Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-11 � � � . �`•'� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MAY 11, 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 7 2 Kristi Hanson X 9 Chris Van Vliet X 7 2 John Vuksic X 9 Ray Lopez X 8 1 Karen Oppenheim X 9 Karel Lambell X 3 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 27, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of April 27, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 � �w�' � = ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-61 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTHWEST SIGN, INC., 40475 Vista Murrieta Road, Murrieta, CA 92562 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Country Wide Home Loans LOCATION: 73-261 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that Ted Groulx did the building renovation at this location. He asked the applicant about the raceway design for the sign. The applicant stated that there is no raceway and that there was a misprint on the plans. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the sign looked crowded at the top and bottom. Mr. Drell asked the applicant what the dimensions were on the top and bottom of the signage. The applicant, John Erickson, stated that it's 10" from the top of the "H" to the bottom of the "L". Commissioner Van Vliet asked the commission if 6" would be enough room at the top and the bottom of the sign. Commissioner Vuksic thought that 6" would be enough and the sign may need to be reduced slightly to accomplish that. It may work if there is at least 6" on the top and 6" on the bottom. Commissioner Hanson asked about the blue monument sign. Mr. Erickson stated that only the house and letters are illuminated on the monument sign. The blue is paint, which will probably be semi-gloss, but he could use flat paint. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that flat would be better. Commissioner Gregory stated that flat paint would look wretched. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to retract the comment regarding the monument sign. Mr. Erickson stated that blue is the corporate color. Mr. Smith noted that 800 millilamps needs to be reduced to 430 millilamps to be consistent with the code requirements. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval subject to (1) having at least 6" of space at the top G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 2 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES of the sign and 6" of space at the bottom of the sign, and (2) 800 millilamps reduced to 430 millilamps to meet code requirements. 2. 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 stated that the request is for new signage for JPL Bible Church at the former theater location near MacDonald's on Highway 111. Mr. Urbina stated that the proposed sign will be located on the existing former Cinema III freestanding sign. JPL Bible Church is leasing space in one of the three former theaters. Kasandra Ahlgren, applicant, stated that they've actually taken over all three theaters. Mr. Drell asked if there are still three separate spaces. Ms. Ahlgra stated that one of the theaters is for their Kids Rock program, one is the adult sanctuary and the other one is for administration. Mr. Urbina stated that the proposal is to have individual cut-out letters with an aluminum- type background with a reader board underneath. The sides will have some future murals or paintings. Commissioner Gregory stated that this was originally designed as a marquee for a theater, which is a different use. The size of the sign is rather unusual. Where you're indicating on the sides for future artwork, we'd typically like to know what that is if it's part of the sign. Ms. Ahlgren stated that they still haven't come to a determination of what the artwork will be. It'll be something that's complementary to the City of Palm Desert. It will not advertise anything. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem with anything that becomes art in a public place is that you start getting people who have different opinions. This is integral to the design of the sign and maybe this is something that we should see first. Mr. Drell stated that this is an interesting problem. We don't regulate art unless it can be shown to be detrimental to public health and safety. Commissioner Hanson commented that if it's artwork that's on a sign, then it's part of the sign and so we do look at G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 3 , � � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES that. Mr. Drell disagreed and stated that it's only commercial speech if its subject matter is directly relating to the commercial establishment. In the 80's in Indio there was a supermarket that had a grocery store with a big mural on the side of their building. Indio tried to regulate it as a sign and they ended up losing their entire sign ordinance as a result of it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the area for the proposed artwork is such a huge area of the sign. Mr. Drell stated that typically we haven't counted monument size when we look at monument design as part of the sign area because we didn't want to discourage people from doing substantial monuments. Obviously, this is the other end of that spectrum. It's an existing thing and the applicant doesn't want to tear down an existing sign but wants to adapt it. It's definitely unusual. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that the sign is abnormally sized for a project. The sign that was at Westfield Shoppingtown was too big and we made them take it down. Commissioner Lopez asked if the sign was visible from both sides. Ms. Ahlgren stated that it's double faced. Mr. Drell stated that the reader board probably isn't going to be readable from traffic going by on Highway 111. The big issue, is whether or not the applicant can use the existing monument. Not being able to see the quality of the art and how it fits into the overall design of the monument makes it hard to decide if the monument is acceptable. Commissioner Gregory stated that he assumed that the applicant would like to use the existing monument because it would be a lot less expensive than building a new one. It's unlikely that we would approve this from scratch because it's way too big. We don't like oversized signs because we establish precedent if we allowed the applicant to do it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the size of the existing sign. Ms. Ahlgren stated that iYs about 24' long and 8'/2 high. That's not including the poles that it stands on, which are about 5' in height. It's quite a large sign. Mr. Drell stated that it's set back quite a distance from the street so it's not all that obtrusive. Commissioner Lopez commented that there were some large signs put in La Quinta which were 15' tall and 30' wide. How they made the scale go down was by adding large palm trees behind it . The proposed sign is just sitting in the middle of a lawn area. If there was landscaping around it or something to soften it, it might not look as big. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040511.MIN 4 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that as the signs original use, it wasn't offensive. It's too big of a sign for the current use. If this was a regular church, we would never approve this size. Mr. Drell stated that they would be entitled to a 25 square foot reader board plus their normal sign. They would have the middle part of the sign, plus something on the top. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't feel that they're being unfair to the applicant. Maybe there's a way to modify the sign for that use. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant could focus on the artwork so we can see what it looks like as an attempt to salvage this sign for them. We could continue the request and see what the artwork is going to look like. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you sort of accept a theater marquee sign to be in your face, but this is no longer a theater. Commissioner Lambell stated that she had a problem with the aluminum. Ms. Ahlgren stated that the current sign has plexi-glass faces with runners with changeable letters but all the rest of the sign is aluminum, which can be painted. They planned on skinning the old sign face with new aluminum and either painting it to match the existing color or paint the entire sign a different color which would be complementary to the area. Commissioner Lambell stated that she's having trouble with the color and the size. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would like to see a bigger picture that shows the area around the sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the pictures that were presented to the commission don't do it justice. Mr. Drell suggested that the commission go out and look at the sign in person. Staff will take some photos to be used for reference during the next meeting. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant should produce some ideas of art for the commission to review. Mr. Drell stated that it is important in the design of the sign to get some idea of impact of something in those blank spaces. Commissioner Gregory asked if the commission would be establishing a negative precedent. Mr. Drell commented that each item is subject to a unique, case-by-case, subjective evaluation. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to (1) allow the commissioners to visit the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 5 � � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 AGENDA site, and (2) allow applicant to submit proposed artwork. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JUAN FRANCO, 74-155 Parosella Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a second unit at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-155 Parosella Street ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 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 Mr. Smith stated that the site is located on the north side of Gerald Ford, east of Portola. The commission has a site plan and basic designs for the models to review. Jeff Shraeder, representative for Ponderosa Homes, was present to address the commission. Mike Penrose, representative for JBZ Architects and Joe LaScala, representative for Summers Murphy landscape architects. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 6 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES Shraeder stated that the same models exist on another project in La Quinta on the corner of Fred Waring and Jefferson. If anybody is curious, you can see them there. It's called Mosaic. Mr. Drell asked if they were the same models or similar models. Mr. Shraeder stated that , they're using the same plans with the same elevations. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the thickness of the exterior walls and wanted to know what kind of stud they're using around the perimeter of the house. Mr. Shraeder stated that they're using 2 x 4 and 2 x 6 studs depending on how it's framed. There's some double framing. Mr. Drell asked the applicant if he's sure that they want to duplicate a tract. I don't think that anyone has ever done that. We've had similar tracts but I don't think that anyone has ever duplicate the same plans. Mr. Shraeder stated that the project design and landscape architecture are not identical. The projects are far enough away so that it wouldn't be confusing. The project in La Quinta will be sold out before this one even opens up. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the thin fascia line and he asked if the fascias were all plaster. Mr. Shraeder stated that they're wood fascias. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was plaster behind the fascia board or are there exposed truss tails in that area. Mr. Penrose stated that it's his understanding that there is stucco behind the fascia board. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there's no detail on the plans. Mr. Penrose stated that it may be that the stucco is on the front and the back has rafter tails. IYs been three years since we did the previous project. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the air conditioning units. Mr. Shraeder stated that the units are on the ground, either at the rear or the side. If there's a setback issue, they're located in the rear yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the air handlers for the forced air units. Mr. Shraeder stated that they will be located in the attic. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the chimneys. Mr. Shraeder stated that they're all gas units so there is a pretty small vent, but no chimney form. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on Plan 1, would there be venting on the wall through the back. Mr. Shraeder stated that it vents through the roof. It's a gas appliance; not a wood- burning fireplace. There's no reason to have a full chimney. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't like looking at the vents very much. Mr. Shraeder stated that you won't see it from the street. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040511.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that the neighbor will see it. Mr. Shraeder stated that it'll be like a gas water heater vent. Mr. Drell stated that the roof plans and floor plans don't seem to match. Commissioner Gregory stated that other than wall thicknesses, which is nice, are there any concessions to the desert environment here relative to passive solar shading? These are prototypes that are built everywhere, but we have a pretty tough climate here. Is there anything that provides any shade? Mr. Shraeder stated that there are covered loggias on all plans. The overhangs are approximately 24". Commissioner Gregory commented that this will be a lower-type cost home, relative to some of the other projects in the area. Mr. Shraeder stated that these homes will sell for $500,000. Commissioner Gregory stated that when he looks at something that sells for that amount of money, I expect more. I don't see anything that makes me feel like it's desert oriented. It doesn't mean that it has to be a desert-style, but a house that's compatible with living here. I don't see an effort made on the design of the home to relate to our climate here. Mr. Shraeder stated that the homes are pretty similar to a lot of the homes that are being built in Palm Desert, La Quinta or other areas of the desert that are tract-type, production houses. We provide a pretty decent spec package with slab marble-type interior spec package. They have aluminum reflective roof as a standard item so they exceed Title 24 standards. We probably build the best tract home in the desert using quality construction materials. Commissioner Gregory asked to see the materials board. Mr. Smith stated that he had comments back from the City's Landscape Department, which is fairly extensive. Mr. Shraeder stated that he's working with the City on his landscape plan. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the building heights. One looks like it's 20'3" in height on Plan 2. Mr. Shraeder stated that he thought that they were 16'-18' in height. Mr. Drell stated that they look like very ordinary homes. I'm not sure if that has any reflection on price. Mr. Shraeder stated that on the tract in La Quinta, the last phase is selling for $545,00-$650,000. Commissioner Lambell commented that if she was going to spend that kind of money, she would want something that has a personality. Mr. Shraeder encouraged the commission to go look at the models because the drawings don't do it justice. Commissioner Lambell stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040511.MIN g • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES that this is what the applicant has given them and it's not thrilling her to spend $650,000. Mr. Shraeder stated that iYs the market. Mr. Drell stated that we're talking about architecture and whether there are ways to put a little more panache or architectural interest into the project. Mr. Shraeder stated that they didn't color all of the elevations and they should've done that. They've been waiting to process this project for some time and so they had a chance to bring this to the ARC pretty quickly. Mr. Drell stated that the project meets the requirements but it's underwhelming in terms of design. Commissioner Gregory commented that one of the problems with this particular city is that Palm Desert has had one of the unique opportunities to strive for something a little bit more than what you can do somewhere else. Even though you meant well when you said that you already built this in La Quinta, we don't want to hear that. We want to hear that it's more special here. What we see is something thaYs not special. You said that this has been sitting for some time because of the moratorium. If you had the opportunity to "gussy" this up somewhat, can you bring things a little bit more up to speed? Mr. Shraeder stated that he could do that. Commissioner Hanson stated that Plan 2 shows an entry gate, which doesn't show on the elevations. It might help to show this. Mr. Shraeder stated that this is a landscape element. Commissioner Hanson stated that it looks like a structure on the floor plan and it doesn't show up on the elevations. Mr. Shraeder stated that she was right. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would be an opportunity for an architectural feature. Commissioner Hanson stated that the traditional model needs more work. Commissioner Lopez asked the applicant if he's done any preliminary water calculations. Mr. Shraeder stated that he has and they've been through a couple of revisions and needs to discuss this with Diane Hollinger. Mr. Drell stated that one of the ideas in Palm Desert is that we don't apologize that we're in the desert, therefore, we don't want lawn on public corners. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing (1) chimneys designed into house with substantial thickness and decorative tops, (2) plaster fascia, (3) walls visible from the street will be a minimum of 12" thick, other walls will be 2 x 6 walls with 2 x 4 nailer at the window to allow for some recess, and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040511.MIN 9 • '�r' `�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES (4) all models need improved architecture, especially traditional models. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-07 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): ALLAN ZYLSTRA, 12161 Firestone Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval of revised elevations for a new commercial building. LOCATION: 73-168 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant has returned with revised elevations for the front and rear of the commercial building. The stonework has been extended all the way to the top on the ends and the middle. Stuccoed parapet features have been added. The applicant has addressed the previous comments made by the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to know what the thought process was regarding the ledgestone and the choice of the narrow stone on a very Italian building. Also, the application of the stone over the large openings. Allan Zylstra, applicant, was present as well as his architect, Rick Dirkson and stated that the ledgestone is in the center so there's only ledgestone over one opening. One of the comments that was made previously was that it felt too shallow so he increased the depth of the ledgestone to increase the feeling that there's enough support and that it's structurally viable. Proportionally, the ledgestone looks fine now. Previously, it was a little shallow but now the ledgestone wraps all the way around so it gives projections a more substantial and solid look to it than it did previously. They increased the parapet height. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the stone itself is architecturally appropriate for this building. Mr. Dirkson stated that he doesn't see a problem with the ledgestone. The building has evolved to become more of an Italian-style building and the ledgestone fits in with that style. You see more of a quarry stone look in Italian architecture, but ledgestone is something that his client is very fond of so he tried to incorporate it into the facade of the building. Commissioner Vuksic felt G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 1� . �� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES that they had a miscommunication on the application of the ledgestone. He meant that when you have a large span and you have ledgestone going across it, it doesn't look structurally sound. It could never be built that way. It needs to be structurally keyed in some way. Mr. Dirkson stated that he could put something beneath the ledgestone that gives it a feeling of structural support. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding a lintel. Mr. Dirkson agreed. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the color looks good on the drawing. When they were talking about this project previously, he noticed how the rear elevation windows had good proportions that looked good with the style with larger windows on the first floor and smaller windows upstairs. In the front, he didn't do this. There's as much glass as possible on both floors. Mr. Dirkson stated that this is true. This is a commercial establishment and view windows are very important to conducting business and having visibility to display products. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you need to strike a balance. He asked the architect what the second floor was going to be used for. Mr. Dirkson stated that they will have offices upstairs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they don't have to advertise wares through the windows of an office. Mr. Dirkson stated that he could tone the windows down in scale on the second story. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would make a big difference, especially if they could break it up into smaller windows, like on the rear elevation. This would create a geometric system that would be more in keeping with the style that you're generating and offer more interest to the eye. The section on the plans was confusing. It looks like there are eyebrows on the top of the building but they don't show up on the section. Mr. Dirkson stated that they're higher extensions for the parapet. They are the section. They're pieces of the parapet that aren't as high as the middle part and they're a different color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees a grey surface and a chocolate brown surface and he wanted to know if they were on the same plane. Mr. Dirkson stated that they're on the same plane. He could project them forward to give them a change in plane and add a shadow line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what concerned him was that they were out and never imagined that they were in the same plane. Commissioner Hanson asked if it would make more sense to move the high portion back so that it would shield the equipment better. At this point, just having a thin 6" parapet line wouldn't be substantial enough. Mr. Dirkson stated that he could put a separate equipment screen further back. Commissioner Hanson suggested removing the eyebrow and putting a separate screen further back. Commissioner Vuksic concurred. Mr. Dirkson felt that the eyebrow enhances the overall balance of the building. He could run the parapet straight across or put a step in the parapet and make it all the same color. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that he would need G:Planning�Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 1 1 �wr` `�rr�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES something there, otherwise it would look very plain. Mr. Dirkson suggested thickening the parapet and making it one color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant should thicken the walls on the rear elevation so that it looks richer and look more substantial. Mr. Dirkson agreed to do this. Commissioner Gregory commented that the sign fascias appear to be very thin for the signage. He was concerned that when the tenants try to add signage, there won't be enough room for a nice sign. Mr. Dirkson stated that they could offer more sign area. Mr. Zylstra is not interested in having gaudy signs. He wants simple, non-illuminated signs. Commissioner Gregory stated that his concern was with the location of the signs. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to (1) adding a lintel under ledgestone to give appearance of support for stonework, (2) second- floor windows on the front elevation to be smaller, (3) remove eyebrows on top of building and put them back further on roof, (4) step parapet and make it thicker, (5) thicken walls on front elevation and recess windows, and (6) create appropriate area for signage. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, c/o Larry Kosmont, 601 Figueroa Street, Suite 3550, Los Angeles, CA 90017 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for maintenance facility design. LOCATION: Palm Desert Country Club ZONE: OS Commissioner Gregory left the room during discussion of this matter. Mr. Smith displayed a site plan for the commission to review. The applicant showed the commission colored renderings of the maintenance building. Randy Case, applicant, was present and stated that they were before the commission at their last meeting on April 27, 2004. At that time, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040511.MIN IZ • ,� �, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES they received some very good comments from the commissioners and members of the public. We went back and Richard Denzer, architect, revised the site plan. There was a lot of discussion about the previous location for the maintenance building. We were asked to go back and see if they could reconfigure the maintenance facility and put it closer to the park. We went out and met with approximately 25 of the residents, primarily the ones who live around the circumference of the where the maintenance facility will be. We recognize that you'll hear that there are still issues with respect to the access point. I want to remind everybody that this is an access point with a 20' easement that the golf course has had since it's conception 40 years ago. The maintenance facility was originally located there. We're taking into consideration that there will be vehicles coming through that access point. We're going to construct an 8' decorative wall next to the house on the corner to help alleviate noise and light. This facility is built to accommodate the maintenance equipment, as well as the staff and their vehicles. Currently, the facility is inadequate in size and it's run down. Part of the reason why the golf course isn't being adequately maintained is because they don't have equipment to do it or a place to store equipment. The proposed facility is large enough. It's on the small side of large enough for 27 holes but we believe it is adequate. We've taken great pains to revise the plans so that they're acceptable. The original plans showed an 19'6" roof height and now it starts at 12' along the front side and transitions up to 16'. The maximum height has been reduced by at least 3'6". We enlisted Ron Gregory and Associates as our landscape architect. We enlisted them to do a landscape plan that wasn't the wall of trees that we had before. We've bermed the area and transitioned it into a natural golf course topography. It's bermed and shaped like a golf course normally is around greens, tees and sand traps. We certainly feel like this plan is an improvement based on the recommendations of the commission and recommendations from the people who live around it. We think that this plan is adequate to house the maintenance facility. Richard Denzer stated that the landscape plan says it all. The building is about the same as it was the last time, but it now has a shed roof. It's a low-slung, simple building buried in landscaping. A desert color will be used on the