Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-27 , • ..:. �. �i ����� CITY OF PAL11�f DESER'T ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • -' MINUTES - APRIL 27; 2004 ******************************************************************�********************************* I. CALL T� ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:40 p.m. Ii. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 6 2 Kristi Hanson X 8 Chris Van Vliet X 6 2 John Vuksic X 8 Ray Lopez X 7 1 Karen Oppenheim X 8 Karel Lambell X 2 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager . Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 13, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of April 13, 2004. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Gregory absent. Note:���:Commissioner Gregory arrived at 12:55 p.m. � . 1 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 ' MINUTES IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-59 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: QUIEL BROS. SIGN CO., 272 S. "I", San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Lyle Commercial LOCATION: 73-900 Fred Waring ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSL LARRY GROTBECK REAL ESTATE, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of exterior remodel in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. Maytag LOCATION: 74-124 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing to enhance the facade of the Maytag building along the Highway 111 frontage road. He's applying for facade enhancement funding through the City's Redevelopment Agency. Regarding the front elevation, staff recommends that either the new Maytag wall sign be lowered so that the top of the sign backing is the same height as the parapet wall of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN 2 : , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES building or that the parapet wall be raised to be even with the top of the sign. The applicant's architect stated that he didn't have an issue with either of those options. A unique feature over the front entrance is three arches. They will be made of inetal, anodiZed aluminum punched plates. The fire department submitted comments that they want the vertical clearance to be 13'6" minimum from ground level to the bottom of the arch. That will be a new condition of approval. The arches will be raised by 5". Mr. Drell asked why we're asking to lower the sign or raise the parapet. , Mr. Urbina stated that as iYs presently proposed, it gives the appearance that it could be a partial roof sign because it extends above the roof. Mr. Drell stated that it should be evaluated whether it looks architecturally correct or not. There's no reason in any ordinance that I'm aware of, stating that it needs to be flush with the roof. Larry Grotbeck, applicant, stated that he would like the sign to be high on the building. Commissioner Hanson asked about the thickness of the sign. Mr. Grotbeck stated that he believes that iYs about 10"-12" thick. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing a 6' high concrete block wall along the rear of the property facing Alessandro. Where iYs being proposed, iYs only about 3' back from the curb face. The Public Works Department has informed staff that the property line actually starts 7' back from the face of the Alessandro Drive curb. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that this rear wall be placed a minimum of 12' back from curb face to allow for the construction of a 6' wide sidewalk, which the Public Works Department has agreed to if they have 6' of landscaping from the rear of the sidewalk to the block wall. 6' would be wide enough to accommodate the planting of shrubs and street trees. Commissioner Hanson asked if the letter spacing on the sign could be different so that they're a little bit further apart so they're not so jammed like they're shown on the drawing. Mr. Grotbeck stated that that's the standard issue sign for Maytag. The signage is not part of this application. Mr. Drell commented that the sign location should be reviewed by the commission. Commissioner Hanson asked about the thickness of the arches. Mr. Grotbeck stated that they're approximately 1'-1'6" thick: Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the arches. Commissioner Oppenheim concurred and commented that you can never find a store along Highway 111 and you end up driving up and down the street looking for G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040427.MIN 3 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES it. Mr. Grotbeck stated that, architecturally, the purpose of the arches is to marry the west element of the frontage to the east element to tie the two together. They also intend to landscape the wall along the Wacky Wicker elevation. Commissioner Hanson asked about the color of the block wall in the front and the rear. Mr. Grotbeck stated that the front will be a sandy- colored brick wall and the rear wall will match the exterior color of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the building is a great old building. I'm not so sure that I like the Maytag sign sticking up above the parapet. It seems like it could come down and be undersized and still get the job done. I agree with staff's comments in the rear about increasing the setbacks to allow for 6' of planting area. Mr. Grotbeck stated that the reason for the sign location is because it's a "mid- century" look and the buildings live and die on their horizontal lines and they needed another horizontal level. Mr. Drell stated that they probably should make it a little bit bigger and give it a definite step so that it clearly reads as an architectural element instead of a sign. The lettering on the sign is too big and too jammed in there. Adding another step is an enhancement or the backing should be a little bigger. Commissioner Gregory suggested having the letters independent and freestanding in some way on top of the parapet, which would be somewhat typical of the mid-century style. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to staff conditions listed below: 1. Remodel front elevation by rebuilding the existing parapet and adding 18-inch to 54-inch high corrugated aluminum metal panels with anodized finish across a 52-foot long portion of 86-foot wide building. 2. Replace existing fascia with new 18-inch high "Maytag Blue" anodized aluminum fascia. 3. Clad existing window mullions with clear anodized aluminum metal trim. 4. Install three new anodized aluminum, punch plate metal arches over existing driveway at front of site. The front-most arch (facing G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040427.MIN 4 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES Highway 111) will have a height of 17'-7" with a 15'-7" vertical clearance underneath the arch. The two rear arches will have a height of 15'-1" with a 13'-1" vertical clearance underneath the arch. 5. Replace existing 16-foot wide, 6-foot high, chain link sliding gate at front driveway with sliding metal-face gate. 6. Remove existing attached patio cover on rear elevation of Maytag building. 7. Remove existing sheds abutting rear and westerly side property lines 8. Construct new 6-foot high decorative block wall in rear with a 3- foot setback from Alessandro Drive curb face. The project site's rear property line is located 7 feet back from Alessandro Drive curb face. 9. Refurbish an existing 24-foot wide, 6-foot high, sliding chain link fence gate along rear property line by attaching corrugated metal panels. � 10. Construct two sections of 6-foot high chain link fence (84 lineal feet and 19 lineal feet) with slats to create and conceal an outdoor storage area for appliances at rear of property. 11. Repave existing asphalt parking area for employees and delivery trucks at westerly and northerly areas of project site. 12. The minimum height clearance from grade level to bottom of any of the three proposed arches shall be 13'-6". Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: 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 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR040427.MIN 5 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: C-1 John Schmidt, applicant, stated that he's working with the landlords of the adjacent buildings. It looks like a mish-mash of old, beat-up little stores. I'm trying to get into the facade enhancement program. At this point, I'd like to get this sign approved. I took this sign out of the warehouse and just basically set it on the parapet. You can see the swamp coolers and vents on the roof and the sign basically screens it all. I would like to leave the sign in the current location until I have the facade enhancement done. Mr. Bagato reminded the commission that the sign at the Clubhouse Liquor sign was supposed to be temporary too and it's still up. Mr. Drell stated that the business is there and it needs a sign, which is already installed: Hopefully, there's going to be a facade enhancement done to the building. In the meantime, this may not happen for six months or a year but they still need a sign. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if they intend to raise the parapet and plaster it. Mr. Schmidt stated that he could do that. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't make sense to do a lot of work if they intend to do a facade enhancement. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if his sign is the only high sign in that area. Mr. Schmidt commented that all the signs are above the roof line down the street. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the photo shows that they're not above the roof line. I thing the sign has to come down and do something different. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign is shoved right up at the top of the parapet. Mr. Schmidt stated that there's about 5" at the top. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign is too high. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they shou�d start by taking the sign down. Commissioner Hanson suggested putting the sign at the middle of the blue line on the fascia and paint the blue out. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to relocation of the sign to center of existing parapet with equal amount of distance on top and bottom of letters. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040427.MIN 6 . • '�'`• �rr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES 4. 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: Approval of exterior elevation change. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Dretl stated that they wanted to get the reaction of the commission regarding the idea to stucco over the red granite with tan stucco. The sign looks better but they should work with the existing red granite. The commission concurred. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for denial. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SVEND PEULICKE, 691 Calle Petunia, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of single- family residence with roof height over 15'. LOCATION: 73-342 Bursera Way ZONE: R-1 12,000 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040427.MIN � ' `� `�,,,ri� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-57 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSL BEST SIGNS, INC., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two internally illuminated monument signs. Grand Prix Car Wash & Leisure Max. LOCATION: 72-880 Dinah Shore ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the car wash is on a separate parcel with a separate property owner. Approximately three years ago, a monument sign was approved at both corners where the existing monument sign for Pet Smart is located on Dinah Shore. There could be one on the other corner where the Grand Prix Car Wash is located. Ethan Allen now coming into the center and House to Home is also a major tenant. The recommendation by staff is to continue the request so that the applicant can work with the other property owners. Mr. Drell stated that this center could probably justify more than the usual number of monument signs, since you can't see any of the buildings from the street. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request so that the applicant can work with the other property owners. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 7. CASE NO.: 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 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040427.MIN g , ' �' '�r` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lopez and Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RED BARN/MILO MALOTTE, 73-290 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 442 square foot addition to the rear of the Red Barn. LOCATION: 73-290 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was having a hard time understanding the context of what he's looking at on the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the elevations are very difficult to read and understand whaYs happening. They're adding a little room in the back of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you don't actually see the emergency doors. Bob Jones was present to answer questions. The addition will be painted red to match the rest of the building. Mr. Drell asked if there was a planter or any landscaping proposed in front of the addition. There are planters in front of the atrium and it was suggested that the applicant add landscaping in front of the wall. Commissioner Hanson asked if the swamp cooler could be hidden. Commissioner Vuksic stated that adding landscaping would soften the appearance of the wall. Adding a planter would help. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to adding planter on north elevation with review and approval by staff. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040427.MIN 9 • ' �' '`+r�'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRI L 27, 2004 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: C 04-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�, WJG PARTNERS, INC., 45-445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of exterior remodel in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 72-990 � 73-030 EI Paseo, Columbia Center ZONE: This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. No action was taken. 3. 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 revised elevations for a single-story automotive tire retail building. America's Tire Co. LOCATION: 72-320 Dinah Shore, Monterey Shore Plaza ZONE: PC-3 The commission had reviewed and commented on the America's Tire elevations at a previous meeting. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant has returned with revised plans. Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks much better. Mr. Bagato stated that the roll-up doors could use an accent color. Mr. Drell suggested using glass doors. The applicant stated that they've used glass doors in the past and they don't hold up very well and they're subject to being broken. Mr. Drell suggested adding a contrasting color to the doors. Otherwise it will look like a blank wall. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the revisions are very well done. Mr. Bagato commented that signage is not included in the request. There are two sets of plans to review. The applicant may be able to get approval for a 24' roof height so they've provided elevations for both a 20' roof height and a 24' roof height. The applicant stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN 1� • ' � +,�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES that the buildings' floor plate is limited to 6,000 square feet, based on parking. Typically, the America's Tire stores are 7,000 square feet so they already have a smaller floor plate to work with. If the height of the building is restricted down to 20' they're going to have a hard time accommodating the inventory. Mr. Bagato asked if they could go to a 22' roof height and have the elements at 24'. Commissioner Gregory commented that this would be a good compromise. Mr. Drell stated that the goal is to have the elements break the plane of the vertical. Commissioner Gregory asked about the pop-outs and how far they would stick out if they dropped the roof 2' so that it's 22' tall with the projections popping up above and breaking the roof line. The applicant stated that the projections are 2'6" so they have some mass. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of 20' roof height elevation subject to adding accent color to roll-up doors and preliminary approval of alternate plan with 24' roof height subject to roof height being lowered to 22' with elements at 24' and adding accent color to roll-up doors. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-27 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� ADW ARCHITECTS, 1401 W. Morehead Street, Suite 100, Charlotte, NC 28208 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of storefront elevation for Ethan Allen. LOCATION: 72-650 Dinah Shore, Monterey Shore Plaza ZONE: P.C. Robert Lauer, architect, was present and stated that the materials include the color blue, which works well because that's the accent color for the rest of the shopping center. The current base of the column elements are confetti-colored tiles. They chose to use just blue tile at the base of their entrance element, which is an identifiable color of their logo. The shape of the storefront has been changed. Commissioner Hanson asked about the awnings and why they go all the way across the storefront. That completely changes the detailing that you have on the rest of the center. Mr. Lauer stated that it's actually a panel thaYs fabric wrapped in an awning material so iYs still a flat surface. Mr. Drell stated that the goal is to differentiate specific G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040427.MIN 1 l . �rrr" �„i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES tenants. The goal shouldn't be camouflage. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't mind differentiating, as long as it's still in the same flavor. One of the things that's very exciting about this project is that there are elements with the Lighthouse and Leisure Max that are different and unique, but yet still in the same character. I don't mind the entry so much as long as iYs not totally tamed down to the point that it's going to feel like it's completely different. Mr. Lauer stated that one thing that was a challenge on this project is that this particular tenant typically is very traditional in nature. Commissioner Gregory asked if there's any landscaping, such as pots or planters. Mr. Drell stated that there's some landscaping in the center. Mr. Joe Walters was present and stated that when he designed the building they added landscape islands with palm trees and in the sidewalk immediately in front of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked if the tiles could be changed. The squareness of everything might be too much. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about a roof plan. Mr. Lauer stated that he's showing a freestanding wall which is tied back structurally. Commissioner Vuksic stated that some buildings provide a back drop so that you can do want, as far as your storefronts. You can see a classical storefront next to one that's funky next to one that's contemporary and it all works. However, this complex has a.style to it and the current proposal as deviated too much from that. I call this neo-classical and it's certainly not what this center dictates. It looks lost in this area. Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was hoping, in terms of proportion for the length of the building elevation, to have a more centrally proportional element and maybe it just doesn't work with Ethan Allen. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it doesn't have to be any more central. Commissioner Gregory stated that the proportion for the building seems small, but for the tenant iYs probably fine. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's a discrepancy on the plans regarding the proportions of the storefront. Mr. Drell commented that the commission could go out to the site and look at the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his first impression was that it didn't sit well with him. It doesn't look like it belongs there. Mr. Lauer stated that they're already behind schedule. The tower element is existing but they have other elements that they want to change. Commissioner Gregory commented that the building is already built so he wasn't sure how tough they should be on them. Mr. Drell stated that the tenant has a very specific identity and it's not asymmetrical. Commissioner Hanson asked if it could go up a couple G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN IZ - �rr✓' v,�r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES of feet. Mr. Lauer stated that they had drawn it that way and it makes it look like a thinner element. Mr. Drell suggested making it wider as well. Mr. Lauer stated that it would interfere with sidewalks, columns and sign panels and would really change the look of the spacing of the panels that are along the sides. Mr. Drell stated that having symmetry and asymmetry is okay in a quirky center. To a certain degree, having it symmetrical differentiates it better than if we just duplicate another shape thaYs already there. The whole point of commercial architecture is differentiation. The handicap in all these monolithically-designed centers is accommodating the identity of the tenant. You try not to let the thematic style of the center dominate the identity of the tenant. The identity of the tenant has to be the most important thing about retail architecture. You don't let the ego of the overall architecture dominate the identity of the tenant. Commissioner Hanson suggested slightly increasing the roof height of the existing element. The blue awnings are fine but all the other storefronts have these great tile work and asked why Ethan Allen has to have just blue tile. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the blue is part of the identity. Commissioner Hanson stated that they have enough identity. She suggested that they make the columns predominantly blue but add a few of the other colors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's not making it asymmetrical for the sake of making it asymmetrical. I'm doing it because I'm trying to look at adding another mass that works within the column spacing that you have, but just adds more width to what's there. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to slightly increasing roof height of existing element. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed and Commissioner Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSL PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, c/o Larry Kosmont, 601 Figueroa Street, Suite 3550, Los Angeles, CA 90017 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of maintenance facility design within the 13'h fairway. LOCATION: Palm Desert Country Club G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN 13 ' � w�+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: OS Mr. Bagato stated that the developer would like to give a presentation regarding the relocation of the maintenance facility from the clubhouse area to a site behind Joe Mann Park on the 13th fairway. Randy Case, applicant, was present to address the commission. We are currently proposing to relocate the maintenance facility from its current location off of New York near the existing clubhouse to the area between the 14�h tee and the 13`h green. Richard Denzer, renowned clubhouse architect, is doing the architectural