Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-08 ". CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JUNE 8, 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 9 2 Kristi Hanson X 9 2 Chris Van Vliet X 9 2 John Vuksic X 11 Ray Lopez X 10 1 Karen Oppenheim X 11 Karel Lambell X 5 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 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 25, 2004 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of May 25, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-66 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC., 78-078 Country Club Drive, Suite 106, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage for JPL Bible Church. LOCATION: 72-745 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith commented that the applicant has returned with the proposal for the art portion of the sign for the JPL Bible Church. Kasandra Ahlgren, representative for Best Signs, was present. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she thought that the sign looks a lot better and looks less like a cinema sign. Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant if she was removing the Cinema III wording and adding the JPL Bible Church wording. Ms. Ahlgren stated that they intend to skin the sign with aluminum, which will be painted, and then add individual letters on top of it. The artwork is an example of what the congregation could agree on (on short notice) through the elders of the church. They're really looking for "true" artwork, but something with a desert feel. Commissioner Lopez stated that they seem to have two standards, one if it's a brand new sign and one for an existing sign. If this sign was being proposed as a new sign, the commission probably wouldn't accept it. However, since it's an existing sign the commission tends to look at it in a different way. Commissioner Van Wet stated that he has a problem with the proposal even though he knows that it's existing. The sign is too high. He asked the applicant how important signage is to the church. Ms. Ahlgren stated that it's extremely important because nobody knows that they're there. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the theater is hidden in the corner. Ms. Ahlgren stated that it's tucked in behind the restaurants in the front and then there's another building complex on the El Paseo side. The theater building doesn't have any frontage on any street. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the magnitude of the sign bothers him. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if there would be a way to ensure, over time, that the artwork will be consistent with what's approved or will it change. Ms. Ahlgren commented that the elders would like to see the artwork change so that it doesn't become stale and doesn't stimulate. That's what artwork is meant to do. It's meant to stimulate. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is not his point. His point is that as time goes by people might forget that an effort was made to have artwork that reflects a desert theme. For example, if there's a new board member and they say that they want to have something very different in terms of the artwork. Mr. Drell commented that the City doesn't regulate art. We're not approving the art. They can put up anything as long as it's not pornography or something offensive. We do regulate commercial speech. Anyone can put up a monument with art on it if it doesn't relate to the character of the business. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the sign "is what it is". Other than tearing it down and starting over, I don't see that it can be enhanced that much more. It could be torn down. Commissioner Lambell stated that she's been driving by the sign four times a day for the last two weeks. I think the proposal with the white sign with JPL Bible Church is fabulous. That really catches your eye. I'm not sure that the "Sunday Worship at 10:30" as you're driving 45 MPH down Highway 111 is that noticeable. Really what I see the most is the portion of the sign on the end that says JPL Bible Church. If I wanted to know more about it, then I would find the church and find out what time the services are. Are you trying to tell people that there's a bake sale on Saturday at 3 p.m. or are you trying to advertise the church? Ms. Ahlgren stated that they are trying to get across the point of what time the services are. Once the commission approves the sign, then we would come back with options for colors for the sign. It's something that we want to blend in, but still be noticeable. The white looks wonderful, but it is very stark. Commissioner Lambell commented that she's not disputing the color. I'm just talking about "attention gathering". The portion on the end is fine. Mr. Drell stated that it should look like they're using the whole sign or it would look like a temporary sign. Commissioner Lambell stated that they could take the sign down to that size. Ms. Ahlgren stated that if they try to take a portion of the sign down, they're going to have to take the whole unit down because of the way that it's been manufactured. Each 25' piece is a solid piece. Commissioner Lambell stated that she's suggesting that the end cap becomes the "JPL Bible Church", the center section G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES and left section will become the artwork sections, and not use JPL Bible Church at the top. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Drell about the maximum size of signage that would be allowed if they have to start from scratch. Mr. Drell stated that he's approved reader boards at 25 square feet. Theoretically, they're entitled 1:1 (one square foot of signage per every linear foot of frontage). However, this is a special case. The big question is that the sign is just too big, given the type of use. Commissioner Gregory commented that the commission is struggling so hard to try to make the sign a little more diminutive and it's still going to look like a theater marquee. Mr. Drell stated that the sign could be here for the next fifteen years if the church is successful. Making the revisions to the current sign will not be particularly cheap. The other problem is that the sign is a long way from the street. Even though the sign is big, it's not all that effective as a sign unless you're in the parking lot. If remodeling the sign is so expensive, has the applicant looked at what it would cost to start from scratch and maybe do a sign that was even more