Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-13 N✓ CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 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 11 2 Kristi Hanson X 11 2 Chris Van Vliet X 10 3 John Vuksic X 12 1 Ray Lopez X 12 1 Karen Oppenheim X 13 Karel Lambell X 7 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: JUNE 22, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of June 22, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ``01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DENNY'S RESTAURANT, 72-950 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint colors and signage. LOCATION: 72-950 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 This item was continued at the request of the applicant prior to the meeting. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) PAUL MYERS, CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC., 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2400, Seattle, WA 98101-2343 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:Approval of storefront remodel and business signage. Cole Haan LOCATION: 73-515 El Paseo, The Gardens ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for Visitor's Center building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 2 i*1001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY13, 2004 LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Entrada El Paseo) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 4. 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 signage. LOCATION: 72-815 Highway 111, Palms to Pines Central, 990 STORE ZONE: PC3 Mr. Bagato stated that originally the applicant came in with 9' high letters and staff recommended that they use reverse channel letters. The commission felt that the letters were too big and the sign was approved with 5' high letters with internal illumination. The applicant has returned because they want 7' high reverse channel letters that are not internally illuminated. This complies with the square footage limit and is under by 11 square feet. Commissioner Hanson asked about the height of the letters of the Barnes and Noble store at Westfield Shoppingtown. Mr. Bagato stated that they're 5' in height. Mr. Smith asked if someone was present to represent the applicant. Bill Henigsman identified himself as the representative for T & T Electric Sign Company. The idea is to get as large a letter as possible, but they're willing to work with the City in regards to the illumination. Mr. Drell stated that if there's an issue with the proposal, then it's a proportion issue. Mr. Smith asked how much border is on the top and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR040713.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY13, 2004 bottom of the number "9". Mr. Henigsman stated that he couldn't answer that. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the material for the background and wondered if it was tile. Mr. Henigsman stated that he wasn't sure but it could be some kind of tile. Mr. Drell commented that the tile background could get bigger. Commissioner Hanson stated that the 5' letters on Barnes & Noble are huge, but agreed that with the area that the applicant has to put the sign on it sort of gets lost there. The 5' letters on the 990 Store facade look too small and agreed that the 7' letters are acceptable. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to signage being halo-lit with 4,500 maximum white neon. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-89 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE ELRO SIGN COMPANY, 400 West Walnut Street, Gardena, CA 90248 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage for the UPS Store. LOCATION: 41-905 Boardwalk ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this building has a sign program that consists of gold non-illuminated letters. The proposed signage includes non- illuminated white letters with their logo. The sign is too big in proportion to the elevation. The applicant reduced the signage by 6" and it still looks too big. This sign also had to come to the commission because the color of their corporate logo doesn't match the rest of the center. It's recommended that the sign be reduced to make it look more proportionate to the facade. The logo is 3'4" and the capital letters are 24" and the small letters are 18". Commissioner Van Vliet asked if all the other signs on the building use gold letters. Mr. Bagato stated that they are all bronze foam. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 2004 Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be possible to take the logo and move it to the side instead of being on top. John McCann, representative for the Elro Sign Company, was present and stated that they could reduce the entire sign and keep it in proportion. The shield is part of the UPS store logo. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that it would look better if the logo was on the side instead of above the letters. Commissioner Hanson commented that 18" letters would look a lot better and the shield should be reduced proportionately. Mr. McCann showed the commissioners photos of signs that he's done for this business in La Quinta and Rancho Mirage. Commissioner Lambell asked why the letters are white and not bronze. Mr. McCann stated that the franchise has two colors, red and white. Mr. Drell stated that red letters would probably show up better. Commissioner Lambell stated that white letters would be more in keeping with the rest of the center. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) reducing the letters to 18" in height, (2) reducing logo proportionately, and (3) letters approved as either red or white non-illuminated. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic 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: Final 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 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY13, 2004 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 04-38 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOB SIPOVAC, 72-651 Theodora Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of remodel in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement program. LOCATION: 73-725 El Paseo, The Firecliff Restaurant ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is proposing a remodel of the exterior of the former El Paseo Grill in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. Bob Sipovac, applicant, was present and stated that they're proposing to eliminate the greenhouse glass and open up the restaurant's facade. They would also like to get rid of the awning and the brick columns. There are some colors changes and would like to add french doors in the front so that they can have some outdoor patio seating. They would like to add palm trees in the front to be consistent with this area of El Paseo. Commissioner Hanson asked if the wall in the front was going to be plaster instead of brick. Mr. Sipovac stated that the existing brick wall will be painted so that you'll be able to see the brick lines. Mr. Bagato stated that they haven't submitted a sign application but the sign on the plans could be commented on. Mr. Sipovac stated that the signage will be brass with lighting behind it. Commissioner Hanson asked for a color board. Mr. Sipovac gave the color samples to the commission for review. Commissioner Hanson commented that the colors are fine. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: C 04-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FKC PALM DESERT, LLC., 151 N. Kramer Blvd., Suite 120, Placentia, CA 92870 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a one-story 6,720 square foot retail shell building. Starbuck's & Panda Express LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street, Plaza de Hacienda (Albertson's Center) ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed building will be on an existing pad on Washington at the Albertson's shopping center, adjacent to the First Bank area. This is a new retail shell building, which will match the existing architecture of the center. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was enough shade for this type of building. Mr. Bagato stated that it doesn't meet the 1:3 trees in the parking lot. This approval is for architecture only. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the glass has a green tint to it. A color board was circulated for the commission to review. Mr. Everett Martinez, Martinez-Kuch Architects was present representing FKC Palm Desert, LLC, stated that they'll probably use some sort of clear non-reflective glass. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if all the AC equipment would be mounted on the roof. Mr. Martinez stated that it would be roof mounted and screened by the parapet. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 7 ' `err►" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson asked if the corners on the second level go back. Mr. Martinez commented that right now they just go up and he shares her concern. They're going to have to return them or else it's going to look post-modern. This might be a good place to put the roof- mounted equipment. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's absolutely imperative that the corners have to come back and around and then have some sort of opening in them. There will be points where somebody could see the back side of them. Mr. Martinez stated that they normally put a door on them for a screen. Commissioner Hanson stated that this would be okay and asked about the roof access. Mr. Martinez stated that it will be located inside the building with no ladders on the outside. A separate room will be created for the roof access. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture only subject to returning parapet back. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 2. 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 revised elevations for a new 19,867 square foot building. LOCATION: 74-780 42"d Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the revised elevations were faxed to him and he was concerned about the amount of stone and thought that it was overdone and the window proportionately doesn't work on this element because it looks too thin on the sides. The elevation does look a lot better than it did originally. The 42nd Avenue elevation is the last part of the building that they've been working on. Mario Lafountaine, representative for Glasstone, was present and stated that they were trying to bring some of the continuity from the front elevation to the side. In trying to achieve that he felt that the stone could actually be taken down to a wainscot along the street elevation and possibly bring the window in on the curved element to match the G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES door below. They tried to address all of the concerns of the ARC from the last meeting. Commissioner Hanson drew a rendering with some changes to the proposal. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval subject to changes on drawing submitted by the commission, which includes reducing the amount of stonework on the 42nd Avenue elevation. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 3. 