work on the maintenance facility and the building within that maintenance facility. Mr. Denzer is doing the work on the McCallum Theater in Palm Desert. Ron Gregory and Associates are the landscape architects. Whatever Mr. Denzer doesn't show you or doesn't do from a landscape standpoint, Mr. Gregory and his firm witl supplement that. Pictures were shown to the commission of the existing maintenance facility and pictures of where they're proposing to put it. Mr. Case stated that the existing maintenance facility is about the size of four lots right now which is about 25,000 square feet. This is about the size of area that they're proposing to use at the 13�h and 14t'' holes. It's not been in this location its entire existence. When this development was started, the original developer built three holes and the back nine was the first nine. The maintenance facility was located in pretty much the location where they're planning on relocating it to now. It was here because of the strategic nature of where they were building the course initially. There is an access point that comes off of California. That is part of the deed for the golf course that permits access onto that point. They planned that originally when they built the golf course. The existing maintenance facility is sort of a hodge-podge of fences and falling down fences and some landscaping. IYs located off of New York just to the north of the clubhouse. The views off of New York are really not what you woutd want to have when you're renovating the entire golf course. The facility is not very attractive aesthetically or from a security standpoint. It's a cinder block building that is not conducive to the equipment, height-wise. It really doesn't suit the purpose that it needs to for a 27-hole golf course. The equipment that's used to maintain the golf course include mowers, tractors, etc... Mr. Drell asked if they store fertilizer. Mr. Case stated that they do. Mr. Drell commented that he should talk to the fire marshal. Mr. Case stated that what they're storing at the new location will be the same as what they have at the existing facility but it will be in a much safer, state-of- the-art facility. IYII have all the protections that you have today and that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN 14 . - �'. � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES the current facility doesn't have now. The existing facility is located adjacent to homes with the nearest home being on the north side on New York and is about 20 feet away. There are homes all around the facility. Inside, it's not well-kept. It's an older facility which has been there for about 25 years. Part of the problem with maintaining the golf course is the facility that houses the equipment which is not up to standards. You're battling an antiquated irrigation system and also the ability to store and house equipment and keep the equipment safe and operational. There are a number of issues regarding the location that have to do with access, security and traffic safety. There's a park thaYs adjacent to the access point. There's a 6' high brick fence next to the access point. On the deed, it shows a 20' wide access road. There's a fence along the City park as well. An issue that you'll hear today and you'll hear many times is the aesthetics of how the maintenance facility will look. We think that once iYs designed properly, landscaped properly, bermed properly with the right fencing around it, it will look better than whaYs out there today. There is an existing pump station that's about 50' x 100' with a 6' block wall around it with landscaping. You won't see that facility in these pictures, but you'll see the landscaping around it. Pictures were shown to the commission of the area. What you see are mature trees. You don't see any facility there. The landscaping has not been maintained. They're proposing to have all new landscaping, using what they can with whaYs there supplemented with much more up-to-date standards that landscaping requires. We said all along that our plan is to put $5+ million dollars into the renovation of the golf course and the clubhouse. Part of the plan is an automated irrigation system. There will be some traffic from the employees who work in the maintenance yard who will be coming in during the morning. Their cars will all be parked within the facility. The traffic for the operation of the golf course won't change. They'll have mowers in the morning and thaYs what you'll put up with: One of the things that may alleviate some of the traffic on the golf course is the automated irrigation system. Right now there are 4-5 guys who drive around the golf course all night long in trucks and have to manually turn on the sprinklers. The new system will prevent this. The day operations will be the same. What we're doing overall will be much better for this area. The maintenance facility that we're designing is minimally adequate to maintain the 27 holes that we're refurbishing. You have to have a facility. We are locating•this facility about 250 feet to the nearest property line which is almost the length of a football field. We're not taking away the golf course view. When you look at any of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,0.gmin�AR040427.MIN 1$ � ' '� ''�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES the pictures you'll see that we're enhancing the view from both directions. Mr. Denzer, president of den ZER International, introduced himself. We design golf course clubhouses and golf projects all around the country. Typically, the smallest site would be about 2/3 of an acre for a maintenance facility. This will include storage area for equipment, material bins for sand and gravel, green trash, other trash, wash-down area and a stand-by fuel station. It's all self contained and very quiet. The best place to put a facility is somewhere adjacent to a roadway. The poorest choice would be the