Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-09 � ` �: �; �����\ CITY OF PALM DESERT _- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • -' MINUTES MARCH 9, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** I. CAL� TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 Kristi Hanson X 5 Chris Van Vliet X 4 1 John Vuksic X 5 Ray Lopez X 5 Karen Oppenheim X 5 Note: Commissioner Hanson arrived at 12:45 p.m. 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: February 24, 2004 Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of February 24, 2004. The motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ' � 'w�r� �rr✓` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: C 04-03 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): KENNETH WILLIAMSON, 74-894 Lennon Place, F-2, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conversion of existing service station facility from a Chevron U.S.A. design/color scheme to a Shell U.S.A. design/color scheme. LOCATION: 77-920 Avenue of the States ZONE: P.C. Mr. Winklepleck distributed color photographs of the existing Chevron station and also pamphlets showing an example of the design and color scheme for the new Shell station. The colors for the Shell station are their national standard colors. Mr. Drell asked if the actual plans of how the building would be modified were available for review. Mr. Kenneth Williamson, applicant, was present and stated that the only modification is going to be the canopy, which will be made to look square. It'll be the same structure but with a taller fascia, which will be similar to the Shell station located at Highway 111 and Monterey. Mr. Drell stated that it would have to be a much taller fascia to completely eliminate the pitch. He suggested that the applicant bring in actual plans of how this idea gets translated into the existing structure, as opposed to the generic pictures that really don't necessarily show how it really works on the current facility. Mr. Williamson commented that the only reason why he's making this request is because Chevron has given him an ultimatum. If he doesn't either tear the building down and rebuild it as a new facility to their specifications, which was estimated at $650,000, they will cancel his supply contract. He has two choices. He can do what they're requesting or he will have to find another supplier. Shell has agreed to a 7-10 year supply contract. The end of the month is his deadline, but he can get an extension. Mr. Drell stated that Shell insists that he eliminate the existing canopy. Mr. Williamson stated that he has to use their design. Mr. Drell commented that the canopy is one of the more interesting canopies that we have in the City. Mr. Williamson stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 2 ' � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES that if it comes to the point where he's not allowed to change it then he has that option. There are facilities that he's seen with the gabled canopy. Mr. Drell stated that the existing canopy is interesting architecturally. Commissioner Gregory agreed that it's a good-looking structure. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed canopy is completely alien to the design of the building. Mr. Williamson stated that he could go back to Shell and see if he could keep the existing canopy and mod ify it. Commissioner Gregory commented that they would like to see plans so that they could see how high the canopy really would be. Mr. Drell stated that typically when people change their building, we like to see a better design, not an inferior design. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if they're going to change it, it needs to be either done in a way that it still works with the existing building or the existing building needs to change as well so that it's still a cohesive project. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with plans that show modification of existing canopy and architecture and incorporates the Shell design/color. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CAS E N O.: SA 04-25 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-905 Boardwalk, Suite U, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of royal blue awning. LOCATION: 41-945 Boardwalk, Sign-A-Rama ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is requesting a blue canvas awning, 66' 6" long on one side and 47' long on the other side and would project 2'6". There will be no signage on the awnings. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 3 . • �.�✓ �v�i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that his initial reaction is how long the canopy is. It really needs to be broken up into some sort of artful arrangement of canopies to break up the very plain, vertical canvas line that they are proposing. It looks extremely strip-like the way it's being proposed. Scott Pavloff, applicant, was present and stated that the building is west facing and northwest facing so they get a lot of sun. They first drew it with the awnings over the windows and it looked really chopped up. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they extend the awning about 3' further over the windows. Mr. Pavloff stated that the walls are approximately 12' long. The building was originally designed as two separate units and they're trying to make it look like one big unit. Commissioner Oppenheim asked the applicant if there was a reason why he chose the blue color. Mr. Pavloff stated that the awning that they have up in their current location is blue. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the bright color makes the awning look more pronounced. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the awning is becoming a strong architectural element, but it's not really an interesting or attractive element. The ARC would like to mitigate that and make it less intrusive. He suggested breaking up the awning and adding 2' to the ends of each awning. Commissioner �opez stated that the sun hits most on the west during the summer from that angle and 2' is the minimal amount that you would want. Mr. Pavloff commented that an additional 3' would be okay with him. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to breaking the awnings into three separate awnings with each extending 3' past the storefront. