Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-24 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 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 13 3 Kristi Hanson X 14 2 Chris Van Vliet X 13 3 John Vuksic X 15 1 Ray Lopez X 15 1 Karen Oppenheim X 16 Karel Lambell X 10 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: AUGUST 10, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of August 10, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a Wendy's fast food restaurant with a drive-through. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the architect to provide a site plan and landscape plan. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, 73- 735 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260-6999 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of renovations to Ironwood Country Club facilities. LOCATION: 73-735 Irontree Drive ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion subject to (1) recessing windows on the aerobic room east elevation by 2', and (2) approval by the homeowner's associations as required. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RAYMOND BACHAND, 73-214A Tumbleweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an exterior trellis, barbeque and fireplace. LOCATION: 73-214A Tumbleweed Lane ZONE: PR-16 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: RV 04-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CRAIG ARMSTRONG, 72-748 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store an RV in the side yard of a single-family home. LOCATION: 72-748 Beavertail Street ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to the meeting of September 28, 2004 at the request of the applicant. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add Case No. SA 04-111 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0- 0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-111 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. LOCATION: 73-400 El Paseo, Gallery 1000 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that there was some concern regarding the blockiness or heaviness of the letters. Jim Engle, representative for Imperial Sign Co., was present. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the lettering was offset and Commissioner Hanson wanted to know why. Mr. Engle stated that if it was centered it would look like "Gallery" was squashing "1000" and if you put it to the left it doesn't place very well. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't mind it on the right side. Commissioner Hanson stated that the letters look heavy and suggested that they be reduced by Y2". Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the width of the letters. Mr. Engle stated that they're bold versus medium. The font has been increased by 1". Commissioner Hanson stated that if he reduced the letters by Y2" it would look lighter. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval subject to reducing the letter size by '/2". Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROD GRINBERG / TRANSWEST HOUSING, INC., 47-120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 16-lot subdivision. LOCATION: Kokopelli Circle East; east side of Shepard Lane GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina distributed revised side elevations for the homes at the end of the cul-de-sac. Staff wanted the elevations for the two homes that are facing Portola above the 6' high block wall to be "dressed up". Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the elevations should be "dressed up" all the way around on all of the homes. Mr. Urbina commented that he did fore-warn the applicant that Architectural Review Commission likes to see recessed windows and details. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they like to see architecture all the way around the building, not just on the front elevation. Rod Grinberg, representative for Transwest Housing, Inc., was present and stated that he looked at other recently-built homes along Portola and he didn't see additional architectural detail on the rear yard and side yard elevations. It may be out there in some cases, but certainly it certainly isn't the "norm" for the product that's been built in the last 4-5 years. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't agree with that statement. Almost every project that comes through the ARC are asked to increase the architecture on the side and rear elevations. Mr. Grinberg stated that they're including rear covered patios so you won't be able to see much on that elevation. They could take a look at the side elevations. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they realize that it's precious space on the side elevations and what they're talking about is recessing a window by 2" so that the plaster could turn into it, instead of it just being flush. Commissioner Hanson asked if they were doing 2 x 6 walls or 2 x 4 walls because they look like 2 x 4. Mr. Grinberg stated that his architect was not present so he wasn't sure. Commissioner Hanson suggested that they could use a 2 x 6 wall on the exterior and add a 2 x 4 nailing flange and that would give them their recess. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's nice to have the overhang at the rear of the house, but it makes for a very interesting rear elevation. Rear elevations happen to be the elevations that your neighbors will see. She suggested popping out a portion of the rear elevation approximately two feet to add a shadow line. There was a question about the material being used around the surround on the front elevation. Mr. Grinberg commented that they would use foam. Commissioner Hanson commented that the chimneys should be of a larger scale and with more detail. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was on top of the chimneys. Mr. Grinberg stated that they are G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES proposing different decorative screening on top of the chimneys. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the plans show that the chimneys are 2' x 2'. If they increased the mass on the chimney, it wouldn't look so rickety and would create a more substantial chimney mass. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the floor plan for Plan 1, the way that the pantry juts out in front of the fireplace won't work. Mr. Grinberg commented that they're still working on the floor plans. Mr. Drell commented that the Venezia project on Portola has almost exactly the same silhouette with the hip roofs. Even though the details change, the silhouette is almost the same. Plans A and C have almost the same silhouette on the proposed plans. It looks a little odd when almost every house has the same silhouette. Commissioner Vuksic asked if all the houses have hipped ends. He thought that there were some houses with gabled side yards. Another concern was on Plan 1 B. The side elevation has a lot of wall there. The windows look pretty utilitarian which is a concern. Maybe there needs to be something up higher. Also the eave details are hard to understand. It looks so thin. It looks like a 2 x 4. Mr. Grinberg agreed that it needs to be enlarged. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the cornice continues up around the top. Commissioner Hanson commented that it stops. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to take the same eave detail and carry it up and across the top of the gable instead of terminating it down at the bottom. Commissioner Hanson commented that this is a very traditional detail. All they do is wrap the tile over the top of the plaster and it's very flat. Commissioner Vuksic concurred but it doesn't seem to apply on the side elevation. Commissioner Hanson stated that they need to be given the detail so that they can be shown what it is. Commissioner Vuksic commented that on Plan 1 B on the front elevation, the right side shows it flush but wondered if there was an overhang. Mr. Grinberg stated that he believes that it's flush. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are contradictions that need to be worked out. Is it flush or not flush? Mr. Drell stated that the details will be shown in the working drawings and the ARC will be able to look at them. Commissioner Hanson suggested that if the applicant has any questions, they should forward the details to the commission to review. Mr. Grinberg stated that he thought that when the architects looked at the requirements for ARC they saw the emphasis on the front elevation so maybe they didn't submit the details for the side elevations. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 6 *ftw `%04 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell noted that the overall height is 18'4" and asked if this was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Drell commented that 184" is too high. The roof height has to be 18' from finished pad to the top of the tile. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the fieldstone and wanted to know if this is the way that it's going to be laid up with full mortar in between the stones. Commissioner Hanson stated that they'll probably use pre- cast stone. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he likes the variation, if that's the way that it's going to be. Commissioner Lambell commented that the windows on the latest drawing are so much better looking than the windows shown on the elevations. She asked if they're only going on the Portola elevation. Mr. Grinberg stated that this is what they're proposing. Mr. Drell stated that there is typically some decrease in architecture on the side elevations. Mr. Grinberg offered to do a foam wrap around the windows on the side elevations. Mr. Drell stated that if he insets the windows, he won't have to do a foam wrap. Commissioner Hanson commented that she hates the foam wrap. Mr. Drell stated that the simplest thing to do is to inset the windows. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval of architecture only, subject to (1) adding dimension on the rear elevations, (2) recess windows on the side elevations by at least 2", (3) roof height at maximum of 18' from finished grade to top of tile, (4) chimneys to be increased in size to either 2Y2' x 4' or 3' x 3' minimum, (5) adding a gabled elevation detail on Plan 2, (6) add architectural detail higher on the wall on the gabled end portion of the building, (7) create a more creative entry tower on the front elevation of Plan 1 C and lower the element, and (8) the right elevation on Plan 2A entry element should be separated from the house more than it currently is. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STORAGE DEPOT 3 LLC, c/o Malcolm Riley, 11640 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90049 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 95,583 square foot self-storage facility. LOCATION: North side of Dinah Shore between Portola and Monterey Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the property is located on the north side of Dinah Shore along the railroad tracks. This will be a self storage facility with one manager's unit. The architect, Ariel Valli, was present to answer questions. Mr. Valli stated that this project would have a flat roof desert-type of architecture with stucco and concrete block. I'd like to make it look good, fit into the community, landscape it nicely along the edges and provide storage needs for that part of the city, which is growing very rapidly. We would like to keep it fairly streamlined and fairly industrial in appearance so that it blends into the development of the rest of the Desert Gateway Park. Mr. Drell asked if we would be seeing a wall on the street elevation. Mr. Valli stated that the street elevation is the manager's unit. Commissioner Hanson asked about the material for the wall. Mr. Valli stated that it's a combination of precision concrete block and decorative concrete block. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they intend on offsetting the precision block. Mr. Valli stated that they can do a standard 1" offset to overlap it so that it "jumps out" a little bit further to provide for more of a shadow line. Mr. Drell asked about the projects that will be going in on the east and the west. Mr. Valli stated that they don't know yet. The property line will have a 10' landscape strip. Mr. Drell asked if there was going to be a parking lot on the next property. Mr. Valli stated that it may. They were adhering to the development standards for this business park. It's possible that the adjacent property could get another 10' setback. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they were using metal siding on the building. Mr. Valli stated that they're using tight-but metal panels, which are almost a flush surface. From the distance that they're going to be from any public streets (over 400' from the freeway and almost 250' to Dinah Shore) it will be very hard to pick up the fact that they're metal panels. It'll look like they're stucco plane from a distance. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 8 ` w *awfr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell asked about the color. Mr. Valli stated that it'll match the stucco. Commissioner Hanson commented that she felt that the tower was too tall but likes the general flavor of the manager's unit and wondered why they didn't carry that through on the storage building instead of doing the little steps. She suggested carrying the architecture of the manager's unit throughout the project to make it more cohesive. Mr. Valli stated that they can do that in terms of color and eyebrows. They wanted to provide a logical signage plane. Commissioner Lambell asked about the height of the tower. Mr. Valli stated that it's 35' high. Commissioner Hanson commented that all of the 6" end pieces have to go back and look like it's a structure. We never want to see ends like that. It needs to be less like a facade and more like a structure so you don't see the back edge of a parapet. It has to be returned back and around. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have them everywhere. Mr. Valli stated that they can do 10' returns. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should do 10' returns and go 10' back again. Make it an element, not a plant-on. Commissioner Oppenheim asked how much the tower should be lowered. Commissioner Hanson stated that if it came down 5' it would probably be fine because it's way too tall. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she really likes the color palette with the bolder colors. Commissioner Hanson stated that aluminum is a really great material that you can cantilever and you can get it pre-coated. Mr. Valli stated that they wanted to do something a little bit beyond the normal color palette. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the mechanical equipment will be installed on the roof. Mr. Valli stated that all the mechanical equipment for the storage building will be at ground level and the equipment for the manager's unit will be on the roof and screened by the parapet. No equipment will be seen above the parapet line. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that she would like to recommend is to return with elevations as viewed from Dinah Shore on the east elevation. It would also be important to see what the gates are going to look like. Mr. Valli stated that usually they're wrought iron and they could put mesh in them. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission wants to see what they look like. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked about the line above the building on the north elevation and wondered if this was the parapet on the other side of the building. Is there some reason why it's a different height? Mr. Valli stated they should be equal. He'll probably take away some of the stepping and make it more of an element that matches the front manager's building in color and texture. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Valli to show a section that they can adequately screen the mechanical equipment. Mr. Valli stated that the only roof-mounted equipment is on the manager's unit and it will be adequately screened. Commissioner Vuksic asked about roof access. Mr. Valli stated that there will be a roof hatch inside the building with no exterior ladders. Commissioner Lopez commented that he wasn't sure if the landscaping would meet the water calculations based on some of the plant material in the plant palette. He asked the applicant if anybody had done any preliminary water calcs. Mr. Valli stated that Land Perspective is the landscape architect but didn't say if they did any preliminary water calcs. Commissioner Lopez commented that using ocotillo in a commercial area tend to get "beat up". The mesquite trees are too close to the buildings and parking lots. There are other more standard trees