existing condition where it's near the clubhouse. That's not a good location because of traffic with trucks and other vehicles. In this case, we're trying to surround the facility with a mound and a wall. What we've done with the 8' wall is put it on a 6' high mound to reduce visibility and noise. There will be 4' of building above the wall and that will be blocked with landscaping. The building itself is a metal building. They come in a variety of colors. The facility won't have a lot of staff. Currently, all the equipment at the existing facility is stored outside. Mr. Case stated that currently there is a lake at the 13`h hole. The lake is sfagnant and not well kept. We are going to fill in this lake and build a much bigger, better lake and extend the green back about 25 yards so that this area is completely utilized. The new maintenance facility will be in the area of the current lake. Mr. Denzer stated that it will be a very low-slung, on-story building. Mr. Case stated that they're now discussing whether to have a bell and a gate at the access point because there is traffic on the sidewalk and iYs next to the park. We are very concerned about that and we're going to work with the City and residents to figure out the right mechanism to make sure that the traffic in and out of there protects anybody that's on that sidewalk or around there. Commissioner Van Vliet reminded the audience that we're an aesthetic board so we'll look at the building and the walt and what it's going to look like. We're really not focused on location. There's another governing board that does that. We need to restrict your comments to the building itself and how it looks. Jane Hibbard was present and stated that she's representing 6-7 other residents at PDCC near the 13`h and 14`h fairways. We didn't know about any of this until Saturday and she was concerned that they didn't have much time to get together and talk about it. A letter was passed to the commissioners stating their objections. She expressed concern about whether the new lake would actually be built once the old one is G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040427.MIN 16 • �r�' ''�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES filied in. Mr. Case stated that they have to build the lake because they need it for irrigation. We won't have the lake out of service for very long. We're proposing to do this in the first phase this summer after we're approved. We have to have a lake from an operational standpoint for irrigation. It'll be much bigger, much cleaner, much nicer. Mr. Drell stated that we will have a condition on this project. Often when we're relying on landscaping to screen something then the job isn't done until it looks like the rendering. There will be some discretion on our part, in terms of doing inspections, in approving the landscaping. Our experience is that often the reality of the site lines change when you finally get it done. The assumption is that there will be some discretionary potentia► additions, if necessary, to achieve the result of screening the building. The job isn't done until you can't see the building. Ms. Hibbard commented that it'll take quite a few years for the trees to grow. Mr. Case stated that it will take some time for them to grow but they have a 6' berm with an 8' fence so already they have 14' built in. Mr. Denzer stated that they intend to triangulate the trees so that there's always one behind the other. Milo Malotte was present and stated that he's lived here 31 years and thinks it's a "hell of an idea". Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant would have the ability to lower the site slightly. Mr. Case stated that they could do that. Mr. Denzer stated that he'll look into it but the problem with that is that if you drop the site down, we can't drain it. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could drain the site. Even if you took it down 2' and you have a 6' berm with an 8' wall, then they would have 2' of something that nobody would see. Mr. Case stated that the building is only 5,000 square feet. It's a small part of the facility. The rest of it is open area. Commissioner Van Viet asked if the building has a gabled, pitched roof. Mr. Case stated that that was correct. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why it has to be 18' in height and wondered if it could have a flat roof. He wanted to know the reason for the additional height. Mr. Denzer stated that there will be storage in the rafters and there are heat concerns. There's a number of rationales to why it's 18' in height but we can certainly look at adjusting the height. Mr. Drell suggested that they look at the maintenance building at the Canyons at Bighorn, which has a shed roof that may be 8' and 12'. Mr. Denzer stated that height is something they you are looking for in a maintenance facility. They have 10' roll-up doors with 2' of structure and then the slope up. The lowest it could be on one side is 14' high. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they're showing 18' at the gable. Mr. Denzer stated that they also want to put the air conditioning mechanical equipment inside G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040427.MIN 1� . � �'' "`�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES the building. Mr. Case stated that on the original plans, they showed an 19'6" roof height. ThaYs already been revised down to 18', but I think we may be able to come down a little bit more. Ms. Hollinger asked if there are any large-scale trees that are in existence in the proposed site that can be protected to keep the more mature trees there so that they're not starting out with little, tiny trees. Mr. Denzer stated that this will be part of the landscape plan. Mr. Case stated that their plan is to preserve as much as possible. Barbara Koltweit, resident near the 13th fairway, was present and stated that she was concerned with the berms and mature trees