Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-12 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 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 16 3 Kristi Hanson X 16 3 Chris Van Vliet X 16 3 John Vuksic X 18 1 Ray Lopez X 18 1 Karen Oppenheim X 19 Karel Lambell X 13 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: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of September 28, 2004. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: C 04-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHICO'S, 73-100 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Facade remodel of Chico's retail store. LOCATION: 73-100 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-124 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRITE LITE NEON CORP., 5514 Satsuma Avenue, No. Hollywood, CA 91601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Best Buy / Magnolia Home Theater LOCATION: 44-449 Town Center Drive ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the case at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 26, 2004. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-126 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGNAGE SOLUTIONS, 1336 Allec Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Ethan Allen LOCATION: 72-680 Dinah Shore, Suite 100 ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that this is the recently approved remodel of Ethan Allen in the Monterey Shore Plaza. The have submitted a proposal for two walls signs, one on the front and one on the back. The letters will be blue vinyl and they comply with the signage code. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Lopez asked how big the rear sign is. Mr. Bagato stated that the back is the same as the front. The letters are 2'6" high. Commissioner Lopez stated that the front looks fine but the back looks a little large for the area. Mr. Drell stated that the rear sign is lower than the front, making it appear larger. Commissioner Gregory asked if 24" high letters would be more appropriate on the back. Commissioner Lopez stated that 24" high letters would be better. The applicant stated that the back of the store is for shipping and receiving and he didn't feel that Ethan Allen would have an issue with reducing the letter size. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval subject to reducing the letters on the rear elevation from 30" to 24". Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: C 04-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOGAN GRAVES, 1426 S. Willow Avenue, Rialto, CA 92376 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new Shell fascia on what was previously a Chevron gas station. LOCATION: 77-920 Avenue of the States ZONE: PC G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR041012.MIN 3 Noe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith explained that this is a remodel of the existing Chevron gas station to a Shell station. Mr. Drell stated that at one point they wanted to redo the whole canopy, but now all they're doing is painting everything white and adding a yellow band. The entire canopy would be painted white. They would like to take the glass that's currently in the gable and make it white. They intend to replace the glass with an aluminum panel. They needed something to attach a horizontal band to. As it's shown in the picture, only the columns are replaced with the white panels. The glass is an important part of the architecture and if it was whited out it would start to look like a metal building. The white is very white. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the canopy. Mr. Drell stated that the signage has been removed and it will be painted white. I think that there's too much white. He asked the applicant if there was a reason why they didn't want to paint the edge of the canopy to give the building a little bit of definition. Mike Sentell, representative for Shell, was present and stated that part of Shell's image is on a ranch canopy, they just paint it white. Typically, they have yellow in their color scheme but when the fascia is small they just go with white. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the support mechanisms. Mr. Sentell stated that they will be white as well. The will paint the base dark grey about 12"-18" high. The grey goes around the base of the entire building. Mr. Drell stated that unfortunately when you paint everything white, the third dimension starts disappearing. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's looking for a purity to this that maybe makes it okay, but he's not getting it. Mr. Drell stated that the one that he saw in another town looked like the paint job hadn't been finished. It looked like a car with primer on it. There are interesting architectural elements on this building and the white makes them disappear. Commissioner Vuksic stated that filling in the windows with some solid mass on the lower portion might be okay. The upper level needs to remain clerestory to respect the architecture that's there. I think that the applicant could do very little to the building and it would be fine. I can't imagine approving this. One thought was that maybe they're doing so little that it's alright because it's not like they're putting a lot of money into something that's going to look bad. They're really not putting significant money into it. It's pretty hard on the eyes. They need to look at this some more and it should be more responsive to the building lines that are there and the glass that's there. I agree with Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 4 NI"" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Drell on the white and that it's too harsh. Commissioner Gregory asked if the vertical elements are a step forward. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the vertical elements "work". Mr. Sentell stated that they could use a different white, like a Swiss coffee color. Commissioner Gregory stated that when you're using white on everything, it's kind of blinding with the kind of sun we have. We like to shy away from pure white. Commissioner Gregory asked the commission if they would like to see more assistance in defining some of the edging qualities. It's a nice building. Mr. Sentell commented that Shell corporate has their colors and didn't know what could be done to the canopy fascia. Would the City accept yellow, which is a Shell color? The commissioner suggested using grey. Mr. Sentell commented that Shell probably won't accept grey. Mr. Drell stated that the edge of the fascia is so thin and wondered if they could put a red and yellow stripe on the edge of the fascia. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't have a problem with having the fascia white, however, the use of white everywhere takes away some of the nice qualities of the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked if Shell would be willing to make some changes to the building. Mr. Sentell stated that they could change the color of the white. They will accept a Swiss coffee color. Commissioner Vuksic commented that this would be a slightly warmer color. Commissioner Lambell stated that they could lose the whole personality of the canopy if it's all painted white. Commissioner Gregory commented that the general consensus is that the applicant is going in a good direction if they had a little more differentiation so that everything isn't spray painted white. Mr. Sentell stated that the dispensers are red and yellow which will add some color to the canopy area. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the sign bands on the building. Mr. Drell stated that this is the only signage on the building. They replaced the face on the monument sign. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it looks weak to her. Mr. Sentell stated that normal Shell puts their name and logo on the canopy, but they no longer put the word "Shell" anywhere on the building or canopy. Commissioner Lambell stated that she loves the clerestory windows on the top of the building and they tie everything together. If you start G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 5 Yrr► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES breaking it up and painting it white, you'll be losing the integrity of the architecture of this building. Mr. Drell asked if they could reproduce the big horizontal area on the canopy like Chevron did. That's where the signage and the graphics belong. Commissioner Lambell asked to see a picture of one of the dispensers. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's clear that this proposal will need to come back to the ARC. Some of the concerns that were expressed are the overall whiteness, use other colors to bring out some of the architecture. There is a consensus that arctic white might be better replaced with Swiss coffee. Mr. Sentell asked if they could paint the fascia on the canopy yellow. Commissioner Gregory commented that some of the commissioners had commented that it wouldn't be bad. The fascia is so thin that you might be able to get away with it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the large sign band that's on the building is the more serious issue. Something needs to happen that's more responsive to the architecture. The applicant submitted a landscape plan for the area where they removed a row of oleanders. He commented that it's very similar to the median that's on the street. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans including adding definition to bring out architectural details with other colors and re-thinking the sign band on the building. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-129 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT DENTAL SPECIALTY GROUP, 72-415 Park View Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a monument sign. LOCATION: 72-415 Park View Drive ZONE: OP GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-101 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Windermere Real Estate & California Vein Specialists LOCATION: 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200 ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-52 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HANK CAPPELLA, 531 Tomahawk Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of a detached casita. LOCATION: 531 Tomahawk Drive, Indian Ridge Country Club ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the case to the meeting of October 26, 2004 at the request of the Indian Ridge Homeowner's Association and the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, 165 Luring Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of new office/warehouse building (35,158 square feet) which will be for a marble/granite fabrication company. Stonecrest LOCATION: 73-500 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the case to the meeting of October 26, 2004 at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD OLMEDO, 18111 Von Karman, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 52,118 square foot concrete tilt-up building. Bedrosian Tile LOCATION: 73-550 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Smith displayed the site plan for the proposal to the west of this project. The proposed site plan will be changing due to conditions from Public Works since they don't want any parking in the front 100'. The matter is before the commission for their review of the architecture. The building height is at the maximum of 35'. The service industrial zone can have a 30' building height, however, height exceptions can be processed through the City Council. On the plan to the west, they have provided for a shared access driveway. Commissioner Vuksic asked the project architect if he wanted to present the project before comments are given by the commission. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Edward Olmedo, architect for Ware-Malcomb Architects, was present to address the commission. Larry Bedrosian and Tom Noble were also present. The building is going to be used as a tile distribution center and will be 52,000+ square feet on about 3.3 acres of land. We gave the building a retail look even though it's an industrial complex. I was told by staff members that tower elements are permitted, with 55' being the tallest tower that the City would approve and we're definitely below that. Mr. Drell commented that there will be another layer of approval and will take more time. Tom Noble stated that he had met with Mike Errante, Page Garner and Mark Greenwood. Mr. Greenwood stated that he was concerned about the access to the large parcels along Dinah Shore and asked where they could have shared driveways. They sat down and went through the property lines where they did not have water service coming in and they identified where they could have shared driveways. I notified the buyers so that they could work around this issue. I'm really dismayed that the issue of a shared driveway would come up after all these discussions. Is this site plan a concern to the Architectural Review Commission? Mr. Drell stated that this is not a concern of this commission and it will be discussed at the Planning Commission. We're here today to discuss architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the main building is 30' high. I have some problems with the sides of the building and there's not enough depth on the front for the size of the building. I studied the plans for the building that's going in next door and there's a lot going on in that building. There are all kinds of things to break up the huge mass with differences in plane, color and material. I can appreciate the simplicity of the south elevation, but as soon as you start putting openings in it, it then needs to be responsive to the forms. The openings shouldn't be arbitrarily stuck in the walls. You definitely need more happening on both sides. You can see the sides from the street on the north and south. On the west elevation you need more. You're close but the area in between the two reddish masses looks like there's something happening but it's really very flat. You use paint colors, but I don't think that's enough for this massive building. I think you need some depth there. The glass needs to be set in. It's only set in a few inches, if that. The red columns are just paint colors. There needs to be more happening. There could be more variation in height. The base height is 30' and then there are two equally high elements and they could be a little bit more playful than that. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to know about the parapet height. Mr. Olmedo stated that they generally start G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES at 1' from the ridge and then it goes down about 4' or 5'. On the main tower elements there's an additional 5'. The roof-mounted equipment will be screened. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the equipment has to be below the low parapet. Mr. Olmedo volunteered to provide a line of sight exhibit. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if you're heading east on Dinah Shore, you're above the pad height by quite a bit. The mechanical equipment needs to be below the level of the parapet. Mr. Olmedo stated that he can provide an exhibit that can address this issue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that after reviewing the roof plans, he noticed that the towers go back some distance on the main roof about 6' or 8'. They should be carried back further. Mr. Olmedo stated that they're not metal frame. The structure is concrete and at one point they are cantilevering it about 5'-6'. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could add some metal frame to that to extend those. You're going to see those. Mr. Olmedo stated that he didn't want to use a change of material because it might look different once you actually see it. On paper it might look nice, but once it's constructed it might not look so nice. Commissioner Vuksic stated that seeing something end too abruptly and maybe even see the back side of that would be a lot worse looking than seeing two things painted the same color that happen to be different materials. He asked about the finish on the concrete. Mr. Olmedo stated that it'll be smooth. Commissioner Vuksic suggested using smooth plaster, which would look pretty much identical to the concrete. How reflective is the glass? Mr. Olmedo showed the commission a sample of the glass and stated that the reflective side of the film will be on the inside of the building. I wanted to use a tinted glass and get away from the reflective glass, but due to the Title 24 conditions and the heat that occurs in the desert, I was told that I had to use this reflective glass. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Olmedo who told him that he had to do that. Mr. Olmedo stated that his vendor gave him this information. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that he check his facts again. This glass looks very reflective. Mr. Olmedo stated that the reflective film will be on the inside so it won't be visible to the public. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would work as well with the film on the inside. Mr. Olmedo stated that he understood through his dialogue with the vendors, that it does work. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the roof access. Mr. Olmedo stated that the roof access will be located internally through the warehouse and not visible on the outside of the building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Olmedo stated that he wanted to address some of the concerns of the commission and explain why they've used certain elements. Our purpose was to create a retail look, but we wanted to make sure that there were major showroom areas and tried to draw attention to these. We're going to be using some of the owner's products along the columns and some of the wainscot. We would love to have used a lot of glass, but obviously because of the conditions of the heat we couldn't go to that extreme. This is some of the reasoning behind our design. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's funny to hear you say that because sometimes because of the orientation of a site you have to design buildings that are facing west and have to have a lot of glass just because of the nature of the use. You have a relatively small amount of glass on the building and I'm not quite sure that I understand. Mr. Drell asked what was behind the middle portion of the building. Mr. Olmedo stated that there will be some offices and showrooms. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the amount of glass is okay, but I don't understand why you say that you couldn't have more. Mr. Olmedo stated that they're trying limit the glass use. We're trying to meet the owner's needs for his warehousing of his products. There's an internal crane that's going to be used to move slabs of granite. Mr. Drell commented that there are four vertical windows in the middle. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're fine but they need to do something more to get some depth there and create some shadow in that area. You need to add some architectural features on the sides of the building that have some three dimensional qualities and incorporate the door openings so that they don't look like they're arbitrarily cut into the panels. Incorporate the door openings into the architecture that you create. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. They need to add a lot more architecture because it's nothing more than a tilt-up box with plant-ons added at different corners. The offsets are only 2' so you're not going to see much of an offset at 30' in height. You need to do a lot more even though it's going to be in an industrial area. Do something creative. Commissioner Lopez stated that there are some site plan issues. You might have to have more islands in the parking lot to comply with the parking lot shade tree ordinance. He recommended that the applicant speak to Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist. The site plan shows a curb adjacent sidewalk and the City is going to require a meandering sidewalk in this area. He asked the applicant if they have on site G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 11 err+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES drainage. Mr. Drell stated that they drain into the channel. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has been provided with a copy of Ms. Hollinger's written comments regarding the landscape plan. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-53 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior renovations of existing apartment complex. California Villas LOCATION: 77-107 California Avenue ZONE: R-2 Mr. Smith introduced Frank Laulainen, architect, and James Conway from the City of Palm Desert's Housing Authority. Mr. Conway stated that he currently works closely with the management company that does day-to-day management of the property the Housing Authority heads up the larger projects such as the proposal for the exterior renovation. In March of 2003, the Housing Authority acquired 141 one- bedroom units. The exterior is all block wall with stick framed units. Photos of the existing property were distributed for the commission to review. There are wide streets with large park-like grassy areas with large mature ash trees along Elkhorn. Last week, the landscape design went to the Landscape Beautification Committee and received approval. The landscape plan was included in the packets for the ARC to comment on. The conceptual design for the project has been shown to members of the City Council and the Housing Commission to get a feel for how we could change the white, low-pitched roofs with some subtle colors and simple changes to enhance the overall building appearance. Mr. Laulainen was present to answer questions. Mr. Laulainen stated that this is an interesting project because this is the old "barracks" of the desert. They built a little oasis around it to conceal the "barracks This was the old desert concept, i.e. plant a lot of trees and grass and hide the building behind a wall. Because of the budget, the City has decided that they were doing to do some cosmetic G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Hgmin\AR041012.