that might work better for parking lot shade trees. Cobble in commercial areas tend to get kicked into the sidewalks and into the streets. The decomposed granite is a lot more effective. Mr. Valli stated that they've gotten a lot of compliments on the Sure Save Self Storage on Country Club with the cobbled, dry river look. Commissioner Lopez commented that it looks great but it's more maintenance. It catches trash and it gets buried in blow sand. Ms. Hollinger submitted notes on the landscape plan. Commissioner Hanson commented that they should pick a darker color for the main part of the building. It'll come out much lighter in the sun. Commissioner Lambell stated that they're calling out storefront glass, vision glass and spandrel glass and asked for clarification. Mr. Valli stated that the storefront glass is in the office area so you can see into the office and is lightly reflective. Mr. Valli stated that it's a retail-type of use so you have to be able to see inside. It'll be lightly reflective. Commissioner Lambell commented that the commission doesn't like reflective glass very much. Mr. Valli stated that it'll be about 5% reflectivity. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it'll be lightly tinted and it won't be mirrored. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 10 sāœ“ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a community center facility. Jewish Community Center LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that a site plan was included in the commissioner's packets. The site is north of Desert Willow. To the west there are single-family homes with some already built and some to come. Along Portola to south there are homes that side onto Portola. There's no access from Portola. Access is from Shepard Lane. The applicant brought a model for the commission to review. Mr. Drell asked if the model was accurate. Ron Goldman, architect, was present and stated that it's accurate in footprint but it's not up-to-date in form. Mr. Drell stated that they went through a conditional use permit process 5-6 years ago so technically the adjacent property owners had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Goldman stated that in the first phase they were trying to develop a few walls that would make more of a statement with a curved wall to tie the two buildings together. The trellis is not part of the first phase. If budget allows, they would like to put it in during the second phase. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Goldman about his design philosophy for the project. Mr. Goldman stated that basically he's designed a 95,000 square foot complex. For many reasons, they didn't want to create this in a larger building mass so they split the buildings into three neighborhoods or villages. The one up against Portola is the recreational neighborhood. There are Jewish Federation offices on the north end. The rest is fitness, gymnasium and pool facilities around an active courtyard. There is a cultural neighborhood in the center, which is really a series of meeting rooms, a library, a holocaust exhibit area GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR040824.MIN I I 114 āœ“ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES and in the front corner is the Jewish Family Services building. On the westerly side is the educational neighborhood which includes a pre- school and, in the second phase, the possibility of a day school up through the sixth grade. At this point, they're more focused on the pre- school. In terms of the design philosophy, besides splitting this up into three neighborhoods, they are concerned about dissolving or integrating the site with the architecture. In terms of the forms of the buildings, courtyards, screen walls and the parking lot, we envision this to ultimately be as much of a park-like setting as possible. We want it to be warm and inviting, not walking into a big lobby into a large building but an entrance with a water feature or just a damp cobble stream that leads you up into a trellis area through a gate. Your first view is across the field and up into the San Jacinto Mountains. If a person is bicycling or walking to the site, they would have that experience as a pedestrian. There's a series of outdoor playgrounds, active/passive areas and a second-floor courtyard in the center building. It's our intent that the three entrances to the complex in the future to each of the three neighborhoods would have art pieces and decorative entrances. We're struggling in a number of ways with the parking lot. Mr. Goldman introduced Alan Thugman, Executive Director of the Federation and Jim Horowitz, Head of the Building Committee who were both present. Mr. Goldman stated that in terms of one of the first experiences when you come up, besides the corner experience, is something that makes the complex feel that if I'm a five-year-old, the scale of the building should be inviting. The experience would be inviting. It would be a campus that I would enjoy experiencing. The color, materials and the artistic accents will be inviting. There is a curved wall that shows up on the second phase elevations and a mural. We've had a number of thoughts on the parking lot in terms of lighting and landscaping. We didn't want a landscape that was regimented. The landscape is an S- shape of trees and in between are clusters of other trees. They're trying to make the parking lot and making it into something that's more park-like. There are some wall fragments in the parking lot and gateways which take the architecture out into the parking lot and tie the two together. We looked at different ways to light