effective and not all that more expensive? Ms. Ahlgren stated that she's looked into that. Everything that they're doing is at cost for material. A lot of the work that's going to be done will be done by church members. That's how we're keeping our cost down. The only thing that Best Signs is going to do is to paint the material automotive grey in enamel that's needed for an exterior sign and some of the installation for the skinning of the sign. When it comes to building a new sign, that's not something that JPL members could do on their own. Commissioner Gregory commented that while being sympathetic to the cost, the commission has an opportunity to remove a very large element that was made for another use. Unfortunately, although there's more cost, the applicant could come up with a sign that would be much more appropriate for the church's needs and perhaps be more effective when viewed from the street as well. A lot of effort is going toward making this sign look better and work well, but it still doesn't really work that well. A more appropriate sign would be more effective. It would cost more, but it would be appropriate to have a properly designed sign and one that'll get more attention. Ms. Ahlgren stated that if they remove the existing sign, then they would only be allowed 25 square feet on a 50 square foot sign. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 4 w ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory commented that this would be open to some negotiation because it's so far away from the street. Commissioner Lopez commented that he really hadn't noticed the sign until this request came up. It is a little big, but he hasn't noticed it until now. If it was existing and the applicant came back with the right colors, it might be able to be approved. Commissioner Gregory suggested removing the top portion and incorporating "JPL" with the remainder of the sign. Ms. Ahlgren stated that she didn't know if the top portion could be easily removed. Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant if she has looked at another way to get their message across. Ms. Ahlgren stated that they considered putting signage on the building itself. The drawback to that is that it's so far back that you can't see it. Commissioner Lambell asked if they could come up with some other idea instead of the existing marquee sign. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval, subject to revised colors being submitted by the applicant. Motion failed 2-3-1-1 with Commissioners Gregory, Lambell and Van Vliet opposed, Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. Action: Commissioner Van Wet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for denial of the request and commented that (1) the mass of the sign is too big, (2) inappropriate use of the former theater marquee sign, (3) sign is too high, and (4) requested to create a more appropriate sign for the church. Motion carried 3-2-1-1 with Commissioners Lopez and Oppenheim opposed, Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): METROPLEX ONE, 45-445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised plans for two industrial buildings totaling 30,450 square feet. LOCATION: Technology Drive G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\FAR040608.MIN 5 Mw 1140 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALFREDO ALVIDREZ, 77-635 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of garage addition with 18' roof height. LOCATION: 77-635 Delaware Place ZONE: RE Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANDY DELANCEY, 73-850 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an18' high element on a single-family home. LOCATION: Desert Mirage Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES 5. 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 business signage for Sears. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Drell stated that the signage will have through-the-face channel letters. The proposed signage is significantly smaller than the sign that they had previously shown on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the other signs at Westfield were through-the-face. Mr. Drell stated that they're all through-the-face channel letters at the mall. It's a much better sign than their previous submittal. It's significantly smaller than the Robinson's May sign. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 31490 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3398 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of model units for 237 single-family lots. LOCATION: 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive, Northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has returned with revised plans for the commission to review. Jeff Shraeder, representative for Ponderosa Homes was present to address the commission. He commented that they've modified the plans based on the input by the commission at the meeting of May 11, 2004. They increased the thickness of the walls on the front elevations to 12", recessed the windows, modified the elevations with stone and also modified the massing elements and added stucco to the fascia. The only thing that they didn't do was show chimneys. The fireplaces are all gas and they use a B-vent, which will be painted to match the roof tile so it won't be noticeable. All of the vents are in the rear of the building and can't be seen from the street. Depending on the roofs, you probably wouldn't see a chimney from the street either. He commented that they do have a fireplace in the courtyard on some of their homes and they do have chimneys. Mike Penrose, representative for JBZ Architects, was present to discuss the modifications. On the A elevation, the eave detail was changed. They were all stucco before. There was no exposed wood. The overhang has been lengthened and goes all the way around the building. Detail was added around the entry doors. The windows have been recessed all the way around the building. On the B elevation, Plan 1, awning-type shutters have been added. The C elevation has been changed completely. They added stonework, shutters and increased the overhang. On Plan 2, they added entry structures on all the elevations. Each one has a wrought iron gate. This helps with the massing on the front and adds an actual entry that can be seen from the street. On Plan 3, an entry gate and low wall were added to confine the courtyard. Commissioner Gregory asked about the inset on the windows. Mr. Penrose stated that the front walls are 12" thick so the recess will be 8" deep. All the other exterior windows will have at least 2" recess. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the fascia actually works because it looks like a wood fascia. Mr. Penrose drew a sketch of the detail. There is no exposed wood and will all be stucco. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the color. Mr. Penrose commented that he didn't choose the colors or select the color breaks. The fascia color would be cut at the inside in a contrasting color. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the reason why the commission suggested a stucco fascia is because they wanted something that looked richer and more substantial than a 2 x 6 fascia nailed on to the end of the rafter tails. You would be looking up at a narrow fascia and exposed rafter tails behind it. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 8 "M ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Gregory commented that if exposed wood on production homes can be avoided, it's probably better. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that on Plan 1 the single garage door could be moved to the right about 12" so that instead of having spindly pieces of plaster columns, you would have one thicker one on the end and the garage door would be right up against the building mass. Mr. Penrose commented that the only drawback would be that it might be a little bit more difficult to drive a car into the garage. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the lintel detail. Mr. Penrose stated that they will all be stucco and painted a contrasting color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations look nice. Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant did a great job on the revisions. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS BRATTY, 1920 Main Street, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center. LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: Chuck Landa, architect, was present to comment on Lowe's. This particular building on the inside is a Lowe's prototype. They've thrown away the outside prototype architecture and tried to come up with something that was different. We haven't done anything like this on a Lowe's building before. What we're trying to do is make it simple and not look contrived. The doors are setback about 4' into the building and they added a canopy to get more shade and shelter on the entries. The building is designed as a tilt-up building but it was also conceived where the same thing could be done in split-face masonry. They're going to use form liners to put texture on all the walls. It could also be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES a combination of tilt-up and block. There are a lot of ins and outs on the building. The sidewalk is narrow along the front of the building. Normally, the Garden Center isn't along the street, but in this particular case it is so we've gone to some lengths to decorate the fence so that it looks more architectural. The loading dock is about 300' off the street so it won't be "jumping right out" at people as they go by. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was having a little trouble following the roof and elevation plans. He asked about the forms on the Gerald Ford side of the building and where they are on the roof plan so that he could see what's happening in terms of ins and outs. Mr. Landa stated that the roofs on the Garden Center are setback from the fence 10'-20'. On the roof plan, they left out the fence and the forms are part of the fence. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the tan and blue forms come out. Mr. Landa commented that they come out about 16"-18". They would be masonry with a stucco finish. The shallowest ones have to be about 2' deep in order to work structurally because they're basically cantilevered out of the ground. There's nothing behind the structure. The fence would be made of tubular steel. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the adjacent property. Mr. Drell stated that there will be apartments (Sares-Regis) on the east side of Lowe's which will be about 4'-5' lower. The landscape plan shows a line of trees along the property line. We've talked about getting Lowe's and Sares-Regis together to landscape the property line in one effort. The apartments will be two story. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the back side of Lowe's is 27' tall, but it's really dwarfed by the parapets over the top of it. Mr. Landa stated that you'd have to be a long way away to see the back of the parapet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's not the intent of Lowe's to wrap the parapet all the way around. They intend to just do the front and the sides. Mr. Landa stated that the equipment will be behind the parapet wall. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that you might be able to see the equipment from a distance. He suggested wrapping the parapet all the way around. Mr. Landa stated that the units themselves are only about 3' tall and they'll be below the parapet line. Commissioner Gregory commented that the back would be visible by someone traveling west on Gerald Ford. Mr. Landa commented that he could do a site line study. If you're going to see it, you're only going to see a little bit of the top. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a problem wrapping the parapet around and making it look like a full element. Mr. Landa commented that they're going to be about 300' or 400' off the road. That's quite a distance across quite a lot of roof before you'd ever see this. Your site line is going to be 20' below the parapet. Mr. Drell commented that they have to prove why it G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES can't be seen. They also want a site line from the apartments. Mr. Landa stated that it wouldn't be a problem at all to do the study. Mr. Drell asked if it would be a big deal to wrap the back of the parapet around. Mr. Landa stated that it's more money. He suggested putting a grill in the back to enclose it so that they still get good air circulation. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned about the south elevation. It appears that there are cars parking directly adjacent to the fence. Mr. Landa stated that the buffers would be about 3' from the fence. Commissioner Gregory asked if they intended to add a straight curb with something behind it or would they use wheel stops. Mr. Landa stated that they typically use wheel stops. Commissioner Gregory commented that he would prefer seeing a planter of some type in that area to nestle the building in a little bit. Once you look through the parking lot trees, which are regularly spaced, that will be a very strong elevation. The front of the store needs to be accessible but the blank wall to the left of the main entry could be made to be more interesting. The south side has a lot of elevation with nothing to break it up. The forms are nice architecturally, but they have an opportunity to add a planter there and get some elements to help nestle it in. Mr. Landa stated that they might be able to add some planters in two small areas, but they have to maintain a pretty big opening in the middle because that's where all the deliveries come in for the Garden Center. Mr. Landa asked about the size of the planters. Commissioner Gregory commented that the planter on the east side varies from 8'-13', which is fine. The planter has to have substantial width so that it can actually work. It will give them the opportunity to plant a few vertical elements in places where it makes sense. This is not to hide the architecture because it looks good. The blank wall to the left of the entry needs to be worked on. Mr. Landa stated that sometimes they leave a blank area to emphasize the architecture. Commissioner Vuksic commented that some of the blank areas look better on the elevations than they really will because they have horizontal lines drawn through them, but basically they're a split-face type of texture. The texture is not strong enough to pull off the areas that he's talking about. The area to the left of the entry is too blank. The wall next to it with the palm trees has a big blank wall with a little door in it, which is going to look too plain. It serves as a canvas for the shadows of the trees, which is sort of a neat idea but it's got a little service door stuck in it. Mr. Landa stated that the fire code forces them to have a door every 100' because of the nature of the storage inside the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that then he needs to work with it and do something there. Where you've done stuff, it looks nice. The entry has huge forms and he'd like to see them carried back G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN I I lftw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES further. It looks very lopsided on the side elevations so they should go back at least twice as far as they are now. The north elevation has a lot of very blank-looking wall. There should be some plane changes at the stepped areas. They need to do more to this very blank wall. The horizontal lines are deceiving. They make it look better than it's really going to look. The River has very successfully dealt with some very large, blank walls by just having some nice patterning with different colors or textures of block veneer. Sometimes it's nice to have a blank wall as a relief from all the excitement that's going on in another area. There needs to be the right balance and they're not there yet. On the back, there's a lot of concern. Commissioner Lopez suggested texturing or color blocking the rear elevation. Mr. Landa stated that this is the delivery area and won't be seen. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's not asking that the back look like the front but the back has to look acceptable because you do see it from places other than the delivery people. Commissioner Lambell commented that the east elevation will be seen from the apartments. Mr. Landa stated that they've already put a lot of texture and variations on this wall that they normally wouldn't do. Mr. Drell suggested possibly just using paint. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't feel that paint would be enough, but it would help a lot. Try to find the line of acceptability. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the external roof drains on the back side. Mr. Landa stated that they use a basic conductor head into a basic down spout, which are 5" x 14". Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're substantial and there's a certain order to them. Commissioner Lambell asked about the location of the cart storage. Mr. Landa stated that there are a number of cart corrals throughout the parking lot. There's an area inside the store where the carts are brought in for the customers to access. The lumber carts are usually lined up in the aisles in the lumber department. Commissioner Vuksic asked about roof access. Mr. Landa stated that the access to the roof is inside the building. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request with the following comments: (1) wrap parapet around all sides of the roof-mounted equipment, (2) add planter area at south side of building (approximately 8' -13') in front of parking spaces instead of wheel stops, (3) carry forms back twice as far as shown on side elevations, (4) add changes in plane on the north elevation, which is very blank-looking, and (5) add architectural interest to east elevation, which will be visible from future apartment complex. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 12 • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM J. SCHILDGE, JR., P.O. Box 1017, Cardiff, CA 92007-7017 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of addition to existing office/commercial building. LOCATION: 73-722 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. 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" Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was before the commission at their last meeting. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has provided the new colors for the building. They added a copper seam roof. The applicant has agreed to recess the windows. Marlo La Fontaine, representative for Glasstone, was present and stated that the little awnings on the 42nd Street elevation are metal awnings that will come out in a trellis form. They would come out approximately one foot over the windows. The windows will be recessed approximately 8". The forms will provide some interest on the street side, which was one of the original concerns of providing something that was a little bit more attractive. The tensil structure comes up from the building approximately 15'. With that and the awnings both being done in the same color, it would be pretty attractive. They tensil structures modulate in and out considerably so that there's more site appeal. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that he wasn't sure that the applicant understood what he meant by "taking another pass at it". The intent wasn't to make it more expensive, it was just that there were some odd-looking forms and it didn't look like it was finished as far as the articulation of the forms. They don't have to spend any more money and they really don't need the copper roofs. It's not a matter of throwing money at it. The front elevation looks like it was maybe a first or second idea that was thrown down and it's not there yet. Mr. La Fontaine stated that he's not the designer. The designer is in Las Vegas at ACE Architectural Group. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's mainly concerned with the 42n' Avenue elevation. Mr. La Fontaine stated that this is an industrial zone and an industrial complex and he wanted comments on the side elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the left side of it, having the nine windows all perfect and even with the little eyebrows above them are a little odd. The form with the vaulted roof on it with the long windows with the little spaces of wall between them look odd. The eyebrow above the long windows looks odd. Mr. La Fontaine stated that these are somewhat subjective comments. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't hear him defending it architecturally. He suggested that his designer be present. Mr. La Fontaine stated that his defense becomes choice. If the owner says that he loves the building the way it looks, does this become an architectural issue or is a subjective issue of personal taste. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it becomes the opinion of someone who can't defend it architecturally and explain why they did what they did. He needs to have someone explain why it looks like that. Mr. La Fontaine asked if he would prefer that the windows were gone. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be too blank without the windows. Commissioner Lambell asked if a landscape plan was submitted. Ms. Hollinger stated that she's seen it, but it hasn't been approved. Commissioner Lambell asked if anyone knew what the landscaping would be on the street side. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they hate to rely on landscaping anyway. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's frustrating because the elevations are really close. They're just not finished articulating the ideas. Mr. La Fontaine asked if he likes the curved element. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't feel that the curved element was finished as well as the left side of the building. Maybe it's a matter of also breaking up the wall that's running across and hitting the curved element. Maybe that needs to stop and do something before it gets to the curved element. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 14 • `rrr • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the parapet height. Mr. La Fontaine stated that it's about 3'/2' . Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like it's a lot less than that. Mr. La Fontaine stated that there will be a flat truss in there which will probably be about 2'. There should be about 4' above the windows, which would give them about 2' of parapet. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there won't be enough room for the roof-mounted equipment. Mr. La Fontaine stated that the equipment would be pushed back substantially so there's no way that you could see it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he has to make sure that the equipment is below the top of the parapet, regardless of where it sits on the roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it sounds like the roof structure needs to be adjusted down. Mr. La Fontaine commented that the commission has told him what they don't like about the 42"d Street elevation, but he'd like to know what they'd like to see. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he'd like to see the designer have a crack at it. Mr. La Fontaine stated that he has and that's why he's back. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks like all he's done is put little band aids on it. Commissioner Gregory stated that what works better for applicants is if they have their designer present at the meetings. The elevations are so close and it could be so nice with so little effort and no additional money. He suggested that the designer fax the changes to the Planning Department and then they could be relayed to various commissioners. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the colors are okay. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if they want the copper roof. Mr. La Fontaine stated that they do want the copper roof. Commissioner Lambell asked about the material for the metal awnings. Mr. La Fontaine stated that they'll either be aluminum or steel, like a trellis-style awning so that it'll give you a post modern feel. This is a blend of Southwestern/post modern architecture. It has elements of both. Commissioner Vuksic asked for a building section that shows where the roof is in relation to the parapets. Commissioner Gregory suggested possibly making the pop-out go down to the ground on the 42nd Street elevation instead of floating up there with a cantilevered feeling. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's fine either way. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested increasing it in size because it seems small. Commissioner Gregory stated that it seems funny there. Sending a fax would help. Commissioner Van Vliet stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 15 r 7 • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES that the roof height is going to go up substantially which will effect what's going to happen. Commissioner Lambell asked if there was going to be a sign on the 42nd Street side. Mr. La Fontaine stated that they'll probably do a monument sign of some kind that would follow the City ordinance along the sidewalk area. He wouldn't want to use a wall sign. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscape plan is a wonderful conceptual plan, but it's not really what we're looking for here. Speak to Diane Hollinger to find out what needs to be submitted. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing (1) building section with regard to the parapet, (2) lowering the roof structure, (3) parapet height must screen roof- mounted equipment, (4) revise 42nd Avenue elevation. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 16