that they'll lose their view of the mountains that they see now. Mr. Case stated that it won't be any higher than the existing landscaping. Ms. Koltweit stated that there will be more landscaping because it's a larger facility. Mr. Case stated that the current vegetation is as wide as we're proposing right now. The height of the trees and the width of the trees is pretty much the width of what we're proposing. Ms. Koltweit asked about the density of the trees. Mr. Case stated that with the movement of the golf hole on 13, you'll see less of the lake than before. Theresa Pawley was present and stated that she owns the second house away from the access road. I don't think the photographs reflect the reality. From my master bedroom, living room and hallway I have a full view of the lake as it is and the mountains. My understanding is that the pump house is going to remain at 100' and from your drawings, they indicate that iYs another 245' in addition to the 100'. Mr. Case stated that this is correct. It's primarily an open area. Ms. Pawley cornmented that you're going to be looking at a blocked area. I understand the berm and the 8' wall, but it's blocked. It blocks my current view of the mountains, the lake and everything pristine. Mr. Denzer stated that the tee box, the green and the landscape will all be enhanced. Mr. Case stated that everything if front of her house would be greatly enhanced. Ms. Pawley invited them to come to her house and look for themselves. Because this could be a lifelong problem, I would like you to indulge me in reading a letter that I've written with some of my concerns, (See attached letter.) Commissioner Vuksic commented that Ms. Pawley made some very good points in the letter, but not very many apply to the ARC. We look at the aesthetics of a project. It's curious that something like this is happening with so much opposition within the golf course community. The row of tree concept would be like looking at a wall of trees, rather than open space. He suggested breaking it up. To actually screen the building from all angles you need trees the entire length of the yard so G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040427.MIN 1 g , • �wir�' `�' ARCHITECTURAL REV►EW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES you pick up the side angles. Is it possible to maybe incorporate some trees next to the building itself, thereby allowing you to not have such a solid wall of trees along the perimeter of the project. Mr. Case stated that this would impact the operation of the service area. There are vehicles moving around inside the facility. Commissioner Hanson suggested moving the facility so that it's next to the park. Mr. Case stated that this is a possibility and they could move the lake as well. Commissioner Hanson stated that this would solve the problem of having the residents lose their views and having a long wall of trees. Mr. Case stated that it would also be better for access. We originally thought about going up next to the park but we thought that we would have opposition. Commissioner Vuksic stated that moving the facility next to the park as all sorts of positives to it. ft breaks up that big wall of landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that typically we would not approve metal buildings. I know that you intend to screen it but I don't think that it's going to be screened for some time. Commissioner Hanson stated that it'll be below the wall and the berm. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it shouldn't be a metal building. You should do something nicer. It will be seen. Mr. Drell stated that the Canyons maintenance facility is metal. When they first put it in you could just barely see the top part of the building but within eight months you couldn't see it anymore. It's a shed building that lower than the proposed building. It's longer and narrower so they don't need as much height. This serves a pretty fancy golf course. Commissioner Vuksic asked if this was the project where we approved all those houses. Mr. Case stated that it is. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if this just came to us, I can't imagine that we wouldn't approve it. IYs a maintenance building on a golf course. With Commissioner's Hanson suggestion, the building would be tucked away. I've never seen a maintenance facility in the middle of a fairway, but now it looks like it may be tucked away. I can't imagine not approving it in this location. Charlie Ash, resident of PDCC, stated that he can guarantee that if you move the facility next to the fence at the park there will be a bunch of residents, starting with Ruth Young, who are going to complain "to high heaven". Anyplace you're going to put it, people will complain. Mr. Drell stated that this is a "who's ox is being gored" discussion. In essence, this golf course is a facility that conveys value to everyone . who lives around it. There are burdens every once in a while and one of the burdens is clubhouses, maintenance facilities, mowing the lawn at 5:00 a.m., golf balls that pelt into your backyard, etc...are all part of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040427.MIN 19 � • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES the burden. Ultimately, we want to find the least impacting burden and putting it next to the park is the obvious place to put it. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MCA ARCHITECTS, INC., 1247 Pomona Road, #105, Corona, CA 92882 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of condition regarding extension of cornice detail for remodel of former House to Home. LOCATION: 72-700 Dinah Shore Drive, former House to Home ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the architect and structural engineer to consult with plan checkers. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m. TONY BAGATO, ASSISTANT PLANNER for STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040427.MIN 2