building. The idea behind any maintenance facility for a golf course is to make it disappear in the landscape. Rob Parker, representative for RGA & Associates, was present and stated that the landscape concept for this, as opposed to the wall of trees that were previously proposed, is consistent with more of a golf course feeling. There is a mound height of approximately six feet, however, we would like to undulate that mound, especially on the golf G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040511.MIN 13 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES course side of the project, so that it blends with the golf course landscaping and doesn't feel as if we're trying to hide something. It is directly adjacent to the cart path and it is our intent to take the turf line and continue it up the side of the mound and to use a more open canopy of trees to soften the view of the building, but not to totally block it out. Flowering plant material will be added in front of the mound so that from the homes, there are no longer homes down the fairway that are blocked. Commissioner Lopez asked about the restrooms. Mr. Case stated that they will refurbish the restroom. Commissioner Lopez asked about access to the bathroom from the golf course. Mr. Parker stated that the access goes across the surface road. Commissioner Lopez asked if the cart path would swing around behind the tee boxes. Mr. Drell suggested that people could walk to the restrooms. Commissioner Lopez commented that he's played golf all of his life on college and high school golf teams so he's done this a lot and has had to dodge maintenance vehicles. You can walk, but it's not the best solution. It looks like it wasn't thought of. The restrooms are just over there and you have to get over there some how. Will there be signage, because it looks like it's hidden? Mr. Drell stated that there should definitely be a path to the restrooms. Mr. Case stated that it's not really hidden and the golfers will be able to see it. There will be signage, if need be. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted to know about screening on the park side and wondered if there was enough room for landscaping. Mr. Parker stated that they intend to add a berm against the retaining wall. Commissioner Hanson commented that this is a major improvement. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant did a good job taking the previous comments and incorporated them into the revisions. They came up with a great solution and tucked the building to the side. Charlie Ash, Palm Desert Country Club resident, was present and stated that a benefit to this is that there's a chain-link fence that was put up by the association and the golf course back in 1995 and it runs along the back side of the park. The kids are cutting holes in the fence and are going out onto the golf course through the park area. The new maintenance facility will eliminate that problem. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are any members from the audience who would like to speak. Barbara Coltwhite, resident, was present and stated that she lives on the other side of the lake off of Michigan. She asked about the type of security lighting that would be used at night. Mr. Denzer stated that there will be ground lighting that's G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040511.MIN 14 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES all pointing down. The lighting will be very, very minimal. Mr. Drell stated that the trespass beyond the edge of the building can't exceed a quarter of a foot candle. Theresa Pawley, PDCC resident, was present and stated that she's the second house on California next to the access road. I'm going to speak for Bob Peterson, Mrs. Curry, Jack Becker an.d myself. Most of us met with Randy Case the other day when he came out. Visually, the proposed plans are definitely an improvement, but in our minds vision isn't the only product. I think we all concur that we would prefer to have the eleven homes that they're building on the existing maintenance facility beside us as neighbors, rather than the maintenance facility and all the noise that goes along with it. We've had absolutely no notification. All of the impacted residents around this whole area have had no notification whatsoever from the development group. Mr. Case committed two weeks ago, on the 29th, that he would send out letters alerting people as to what the plan was. We're still waiting for information that hasn't gone out yet. We're still concerned about both Michigan and California on the golf course side. There will be a complete loss of privacy. I can't imagine myself sitting out on the patio with 18 greens keepers coming and going. I don't think this is going to work for me. Noise is still a major problem. The vehicles would arrive between 4:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. I did go by and visit with some of the other maintenance facilities. It's not only the worker's vehicles the first thing in the morning, but it's the mowers and all of the equipment. One of the Waste Management containers that I looked at is 24' long and 12' wide and a truck comes in from the access to dump that. It has to be a huge, huge truck to dump a container of this size. Access continues to be an issue. Storage equipment, negative impact on property values and peaceful enjoyment of our property are all issues. Access continues to be the greatest concern. The approximately 17' wide access will be 5' from the Peterson's bed. My understanding is that the trucks can go by on the access road at 5' from their house. No wall can successfully soundproof