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 approval of a 14,115 square foot office building. LOCATION: 42-277 Portola ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the property is currently zoned residential. In the General Plan update, the Council dual designated the site to medium density residential and office professional. Part of the office professional direction was for staff to come up with more residential- friendly architecture. Mr. Drell stated that they wanted to differentiate offices between Fred Waring and Portola, which is still essentially a residential area through this part of the City. They would like some sort of standards that have more residential scale and character than what you'd see on Fred Waring. Now that we have an application for a building on Portola this would be the appropriate opportunity to define and actually process along with this project some sort of an amendment to the OP zone provide alternate standards for the smaller streets. Does this project meet that expectation? Ultimately, the City Council will make that judgement but we're going to try to offer some suggestions in the form of an ordinance amendment to begin nailing that concept down. Mr. Smith stated that the site plan reflects the widened street right of way in that Public Works wants an extra six feet. What the site plan G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES does not depict is the 12' right turn deceleration lane from southbound Portola onto Catalina. This has been sketched in on the colored version. Mr. Smith commented that some residents were present wishing to speak. The applicant has held neighborhood meetings. It was suggested that the commission hear from the applicant first and then hear from the neighbors before giving any direction. Chris McFadden, applicant, stated that in the interest of time I don't mind pausing and responding to the objections from the neighbors. There have been numerous favorable reviews from neighbors. Those who are in favor of projects seldom show up to speak to that. Commissioner Hanson commented that the building looks great. Commissioner Gregory stated concern regarding the loss of landscaping for the eventual street widening. Mr. Smith stated that it may impact the setbacks. Mr. McFadden stated that he's met with Public Works numerous times and this is the first time he's heard of the 12' deceleration lane. I have no objection to it but would've illustrated it accordingly. Mr. Smith stated that he just found out this morning. Mr. Drell asked if the deceleration lane would be put off until the road widening or would it be put in now. Mr. Smith commented that it was his understanding that it's a condition of the project. The curb will be 12' closer to the building than is currently shown. Commissioner Lopez asked where the next closest commercial building is located. Mr. Drell stated that eventually there will be more and more office buildings on Portola. Mr. McFadden commented that he wouldn't mind going all the way to the City Council and then coming back to the Architectural Review Commission to go over the details on the building. This is zoning versus architecture. I'm presenting a project that has merit, but subject to the entitlement the project has no merit. Mr. Drell stated that the City Council has made a preliminary land use decision by designating the property as OP. That is not a discussion of this body. The direction was to come up with an alternate standard for OP that's a little bit more residential in character. This body can provide input into that issue. This building basically has been designed to meet the same standards as those on Fred Waring. This is a pretty aggressive commercial building. One would not describe it as more residential in scale than what we're seeing on Fred Waring. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2004 MINUTES Ming Lo, resident, stated that the City doesn't want traffic coming in and out of Portola. There's a projection of approximately 30 cars per hour coming in and out of that size of a building. This is a projection and I don't understand it. This office building has 59 parking places. If they're putting in a deceleration lane on Portola to turn onto Catalina, then Catalina is still a residential street. A deceleration lane is inviting commercial traffic to come in on what's still considered a residential street. The people next to me have a very nice house and have a good gardener. I don't think that they plan on selling it. The driveway to the building will be directly across the street from their driveway and mine. We're the most affected by the situation. I don't have any plans of selling this property. It's a rental but I have a lot of sentimental feelings towards it. I pay a gardener. I like the property and I'm not planning on selling it for office buildings. My feeling is that if this is going to be commercial, I've seen some buildings around town (i.e. Always Open MRI, dentist offices, etc...) that are nice and low key, which would be acceptable in the neighborhood. Putting a turning lane which turns onto a residential street doesn't make sense. There's a school at one end of Portola and a school at the other end of Portola. There are a lot of children going back and forth. There's a crosswalk lady on the corner. It's not Fred Waring. It's not Monterey. It's a beautiful rendering but it's way too much for this neighborhood. I've talked to other people who live in the neighborhood who aren't here and haven't found anyone who's anxious to sell their property and turn them into office buildings. All the buildings behind him will never be commercial. It's a residential area. It's a neighborhood that we're used to. This is far too much. This building would look nice on Fred Waring or Monterey. Commissioner Gregory made it clear to the audience the this commission is not concerned with zoning. This will be addressed at the Planning Commission. The ARC looks at architecture and how it looks. Ramona Fletcher, resident, stated that she sat in