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SAE BUILDERS, 2052 Daffodil Way, Hemet, CA 92545 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 32' x 36' x 18' high detached garage to provide storage for an R.V. LOCATION: 72-905 Park View Drive ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040309.MIN 4 . • �wr'` `+rr�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to amend the request for case number SA 03-113 to include approval of exterior color change. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-113 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): QUIEL BROS. SIGN CO., 272 So. "I" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage and exterior color change for Paseo Del Rio's. LOCATION: 73-520 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 The commission was given color plans to review. Larry Quiel, representative for Quiel Bros. Sign Co. , was present and stated that he was asked to change the design of the sign at the customer's request because they changed their logo during the time that they had submitted for new permits. Everything has been hung up because of the color of the building. Mr. Drell stated that the original sign design did not have the backing. Without the backing you'd have a pinkish- purplish sign on a pinkish-purplish background. Commissioner Hanson asked if the pinkish-purplish exterior wall color is staying. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the ARC is looking at the sign when the building color has not been resolved. Mr. Drell stated that the ARC can make a decision that they feel is appropriate. Mr. Quiel commented that the original sign that was approved for this building was twice the size as the proposed sign. Mr. Drell stated that for whatever reason, Del Rio's or the owner of the building has not submitted the colors for review as he has requested. Therefore, this will probably be scheduled for Planning Commission for violation of their conditions of their permit which specifies that all significant exterior changes on the building were to be reviewed by the ARC. Typically, when we have a major violation we would not consider issuing G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R040309.MIN 5 . • `�rri% '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES additional permits. The ARC can make the determination that they can evaluate the acceptability of the sign given the indeterminate nature of the color of the building. The applicant can appeal to the City Council, if they choose to do so. Commissioner Vuksic stated that after looking at the old sign and the new sign, he likes the new sign. The old sign has red and purple in it and if you stick that on the new building the way it's painted today, it wouldn't look right. It's reasonable to say that given the undecided status of the color of the building it's hard to evaluate a sign. Mr. Quiel stated that currently they have a banner on the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she thinks that it's important that a sign be reviewed in its' context and since the context is uncertain at this point, she didn't see the point of reviewing the sign. Commissioner Gregory asked if the building was painted without getting approval by the City. Mr. Drell stated that they did not get approval. There's a new color ordinance for the City. This particular building had a condition placed on it as part of the original conditional use permit that any significant exterior changes would require ARC review. Their requirement relative to color review predates our specific ordinance. Our new ordinance doesn't apply since they painted the building before the ordinance was in effect, but the original conditional use permit required that they get approval for any significant exterior change. Commissioner Gregory asked if the color of the building would be reviewed soon. Mr. Drell stated that our only remedy is to either ignore the violation or to schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission with a violation of a condition of approval of the conditional use permit, which is rather significant. Therefore, we should initiate the process to revoke the permit. Our only remedy is to revoke the permit and basically say that they can't have a restaurant there unless they cooperate. All they have to do is come before the ARC with the color of the building. The request today for the sign is not a request for approval of the exterior color. Ignacio Del Rio, restaurant owner, was present and stated that he didn't think that he had to have permission to paint his building. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Del Rio has seen the conditional use permit that states that there's a condition on the permit that allows him to have a restaurant and it stated that any significant exterior changes require review. It's the commission's opinion that the color change is G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 6 ' � � `�` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES significant, which is not either good or bad. Mr. Del Rio stated that he's never seen the conditional use permit. Mr. Drell stated that the landlord has a copy and technically it's his responsibility. The restaurant will obviously be impacted if the conditional use permit is revoked. All the permit requires them to do is to have the ARC review the color change. In the absence of this commission being asked about the fundamental appearance of the building, makes it hard for them to evaluate how the sign relates to it. They go together. When colors of a building are quite dominant, they have more of an impact on how it relates to the color of a sign. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was another body that does review colors besides the ARC. He wondered if the EI Paseo MerchanYs Association reviews colors. Mr. Drell stated that the ARC reviews colors. The EI Paseo Merchant's Association may express their opinion, but they have no regulatory authority. Commissioner Gregory stated that assuming that the landlord was informed about the requirement about getting permission for approval on paint color prior to painting a building and did not tell his tenant, the tenant goes ahead and paints the building not realizing that there's a problem. Mr. Del Rio stated that he's never seen anything saying that he has to get permission to paint the building. The reason the sign has changed is because he was advised to make the restaurant related to EI Paseo. Not to brag about my last name, but his friends love his last name and someone came up with the name "Paseo Del Rio". He went back to the graphic artist and she came up with this sign. He added the word Paseo. He had a sign that was already approved and he came to the ARC trying to follow the rules. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Del Rio if there was intent to submit an application for the building color. Mr. Del Rio commented that he would be more than willing to submit an application. Mr. Drell stated that he can change the application right now and we can deal with it right now. They can look at the color as you see it on the building in addition to the sign. Mr. Del Rio commented that some City Council members had issues with having the color blue on the back of the building so he went back and changed it. 85% of the people love the color. They said, "Thank God, finally EI Paseo is alive." Everybody complains about EI Paseo being dead at nighttime. Mr. Drell stated that the issue hasn't been a judgment on the color. It was without a doubt a significant exterior change. Mr. Del Rio commented that he begged to differ with him. It was not a significant change. Mr. Drell commented if G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R040309.MIN � . • � ,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES he came to work with his face painted blue, people would consider that a significant change. Mr. Del Rio stated that he's of Mexican descent and loves bright colors. This is a Mexican restaurant and I'm trying to bring the colors of Cabo San Lucas here. I'm a minority doing business in the City. The new yellow Bellini awning that's on EI Paseo is bright. Mr. Drell stated that the owner came in and asked for permission. Mr. Del Rio commented that even if it's really ugly as long as you get permission then it's okay. Mr. Drell stated that ugly is a matter of opinion. What we're saying is that everyone has to follow the same process. If there's a difference of opinion, those decisions can be appealed up the line but they're all subject to the same process. Mr. Del Rio stated that he wanted his restaurant to reflect the ethnicity of the place and he is of Mexican descent and he didn't see anything wrong with that. There were no structural changes to the building. Mr. Drell stated that the condition doesn't refer to structural changes. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the ARC review the color change right away. The commission voted on adding the color review to the agenda. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to make a point about the yellow awning. Something that you have to think about is the scale of what you're proposing. I guarantee you that if that person came in and wanted to paint their building bright yellow, it wouldn't have been approved. It's different when it's an access statement. I'm a little uncomfortable voting on the current color of Del Rio's based on the photograph submitted by the sign company because I don't know what the building looks like in reality. I would not approve it based on this photograph because it's a little too much. Maybe it doesn't look quite this red and bright in reality. It hasn't really offended me driving down EI Paseo. It would be hard to approve the color based on the photograph and I am concerned about a precedent. Mr. Drell stated that we have the advantage of reality. You don't have to use your imagination of what it really looks like because it's already been painted. Mr. Quiel stated that the photograph was developed off the digital picture and the color of it is probably more intense than what it is in reality. Commissioner Vuksic commented that unfortunately that's what we're looking at. Commissioner Hanson commented that she wanted to make the point that color in the choices that you've made are all accent colors. Accent G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040309.MIN g . • `�w"�'"` '�r�" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES colors typically are to accent an element of a building or a portion of a building. They do not become the entire building. That is probably the part that I have the most problem with. If this was done in order to highlight your entrance and then it smooths away and blends back into the remaining landscape, it would have been less loud. I have seen this in person and iYs pretty shocking. I know that as a business owner, what you're trying to do is bring attention to your building and you've successfully done that. In my mind, if you had brought this in with color chips and a color rendering I wouldn't have approved it. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the commissioners go to the site and look at the building. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he's seen it and he was shocked at the color. I don't oppose the actual color so much, but it's too much. It should have been used a little bit less on the building. The photograph only shows a portion of the building. It's much bigger and it goes around the side and the back of the building. I couldn't approve it. It's too intense with too much magnitude. Commissioner Gregory commented that some of the concerns that we have typically is not so much the use of color, it's when the whole building is painted the color. Another example would be Bash's restaurant on Highway 111. That building was painted according to Ms. Bash, the color of the original building. The community has developed over the years into somewhat of a staid kind of a community. Actually, we're not as bad as we were some years ago when all signs had to be tan or beige or ivory. It's evolving in that sense. Maybe the color is fine if it were not the entire building, but if the architectural elements were highlighted. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she's very familiar with Paseo Del Rio's. I love the color choices but it is just startling. I know what you're trying to do. Maybe if there is some kind of a compromise that you can get the impact of the entrance or a portion of the building. I think the sign looks great, but the color should be toned down. Mr. Del Rio stated that there are a couple of other buildings east of EI Paseo that are the same color. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Del Rio how he would feel if some of the color were allowed to remain. What I'm getting at is relative to the sign. If we feel the need to go out and look at the building and continue G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040309.MIN 9 ' � �w�' "� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES this to the next meeting, could we at least help out with the signage issue? Suppose that if we come up with some compromise on the color, could the sign work? Mr. Drell stated that our choices on the color problem would be either ignoring the fact that they've violated a condition or go through this process. If this commission makes a decision, this decision can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Del Rio commented that he'll take his chances with the Council. Mr. Drell stated that if you're position is that you have no intention of suggesting any difference in the colors of this building, then the job for this commission is to vote, either approving or denying what you're proposing. That allows you to then take it right to the City Council. At least get this issue resolved. If you have no intention of suggesting any changes, then there's no reason to continue it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Del Rio if his decision is that he doesn't want to change the color of the building or anything of the color. Mr. Del Rio commented that he didn't say that. I'm just a small business owner. I never knew about any conditional use permit or anything until his second sign was not approved. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Del Rio knew that there was a problem with the color of the building before he submitted a sign application. Mr. Del Rio said, "Absolutely not." Commissioner Gregory commented that he hasn't gone out and looked at the building. Mr. Del Rio stated that it's the middle of the season and he has a banner that's gotten weary with time and the sun. Commissioner Gregory stated that you have to understand that even though you didn't mean to do it, you've done something wrong. We have these rules in place so that we don't have people painting their buildings day-glo orange or bright yellow. We have to have some guidelines so that we maintain some order. Mr. Del Rio commented that he's a businessman and understands that. I also know that things are changing, demographics are changing. Not everything is a country club. You have little Tijuana just across the street in the Catalina area. There are all kinds of Mexican people living here. Not everything is a country club in Palm Desert. Commissioner Gregory stated that the process remains constant. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 1� . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that the original sign would not work on this building. The new sign would work pretty much on any color building. By approving the sign, we haven't determined anything about the color of the building. It might end up staying this color, it might end up being a different color but the sign will still work. Mr. Del Rio commented that in July 2001 he opened a restaurant at Cook Street and Country Club. I have that sign. I painted the building inside. I painted the building outside. I never heard from anyone. Same city. I highlighted the building with some bright colors. I have magenta, pink and other bright colors. Commissioner Hanson stated that "highlighted" was the key word. Mr. Del Rio stated that noone ever came to see him to say that even if you highlight the building you have to get approval by the City. I was told by my attorney that there was no such ordinance that said that you have to apply to the City. Mr. Drell commented that maybe your attorney doesn't understand this. This particular restaurant has a specific condition approved with the resolution that allowed it to be a restaurant which put that restriction on you. Mr. Del Rio stated that he can show you his lease which is for many, many years and I guarantee you that it doesn't say anything about a condition. Mr. Drell commented that it doesn't matter. The fact that your landlord didn't give you a provisional lease doesn't negate a City condition of approval of a business. A lease is a contract between an owner and a tenant. It does not relate to the City. Ultimately, this is an obligation on the owner of the property. Obviously, the revocation of a CUP has a profound impact on you. You have a vested interest to see that this issue gets solved, even if your landlord isn't going to pursue it. The process part has now been fixed. You've made an application. The commission can make a decision. If they're not comfortable voting on it right now without taking another look at the building, they can continue the color or they can take Commissioner Vuksic's suggestion where regardless of the color, they can make a decision that the sign works. It would be a two-part motion. Commissioner Gregory stated that we already have the application amended and we could possibly take care of the sign at this meeting. We can handle the color at the next meeting. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if we approve the sign and it's over and done with, how do we know that the color is going to come back through? Mr. Drell stated that he thought that Mr. Del Rio would follow through with making sure that the process gets completed. Mr. Del Rio stated that he'll follow the process. Personally, he would not want to change the colors, but he will make a commitment to follow through G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 1 1 ' ' `� `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES with the process. Mr. Drell stated that if at the next meeting the commission were to deny the colors, then Mr. Del Rio has the option to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Quiel asked if they were able to approve the sign, at least one problem would be solved and they could get the banner off the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he would be willing to address the sign and approve it as long as he was assured that Mr. Del Rio will come in and submit an application on the building color. Commissioner Hanson commented that she felt that it was really important that with a permit or with a business application that some sort of documentation is given to every business owner so that they realize that they have to get approval for exterior changes. IYs getting out of hand where people are just doing whatever they want. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of revised sign subject to formal application being filed for approval of color change prior to issuance of sign permit. Motion carried 6-0. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request for approval of exterior color change to the next Architectural Review Commission meeting of March 23, 2004. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-31 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUR SEASONS SWIMWEAR, 73- 400 EI Paseo, Suites 4 & 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. 