against grounds keeper's cars, maintenance equipment and Waste Management disposal trucks. Can the main and only entrance to a 27-hole golf course be in this one specific area? One thing that Mr. Case and I have talked about is possibly bring in an entrance through the parking lot behind the Palm Desert Country Club pool area. Mr. Ash commented that if they intend to go through the rose garden, that will never, ever "fly". Ms. Pawley stated that it would go around the rose garden. Mr. Case stated that he would look at the access, work with the City and the homeowners and if there's a reasonable plan, he's absolutely in favor of doing that. Mr. Ash commented on the trash dumpsters. The dumpsters they bring in have a single unit on the back of the truck. They just lower it down onto G:Planning\DonnaQuaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�AR040511.MIN l$ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES the ground, pull around and hook on and pull the other one up. They don't dump those and it's just a normal size trash truck. That's all there is. I watch them do it all the time. Commissioner Vuksic asked how it was different then the Waste Management trucks that go all over the city early in the morning. Mr. Case said that they're up and down California all the time and it's not any different. Ms. Pawley stated that in closing, cities do not allow contractors to begin activity before 7 a.m. They do not wish to disturb local residents prior to that hour, even temporarily for days, weeks or months. It doesn't seem congruent that a city would allow pre-existing residents to be bombarded with intolerable noise vibration commotion beginning at 4:30 a.m. everyday for the life of that property. Please do no approve the maintenance facility without allowing time to resolve the important remaining issues including access. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if any other members of the audience wished to speak. No one came forward. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the applicant has gone above and beyond. They've done a great job of addressing the comments. Whether the access is in the proposed location or on the other side, it's approvable. Commissioner Hanson stated that the responsibility of the commission is for architecture and general design. Access points and noise issues are handled by an entirely different group. I feel that the applicant has done a very good job in locating the building in a way, visually. It doesn't impact the neighbors and actually opened up some views. By the work that they're proposing for the golf course changes in that particular area, it'll actually enhance the property values in that location. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the proposed facility is a huge improvement compared to the pictures of the current maintenance facility. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040511.MIN 16 • � � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a Wendy's fast food restaurant with a drive-through. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7- 0. 5. 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 revised elevations for a new 19,867 square foot building. LOCATION: 74-780 42"d Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the plans have been revised since the commission last reviewed them two weeks ago. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Hanson stated that it looks a little boring. I would like to see the awning on the left added to the element to the right. It would add some extra shaded parking. There was a question about the area above the upper windows and also about materials. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding some richness to the color of the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she wanted to see a roof plan and specifics on the materials. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the street elevation has a composition that will work, but it needs another pass. The wall needs to be thicker if they're going to have openings (nine windows). It needs to be more substantial. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040511.MIN 1� � ��ir✓" `�wrr+� _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to be present and to return with (1) roof plan, and (2) material/color board. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BRAVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, 73-081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 38 triplex units (total of 114 units). LOCATION: North side of Country Club, east of Monterey Avenue between Merrano and Suncrest. ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7- 0. 7. CASE NO.: PP 04-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� RANCHO MIRAGE BUILDERS, INC., 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite 4, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 1,820 square foot office building and street abandonment. LOCATION: 44-875 San Jacinto Avenue. ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7- 0. C. Miscellaneous Discussion Mr. Bagato stated that Denny's is not on the agenda, but they want to change their colors. The roof is currently light green and they would G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 1 g � � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES like it to be a darker green. Mr. Drell stated that the rest of the color change would mainly involve the trim and windows. The commission suggested adding this item to the next agenda. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:P�anning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040511.MIN 19