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES design on the buildings. Once we get into the structure of the buildings, they will not qualify. I still have a problem with that. The mere fact that the buildings have withstood several earthquakes in the last 52 years gives it some credibility that maybe they're okay. They are block construction on the exterior. They've cut some holes to put some windows in. What makes it even a little bit more difficult is that they've cut air conditioning pockets out of the remaining wall. The buildings themselves are questionable. The roof, to some degree, fits the old California adobe style. It's low slung with large overhangs, however, they weren't very well supported so you have kind of a drooping eyelid effect. We've tried to identify what we could do with the buildings themselves. We can do some restructuring but we've decided to leave the roofs as they stand. There are gang-nailed trusses in the roof, but for some remote reason they're not carpenter trusses. If I had a choice, I'd probably strip off the old roof, put new trusses in, add some pitch and put a tile roof on. However, it's not in the budget at this time. We've gone with the cosmetic idea. We've taken the old walls and tried to undulate them to break them up and add some landscape elements and trellises to soften it up. We're taking some old hot water heater boxed areas and adding chimneys to give them some verticality. The idea was to rip off the old roof and put on an asphalt shingle roof but the pitch is too low for shingles, therefore, we're going to have to go back to a tar and gravel roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he could put a built-up roof below it and put the asphalt shingles on it. Mr. Laulainen stated that he could do a mock system there. Part of the concept was to bring this within some of the ordinances of the City. We've left the park-like setting, which is existing. We're going to leave most of the big trees. In addition to this, there have been discussions about Elkhorn Trail having a median down the middle to humanize this a little bit more. We've taken some of the ugly areas between the buildings and are making them into major entries into the project. We would like a more early California, adobe, rambling feeling and make it a little bit more private. We're going to sand blast all the old block and replaster over it, put new roofs on and trim the ends off and add new fascias and plastering underneath the soffit so that it's fire proofed and clean. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he's never seen a roof that was hot mopped with gravel and then wrap it with tile. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was enough money in the budget to use a lightweight concrete tile. Mr. Laulainen stated that it's not in the budget. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the thickness of the walls. Mr. Laulainen stated that they're 2 x 4, but they could be thicker. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez asked if the project was still going to be used for low income housing. Mr. Conway stated that it will remain low income housing and the residents will live there during construction. Commissioner Lopez stated that the trash locations are very important. Mr. Laulainen stated that they're going to be under the canopy of the carports and will be walled in. Mr. Conway stated that by putting the dumpsters under the carports, it will discourage people from dumping large items like couches in them. Commissioner Lopez commented that there are roof vents all over the buildings and he didn't see any on the elevations. Mr. Laulainen stated that when they re-roof the buildings, most of the vents will come out. There will still be some vents on the roofs, but they'll be new and painted to match the building. Commissioner Lopez stated that he didn't see a tot lot for the kids to play on. Mr. Conway stated that there is a play area where the kids currently play but they'd like to add a centralized tot lot. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscape appears to be over planted. He suggested removing about 30% to lighten it up in the desert areas. Mr. Conway stated that they have fully mature landscaping that's existing on the site. Commissioner Gregory stated that they need some positive and negative space. No every square foot has to be covered with a plant. There can be some open areas for the plants to contrast. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they have costs for a roof that was hot mopped underneath with barrel the on top. Will it even take the weight? Mr. Conway stated that they're using existing trusses so it won't support a the roof. There aren't a lot of options within a reasonable budget. Commissioner Lopez suggested phasing the buildings and landscaping so that the buildings are completed first and then the landscaping could be done in a year or two. Mr. Conway stated that they can't do a lot with the budget that we have. We could paint and do a built-up roof, but it's not really going to change the look of the project. The addition of landscaping is going to tie it all together. We would like to do it all together. Commissioner Lopez stated that if the landscaping is done in phases and you do a little bit at a time, then you get what you want versus getting half of what you want. Mr. Conway stated that they're adding a meandering sidewalk and a new irrigation plan. At that point, we have to come into compliance with CVWD and the Palm Desert Water Efficient Ordinance. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he and Commissioner Van Vliet visited the site recently while they were in the neighborhood looking at GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 14 *taw Nwo� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2004 MINUTES a single family home. The plans are very nice, what you've done. The courses of tile along the edges and ridges seem kind of risky. I'm not sure what they would look like in the end. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel for approval subject to (1) roof without the accents, and (2) approval by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041012.MIN 15