on a general plan meeting. Mr. Drell was there so he knows the multiple reasons for leaving this area residential. Mr. Drell commented that this was not the decision. Ms. Fletcher stated that it is on the plan to be residential. Mr. Drell stated that the plan approved by the City Council was for office professional and medium density residential. Ms. Fletcher stated that she's been through this year after year after year with multiple meetings. It was finally decided on the general plan and other things that this would remain residential. Number two, there were supposed to be notifications. We have a four foot easement that's been granted for utilities. Our patios are right next to the easement. Our dining room doors are within 15'-20' from Mr. McFadden's property line. No one every notified us that this was going on, except for Mr. McFadden and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 1 1 `0` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES he didn't notify us, he notified the people who were along the western edge. Mr. Drell stated that this is not a public hearing so we never notify this meeting. When Mr. McFadden's project goes to the Planning Commission, which will be a public hearing, that's when the neighbors will get notices. The ARC is making a decision purely on architectural design. The land use decision and the broader decisions are going to happen at the Planning Commission and the City Council. This is the way the process is set up. We're not making a decision on those fundamental issues that you're concerned about. That will happen at a later date. Ms. Fletcher asked if scale was an issue. Mr. Drell stated that scale is something that can be discussed at this meeting. Ms. Fletcher stated that there will be trash cans sitting within 8' of her patio and 12' from her dining room doors. Commissioner Gregory explained that the way the system is set up projects come to the ARC first whether or not they're going to be approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. The ARC looks at how the building looks, how it makes them feel or if it is residential in character. The applicant has already suggested that instead of taking this through a detailed process through the ARC, why not just leap-frog to Planning Commission to see if he has a project or not. This makes sense. The ARC looks at the project from an aesthetic perspective and that's it. Paul Bowie, resident, stated that he owns the property at 44-401 Portola. Based on what this meeting is about today and based on the comments that have been made, the beauty and the aesthetics and the appropriateness of this building is simply out of place. This does not fit the neighborhood or the community. This would be a commercial island in a residential area of historical nature. Maybe the City Council will want to have something like this, but this belongs someplace else in a commercial corridor such as Fred Waring or someplace else. If there is to be business on Portola Avenue, this proposal is completely beyond magnitude and inappropriate. The community area around Portola is single-family residential and single story. Mr. McFadden stated that this is not correct. Mr. Bowie stated that it's not apartment building zoning, nor do they have apartment buildings in the area. This is totally wrong. This proposal looks like a huge apartment building. It doesn't belong there. Commissioner Gregory commented that he felt that the commission thought that the building looks nice, but it's not residential in character. This should be moved forward right to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell commented that it should be taken straight to the City Council since that's where the residential scale standard program originated. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 12 err+► `woo ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES Maybe the City Council will have a study session on this general concept. Mr. McFadden stated that the project has to have some economic viability so the property value has deteriorated from the amount of buildable area. I don't mind going to a combination of two story and single story, however, now I'm limited to OP. Everybody is worried about getting an MRI office or a dentist office, but that's not the case. This is an OP zone. As the square footage comes down, I've got to get my rents up and where am I going to go to justify that? I could go to medical because I have ample parking to accommodate medical use. This all needs to be worked through. Mr. Drell stated that the Council likes to see changes associated with zone changes. Due to the complication of the direction that we've gotten to the general plan, it would probably be a good idea for us to get direction from them in response to this project of what they meant when they said "residential in character". Ms. Fletcher asked if the neighbors would be notified of the Council meeting. Mr. Drell stated that they could do a standard public hearing notification of the study session. Mr. Bowie stated that his comments probably go beyond what this meeting is all about today, but Mr. McFadden, I object to your attitude. You belong out there in a commercial corridor. This is a residential area. Commissioner Lopez commented on a portion of the parking lot that looked like it was a place where people might hang out. Have any site line studies been done showing how this proposal might effect the neighbors as far as views? Mr. McFadden stated that he's been to the homes in the area and studied the site. Mr. Drell stated that this isn't the first office building that's been built next to a residential area. We've been doing it all over the place. In general, the result has been favorably received by the adjacent residences. The result has been a much quieter residential neighborhood. In fact, the biggest complaint on Fred Waring is when the houses were removed, suddenly the noise being generated by traffic without a building in front of you turned out to be the significant problem. Ms. Fletcher asked if there would be any covered parking. Mr. McFadden stated that there will be covered parking along the back side. Ms. Fletcher asked if there would be a 6' wall. Mr. McFadden GRanning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES commented that if the neighbors request a 7' wall across the back, then the commission would consider granting that. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request and referred it to the City Council for review as part of the zone change request. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GLASS BLOCK PRODUCTS, INC., Maryann Ahlgren, 68-816 Summit Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new industrial building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI This item was continued at the request of the applicant prior to the meeting. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC KLEINER, 2171 India Street, # Q, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 2,100 square foot office building and an 11,500 square foot warehouse. Intertile, Natural Stone Surfaces. LOCATION: 74-842 42nd Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this is right next door to the Glasstone project, which was just given preliminary approval. There's an existing modular unit on the property with landscaping. The rear building is metal and the front building is stucco with some stone elements. Intertile is a stone company so they're trying to create a variety of examples of ways to use their stone throughout the project. Eric Kleiner, principal of XA Architecture Company, was present and handed out renderings to the commissioners showing the elevation G:PIanning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 14 1400, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES from 42"d Street. They've made some substantial changes to the design. They wanted to tie the whole project together a little better. He's had several meetings with the planning staff and they've talked about screening issues and decided to tie both of the buildings together architecturally and enhance the buildings overall appearance. He added screens to the front elevation. The large building is a combination of showroom and storage of stone and the applicant prefers that the building be open. If screening becomes an issue, then they are proposing to use a perforated-type screen metal with a matte finish. You won't be able to see into the building from the street. The front building is for offices, support facility and a small showroom. The columns of the metal building will be planted with strong desert vines. The client wants to have a strong desert feel. Commissioner Hanson asked about the trellises. Mr. Kleiner stated that the trellis ties around the back building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the one thing that the commission looks for in a project like this is that it has a look of permanence about it. The steel building itself is not quite where they need it to be in order for it to be an approved project. It looks like a steel building and they haven't done enough to make it not look like a steel building. They have three different things going on. They have a little sales building that doesn't relate to the steel building and trellises that don't relate to either one of them very well. It all needs to tie together. Concern was stated about having a bunch of different materials on the outside of the building. They should choose their materials well and use them in a way that makes sense so that it doesn't look "hodge podge". Commissioner Hanson stated that she wouldn't approve this proposal at this point. Mr. Kleiner clarified that the front of the building will have one uniform piece of stone. Commissioner Hanson stated that she had misunderstood him. Mr. Kleiner commented that he personally felt that the trellis work with vining that wraps around the building is going to be very attractive. This is an industrial zone with garbage behind the site and junkyards to the side of them and a service yard across the street. What they need is a functional building and they're trying to do the best they can with the functional building to make the architecture work. This is an industrial-landscape-nursery-type of architecture. This isn't a class A office building. There's not a lot of windows. They need 18' doors because they have lifts that carry 10,000 pounds of stone and the lifts have to go up and down so they need 18' for clearance for the doors. There are a lot of specific technical needs that they're trying to deal with. Commissioner Hanson stated that those specific technical needs can be met in a more aesthetically pleasing way. The problem is that they G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES have a metal building, a metal roof, a plaster front building with a stone base and then a wood trellis. Nothing is tying together. They have three separate elements and architecturally if you look at what the ARC has gone to with the Glasstone building and some of the other commercial buildings that have been approved in the City, they ask for architecture and this proposal is currently lacking architecture. They do need the two separate buildings that could be tied together much more cohesively than they currently are. Commissioner Gregory questioned the trellis structure and suggested that it be designed to be more conforming to the mass of the buildings. The proposed trellis seems very spindly. A trellis is a good idea but it could be used as a means to tie everything together because right now it doesn't. Mr. Kleiner commented that he was confused because that's what he thought that he was doing. The beams are pretty good size. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're creating a new building and covering it up with a trellis. Mr. Kleiner stated that they want a "garden feel". Commissioner Lopez stated that he agreed with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson. The architecture doesn't tie together and that's the problem. Mr. Drell commented that the buildings are very contemporary and the trellis is more rustic. Commissioner Hanson stated that the rear building is contemporary but the front building is a little bit contemporary and the trellis isn't contemporary at all. The front trellis covers up the middle building. The concepts can work, but they need to tie together better. Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant has taken on a very challenging project. This is not an easy project to design. What the commission is conveying is some sort of direction relative to their concerns. Eclectic won't work here because of the different masses and the different things that they're trying to achieve so if they had them tied together a little better it might really help. Mr. Kleiner stated that one comment that he's having trouble with is the metal building. He wanted to know if the commission wanted him to use a different material. It's an 18,000 square foot utility building in an industrial zone surrounded by a lot of properties that wouldn't live up to these standards. Mr. Drell commented that metal buildings can be very interesting. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could take elements of the metal building and tie it into the little building and instead of doing a wood trellis, maybe it could be a metal trellis. She suggested having certain elements of the back side of the metal G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES building being open. There are things that can be done that aren't expensive that would make it look interesting. Commissioner Gregory commented that the commission is not "anti-metal building". Mr. Drell stated that maybe it should look more like one building with some continuity. It looks too much like a little building in front of a little building. Mr. Kleiner commented that he thought that being in the industrial zone and being a project where they need an industrial scale building that's very functional and utilitarian, that they thought that they may get the project where the ARC wants it to be. He commented that he was hearing that they want to tie the whole thing together and to make a more formalized statement like it's not a utilitarian building. You don't like industrial architecture. The commission disagreed. Commissioner Hanson stated that well done architecture is good. It has to have an edge to it. Mr. Drell stated that how the pieces fit together is the issue. The applicant will be given feedback in the interim if he can offer some idea of how he can do this. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show architecture that ties together. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEBRAC INC., c/o David Carden, 5930 Lakeshore Drive, Cypress, CA 90630 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 6,280 square foot office/warehouse building. LOCATION: 77-621 Enfield Lane ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this property is one of the last vacant lots in the industrial park. Mr. Bagato stated that this is an industrial building. He showed the commission photos of some of the adjacent buildings, which are concrete tilt-up. There's only one portion of the building that has a second story, which is in the back. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\FAR040713.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 13, 2004 MINUTES Jack Jackson, applicant, was present and passed pictures around for the commission to review that showed how the curved edges would look. Commissioner Hanson suggested dropping the front down to add steps that step out as well as step back. It's not a very big building, but that would add some interest to it. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it needs more architecture. It looks like a box. He asked if the mechanical equipment would be located on the roof. Mr. Jackson stated that he didn't know but he would find out. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he should make sure that the top of the equipment does not exceed the top of the parapet. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval subject to adding steps to the roof portion of the building at 22', 26' and 30'. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-37 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): California State University San Bernadino, Palm Desert Campus, 37-500 Cook Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of landscape plan for theater at California State University, San Bernardino. LOCATION: 37-500 Cook Street ZONE: Mr. Smith stated that Commissioner Lopez has had an opportunity to review the landscape plans for theater building at Cal State University. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscape plans are being presented as a courtesy because the City of Palm Desert gave the land to Cal State and someone behind the scenes felt that it was only appropriate to ask the commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez suggested adding some mounding and plant material for additional screening. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 18 'err rr+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and deferred it to the Landscape Committee for review. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 19