4 Seasons Swimwear LOCATION: 73-400 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR040309.MIN 12 , ;��; ,�: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-30 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): FE ZANDI HAUTE COUTURE, 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 105A, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awning with business signage. FE Zandi Haute Couture LOCATION: 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 105A ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4- 0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 7. CASE NO.: PP 03-12, CUP 03-13, CZ 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of trash enclosure and wall. LOCATION: 73-271 Fred Waring ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4- 0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 8. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 Amendment#1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE FOUNTAINS AT CARLOTTA, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tucson, AZ 85704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of casitas and multi-purpose room. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 13 ' � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for a hotel building in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith introduced Rick Evans, applicant, who was present to discuss the revised elevations for the hotel. Mr. Evans stated that the packets that were distributed to the commissioners show two different front elevations for the hotel. One shows the original elevation and the other shows the revised elevation. They added some popped out elements. Commissioner Vuksic stated that something they had on their previous submittal, which he doesn't see on either elevation was an eyebrow above the entry, but this is good. The only thing he's disappointed in is that they had talked about something with a little bit more mass that was coming out, rather than just a trellis element. It looks nice, but not exciting. Commissioner Gregory asked if the trellis could be beefed up a little bit. They did address the commissioner's request to pop out the rear elevation element. Mr. Evans commented that they addressed all of the requests of the commission. They added a retaining wall to the revised elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the wall is not indicated on the site plan. Mr. Evans commented that he realized that and described its location. Commissioner Gregory asked about the material for the trellis. Mr. Evans stated that they're going to try to use wood. The Marriott in Rancho Mirage (Rancho Las Palmas) put up a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040309.MIN 14 ' � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES whole new system of trellises and he's looking at what they've done and how long they've lasted and what they look like up close. They've looked at a couple of other places where they've fallen apart. If wood is not going to be durable enough, then the trellises could be a series of metal trellises. He wants it to take on the shape of the chunkiness of wood so that it's not a little piece of inetal or a little piece of wood. He's investigated TREK. On the TREK, if you don't build a steel frame it will get limp in the heat. IYs a good looking material but you have to build a structure to support it. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested using steel or some kind of inetal for the trellis. Commissioner Hanson stated that the columns on the trellis element are too skinny. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of revised plans for the hotel. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ALFRED COOK/BRIAN GOTTLIEB, 45-120 San Pablo, 2C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a 25,000 square foot professional office building. LOCATION: 43-100 Cook Street ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this project is located on the east side of Cook Street just as you're coming out of the wash area as you're proceeding north. Phil Joy stated that this is a piece of property that most people didn't realize could be developable or even available to purchase. People took it for granted that it was owned by the water district, but it's a separate piece of property. Going north on Cook Street as you're coming out of the wash, it's up on the hill. The building portion of the property is actually raised 20'-22' above Cook Street. Mr. Joy passed out exhibits to the commissioners that show the line of sight. Ms. Hollinger has reviewed the landscape plans and made some changes. Mr. Smith stated that the garage entry is located on the north side of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about access from Cook. Mr. Joy stated that there will be a left-hand turn. Commissioner Hanson asked if you'll be able to see the building from Cook Street. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040309.MIN 15 � e � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it will be highly visible. Mr. Joy commented that about 38' of the building will be exposed on the west side. The actual height of the building is 28'. AI Cook, applicant, was present and stated that they don't know if they're going to remove some of the rip rap until they get a final decision on the right turn decel lane. If they do add a right turn lane, the rip rap will be removed and they will landscape the bank. Commissioner Hanson commented that the north elevation is uninteresting. She was concerned that there wasn't enough depth to hide the mechanical equipment on the roof. The east elevation with the view looking from the parking level, the wraparound parapet detail seems awkward. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof plan shows a parapet or an enclosure wall to hide mechanical equipment. Mr. Cook stated that he took it off because the equipment will not be visible on the roof. The parapet on the north end, which is as high as the equipment, will shield it from any view on the higher level coming south towards the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the piece with the little square windows is up high enough to shield the equipment. Mr. Cook stated that it will be shielded. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the One EI Paseo building is 30' high and you can see the mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Cook stated that iYs because it's too close to the edge. Commissioner Hanson commented that one thing that the commission asks for all the time is some variation in the vertical elements. A lot of things step back in some of the elevations, but the one thing that's lacking is any change in vertical dimension from the roof elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's very difficult to do this in Palm Desert because of the height limit. It's also very difficult to screen mechanical equipment because of the height limit as well. The height limit is restrictive enough to where you can't go up to break that without going down to one story. Mr. Drell stated that the message is, "Don't go two story." If you listen to the City Council they prefer one story buildings. Mr. Cook stated that they had originally designed a tower element on the corner but they've cut it down to single story. Mr. Smith stated that the height limit is 30' in the service industrial zone. Mr. Drell stated that they could add a tower element as long as it doesn't exceed 10% of the roof area. Mr. Cook stated that because the building was so prominent on the bluff, he wanted the horizontal line to be the strongest line. The vertical would pull more attention to it because it makes it look taller. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR040309.MIN 16 . • `�y 9� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant to address the exterior finishes in terms of colors and materials. Mr. Cook stated that the green is a sheet metal material for the fascia, which will be a shaped, stepped fascia. It will be pre-coated and finished. The other colors are plaster colors. They're looking at making the orange color stone tile instead of plaster. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the orange on the rendering better than the color sample. It's a deeper color. If you don't go deeper on the orange, the rose color and orange color are going to read almost similar. Mr. Cook stated that he can find colors that are closer to the rendering. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant is doing the right thing by using the orange color as an accent. Frank Lloyd Wright many times used a horizontal across a building but he still managed to tier it and break it up with other elements. He asked the applicant to think about that because he may have some opportunities to do this. Mr. Cook stated that the horizontal element that's against the building or is part of the building jets out as each corner turns and becomes a balcony so there's an empty space underneath it and above it. It's not just plastered on the front. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was referring to the horizontal line along the roof. Mr. Cook stated that he was trying to get the roof to float into the sky with the shape and color of the roof. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to know what the view would be like from the other side of Cook Street from the north heading south. Mr. Cook stated that as you're coming south on Cook Street the bank to the north is higher than the parking garage and the wall has been repositioned in the new site plan. The wing wall keeps you from seeing the garage portion. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the windows on the lower level with plaster below the windows and asked if it was plaster between the windows. Mr. Cook stated that it is plaster and it's all one plane. The windows are recessed into the wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Cook to describe his intent for the relationship between the windows and the wall architecturally. Mr. Cook stated that he wanted to get some depth to it. He wanted to create a shadow box around the windows without diminishing the view. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the elements looked too thin. It seems like there's a missing component there. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval of architecture with the understanding that the applicant will (1) study the necessary height of parapets and enclosure walls on the roof to adequately screen the mechanical equipment, (2) add ribbed elements to the west elevation on lower windows to break the plane, and (3) add 12" recess to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040309.MIN 1� . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES windows on the north wall. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-05 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): HOLT ARCHITECTS, 41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of business park consisting of (5) two-story buildings for commercial, office and industrial warehouse uses (166,00 square feet on 10.59 acres east of Cook Street at I-10). LOCATION: 41-555 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Winklepleck stated that the site is located on the northeast corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street. It's the site of the old athletic facility where the ice rink was going to go. The whole project site is approximately 10.6 acres. The overall site is about 21 acres. This project consists of five separate office/industrial buildings ranging from 26,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. Tim Holt, architect, was present to address the commission. The orientation of the 10.6 acres is right behind the existing Mobil station. In order to really understand the circulation you probably have to look at the revised tract map. There is an intended shared driveway which is currently an egress point for the Mobil station, which is a right turn only condition. The internal circulation will wind through and continue to the next property which will allow an access/egress point directly onto Gerald Ford. The complex consists of five different structures and are of similar architecture. They create a sense of a mini-campus and because of its position, relative to the ramp to the overpass bridge, the on-ramp going down to eastbound Interstate 10 creates an unusual perspective. We usually look at exterior elevations, but in this particular case we have a vantage point from a vertical standpoint where we're literally looking down on roofs. It drives a good part of his proposed solution to this project. The use will be multi-use, business park, light industrial-type of utilization. The developer desires a degree of flexibility to allow the market to, in some degree, determine the exact utilization of individual suites or spaces. From an architectural standpoint, we're concerned that any