it to try and get away from the tall poles or just a sea of intermediate poles. We looked at the possibility of moonlighting but this requires mature trees throughout from the outset so we decided to use part of that. We looked at indirect lighting and the possibility of using indirect lighting throughout and making it more park-like. You can get lighting that has very little glare to something that has a little more glare. We decided to use it in such G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 12 ā€¢ `VAW *00, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES a way that it would face toward Shepard Lane and away from any of the housing. We took a look at sign pile-ons and lighting those pile-ons and creating a Stonehenge sea of pile-ons. We decided that this was maybe too much but it was an interesting thought and we incorporated some of that into what we're going to propose. We even looked at cable lighting and decided between the Fire Department and winds that there was a certain issue and maybe it had too much of an urban character. What we ended up with was the moonlighting concept and the indirect lights and little wall-mounted lights on the top of the low walls. We'd like to mix up the plant types in the parking to create as much of a non-structured look as possible so that the parking lot is turned into less of a rigid statement. We struggled with the colors on the building and have basically proposed a palette which is a warmer palette. I feel that accent colors will be more fun and more pronounced with an earthy background. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is not necessarily true. You have to do the study and make up your own mind. The major green that's being proposed is a little bit too "army green". You need to pick something that's a little bit more in the sage range so that it has a little bit of blue in it. Ultimately, you have to come to the commission with a color board. Mr. Goldman stated that when he drives around the community he sees a lot of different shades of beige. Somehow, if it is to end up being beige, the accent colors will make it stand out. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Goldman about the very long orange wall with one arch in it. In your presentation to us, you talked about how you wanted a building where whether you were a small child or an adult, as you walked in you felt comfortable. That is not a comfortable wall. It might be borderline interesting architecturally, but I don't that this is a comfortable wall. I think that it contradicts what you said that you were trying to accomplish. Mr. Goldman stated that what he's trying to accomplish with the wall is to say that this is more of a landscape or hard element that's not the side of the building and I'm not walking between two buildings. I'd rather walk between two walls that screens a biblical garden that's inside. Between those three elements, I'd like to walk between walls rather than walk between buildings. Can that wall be a different shape, a different color or a different material? Commissioner Hanson commented that a stone wall seems like it would be appropriate in that it echos history. As it stands with it being a peach wall with a big arch in it, it doesn't make sense. Mr. Drell asked if there's any stone in any other part of the project. Mr. Goldman stated that there is some stone in the second phase. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez stated that there's a nice water feature with parking right behind it. He wondered if people would be able to see cars and trucks behind that element. It would spoil it to have cars right behind it. Mr. Goldman stated that the wall tapers from 4' up to 8'-9' to screen the parking fairly successfully. Mr. Drell commented that a 4' wall won't screen cars. You won't be able to screen them until you get to 5'-6'. Mr. Goldman commented that he doesn't have a problem starting the wall higher. Commissioner Hanson asked if the commission is being asked for preliminary approval of both phases. Mr. Drell commented that he thought that they're being asked for approval of both phases, but they're also approving phase one independently enough because that might be all that we end up with. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't have a lot of issues with phase one other than the one wall that she doesn't particularly like. I would like the opportunity to spend some more time reviewing it and make comments at the next meeting. It's very complicated that there are a lot of different buildings that interact with each other in a complicated way. Understanding how the phasing is going to work is important. If all we're going to see is phase one for ten years, I want to understand what that's going to look like by itself and then I want to be able to see how it all ties together. I haven't had enough time to review all of the plans. Commissioner Lopez commented that he noticed walls and gates around the proposed basketball courts. Will the general community be able to use the basketball courts and playing fields on the weekends or is it going to be gated off so that nobody can use it? There are ways to gate and secure the rest of the area and allow the people in that area to use the sports facilities. Mr. Goldman stated that the membership in this campus is open to the entire community. Commissioner Lopez commented that it would be nice to have a place to play basketball instead in front of someone's house. In looking at the drop-off and pick-up areas it seems like there are always cars stacked and kids waiting. I think that it's very important to look at where the kids might be waiting to be picked up. It doesn't look inviting where someone would be waiting. Mr. Goldman stated that there's an extra wide sidewalk in the waiting area and a couple hundred feet where cars can stack. It's single loaded so that the children would be waiting immediately outside the gate to school and on the sidewalk. Commissioner Lopez commented that the elements in the parking lot look fun and interesting. In landscaping, I'm always seeing people putting in oleander or bush bougainvillea that grow so high that when G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\ARD40824.MIN 14 lkwo **Aor ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES you're backing out and people are coming in, they could become obstructions. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that overall, it's really an exciting project and I love the fact that there are so many unexpected things that pop up and yet it all seems to work together. It's going to be wonderful. I agree that it's a lot for us to grasp and we want to make sure that we have it right. Mr. Goldman commented that he will get the final colors to the commissioners before their next meeting. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he wanted to make sure that the mechanical equipment on the roof would be designed so that it would be screened. The elevations show that there is some mechanical equipment that's above the parapets. Mr. Goldman commented that about half of the units would be covered within a well or within a parapet and about half of them would need a screen. When a building tends to be rectangular, we like to use that as another form. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was tight on parking. Mr. Goldman stated that they have 307 spaces. If everything were used simultaneously, which it wouldn't be, we would need 500 spaces. This would be if the multi-purpose room, gym, etc... were all used at the same time. What we did on the plans is outline two typical daytime, evening and weekend use and what would be in play typically. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to the meeting of September 14, 2004 to allow the applicant to return with a larger version of Phase 1 including roof plans, site plan, materials/colors, all four sides of the buildings, as well as how it relates to Phase 2. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for comments on revisions to a new office building. LOCATION: 42-277 Portola G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting the commissioners requested that the applicant come up with something that would be more residential in scale. Revised plans were submitted and distributed to the commissioners for their review. Micah Combs, representative for Chris McFadden, was present to answer questions. He commented that the revised plans reflect a 15% height reduction. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a square footage change or any other change. Mr. Combs commented that the roof changed a little bit. Mr. Drell stated that the eave lines are at 18'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the overall height of the building was reduced by 3' or just certain sections. Mr. Combs stated that certain sections of the building were reduced by 3', but the rest remains the same height as the previous proposal. Mr. Smith stated that the top of the ridge on the previous proposal was 25' and now it's shown at 22'. Commissioner Lopez commented that he always thought that the building looked great but doesn't feel that it belongs in this particular neighborhood. There are just a couple little problems with the landscaping, but the building doesn't belong in this part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hanson stated that she thought that it was an attractive building, but to catagorize it as residentially scaled is not accurate for this particular neighborhood. I don't think that the solution of just sinking it 3' changes the fact that it makes it more residential or not. Mr. Combs asked for clarification on what Commissioner Hanson is recommending. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not recommending anything but she saying that given this particular solution, it's not residentially scaled from the standpoint of our last meeting when we talked about it needing to be one story. I don't think that dropping the building by 3' meets that requirement. I like the building, but not for that lot with the parameters that the commission was given in order to approve it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he recalled from the last meeting, the commission was specifically asked if this was of a residential scale. This was the question. The answer at that time was "no" and I don't really see that it looks any different. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Jeanne Martin, resident, was present and stated that her property is just to the west of this project and her backyard would face their parking lot. This building is not appropriate for a residential area. Mr. Drell stated that there are people who build one-story office buildings, but it's a matter of how much the applicant is paying for the land. Now he's going to have to go back to the property owner and re- negotiate the price so that it makes sense financially. Ms. Martin commented that the property has closed escrow. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to refer the request to the City Council with a recommendation for denial because the proposal doesn't meet the requirement for residential scale, as identified in the general plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 17