is no story pole ordinance. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a story of Palm Desert growing up. Commissioner Hanson commented that she will probably be the most brutal commissioner. She stated that she can completely understand how the neighbors must feel when they had a view that they've been privileged to have, but in reality they were privileged with it for a very short period of time because there would've been a house built there eventually. That's something that they must understand. They must also look at the fact that even though the proposed house is at 18' if she looks at that drawing it says that if she wanted to build that house at the setback, which is something that as an architect she has to deal with everyday. She has to consider worse case scenario. She's looking at their setback of 20' with a 15' building, which would impact the neighbors much greater than the 18' at their proposed 45' setback. The applicant has been sensitive in the fact that they have closed off and done a hip roof instead of a gable roof in order to allow some views. The applicant has used reasonable care. The impact is less G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\ARD30923.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES than what it would've been if they built a 15' high home at the 20' setback, which they are allowed to do. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he bought a house last month in South Palm Desert where his backyard backs onto a vacant lot. Right now he's enjoying an incredible view, but he understands that there's going to be a house there one day and he hopes that whoever builds a house there builds it as close to the street as possible. Although, really a better design would be to back it up to his lot and maybe that'll happen. He goes out there and imagines a house about 18' tall because that's what's going to be there and he understands that and he will lose that view one day. When he designs houses and looks at view lines and mountains and he thinks about what's going to happen in the future. A lot of times he designs houses in developments where there are a lot of vacant lots and not many homes and you have to picture what's going to happen as it gets built out and what views are going to be there after it's built out. He doesn't design a house focusing on views that are going to be gone one day. He uses percentages in his designs where if a house is eventually built and still gets two-thirds of a mountain view, that's worth taking advantage of. If he gets 50% of the mountain, then it's getting pretty close to where it's not even worth designing for that. If it's less than 50% then you're basically looking at a house and maybe you'll see a little bit of the mountains over it, but you're basically looking at a house. What he sees from the photographs that were submitted by Ms. Westrick is that the mountain view that they would have even with a 15' ridge isn't really a view at all. You might get a little peek here or there. You're looking at a house, one way or the other. You're not looking at a mountain view wherever that house is placed. He agrees with Commissioner Hanson that to expect someone to build a large home that's going to overall increase property values and really make the home nice and hold them to 15' when they're going to do something that's aesthetically pleasing is not reasonable and hasn't been what the commission has been doing the whole time that he's been a commissioner. Commissioner Lopez commented that he lives on a golf course and there are trees across the fairway that block his view. He would be more concerned about the trees because they grow 25'-40' tall that the applicant could plant in his front yard. The trees are going to be a lot taller than the building will ever be. It would be great if the applicant put in palm trees but if he decides he wants evergreen trees, 25' is a small tree. He would be more concerned about what the planting plan looks like. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she's not an architect, she's a civilian on the commission and she really empathized with what is being said here. She lives on Shadow Mountain and she feels like she's in downtown New York sometimes from when she moved here over twenty years ago. When she looks at how the roof line was previously designed and how it is now, she feels that there has been a lot of good faith here. She is inclined to accept the revised plans. Commissioner Gregory stated that since he lives down the street he's been through a similar situation. His house was the first home that was required by the City to raise the grade so that it would be one foot above the curb adjacent to the front walkway. He brought in a lot of fill and built the pad up. The neighbor behind him came out and said that she had lived there for 37 years and he was taking her view away. He said that he was really sorry and she asked him if he could lower his pad because no one had seen, until that time, a pad being brought up so high. He then went to the City and requested permission in an effort to compromise to bring the pad down. At that time, they said that they would let him bring the pad down so that it's equal to the top of the curb so he shaved the pad by one foot. He also located his house as close to the street as he could. He doesn't have a great view but was able to see the San Gorgonio Mountains until the neighbor grew her oleander hedge so high that it blocked any possibility of seeing the view. He ended up with a non-view lot on the north side of the street and he thought that that was funny. She grew her hedge to block his house. What we have is a growth situation here relative to the City. For many years this has been an established neighborhood. Many of the homes were built in the 50's. The house across the street from him was built in the 40's. They were built differently back then. He remembers when Ray Diaz was the City Manager and he was predicting when homes would be built larger because these are larger lots. He said that there will come a day when people will tear down homes and build new homes and they will be larger. The area had not really addressed view situations. In the case of Ms. Westrick and Mr. Bomar, what's really important is that there's an effort made on both parties to understand that there will be view blockage. The effort that the applicant has made with shaving the sides of the roof and using a hip roof is a huge and very significant compromise. He's not sure what can be done with the pad height. In his case, he made every effort he could and he's paying for it now. When we have a serious rain he has flooding problems. He feels that if this house were 15' tall and brought back as far as they could legally bring it, they would have a far worse situation. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the revised architecture of the house his improved. The roof has the proper proportions. By trying to bring it down, he feels that it'll detract from it. He feels that the revised plans are well done the way they are. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's important to know that this is one commission. There is an appeal process if they wish to go further. Mr. Drell commented that they've already been to the City Council. The message from the Council was that they were going to weigh heavily on the decision of the Architectural Review Commission. It would be unlikely that they would divert from the ARC's decision. Commissioner Gregory asked if they may have to have some ordinance that addresses views. Mr. Drell stated that it would go further than that. Right now a single family home is a ministerial act. We don't notify the surrounding property owners, let alone show them how tall the buildings are. Commissioner Hanson stated that in defense of the ARC's motion, if they were asking for 18' up against the 20' property line it would be absolutely unacceptable. The ARC can look at this and say that a 15' roof height at the 20' setback would be approved without question. They're allowed to do that. Now the proposed plans show that the house has been moved back and even with an 18' roof height we are creating less of an impact to the neighboring lot. That is the reasonableness for approving it. Mr. Bomar commented that he hasn't heard anybody speak in favor of his position so he's starting to see the handwriting on the wall. Code does require even 15' high roofs to be approved by the review process. I don't think that has been your custom to do so and that's okay. Mr. Drell stated that it has been our custom. The vast majority of 18' homes have been approved in a modified design. Mr. Bomar stated that he wanted to correct the misperception that they could build at 15' right back at us and we should be concerned about that threat that they would do that. I am not concerned about that threat because I don't think that that kind of a situation would ever be approved by this body. We could appeal that and I don't think that it would be approved. To say that we're better off having 18' in the middle of the lot than 15' at the minimum 20' setback doesn't mean anything because 15' at the minimum setback would not be approved. Mr. Drell stated that it would be approved as a matter of right. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 10 . fir✓' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Bomar may be a little bit mislead because he stated that a house 15' high needs to be approved by this body and he said that they normally are and that's not right. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Bomar said that 18' high buildings are not normally approved and Mr. Drell said that they are. 15' buildings that meet the setback requirements are approved by staff as a matter of right, assuming the architecture was appropriate. Commissioner Gregory stated that as a landscape architect, on a home that's on the north side so that their view is towards the south, pushing the house back to create an entry pool-type site design is actually something they do a lot of because a home which is built on the north side of the street has a shadow problem relative to the pool. When he lays out homes in this situation, he frequently does pull the house as far back as they can to have an entry courtyard pool. It's not that it wouldn't happen. It happens a lot. Mr. Bomar stated that he's concerned that the applicant has basically come in with the 18' all the way across, which he feels is a rather obnoxious design and then it's the old axiom of, "Ask for the unreasonable and then back off a little bit and then everybody will say, oh, how reasonable you are." We're asking for them to be really reasonable and to really take into account our situation. 18' should not be approved as a matter of course just because in La Quinta they're building high houses. One of your charters here in code section 25.70.090 states that the ARC should find this house is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. I'm all for improved houses and increasing land values. That's great, but this is perhaps the second house in this entire neighborhood that has been approved or that is being considered being approved at over 15'. This is starting to change the character of the neighborhood and your charter is to make sure that the character of the neighborhood is preserved, not that the character changes with changing times. I would ask you to think about whether or not you start allowing people to tear down the 11' homes and build 18' high homes. Is that what you want to happen here? Because that's what's going to happen if you start approving 18' even though it interferes with somebody's view. Maybe once in a while you approve an 18' high home if nobody complains, but if it really hurts somebody it seems to me that if it's going to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and you have to find that it doesn't unreasonably interfere, then once in a while you say no to 18'. That's what I ask. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wanted to make one rebuttal to Mr. Bomar's comments. By Mr. Bomar's own pictures that they've GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 11 *Ape 1004 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES given the commission to review, I can roughly assume that if they were to lower their roof 3' that you will still only get a snippet of the mountains. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the photo that was taken from Mr. Bomar's dining room is misleading because that's one little portion of his view. Mr. Bomar stated that staff took the picture. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't care who took it but it's just one little spot and it's misleading. Commissioner Gregory stated that when he first built his house, Marion Henderson who's husband Cliff essentially founded Palm Desert, accosted me in the supermarket and told me that with my house I had ruined the neighborhood. He thought it was interesting. Maybe this is the beginning of a new way for the City to look at these things. We have always looked at mitigating 18' homes. They have not been discouraged. We feel that a very sincere effort has been made mitigating an 18' home. I doubt that someone who's applying for a single family residence would be so cynical as to draw a very long roof expecting it to be turned down. I might expect that in a housing tract, but not on a private custom home. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of revised plans as submitted by the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-31 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSJ: SCOTT POWELL, UNITED GREEN MARK, INC., 74-991 Velie Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a screen wall to obstruct view into storage yard from Cook Street. LOCATION: 74-991 Velie Way, United Green Mark, Inc. ZONE: S.I. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is not present. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for continuance at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 03-21 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a single family home in Cahuilla Hills. LOCATION: 45-815 Willow Street ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-83 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSj: SOHAIL MULL, 73-983 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of revised business signage. LOCATION: 73-983 Highway 111, Tribal Touch Rugs & More ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that sometime back the commission considered a sign request at this business. The ARC approved a modified form of the request, which did not include the use of the yellow background. The applicant appealed that decision to the City Council. It went to the Council at their late August meeting. They continued the matter in that there were no plans there depicting what the ARC had approved. There was some confusion by some Council members who didn't really know what they were considering. The applicant has helped us out by going ahead and modifying the signage on the property, however, it still retains the use of the yellow background. This matter goes back to the Council on Thursday, September 25. We want to be able to report to them that the ARC has seen this and what the position is. Commissioner Hanson commented that she thinks that everything is fine except the yellow background. The ARC had asked the applicant to use a cream colored background. Mr. Drell stated that the condition to use a color other than yellow was appealed. Now the ARC has to re-evaluate the request. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that she still doesn't like the yellow background. The rest of the signage is very nicely done. The colors blend nicely and the yellow background stands out like a sore thumb. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the applicant could still do something to attract attention to the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the yellow detracts from the building. Sohail Mull, applicant, was present to answer questions. Mr. Drell stated that yellow signs inherently are not unacceptable. It has to do with the context of the whole storefront design. Many of the yellow signs in the City have been approved ,however, some of them may have been done illegally. We're going to investigate those. You can agree or disagree with the position of the commission. Commissioner Gregory commented that he doesn't mind the yellow background. Commissioner Oppenheim concurred. Commissioner Gregory stated that the changes to the building are an improvement over the way it was before. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't like the yellow. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the yellow sign looks like a banner that's been made to be as loud as it could be. He can't imagine designing a yellow box sign on top of the fascia. Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't find the yellow background on the sign offensive. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she felt that an effort has been made and it looks cleaner than it did before. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the window signage and wondered if it was permanent. Mr. Mull stated that this is temporary signage. Mr. Mull commented that Commissioner Hanson is not willing to make one compromise. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to re-affirm their previous action to allow the applicant to use a background color for the sign that is compatible with the existing menu items (not yellow). Motion failed 3-3-0-1 with Commissioners Gregory, Lopez and Oppenheim opposed and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 03-33 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WALLAROO KIDS LEARNING CENTER, KAREN HEHMEYER, 44-911 Cabrillo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to paint metal roof of childcare center. LOCATION: 44-911 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-3 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant would like to paint the roof of the Wallaroo Kids Learning Center. Mr. Drell had shown the proposed color to Commissioner Hanson and they had picked a color. The roof is currently blue. Mr. Drell commented that Sparkling Garnet is a deeper brownish red. The applicant didn't feel that this color was red enough. The applicant stated that the building is very unusual. No matter what color it's painted, it's not going to blend in. She presented photo simulations with the proposed red color roof. There's a Texaco station right across the street that's red and also a huge, ugly, pink-on-pink building. The neighborhood is almost all commercial. She looks at the back of Maple Leaf Plumbing, the back of Wacky Wicker and the back of the Texaco station. There are rental properties on either side of her building. There's only one house that's right next to her. The applicant doesn't like the Sparkling Garnet color that was suggested to her. She thought that it was too brown. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's not going to be brown at all when it's on the roof. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's a lot of red in the color. Commissioner Hanson stated that the sun will pull a lot of red out of the color. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he struggles with colors. They're tough because it's so hard to tell from a little swatch. Whatever hue is in the color looks more pronounced when it's on a building than when it's on a little chip. The applicant commented that she has to spend $8,000. to paint the roof and she wants it to be more red. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the applicant paint a portion of the roof to see what it looks like. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant could request a 4' x 4' color sample. It's going to be much redder than she thinks. The light here in the desert amplifies everything. If it seems muted, in reality, it will be much brighter. The applicant wanted to know what the objection is to red. Commissioner Hanson stated that it'll be very, very bright. Commissioner Gregory stated that primary red will not get approved by this commission. The Sparkling Garnet color is a good compromise. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 15 Now, 1*00 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of paint #3026 Sparkling Garnet for roof color. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 02-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE YANKEE WOODSHOP, 74-850 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new 5,580 square foot industrial building. LOCATION: 75-180 Mayfair ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 02-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-041 .San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of storage shed encroaching in rear yard. LOCATION: 74-041 San Marino Circle ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 03-36 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DONALD CROWELL, 39-060 Kilimanjaro Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Single family residence with roof height over 15'. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 16 Nftwl N%901 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES LOCATION: 38-528 Tandika Trail, Avondale Country Club ZONE: PR-3 Action: Approved by staff before the meeting. 9. CASE NO.: CUP 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NELBECK, LLC; DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for single family residence in hillside. LOCATION: 47-625 Calle de Los Campesino ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of architecture only by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 03-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McLOUGHLIN, 43-460 Virginia Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 5' wall in front yard. LOCATION: 43-460 Virginia Avenue ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion subject to applicant providing landscape plans for the area in front of the wall. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 11. CASE NO.: MISC 03-37 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 17 err+' °err ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CAPTAIN COOK'S SEA GRILL, Dee Dee Wallquist, 72-191 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior color change. LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111, Captain Cook's Sea Grill ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for continuance at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111, Suite A224, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for commercial/retail buildings in Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the proposed project encompasses approximately 23 acres. The ARC reviewed plans for this site in July 2003. The matter went to the Planning Commission two meetings ago. It looked considerably different than the plans that are being shown to the commission today. The applicant has changed architects and, hence, has changed architecture. The matter will go back to the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003. The applicant is asking for consideration of the revised design. Michael Robinson, architect, presented the revised plans. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Robinson to explain the changes that have been made in concept and how it affects the site plan. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant came to an agreement with Public Works to have one access point from Cook Street, instead of two. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that the plan includes office space, a hotel, main street and a corner plaza. They've addressed comments that were provided at the last meeting. He tried to reenforce the Main Street idea and pedestrian circulation. They have added more decorative paving and have added cross walks which may help slow down traffic and create a more pedestrian friendly sort of environment. They tried to provide more linkage from retail to office through a covered trellis idea that extends over to decorative paving. They've added trellises that open into outdoor seating areas for the drive through restaurants. The drive through was wrapping around the building on two sides. Now they've pushed the building towards the parking area so it's less visible from the entry into the center. It also allows the patio and outside dining to go against the main street so there's more activity. They're talking about adding trellises over the drive through area. They've spent some additional time trying to figure out what the public space is going to be between the retail 1 and retail 2 buildings. The office buildings have a 12' setback to allow them to move in and out, which is similar to how the retail buildings are being designed. They have included covered parking for 75% of the parking spaces. They've taken out the palm trees and added shade trees. Based on the elevations, they're located so that they have a direct relationship with the architectural elements. Palm trees are focused on key areas, such as the project entries, where the office terminates, etc... There have been some adjustments made to the plaza area. A model was shown to the commission. Previously, the buildings were the same and there was a big plaza but there was no real communication between the buildings. After thinking about how the buildings would be used and how the courtyard would be used, they decided to rotate the elements in order to squeeze down the area and create a space for restaurant tenant so they could have outdoor seating. Towers were implemented to create a gateway feature that may be visible from the freeway. There's been a lot of work that's been going on with the plaza and how it relates to the corner. There's an interesting relationship between how the larger courtyard on both sides is sort of squeezed by the retail section so that the activity and buildings start integrating with the public space a little better than what they had previously proposed. The towers are not thought of as building elements but more as graphic ideas that symbolize the gateway to the project. By lighting underneath the towers to create more of a glowing piece, it would be visible going down the street, inside the center and also from the freeway. In addition, as you're going down Main Street, the towers would act as a point of reference. Therefore the towers are a reference point, a graphic element and the gateway into the center. They also help link the buildings together. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 19 ' 'vr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that they were encouraged to put a meandering sidewalk along Cook Street. They would like to change the sidewalk so that the sidewalk pulls pedestrians into the main street area where there's more activity and pedestrian friendly ideas, as opposed to a busy street and there's no areas to stop and shop or no shade. There site plan still shows a sidewalk but there's a new alternate plan that eliminates the sidewalk on Cook Street. Mr. Drell stated that there will be a sidewalk. Mr. Robinson stated that they want to do it as an alternate and bring it into the plaza area. Mr. Evans stated that the idea of the sidewalk along the street might be considered as a sidewalk that runs in front of the stores instead. Mr. Drell asked if they talked to Public Works about this. Mr. Evans stated that he talked to Mark about it yesterday. He said that the concept of considering that was reasonable in his mind. He's talking about it from a merchandising standpoint as much as it is a street scape standpoint. His perspective of Cook Street is that it's a busy street and it's not going to be as shady as the sidewalk along the front of the shops. He's happy to put a sidewalk on Cook Street. Mr. Drell stated that he's almost absolutely sure that the Council will insist that there will be a sidewalk on Cook Street. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's concerned that there may be some liability in the event of a slip and fall. If the general public is using the property and there is an accident, will the applicant be liable. Mr. Evans commented that a shopping center is a quasi-public entity and he has liability insurance just for the general public. Mr. Drell stated that architecturally the center is going to have an open face to Cook Street and the college. We do not want to reproduce our backwards restaurant design and get obsessed with the inside of this project. The outside of this project still has to be two faced. Also, remember that nine months out of the year we don't care about shade. When you make your money, shade isn't that important. Don't obsess with the fact that it's shady or not shady. Architecturally, the streetscape has to look like a front and sidewalks are part of that. Twenty years from now there may be so much interaction between the college and the shopping center that those stores might start turning around. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should also keep in mind is the people who are probably going to be using those sidewalks are going to be college students who are probably running to get a bus. To force them to have to go into the project and not be able to see when the bus is coming may be an issue. Also, they're going to make their own pathway through the landscaping anyway. That's really something to consider. Those are the type of people who are going to be using the sidewalk, not your average shopper. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 20 �irrir' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked about some of the parking areas that are in non-circulation areas. If you happen to drive into some of the parking areas, you can't get out. He wondered if there were a trade off for that in a sense of a more enhanced pedestrian environment. Mr. Drell stated that the marketing goal for this project is to get people to park and find the most convenient place to park and then walk down the street. Commissioner Hanson commented that she's seen the more "age challenged" people who live here do crazy things when it comes to parking. She has seen people turn in on the opposite way into a diagonal parking space, which could be a major issue. Mr. Evans stated that if he makes the parking at 90% he's trying to keep the street narrow and slow. At the last meeting, it was suggested that they make an effort to slow down the traffic, which is what they've endeavored to do here. After studying other urban shopping complexes similar to the proposed complex, they have found that the angled parking does slow the cars down. Mr. Drell commented that the angled parking makes it look more like a street and less like a parking lot. No solution is absolutely perfect. You can't prevent people from doing stupid things all the time. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wondered if they allowed for something in the middle of the road. It could be something decorative such as ballards. Mr. Robinson stated that the idea was to keep the road narrow to invite pedestrians to cross easily. Commissioner Hanson commented that the hotel looks like it's stuck in the back corner and she wondered how much visibility it has if there are buildings in front of it. Mr. Robinson stated that it's a three-story building which is located on the highest part of the site. The restaurant pads work as a group around the hotel and are one-story buildings. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the diagonal access between the offices and the retail center. They had talked about what happens at the office end because it wasn't doing what it seemed like it was intended to do. Mr. Robinson stated that he added a trellis which will help break up the two parking bays to smaller parking. They added decorative paving to encourage people to walk there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they really haven't done much. Mr. Robinson stated that it's a garden concept and they've proved sidewalks throughout the office complex. Commissioner Gregory remarked that he wondered if there was still a missing element where they show two trees at the apex and suggested adding some form of objects (i.e. site furnishings) so that there appears to be a gateway to the office project. This area needs a lot of study. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about delivery areas to all the retail spaces. He wondered where all the big trucks go and unload. Mr. Drell asked if the tenants will have big trucks. Mr. Robinson commented that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 21 "+oe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES the tenants have small spaces and delivery times could be limited to certain areas. Trash pick-up would be through the back. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's critical that the backs of the buildings look as good as the front. Commissioner Hanson commented that the pictures that were presented to the commission show some really cool forms, but they seem to be lacking in the proposed architecture and wanted to know why. Mr. Robinson stated that they're trying to create a traditional urban village. They want it to look like the buildings were built over time and move up and down and are sort of pushed together. There are similar elements but they would be different colors and different heights. The more outrageous the shapes are, the more contemporary it gets and they're trying to keep it more traditional. Commissioner Hanson asked why they presented pictures showing different forms. Mr. Robinson stated that the pictures are supposed to be a representation of the feeling of the project and aren't to be taken literally. Commissioner Hanson commented that they should've told the commission this. After reviewing the entire book, she felt that the architecture was cool but when she looked at the proposed architecture, she was disappointed. It's important to add some of the elements from the book into the architecture, or take the pictures out. Mr. Drell stated that most of the architecture at the Gardens at El Paseo is very ordinary, but it has a few surprises such as the trellis elements that poke out to the street. These are the signature apostrophes that you remember when you see the project. That is what is lacking with this project. Commissioner Hanson stated that everything is too much the same. Mr. Robinson stated that he's trying to create a backdrop for the tenants to create their own identity. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should do a little more to pump up the architecture. They have a start with the ins and outs and ups and downs, which is always something that the commission looks for but it needs to go one step further. It doesn't have to be everywhere. Mr. Drell commented that the trellis elements at the Gardens are the signature elements and they only occur in two spots and they don't relate to any of the tenants but they define the overall character of the project. Having signature tenants isn't a substitute for that. The proposed project needs an overall architectural statement that grabs people as they're coming down the street before they focus on who the tenants are. Commissioner Hanson stated that they shouldn't forget about Cook Street. The Cook Street elevation lacks architecture compared to the inside of the project. This is what people will see first and if that's not interesting then you've lost them and it doesn't matter what the inside looks like. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like they got a little tired when they designed the Cook Street elevation. There are some really nice compositions in most of the project. Mr. Drell G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES suggested adding a few bold architectural statements to define the character of the project from the street. Mr. Evans stated that he's dealing with a corner that will have a huge visual statement. The elevation is about 125' long that's really the back. They're doing something to it to make it look like a front. They've chosen to put their emphasis on the plaza and the way the look is on the corner and the way the look is at the entrance. While they can add some things that were suggested, there are economic limitations to certain things. They need to put more money into the plaza in a project of this kind. This is a huge undertaking. They've tried to narrow the buildings so that it makes it more intimate. The tower elements define the corner. Mr. Drell stated that they have a half mile of frontage and it needs some explanation points. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't need a lot. The ends are fine but the rest is boring. Commissioner Vuksic stated that part of it has to do with the proportion of it. It looks like they skimped a little bit on vertical elements. Commissioner Hanson stated that the hotel looks boring. Mr. Drell questioned the applicant's decision to put shade trees in the main street, which sometimes is good but sometimes it becomes a battle with the tenants. Shade trees require constant pruning. Mr. Robinson stated that they were thinking about using pepper trees that are more lacy. Mr. Drell stated that lacy doesn't work. Commissioner Hanson commented that there are wind issues to think about. Mr. Robinson stated that they had date palms along the main street but they were concerned with water usage, therefore, they decided to use shade trees. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the Cook Street overpass, which is elevated, and people are looking down on the proposed project. He wanted to know where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Robinson stated that there is a section in the submittal that shows the basic concept. They will be roof mounted but below the parapet. If you're up above them, you will see them. They're going to group the equipment in certain locations. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the equipment will be visible if you're dead level with the top of the parapet. Mr. Robinson stated that you will not see them. Mr. Evans commented that even from a 10-12% angle you won't see them. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that you'll clearly see the equipment from the top of Cook Street as you come down the hill. Commissioner Vuksic asked about roof accesses. Mr. Robinson stated that the ladders are all internal. Commissioner Vuksic asked the commission if the only issue they have are the Cook Street and Gerald Ford elevations. The commission concurred. Commissioner Gregory commented that architecturally the general philosophy is that the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 23 w v.rr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES interior elevations of the retail center look acceptable. The hotel, Cook Street and Gerald Ford elevations need more work. Mr. Evans stated that he sees the hotel as a business hotel. They would like to see something a little bit more aristocratic, as opposed to glitzy. They want it to be warmer than the Residence Inn. They don't want it to feel like an apartment building. They want it to come alive with some stone, color and texture. It does need to be taken to another level. They like the idea of the small awnings that stick out over each of the windows. They have popped up the center a little bit higher in the middle and made it a little bit more dominant and moved the portico out and made it a lot stronger. On the right and left, they've intentionally popped out those buildings on both sides. The patio on the second level will pop the building out a lot stronger. They like the understatedness of the hotel. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's another hotel out there and this is similar to the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Gregory suggested using enriched materials. Commissioner Hanson stated that it just doesn't work and comes out very flat. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there will be individual air conditioners for each room. Mr. Drell stated that they're flush with the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that there's still something missing from the hotel. The porte couchere could be punched up and made stronger. It's too much the same and too flat. She suggested adding an interesting element to it. Mr. Evans commented on the patios and didn't know if they were going to be private patios or if it was going to be a plaza with mass seating with tables, chairs, umbrellas, trees and shade. He didn't know if it was going to be private dining spaces at this point. Every shopping center that he's built (i.e. Fashion Island, Spectrum) has 10'-12' wide patios. They're more intimate. Nine months is a long time, but it's not a long time. They're going to be using the inside more than the outside. Making it too big and not giving them enough space on the inside to be able to cool down when you need to wouldn't work. They need business twelve months of the year. If they were building this for a nine month project, they wouldn't be building it. They're building it because they believe they can get people to use the place twelve months of the year. That's what their objective is. The shade trees are important. They originally thought that the palm tree idea was important visually, but now they feel that eventually shade trees can be more important than palm trees. He knows that shade trees are going to be trouble. They get hacked up if you're not careful and they intend to be very cautious about those things. The corner can be widened but it's going to make the outside even bigger, even though they're going to move the corner in and do the right turn. The plaza is going to get bigger on the outside. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 24 *%Wl ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant revise the plans for the corner and show it to the commission. If Mr. Evans feels strongly that it works better with a more intimate setting, then show it that way. Mr. Drell asked the applicant for computer pictures of the corner. Mr. Evans stated that the pictures will be based on the input from the ARC. These will be ready for the next Planning Commission meeting, not the next ARC meeting. Mr. Evans asked for comments on the office portion of the project. Chuck Crookall stated that they have 130,000 square feet of office space. Mr. Drell asked if all the office buildings will be uniform architecturally. Mr. Crookall stated that they will be uniform. Mr. Drell stated that it belies the village concept and turns it back into a company town. The uniformity will be in stark contrast to main street. When you look through from the commercial district to the less than commercial district there should still be diversity. If that's the theme of the project, then maybe that theme should carry through to the office project property a little bit. It should still have that same "built-over-time" illusion and not look like it was brand new. Commissioner Hanson commented that the windows need to be recessed more than what they are in order to give the same depth. The buildings are large and they need more offset on the glazing. The thing that's lacking in the office buildings is that they're all too much the same and there isn't the level of material use that's apparent on the retail buildings and is important. Mr. Crookall stated that they intend to phase this project in three phases. Commissioner Hanson stated that their level of materials has to go up. Using a stucco box, not using some of the awnings, not using more of the metal trellis doesn't show enough interest. It doesn't relate to the retail as much as it should. Mr. Crookall stated that he understands the comments. The type of construction is steel beam, lath & stucco. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like tilt-up construction. It can't look like that. Commissioner Lopez commented that he noticed some trash locations in some areas but not in all areas. Some areas should have outdoor seating for people to sit down and eat lunch or smoke. He wasn't sure where the bus shelter will be. Mr. Evans commented that he's working on getting a meeting with Sun Bus to work out a bus stop location. So far, the proposed location is not acceptable to Planning, Public Works or himself. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 25 'vae ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): S.A. MIRO for SEARS, 4582 S. Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1501, Denver, Colorado, 80237 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of exterior remodel of Sears and Auto Center. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Stephen Henderson, Sears representative, was present and commented that he tried to incorporate some of the commission's ideas with what they feel is something of a viable approach, particularly on the retail building. The commission was given revised elevations to review. They also created computerized plans for review. The retail building has strong lines and some rather strong features on it. One comment was to add some kind of shading and look at some kind of trellis. They took one approach that was not a workable approach. They changed it a little bit and made it a part of the landscape, as opposed to being an additional structure. They tried to limit that and cut down the trellis. The columns for the trellis would be stucco to match the existing stucco of the building. One comment from the ARC was to look at something different. They did some research on different materials. They have a limited amount of sidewalk to work with. The sidewalk is 9' wide. When they add columns they begin to cut down the sidewalk. A 1' column is proposed. They are proposing a cast-in-place concrete column with a form liner, which would be painted to match the building. The trellis system itself would be made of alum-a-wood trellis system. Essentially, it would be an aluminum manufactured system with wood grain on it. They increased the center planting area, moved it out an additional foot and then put a seat around the center section of the planting area. The palm trees shown on the plans are existing. The planter, the seat wall and the trellis are new. Mr. Drell suggested taking out the concrete below the big pots and letting the roots grow down into the ground. Ms. Hollinger commented that she thinks that the palms in the pots are dead. Mr. Drell stated that it would increase their chance of prospering if they could get down into the ground. Mr. Henderson stated that they're having problems with drainage on the large pots. Commissioner Gregory stated that he has pots on roof tops with the right plants in them that are toasted but the plants still prosper. The proposed trellises look like a token. The trellis on the right side almost looks like a bus stop. He wondered if the trellis could be designed with a little bit more effort so that it does provide more shade. Commissioner Hanson suggested taking the trellis out and adding more G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 26 'fir+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES palm trees. She doesn't want to see runway lighting on this building like she's seen on the rest of the buildings at the mall. Mr. Henderson stated that at one point he wanted to light the back of the trellis. He wants to light the ball of the palm trees but he doesn't want lighting that comes up from the ground. It's bad for pedestrians. There are some systems that do not harm the tree but actually can work with the tree. The lights are on an expandable collar that grows with the tree. Mr. Knight asked the applicant to bring in an example for him to look at. Commissioner Hanson stated that the tire building is fine. The commission needs a sign package with details. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of the exterior Sears remodel subject to (1) removing trellises, and (2) adding seven palm trees. The TBA building was approved. Signage will come in under a separate package. 3. 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 a two-building center consisting of a Wendy's fast food restaurant with drive-through and a proposed future sit-down restaurant. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Mr. Smith stated that the location is across from Desert Country Circle. There is a recently completed Wells Fargo Bank on the corner with Mobil across the street. The applicant is looking at access from Desert Country Circle into a two restaurant development proposal. Building elevations for the drive-through fast food restaurant were given to the commission to review. The drive-through would come through from the west side of the building, around to the window and exiting. There were no color elevations to review. Commissioner Hanson commented that they would like to see roof plans, which were not available. Commissioner Vuksic requested a floor plan, which also were not available. Rick Finkel, architect, and Craig Smith were present to represent Wendy's. The second architect was not present. The commission G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 27 `%W *4901 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES agreed that the plans that were submitted were not sufficient and Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that this item be continued to allow the applicant to submit the proper plans to the ARC. Commissioner Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it seems like the worst part of the building is crammed right on the corner. He asked the applicant if there were any other alternatives for site planning to get the drive through lane off the corner. Mr. Smith commented that he had spoken to the architect and it doesn't appear to be something that can be accomplished physically. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's really hard to look at the proposed project without floor plans and a roof plan. It's hard to figure out what's going on. According to the site plan, there appears to be some inconsistencies. The overall height of the building is pretty massive and she wasn't sure why since there aren't any roof plans to review. Mr. Finkel stated that the parapet screens the rooftop equipment. The buildings have a lot of fans and condensing units, which need high parapets for proper screening. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the equipment that needs to be screen be localized in certain areas or further up on the roof, rather than right on the facade because it looks artificially high. Mr. Finkel stated that he's in an unusual position where he's acting as design review as well because he's responsible for the overall site plan. He works for Mr. Craig Smith, who is the developer. This is one part of a larger development. There's a phase II portion planned. In looking at their architecture, they've created a lot of columnar elements that tend to make it look more vertical, as opposed to trying to combine some of the elements so you get a little less verticality. Commissioner Hanson commented that the plans don't make sense to the commission and would like to see some way to bring down the height and moving the equipment back so that you don't have such high vertical elements. Mr. Finkel stated that he'll speak to the architect but since they're a chain, they may be a little reluctant to "reinvent the wheel". Mr. Drell commented that if they intend to use a traditional architectural theme then do it. We would rather see some sort of real legitimate architectural style than a building with some Santa Fe-style architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if this was some sort of creative expression or effort, the commission welcomes that. However, right now it looks very awkward and it needs a lot of work. Melding styles together, which is what he has done, is even trickier. Mr. Finkel agreed and stated that he was reluctant to criticize another architect's work and he thanked the commission for their comments. Mr. Craig Smith commented that he didn't feel that the plans showed a particularly appealing building. He does a lot of work with different types of drive through elements. He's G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 28 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES been involved in a number of drive through Starbucks. He had told the architect that the building has to have a desert look and it has to be really nice and this is what he came up with. He had expected a reaction like this from the commission. He's going to go back to the architect and tell him to give us something nice. He asked the commission if they could give him a couple of examples of architecture to use as a guideline then he will go take photographs and give them to the architect. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Craig Smith about the style of the entire center. Mr. Finkel stated that this is the first phase so there is no center at this point. Steve Smith stated that the Jack in the Box in Palm Springs at Tahquitz and Farrell is nice. Commissioner Hanson concurred and stated that it's fun and interesting architecture. Mr. Craig Smith stated that the Jack in the Box was one of his projects. Commissioner Hanson commented that the building that used to be Wendy's in Cathedral City that's now a MacDonald's is an example of interesting architecture. Mr. Drell commented that Santa Fe is not a historic style. Commissioner Hanson stated that we're not Santa Fe. Mr. Drell stated that when people drive off the freeway, we don't want it to kind of look like somewhere else they've been before but worse. Mr. Finkel stated that he does have a problem trying to conceal the drive through lane from the major streets because by definition they have to flow counter clockwise and they have to be a certain length to handle a specific number of cars. If Wendy's is going to be on that corner, then the drive through lane is going to be in the location that's shown on the current site plan. Commissioner Vuksic commented that when you exit from the freeway and driving down the hill, you're looking down into the Wendy's site. Mr. Finkel suggested adding a lot of landscaping so that you're screening the drive through lane. You would see more of the top of the building. He will encourage the architect to clean up this area. Mr. Finkel also suggested that they could add a trellis structure over the drive through lane. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could move the drive through restaurant to the location where the second restaurant was. Mr. Finkel stated that this idea was discussed but they decided that they wanted to have the drive through on the corner. Mr. Drell commented that if that's their plan, then we're going to work very hard to eliminate every bit of visibility. It's better to design the drive through somewhere else so they can have visibility for the building that we're not going to try to screen. That's the downside of putting the drive through on the corner. It'll work against the visibility because we're going to try to screen it. Mr. Finkel commented that operationally they have to line it up that way so they'll work on screening it with the City's guidelines. Mr. Drell stated that they're going to need a photo simulation of the building on the site to illustrate how people are going to experience it. There should be one view from Washington and one view from Country Club. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 29 4 \I NOV ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030923.MIN 30