Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-13 � � ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT `" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES APRIL 13, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** 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 5 2 Kristi Hanson X 7 Chris Van Vliet X 5 2 John Vuksic X 7 Ray Lopez X . 7 Karen Oppenheim X 7 � Karel Lambell X 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 23, 2004 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of March 23, 2004. The motion carried 3-0-2-2 with Commissioners Lambell and Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. Commissioner Hanson arrived at 12:50 p.m. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1 �` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES A. The new commissioner, Karel Lambell, was welcomed by staff and commission members. A. Final Drawinqs 1. CAS E N O.: SA 04-41 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: BEST SIGNS, INC., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two business signs. LOCATION: 73-700 Highway 111, Nextel and Automated Telecom ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that he had suggested to the applicant that they reduce the size of the signage. The proposal is for illuminated box signs. The recommendation was to reduce the size and also rout out the letters and make the backing opaque so that only the letters would be illuminated. Nancy Cobb, representative for Best Signs, Inc., was present and was seeking approval of finro illuminated can signs. lan Helmstedder was present and stated that the yellow on the Nextel sign is a trademark, copyrighted color. This is the onty signage that Nextel will approve for Nextel stores. Mr. Drell stated that trademark protection doesn't relate to whether colors are illuminated or not. They could have the yellow, but how it gets illuminated is the commission's choice. Mr. Helmstedder commented that portions of the building will be painted blue, which will enhance the look of the building. They have invested approximately $200,000. into the building to improve it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the air conditioning equipment on the roof was screened. Mr. Helmstedder stated that it is not screened. He has checked into the City's Facade Enhancement Program and may consider that in the future. Mr. Bagato asked about the thickness of the sign cabinet. Nancy Cobb stated that it's only about 6". Commissioner Vuksic asked if the commission has recently approved an illuminated box sign anywhere along a major corridor other than where it's very strongly established in a center. Mr. Bagato stated that the only one that he could think of was G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES � for Palm Desert Kitchen and they were asked to have an opaque background so that only the letters lit up. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the commission had approved can signs, they did it reluctantly. They should be held to a higher standard than an illuminated can sign. The proposed can signs at night would be really bright. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he didn't think that the signs should be that big. Mr. Helmstedder stated that the signs will be on timers so they're not going to be lit all night long. They'll go off at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the signs will be lit when the majority of the people are out there. Commissioner Lopez asked if they intend to leave the landscaping the way it is in the photograph. Mr. Helmstedder stated that the picture was taken before the building was purchased. The bushes seen in the photo have been cut down. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it would be so much more tasteful for the corridor if the signage was less intrusive. Having the letters light up is about as far as it should go. Mr. Drell stated that the letters are black and wouldn't light up very well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's seen halo-lit black signs that become a very soft, warm, white color at night and they look very nice. Nancy Cobb commented that she didn't think that Nextel would approve that type of sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would recommend reverse channel black letters haloed by white at night. Mr. Drell stated that they could have the yellow background that's opaque. It just won't show up as bright yellow at night. Trademark protection does not relate to illumination or size. Commissioner Lopez commented that the signs are too large. Commissioner Oppenheim concurred. Mr. Helmstedder stated that he didn't understand what they meant by channel letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a three-sided letter with a light inside of it that lights the surface behind the letter, which is yellow. The channel letter doesn't throw off enough light to where you have a very bright color on the wall. Mr. Drell stated that all the signs in the Desert Crossing Center are halo-lit. At night, the Target sign is black with a white background. Mr. Helmstedder asked what would be acceptable in a lighted box format. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that basically the commission doesn't like can signs and don't typically approve them. Mr. Helmstedder stated that there's already a can sign on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the existing can sign is much smaller and has a different shape. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040413.MIN 3 ���r+' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed lettering is fine but the box makes it look very "billboard-like". Mr. Helmstedder asked the commission if they're saying that he can't have a box sign at all. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're suggesting other options. Mr. Helmstedder stated that other signs he's seen in strip malls are more round in shape but they're basically box signs, such as the old Kinko's location. Mr. Drell stated that they're using routed-out letters with an opaque background at this location. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are centers that have can signs so it would be unreasonable not to allow a tenant to have a can sign but the proposed signage request is not that sort of situation. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that Mr. Helmstedder meet with his sign person, look at his options and resubmit a new proposal based on the above comments. Mr. Helmstedder stated that this has been 6-8 weeks in the making to get to this point. Everything that was done was done within the guidelines of what's written in the code. Mr. Bagato stated that Ms. Cobb came to him approximately four weeks ago and he told her about the concerns that he had. If she would've made the adjustments, the signage could've been approved over the counter, but the applicant wanted to go forward with the current proposal. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant had the warning that this was not the path of least resistance. This is a subjective process, inherently, and it's just not following the guidelines, which are the minimum physical dimensions you can have. Ultimately, it's a subjective judgement that either staff makes or this commission makes. If it was simply following the book then we wouldn't have this board here at all. Mr. Helmstedder stated that one of the goals being in business is to attract customers and having them be able to find you. That's the goal of having signage. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the commission understands that but we want signs that enhance the building and the whole community. If everyone were allowed to put the biggest sign they could on their buildings, you know what would happen. Commissioner Lopez commented that they have people who want to paint buildings various colors that are not acceptable because they want the same thing-to attract business. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't think that people are going to choose Nextel service because of seeing a sign. Mr. Helmstedder stated that part of it is being located and found. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they want him to be found, but it just needs to be with an acceptable sign that maintains the standard that we impose on other businesses in Palm Desert. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Halo-lit, reverse channel letters were recommended by the commission. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-43 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANBORN A/E, INC., FOR CANYON NATIONAL BANK, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club, Canyon National Bank ZONE: O.P. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JOHN SCHMIDT, 263 La Cadena Drive West, Riverside, CA 92501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. SSI Auto Insurance LOCATION: 73-520 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN $ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� RICHARD BRUNELLE, 74-125 San Marino Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a detached second unit to a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-125 San Marino Way ZONE: R-1 This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. No action was taken. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DENNIS E. NEUSHUTZ, 43-680 Elkhorn Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Allow increase in lot coverage from 30.2% to 42% for expansion of single-family home. LOCATION: 43-680 Elkhorn Trail ZONE: R-1 9,000 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� TAMARA ZALEVSKY, 72-313 Valley Crest Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 6 `�wwr� '�" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Atrium enclosure with asphait shingle roof. LOCATION: 72-313 Valley Crest Lane ZONE:PR-8 Mr. Smith asked if anyone was present in the audience from the homeowner's association wishing to speak on this issue. No one was present from the HOA. Mr. Drell stated that there is a dispute between the homeowner and the HOA over who is going to do the work. This doesn't have anything to do with the design. If we can approve the design the homeowner can work out what he has to do with the HOA in order for him to avoid being sued. All we're approving is the physical design and improvement. If this is an air-space condominium, then we may not be able to issue a building permit. It's important to know who owns the building. Typically, the owner of the building has to sign the application. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed atrium enclosure is buried on all four sides by existing building with a sloped roof with shingles. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Urbina visited the site and concluded that it's not visible from anywhere. Mr. Urbina stated that he sent the HOA a letter and he left a voice mail message informing them of the meeting but he never heard from him. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they should continue the request until they find out who owns the building. Mr. Drell suggested that the ARC could rule on it and then staff can handle it. Commissioner asked the applicant if he would like to say anything. The applicant commented that this project is so small that he didn't think that they needed to discuss it for so long. Commissioner Vuksic asked if anyone else in the audience would like to say anything about this project. There were no comments. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thought that the atrium enclosure proposal was fine and didn't see anything wrong with it. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez granted approval subject to clarifying the matter of ownership. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040413.MIN � �r' �`' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: CUP 04-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CANYON NATIONAL BANK, 1711 E. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an 8' x 6' free-standing automated teller machine with lighted kiosk and business signage. Canyon National Bank LOCATION: 72-363 Highway 111, Desert Crossing ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS, 304 Enterprise Street, Escondido, CA 92027 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans and signage for a facade enhancement for a retail store in Palms to Pines Central. LOCATION: 72-815 Highway 111, 99¢ STORE ZONE: PC3 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. Commissioner Hanson arrived at this point in the meeting. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040413.MIN g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES 9. CASE NO.: VAR 04-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SUZANNE LOPEZ, 3257 Primero, Los Angeles, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport 17'2" from curb face. LOCATION: 45-807 Portola Avenue ZONE: Mr. Urbina stated that this is an existing carport structure. The applicant is seeking approval from this body on the design. The carport is comprised of four wood posts with carvings and beams on the roof with rafters with bamboo poles going across the carport with a shade cover on top of it. Our ordinance requires a minimum 20' setback from the front of the carport to the curb face, however, in this case the existing carport only has a setback of 17'2" which would require approval of a variance by the Planning Commission. Today the applicant is seeking comments from the ARC on the materials and design of the carport. Comments by the Building and Safety Department stated that, "Construction plans and a building permit will be required for the carport structure. There appears to be deficiencies in the lateral bracing, beam size and connections, rafter size and post/footing connection. Further information would be required to make a complete determination." Suzanne Lopez, applicant, was present and stated that she was having a friend help her with this project because she lives in Los Angeles. I'm a single parent with a child. My understanding was that it was coming to the Architectural Committee based on her communication and that they had looked at the drawings, which I had hand done, and showed where it was on the property, how we were going to secure it, etc... I had pictures of the hand-carved posts from Mexico and there's little brackets from India. It was miscommunicated so I came out over the holidays and I thought that it had been approved so I built it with my workers and my daughter over Christmas and then we were sited. I've never done this before. In the process, when they said there was a variance problem I went and took pictures because the house next door has a garage that's exactly 17'2", which is the same as my house that was built in 1957. Their garage is exactly the same as this carport G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES is only it goes back further. When the house was purchased, there was a problem with the sewer connection and it was torn up for 3%2 months and it was supposed to be two days. I'm still in small claims court with the realtors and contractors who did the work. In trying to improve the curbside appeal of the house, it was very old and hadn't been painted and being out there and working there's no shade to park the car. As you know, living here in the desert, if you touch your steering wheel the skin burns off your hand. My intention was to build a carport that had some kind of ethnic appeal that was interesting rather than putting up aluminum posts. My goal is to build a three-car garage and to change the facade of the house. I want to do a Santa Fe look. I've been directed to the Redevelopment Agency here as a single parent with my income to see about getting additional match funding to redo the curb side. That's my goal, hopefully, by this coming year. The carport isn't going to stay up for very long. I just needed a place to put the car so that we could get in and out of it in the summer months. We're trying to comply. I went and took pictures up and down the street to show that there are other places in the neighborhood that are not in that variance from the time that it was built. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for clarification of the setbacks. The applicant's carport is at 17'2" and it should be 20'. Ms. Lopez said no, that the house next door is exactly the same. It is correct in terms of what the variance is, but for this particular house the carport is in total alignment with the house, the house next door, the street was cut in... Commissioner Hanson commented that the reason why there's a 20' setback is so that when you have guests park behind your cars in your carport that they don't stick out into the street. Ms. Lopez commented that with this particular house they cut the street in so in front of the house it's cut in about 4' and took away the front of the yard. Noone would ever park behind the car in the carport. They could park in front of the house. There's no parking problems. Mr. Urbina commented that the depth of the carport is only 13'. It's not the standard 20'. You would not be able to have enough room to park cars behind a parked car there. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was parking available on the street. Mr. Urbina stated that there was parking on the street. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that one of the biggest issues is that the whole structure is not up to structural codes. Ms. Lopez commented G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 1� �° � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES that she didn't know because she looked at the drawings and said that they have to go to ARC first and she had to get a variance. I was told by Mr. Urbina that it probably needs to have additional supports. I don't know what would blow it down unless you had a hurricane, maybe, because it has no bearing weight on the top. It's just natural pieces of bamboo. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there is no lateral structure to it at all. It would go over like a "house of cards". Ms. Lopez stated that they have about 4 '/2 ` of cement and rebar down into the ground where the pillars are. I don't have any problem putting additional braces on it, if that's what's required by the Building Department. I just want to have it up until I can get the garage built. I'm in the lending process now to do that. Mr. Urbina commented that maybe if her long-term intention is to do a Santa Fe-style garage, should we be requesting those types of plans at this time. Mr. Drell stated that she'll have more stringent setbacks for a covered garage. If you're going to the Planning Commission on a variance, you might as well at the same time ask for approval of the garage at 17' as well. Ms. Lopez stated that she would like to build another house in the backyard and fence the front of the house. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the carport, as a stand-alone, is interesting. IYs too bad that it doesn't work with the house at all. It would've been nice if it looked like it belonged to the house. We don't have the option of granting a temporary approval. I wouldn't have approved this. I would approve something that looks like it belongs to the house. Ms. Lopez asked if the carport was painted the color of the house would it make it look like it belongs. It's just a square structure with bamboo on top of it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it needs to look a little bit more like the house. The house has very distinct architecture to it. Commissioner Hanson stated that the carport is a major departure from the architecture of the house. I can appreciate what you've done with the pillars and they're very beautiful, but they don't apply in this case. I understand from your perspective why you think that you should be able to have a 17' setback because that's what your neighbor has but your neighbor's house was built before they moved the road. We now have rules that say you have to be 20' away from the curb and there's a reason for that rule and I think it's appropriate. We would be doing ourselves a disservice if we approve this. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the request and determined that the architecture of the carport should be similar to the distinct architecture of the house. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MCA ARCHITECTS, INC., 1247 Pomona Road, #105, Corona, CA 92882 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for remodel of former House to Home to future retail and office/storage. LOCATION: 72-700 Dinah Shore Drive, (former House to Home) ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for final approval by minute motion, subject to extending cornice detail 4'-8' on tower elements on the south elevation. Motion carried 5- 0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson absent. 11. CASE NO.: SA 03-113 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IGNACIO DEL RIO, 73-520 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised exterior colors for a restaurant. LOCATION: 73-520 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is requesting of approval of exterior color change which is already installed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he drove by it and he really noticed it the first time, but after a couple of times he didn't really notice it too much. Today I drove by and looked at it and in the context of EI Paseo, it's a small building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she has a problem with the applicant coming in and saying that he didn't know that he needed approval. The applicant has done buildings all over the place and he knows that he needed approval. My vote is "no". G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez stated that the first time he saw it he was surprised but now he's gotten used to it. The commission wouldn't have approved it if the applicant would've come in before he had it painted. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she sees the building all the time because she lives in that area and the color even bothered her in the back but she's gotten used to it. There's another storefront on Highway 111 for an interior design store, which is a similar color. It's doesn't bother her as much as it did originally. Commissioner Lambell stated that the color is a rapid departure from anything that's on EI Paseo and whether or not you want to start that ball rolling is the issue. Mr. Drell stated that EI Paseo is in evolution. When the first remodels occurred on the west side of the street, I was accused of turning EI Paseo into Las Vegas, referring to CPK, Daily Grill, etc... Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would have two concerns about approving it. One is precedent. What happens to the next guy that comes in with those colors. The other one is the precedent of painting your building and trying to get it approved later. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that they could go back to what Commissioner Lopez said regarding the statement that the commission wouldn't have approved it if the applicant brought the colors in to them. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for denial based on the findings that the intensity, contrast and extent of application were incompatible with the prevailing standards on EI Paseo. While some of these colors may be appropriate as trim or accents, they are not appropriate for entire building elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 30706 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS,�: MICHAEL KAUFMAN, 12345 Ventura Blvd., Suite H, Studio City, CA 91604 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two prototype single-family residences for a 16-lot subdivision. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR040413.MIN 13 "�1�rr+` '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES LOCATION: South of Gerald Ford and west of Portola Avenue; Portola Pointe ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had a concern about some of the wall thicknesses, particularly in the front. A standard that the commission asks of everyone is to have thick walls in the front for good shadow lines and improved aesthetics. Michael Kaufman, architect, was present and stated that he was pretty sure that all the walls were 12" thick. Commissioner Vuksic stated that according to the plans they're not that thick. Mr. Kaufman commented that he missed that on bedroom #3 on Plan 2, but he can make the wall 12" thick. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the trim details tend to look minimal and "planted on" like they did it just enough to make it interesting. He asked the applicant to consider adding some wainscots on the houses where they have some change in depth in the walls, rather than something that's just nailed on. Mr. Kaufman stated that he could thicken the walls up at the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they were using nail-on windows and wanted to know if the exterior walls are 2 x 6. Mr. Kaufman stated that they are using nail-on windows with 2 x 6 walls. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would like to ask the applicant to recess the windows to get some reveal instead of having the glass flush with the plaster. On the wall thickness, even where they're thicker such as on the garages, it still looks minimal. It looks like 9" on Plan 1 and about 12" on Plan 2. On something as large as a garage door opening, that should be a minimum of 18". All the columns look like they're 12" x 12" and they look awfully spindly. He asked the applicant if he could make them 24" x 24". Mr. Kaufman stated that he could do that but his only concern would be on Plan 2 because the area is very small. On Plan 1, it's no problem at all. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Kaufman stated that the equipment will be located in the attic. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the chimney stacks should be thickened up. They look spindly. Mr. Kaufman stated that the stacks are 2' x 4'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they look very funny in the elevations. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making them 3' x 4'. Mr. Kaufman stated that he could do that. Commissioner Oppenheim commented on the exterior colors and their lack of variation. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the roof material G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 14 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES was the same for all the units. Mr. Kaufman stated that the roof material varies. Mr. Bagato stated that the landscaping is not included in this proposal. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the color of the wainscot. He suggested using a darker color on the wainscot. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the applicant work out the cofors with staff. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to (1) increase front wall thickness on bedroom #3, Plan 2, (2) add wainscot detail to all plans and submit accent color for wainscot, (3) recess windows, (4) thicken columns on Plan 1 from 12" x 12" to 24" x 24", and (5) thicken chimney stacks to 3' x 4'. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLAN ZYLSTRA, 12161 Firestone Blvd., Norwalk, CA, 90650 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new commercial building. LOCATION: 73-168 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this item was on the ARC agenda three weeks ago. The applicant was not available at that time, however, he is present today. The site is located on the north side of Highway 111, opposite Carl's Jr. Rick Dirkson, project architect, was present and commented that this is an office/retail building. They are proposing that the ground floor be retail stores and the upstairs will be office space. It has a courtyard with a walk-through. There is proposed extra parking situation where he's discussed it with the head of the Planning Department. The building is contemporary with desert colors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are details where the cornice- type elements are stepped out. It looks like they're cut off at the ends. He suggested that Mr. Dirkson think about that. Commissioner Vuksic G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040413.MIN 15 `�irr►� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES commented on the stacked stone. It looks like they're trying to do something Italian. Mr. Dirkson stated that they were attempting to do a contemporary-style building but they wanted to soften the hard surfaces with the stonework. It's not meant to be Italian, but they like that product. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the ledge stone is a choice that he should think about. Mr. Dirkson commented that the stone would go all the way around the columns, which are set apart from the surface of the building. They have more depth and weight than is apparent on a two-dimensional front elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he understood that, but he was talking about the style of the stone. When he sees areas of ledge stone which are just 2" high running across some of the openings. That would never actually work if it was stone. If they're going to run it over top, they need to use stones that look like they're actually creating an arch that looks structural. The roof plan shows cornice details that come out a few inches on the sides, yet on the front the top piece is jutting out several feet past. IYs no longer a cornice detail, it's just a slab. Mr. Dirkson stated that it's an eyebrow for shading purposes. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he understood the function of it, but the way it's done looks very strange and very top heavy. It would look very odd. Mr. Dirkson stated that he's prepared to alter the shape of it to give it more depth. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's very deceiving because you assume that the detail goes around all three sides, but it's not like that at all. Commissioner Hanson stated that iYs going to be odd with the very narrow posts on either end of the element that appears to come out away from the wall with a very heavy top. Beefing up the lower portions might help. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the wall elements are flush with the window frames. What looks like very heavy architecture doesn't even have any depth on the window openings. Mr. Dirkson stated that he would be proposing that the windows actually be set back from the surface. They weren't meant to be flush with the front surface. Commissioner Vuksic stated that judging by the plans, you wouldn't have an opportunity to set them back. Mr. Dirkson stated that this would be very easy to accomplish to give it more depth and shadow line. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant how they will get on the roof of this building. Mr. Dirkson stated that they will probably use hatches in the ceiling because there's really no good place to put a ladder. There would be roof access within one of the spaces. Their primary concern on this project was with their parking. These are only preliminary drawings because if they don't get approval on the parking, then they'll have to start over. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what he would be concerned about is seeing a hoop ladder somewhere on the building. Mr. Dirkson stated that they're not proposing that and they will put a roof hatch in the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was mechanical equipment on the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 16 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES north side of the building. Mr. Dirkson stated that the major mechanical equipment will be on the roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parapet is 36" high and then there will be a platform for the mechanical equipment, therefore, the mechanical equipment will be visible. Mr. Dirkson stated that there are some low-profile mechanical equipment that would work. They're trying to work with the overall height limitations imposed by the design standards and he's also trying to accommodate his client's wishes to have a certain ceiling height. If they can't find mechanical equipment that can be screened, then they'll have to lower the ceiling heights in order to drop the roof down. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they have at least 12" of exposed mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Dirkson stated that they'll have to drop the ceiling heights down a little bit. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he some comments about odd- looking details. There is a little line of plaster with stone. Mr. Dirkson stated that there's a column in front of the wall surface so the stone work around the column goes all the way around but the wall surface behind the column is the little narrow strip and the width of the column also. Commissioner Hanson commented that on the current proposal the stone looks tacked on. She encouraged the applicant to make the front element stone and the rest on either side could be plaster so that it reads as an element, as opposed to the fact that they want to use a little bit of stone and weren't sure where to put it. Also, because of the work that they're going to be doing on Alessandro including parking, they will have two fronts to the building and it should be treated as such. The rear elevation definitely has less design than the front elevation. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the buildings on either side of the proposed building. Mr. Dirkson stated that there are existing buildings on either side, one has quite a large mass and one is smaller. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the proposed building will be higher than his neighbors. Mr. Dirkson commented that he didn't know. The building on the west side is relatively new but he doesn't know the roof height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the exterior color board shows a really bright color, which is eggshell. He warned the applicant about using this color. He's used eggshell before and it's so bright in the sunlight you can't even look at it. Mr. Dirkson stated that they're very open to color suggestions. Commissioner Hanson stated that he would be amazed at the fact that the darker the color you pick and how much lighter is comes out when you paint a large surface. Don't be afraid to use a rich, dark color. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040413.MIN l� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez commented that on the landscaping he recommended that they not use oleander. Also, there are strong landscape design requirements that require water calculations and the current design won't been those requirements. Mr. Dirkson stated that his office did the design but they're not landscape architects. Commissioner Lopez suggested that he get in touch with Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, for some suggestions. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to (1) rethink ends of cornice detail and use of ledge stone, (2) thicken support portions of upper shade element, (3) conceal roof-mounted equipment, (4) continue architecture at the rear of the building, and (5) use a rich, dark color for exterior as opposed to eggshell, which will be very bright. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JAMES CHESTER, 73-845 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Facade enhancement and expansion of existing 1,280 square foot fire-damaged restaurant to include adjacent 1,800 square foot space to east currently operated by a florist. Total new restaurant square footage: 3,080 square feet. LOCATION: 73-845 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is for an existing fire-damaged restaurant. Mr. Urbina stated that the Manhattan Bagel restaurant had a fire last year and the owner wants to do a facade enhancement. The owner also owns the property to the east, which is presently leased to Palm Desert Florist. He wants to expand Manhattan Bagel to include the easterly tenant space. The expansion would add 1,700 square feet to the restaurant for a total of 3,080 square feet. There is an existing office on the second floor. That is not proposed for expansion, even though the way the elevations read it looks like the second floor is being expanded, however, it is not. Staff is doing a parking study to see if there are any parking issues. The commission reviewed the color board. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant why he chose the lavender color for the awning G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 1 g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES because the sign was red. James Chester, applicant, stated that he's trying to get the sign colors changed. Previously, the City objected to so much red. Commissioner Hanson asked why they chose the rounded awning. Antonio Santamaria, architect, was present and stated that he wanted to combine squares with a rounded portion. Commissioner Hanson stated that it makes it look like a diner. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she thought that it looks good and the color doesn't bother her at all. Commissioner Hanson stated that the only reason that the purple awning would bother her would be if the signage was red. Mr. Chester stated that he's not sure if he's going to use a red sign at this point. Mr. Drell asked about the size of the letters. Mr. Chester stated that the rounded arched area for the signage is approximately 16' in length. Mr. Drell stated that the letters would probably be 4" in height, which wouldn't be big enough and then they might try to put a bigger sign into a smaller space. Mr. Chester stated that the area for the sign could easily be dropped down and made deeper. Mr. Drell commented that when you do architecture it's important to fit a sign that you're going to want, as opposed to after- the-fact being stuck with a bunch of lousy alternatives. Commissioner Hanson suggested doing a freestanding sign as opposed to a can sign. Mr. Drell suggested putting the signage on the awning. A big awning without signage looks a little blank. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't mind the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the small squares that look like glass. Mr. Santamaria stated that they're glass blocks and don't actually go through and are recessed from the face. Mr. Drell asked about the rear elevation with the roll-up door. Currently, there's a wrought iron gate in this location. The roll-up door will be open during the day and closed at night. Mr. Chester stated that the door will be hidden underneath the stucco. Mr. Drell stated that in the interest of the courtyard, you would want some kind of gateway inviting architecture. Commissioner Vuksic asked why they would chose an extremely utility set-up. Mrs. Chester stated that if it's a gate, then it opens up and it's a problem. Mr. Drell stated that it would be inviting. This looks like the back end of a warehouse. Mrs. Chester stated that it's not going to be visible during the day. Mr. Drell stated that even when it's open it won't look particularly inviting as a courtyard. Mrs. Chester commented that it's a large space that people will be able to walk through and they'll see their tables and plants. All they're doing is taking out the old wrought iron gate. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a new wrought iron gate that has a contemporary look to it. Mr. Chester commented that he's had a problem with people throwing trash into his courtyard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be nice if the whole courtyard was opened up so that it would be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040413.MIN 19 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES more visible and add some life to the back of those buildings. Mr. Drell stated that there are ways to frame in an opening that would make it look like an inviting doorway, as opposed to a loading dock with the garage door up, even if you can't see the garage door. Commissioner Lopez suggested adding two large decorative doors. Mrs. Chester stated that the courtyard is a big, inviting open space that you don't have to worry about hitting a gate coming through. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it can be done architecturally with a roll-up door. Commissioner Hanson stated that it can be a roll-up door with a decorative look. She suggested adding a couple of palm trees to the courtyard which would be visible from outside the patio. Mrs. Chester commented that she'd rather add foliage than change the gates. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding an awning on the south- facing window. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the curved detail is off-center with the door and it's going to look like a mistake when it's done. Mr. Chester stated that the building isn't flush across the back. It comes out 3'. The building is 48' wide and in the back it's 27' 6" and it comes out 3' and then it's 20'. The end on the right-hand side is the florist space and that sticks out 3'-4' further. The roof lines aren't the same. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's reading way more into that than what he said. All he meant was that the arch feature, which is a prominent piece of the architecture, is not centered on the doorway. The doorway is off just enough so that it looks like a mistake. Commissioner Hanson stated that he might want to repeat the reveal detail. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have a lot of places where he has glass and plaster. The windows aren't recessed and they're even cheating a little bit and drawing shadows where they don't exist. He suggested looking at the windows and make them work a little bit better with the forms that they've created. There's no depth there and the windows are just on the face of the wall. Take advantage of the opportunity to finish the architecture that is being created by creating openings that enhance it. Set the windows back rather than make them flush. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) consider making roll-up door decorative, (2) consideration for the color of the awning needs to be in the context of the color of the signage, (3) suggested putting signage on awning instead of on the arched form or use reverse channel letters on flat surface of the arched portion, (4) add awning to south-facing elevation, (5) continue riglet detail at the rear elevation of the arched portion and center the arched portion of the signage area G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040413.MIN 2� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES over the actual opening of the roll-up door, and (6) recess windows. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 04-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DESERT SPRINGS CHURCH, 43-435 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new school building. LOCATION: 43-435 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-7 Commissioner Vuksic stated that there was no roof plan so he didn't know where the mechanicat equipment would be located and how high the parapet is. Doug Howard, designer, stated that the parapet is 3' high. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof slopes up as it moves toward the center of the roof. He wanted to know if it was 3' on the low side of the roof or the high side of the roof. Mr. Howard stated that it's 3' on the low side. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof is sloping up and then there's a curb for the mechanical equipment. Mr. Howard commented that you won't see the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he has a drawing that shows the new and the existing parapet. Mr. Howard stated that the elevations show the existing parapet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant did a really nice job. It really looks good. He did state concern about the mechanical equipment because they say they're going match the existing and he would still like to see if the mechanical equipment will be screened. He wanted to know how people would be getting on the roof. Mr. Howard stated that there wilt be access on the second floor. Commissioner Hanson asked about the dotted line on the plans that show a second floor youth flex space. Mr. Howard stated that they want to build this portion in the next phase. They haven't designed this space yet. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the glass and asked if there was an architectural reason why the windows are flush with the wall. Mr. Howard stated that the reason is that they want the new wing to match the existing church, which have flat surfaces, curved corners and glass G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 21 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES thaYs flush with the walls. They want dark, bronze glass to match the rest of the building. Commissioner Lopez asked about the landscaping. Mr. Smith stated that there will be a landscape plan for the front parking area. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. � 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: T. MICHAEL HADLEY, 25 Calle Bonita, Sedona, AZ 86336 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a two-building office complex. LOCATION: 73-301 & 73-321 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that this project is going to be located on Fred Waring. It will consist of two office buildings with an open driveway in the middle. The architect did provide a side elevation to address concerns regarding the flat portion at zero elevation. We're not sure what's going to happen on the adjacent vacant parcel. There is an element that's over the 25' height limit. The commission reviewed the material board and roof sample. Michael Hadley, architect, was present and stated that this project is comprised of two office buildings that meet all the requirements but are articulated as well as he could do. Mr. Bagato asked for the end elevation and I'm glad that he did because it forced me to think about that being a parapet wall condition but given setbacks of 5' and 10', it is possible to get a recess and even some glazing if we step it way back on the second floor. In thinking about the possibility that there may not be another building on the lot adjacent, this made a lot of sense to think about it. There is a central tower element that's over the 25' height limit and the owners wanted to take their chances with having that approved by the City Council because it gives some relief to the center of the building. There's a glazing change at the center portion on the second floor and it's a couple of feet higher than the two on the sides. That gives a little vertical relief in addition to the tower. It also provides for a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 22 �rr� �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES little sign band at the top. We're not asking for signage at this time, but we're thinking ahead. Commissioner Hanson asked where the blue color will be located. Mr. Hadley stated that the building on the right will have a blue tower element on the second floor and also on the recess on the end elevation. On the other building it will be an olive green. The buildings are a mirror image but not necessarily exact duplicates color-wise. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant how they intend to screen the mechanical equipment. Mr. Hadley stated that once he discovered the 25' height limit, this may require that they have split systems but he's not sure yet. If they can get package units within the parapet height, they will. If they can't, they may have to use split systems with small units either on the roof or on a screened pad behind the building. The intent was to totally screen it within the roof parapet. Whatever they design, the equipment will be no higher than the parapet. Commissioner Hanson commented that the windows need to be recessed within the 6" walls. Anytime it sits in a 6" wall it needs to be recessed, particularly on the front and rear elevations because the rear elevations is where the patrons are going to be going. Mr. Hadley commented that all of his projects have recessed windows, sometimes 18"-24". Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission would love that. Mr. Hadley stated that mostly likely, they'll be framed with 8" studs and the windows, at the very least, will be flush with the interior of the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that the use of ledge stone over the large openings on the top and bottom elevation should be considered as some sort of an element, not just tacked-on stone. It should look like architecturally done stone, whether they stack it vertically or they have a header piece above the center opening on the first floor. Mr. Hadley stated that there's a deck on the second floor in front of the tower and there's sort of a cap stone top to the wall. Commissioner Hanson commented that she has a real aversion for reflective glass and urged the applicant to pick something else. Mr. Hadley stated that he's used this glass here twice before on two different projects. The AG Edwards building has the same glazing and a newly constructed dental building on Parkview. It's not a mirrored glass. It's sort of semi-transparent and semi-reflective. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's very reflective. In a building that's represented on the photograph on the material board, however, in buildings where the architecture is more traditional the two things compete with each other and they don't make sense. It's not an inappropriate material for all buildings, but in this case it doesn't apply. Both of the buildings that have this type of glass G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 23 �rr� '�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES are the two buildings that she likes it the least on. Mr. Hadley asked if it was the color that bothers her. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's a very contemporary material and it's being used in a traditional building. Mr. Hadley stated that the owners had a question about the color as well. The same manufacturer makes a cinnamon-colored glass that's not highly reflective and is semi-transparent. He does want the energy efficiency of the glass. Commissioner Lopez asked if there's going to be signage on the building. Mr. Hadley stated that signage is not part of this proposal but the owners are talking about either having small signs along the driveway or using the area just in the center below the tower roof. Mr. Drell stated that they're allowed to have both a monument sign and wall sign. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment, (2) change window glazing color so that it's less reflective, and (3) use first floor banding element for signage. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� NOEL ANASCO/BERGMAN ARCHITECTURE, 13745 Seminole Drive, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a single-story automotive tire retail building. America's Tire Co. LOCATION: 72-320 Dinah Shore ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the site is on Shopper's Lane near PetSmart. From a building perspective, it meets all the setbacks. From an architectural standpoint there are some concerns. There are some restrictions on the site from some CC & R's. Some of the elevations are all on one plane with 20' roof heights. He had suggested doing something different, however, there are CC & R's on the property that only allow for a 20' roof height. It was suggested to the architect to design something that would work better below the 20' to change the elevation. Dinah Shore is near this site so he requested a section, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 24 � '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES which the applicant provided. There is some concern that the roof- mounted equipment may be visible. Pako Pimsico, architect, was present to answer questions. Dan Wainwright, V.P. America's Tire Company, was also present. Mr. Wainwright stated that they're interested in a new retail location at the shopping center in the northwest corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey. The other big businesses in the center are Costco, PetSmart and Home Base. When they obtained the title report on this property they discovered that there was a height restriction held by Home Base of 20'. IYs really created some challenges to create a building in the architectural style of "fun". That's the direction that they want to go. The perspective is mostly just the shape of the building but they're willing to make whatever changes are appropriate. They've spoken to the new owner of Home Base and there's a good chance that they'll be allowed to have a 24' roof height. He can't offer that today. He's having a tough time getting anyone to release the height restriction. There's another height restriction held by Pet Smart at 24'. They need to close escrow fairly soon so they'd like to get some feedback from the commission and if they're able to get the height restriction waived, then they could come back or work with staff to make those changes. There are three garage doors that allow vehicles to go inside the building. All of the work is done inside the building so there will be no external service. They just to tires and wheels. They don't do mechanical repairs, oil changes, etc... It really looks like the car is just parked in there and it's just lifted up a few inches. The showrooms are very attractive and very clean. They have a real passion for providing a retail facility that you would feel comfortable doing business with. Mr. Drell stated that the theme of the "fun" buildings is asymmetry. It's an asymmetrical design. The proposed plans are "anti-fun". When you're creating those elements at 24', start thinking about doing something asymmetrical. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would make a huge difference to have a 24' roof height. You don't need the pediment element. This is really a composition of square forms and if you can get differences in planes and differences in heights, then you're there. You don't need to force this stuff. Respond to your openings. You don't need to balance things. You can have fun with just making everything fit iYs particular need. This isn't a tough one. Break the plane so that one plane is offset from the other. Keep it simple and nice with good shadows. Mr. Wainwright stated that they have a 6' overhang which will give them G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 2$ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES good shadow lines. When the weather is nice people can sit outside on stone benches. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he likes the idea of the wainscot but it looks like "stock detail number 105". Maybe they should be different heights. There are some nice lights on the front elevation but on the side they have wall packs, which don't look good from the street. Mr. Wainwright stated that they might have to look at pole lights for security purposes. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to direct the light down where they need it and not in your face. Mr. Wainwright stated that the standard fixture that they use has a sheet metal reflector inside the lens that extends beyond the horizontal plane of the lamp so all the light is directed down and none leaves the site. Commissioner Hanson suggested having an alternate plan ready with a 24' roof height. Mr. Wainwright asked if they could be re-scheduled for ARC in two weeks to review revised plans. Mr. Smith stated that if he gets his plans to us by next Wednesday, he will be scheduled for the April 27, 2004 ARC meeting. Mr. Wainwright stated that he would like to go to the Planning Commission in May. Commissioner Lopez commented that they may not be able to make their water calculations after reviewing the landscape plans. He suggested running the water calcs with some of the plant material and meeting with Diane Hollinger for suggestions. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic continued the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO.: PP 03-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� GLASSTONE� INC.� 74-780 42nd Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 19,867 square foot building located on 42"d Avenue. LOCATION: 74-780 42"d Avenue ZONE: SI G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040413.MIN 26 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Bagato stated that the building meets the height limits. Marlo Lafontaine, representative for Glasstone, was present. He stated that the building is in an SI designated zone. The owner has designed the building primarily for his own use for his granite and marble business. The building will be used as a design center to further enhance his existing business. Directly across from the proposed structure is the new City yard so there's not a lot going on along 42"d Avenue architecturally. On the north side of the structure is a temporary trailer that seems to have stayed there for quite some time that's housing the a granite importer's office. Standing alone as a structure, the proposed building will probably be the nicest thing on that street. Commissioner Hanson asked about the roof height and the material for the railing. Mr. Lafontaine stated that it's 28' in height and the railing is a tensile structure which will be made out of aluminum and canvas. Commissioner Hanson commented that the way you've indicated the stone on the building right now it looks like a ledger stone but in the color board it's a slate noce. Mr. Lafontaine stated that it will be the slate noce in a random pattern. The building color is khaki and they'd like to go with some of the gray slate tones to give it an earthy look. Mr. Drell asked if the pattern of the building has to be so repetitive. Mr. Lafontaine stated that each one of those bays becomes it's own rentable, leaseable unit. Mr. Drell stated that when you have a couple of interesting ideas and repeat it over and over again it defeats the purpose of an interesting idea. Mr. Lafontaine stated that it's a challenge to make a building in an SI zone functional and still look good. This plan goes far beyond a typical tilt-up building. Mr. Drell stated that we've seen some very interesting tilt-up buildings that have far more diversity and variation. Commissioner Hanson suggested that instead of having every column go up to the horizontal part of the roof they could just cap it off at the rail. Mr. Lafontaine commented that what we're missing from the single dimensional CAD drawing is the fact that the upper balcony portion steps back approximately six feet. You're getting a real recessed feel. You can't really see any of the shading from the roof overhang. Mr. Drell stated that this will be the same shading along the entire building. It's so repetitive. Don Morely, designer, was present and stated that the columns go all the way up to the second floor. Each one of the units are separated and the balconies are recessed 6' from the face of the building. You can't walk from unit to unit on the balcony. Those are private decks. The tensile structures that you see in the front can be changed from unit to unit. They're integrated into the railing system G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 2� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES and each one has to be engineered specifically for that bay. The fabric structure can easily be changed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't feel that it was as simple as that. I understand the need to have a module and stick to that. Almost every building we do has a module and it doesn't force you into a single architectural element. Architecturally, you can create elements. The second floor is set back and you haven't taken advantage of that at all. You can create different forms there with some forms that go all the way to the second floor and some that don't and break up the roof line. Mr. Lafontaine commented that design for the sake of design doesn't necessarily make monetary sense. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there needs to be a balance between being economical and being acceptable aesthetically. This is a huge building and it needs a little bit more going on. Commissioner Lopez asked about areas for signage. Mr. Lafontaine stated that they could potentially add a marquee or something at the street level versus identifying each tenant separately. We could do that with numbers or addresses without cluttering the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that a few of the commissioners can read through the CAD and know exactly what they're looking at. A little bit more effort needs to be made to break it up. What isn't being shown is the rear elevation, which is really awful. Mr. Lafontaine stated that they're limited a little bit because of the parking issues. If they offset the building too much, we're going to eat into the parking so they need to be conscious of that. Mr. Drell commented that they're not talking about changing the footprint of the building at all. Mr. Lafontaine stated that what the commission would like is adding some elements to add a little more interest. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there needs to be some play in the wall lines where things come over and overlap other things to create some variety in that very long building. Mr. Lafontaine stated that the wall is at minimum offset by 24' from the rear property line for access and that backs the existing Glasstone building. As you're coming around Corporate Drive there's no way to really visually see that structure. Commissioner Hanson stated that as you drive by on 42"d Avenue, you'll be able to look down there to some degree and the building has a very flat face with no relief so basically you get a shot at all the doors. Something needs to be done to break it up. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Lafontaine stated that iYll be located below the 4' mansard roof. Mr. Drell asked if they really want a mansard roof. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's hoping that when the plans G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040413.MIN 2g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2004 MINUTES are revised, the mansard roof would be gone. Mr. Drell stated that he'd rather have a vertical parapet than a mansard roof. The mansard roof is probably more costly without adding interest. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they don't have to necessarily add that much cost to the building, it's just a matter of how you're going to take the surfaces you're going to need anyway and manipulate them. By not having a mansard, you'll have a bunch of money that you can do some other, more interesting things with. Mr. Lafontaine asked how the commission feels about the end of the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it needs some work. Commissioner Vuksic stated that whatever they're doing on the main elevation needs to wrap around and continue with the same care. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson continued the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing architecture that is less repetitive with more variation and additional architecture on the rear elevation. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040413.MIN 29