orientation to the streets or public accessways is preserving the intent of the architectural solution. We've endeavored to vary the exterior treatment of the complex. This is a pre- G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 1 g . . �` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES cast concrete system that will be accentuated by standing seam metal roof structures that are intended to speak to the problem that I mentioned just a moment ago, which is the fact that we have an access from the bridge down to the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the only practical way to handle the climate control for this project is for roof-top A/C units. They're endeavoring to conceal the units with a series of raised sections on the roofs which create an architectural expression in each of the buildings. The raised portions of the roofs are areas under which the mechanical equipment will be positioned. The side walls of those areas are all open louvers so there's airFlow through this to accommodate this kind of situation. Two of the buildings are similar in size and positioning (buildings 2 & 5). They are similar in finish with a lighter green roof treatment. Buildings 3 & 4 are somewhat similar. They are slightly different sizes but they're positioned 90° to one another. Building 1 is an L-shape configuration closest to the freeway. Mr. Holt stated that they're proposing a series of covered parking spaces, particularly around the perimeter of the buildings. Those are accentuated by some cantilevered shade structures that are immediately adjacent to the faces of some of the buildings. The buildings are broken by accentuated elements at the entry points. Of keen interest to the commission would be that the buildings exceed the current ordinance height. There's a previous master plan for Wonder Palms that was applied to this area with the sports facility, which was approved in the past. A 43' height was included in the approved document for that submittal. The essential parapet wall height on the currently proposed buildings is at 28'. Some of the roof areas are in a flat configuration. There is a raised portion in building 1. Both areas accommodate the mechanical equipment. In the flat roof area they're at 34'4" and at the peak of the standing seam condition, we're at 39'2". Based upon the condition that contained in the ordinance as to whether the 30' or the 35' limitation is appropriate for this location. They're either just within it for the lower roof profile and they're 4'2" in excess of it at the peak of the standing seam roof. It's a low-profile roof with a 3:12 pitch. We could go a slight bit lower, but we're not going to have a significant impact in lowering that peak height by going down to a 2.5:12. We feel that this is an appropriate visual height. At the same time, we need to conceal the mechanical equipment. We need to have enough height in there underneath the cover for a serviceman to get in and take care of servicing mechanical equipment. We've kept it as low-profile as we can. Given the fact that this is right next to a freeway overpass, that a reasonable argument could be made and hopefully understood for this extraordinary height. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 19 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES Other factors that Mr. Holt pointed out are cantilevered structures at the lower level. These are elements that project out over a site wall which is in front of the building and in turn provides protective shade cover and hopefully a pleasing architectural way for the vehicles that will be parked immediately adjacent to it. Other elements on the buildings include awning structures which are located above the second floor glass. The exterior for the most part, comes about as a result of paint colors. Color boards were shown to the commission. Buildings 2 & 5 would have the lighter green roof condition and the accent colors would complement that. The other three buildings would have the darker green roof standing seam element as well as complementary, but different colors. The roof of building 1 will be the most viewed elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a beautiful project which is really nicely done. It's great to see something like this. The only suggestions that he would have would pertain to the roof. Mr. Holt stated that they're proposing a 5-ply built-up system with a colored cap sheet for the flat portion of the roof. They have five colors to chose from and he will be really sensitive to make sure that it will complement the other colors of the building. They do not want glare from this at all. They'll trying to arrive at a neutral color that'll fade. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the mechanical equipment that's under the roof structure and wondered if the roof would impair the equipment's ability to operate with a roof above it. Mr. Holt stated that this is part of the logic regarding the height of it. There is a 7' clear space from the walking deck to the underside of the roof structure. Where there standing seam, it'll be open above as if there was an open attic above it so there's more air circulation capability. The walls of this entire area are all louvers. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was wondering if having a surFace above the package units would effect the mechanical units. Mr. Holt commented that his mechanical consultant suggested that this is a doable thing. They're going to be looking very closely at how they're going to operate. They're being assured that it can be done. The units will run a lot better in the shade when the roof is 200°. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he can't say enough good things about this project. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the lines across the buildings. Mr. Holt stated that they're cast into the concrete. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the project is very impressive. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval. 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Lopez G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR040309.MIN 2� . Y �- � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 MINUTES abstaining. Due to the unique site location, the ability to completely remove the mechanical equipment from view supercedes any height restriction issues that the Architectural Review Commission might have otherwise. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040309.MIN 21