Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-26 K CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • A MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 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 17 3 Kristi Hanson X 17 3 Chris Van Vliet X 17 3 John Vuksic X 19 1 Ray Lopez X 18 2 Karen Oppenheim X 19 1 Karel Lambell X 14 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: October 12, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of October 12, 2004. The motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 M01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-137 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AARON CLIPPINGER, 1160 Pioneer Way, Suite M, El Cajon, CA 92020 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Ruth's Chris Steak House. LOCATION: 74-740 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant intends to paint the back wall a different color. Aaron Clippinger was present to represent Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and stated that they are not painting the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it seems like a lot of signage high on the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that normally she would agree but since the signs are set so far back from the street that you'd be looking slightly down on the building so it's not so "in your face". Mr. Smith stated that it's several feet below Highway 111. Commissioner Gregory commented that the proposed signs are a lot nicer than the current signage. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that it is nicer because the current signage doesn't have a lot of design. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's a fair amount of blank area around it so it's not really crowded and relatively benign. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he likes the way it sits on the building and he's okay with it. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the monument sign is fine. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-54 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GEORGE BUONO, 38-681 Parker Ridge Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 8' high wall for entryway to a single family residence. LOCATION: 72-922 Grapevine ZONE: R-1 The applicant had an emergency and had to leave the meeting before his case was heard. Mr. Bagato stated that the plans were approved with a 5'11" high wall but when the wall was constructed the entryway was 8' in height. The applicant has a pool in the front yard, which requires it to be walled and it met the standards of the code. Commissioner Van Vliet doesn't see why they have to go so high at the entry. Mr. Drell stated that they need a landscape plan and gate design. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a landscape plan and gate design. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-138 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PARAGON SIGNS, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of illuminated channel letters for business signage. Scrapbook Co. LOCATION: 72-815 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 3 'Mrw * Moe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-135 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, 72-220 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request to remove an ARC condition that requires the neon sign and border lighting to have a dimmer device. LOCATION: 72-220 Highway 111, Outback Steakhouse ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the case to the meeting of November 9, 2004 at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-140 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEVIN PARKER, 1384 E. 5th Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Fairfield Inn LOCATION: 72-322 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting a change to their existing signage for the existing Fairfield Inn on Highway 111. The existing sign on the porte cochere entry is being changed. They're proposing 144 square feet of signage and they're only allowed 80 square feet. The signage needs to be reduced. There are some visibility issues with the building. One of the proposed signs shows an external raceway. The sign that faces Fred Waring is oversized by 24 square feet. Kevin Parker, representative for the Fairfield Inn, was present and stated that the City permitted the oversized signs. The elevations for the new signs are the same size as the existing signs. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES The letters are the same size as the existing. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they look much bigger. Mr. Parker stated that the logo is smaller than the Marriott letters but the letters are the same size. Commissioner Gregory asked if this was something that could be handled procedurally by staff. Mr. Smith commented that the existing sign with the external raceway is about 1'/2" deep and the one that they're proposing is 7" or 8". Mr. Parker stated that all the signs for the Fairfield Inn are mass produced so making a custom sign comes down to numbers and how bad they want it. They propose what they have in stock and if that doesn't work for the City, then they try to work with them. Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant should work with staff to come up with an agreement with square footage and some type of design on the raceway. Commissioner Hanson agreed that it should be worked out with staff. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request and directed the applicant to work with staff to comply with maximum signage size provisions. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-141 APPLICANT (AND AQQREa$j. IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for America's Tire Co. LOCATION: 72-820 Dinah Shore ZONE: Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: SA 04-143 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RESCO SELF STORAGE, LLC., 901 Dove #270, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Shurgard Self Storage. LOCATION: 72-150 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the sign proposal is for internally illuminated channel letter with day/night faces. It will be white at night and black during the day. Commissioner Hanson commented that the signs look slightly large. The representative for Shurgard Self Storage stated that they're within the allowed square footage. The signs are off of Fred Waring and set back from Highway 111. Commissioner Hanson stated that as you're driving straight down Fred Waring you're looking directly at the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission agrees that the general design of the sign and the way that it's illuminated is okay. Commissioner Hanson stated that 24" is big enough for the letters. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to reducing the letter height to 24". Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 8. CASE NO.: SA 04-142 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SACRED HEART CHURCH, 43-775 Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of signage for Sacred Heart Church. LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon Road G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 9. 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 Mr. Smith stated that the commission is being asked to review a detached casita unit in Indian Ridge Country Club. The neighbor has been notified and the homeowner's association of the last hearing on this matter at which time the commission continued it at the request of the homeowner's association to give them another opportunity to review it. The applicant, Hank Cappella, was present to address the commission. Any other people who were present to address this item were encouraged to speak. The structure is approximately 2'-3' from the property line. If it were 5' from the property line, the association could approve it. If it's less than 5' from the property line, they require the applicant to obtain unanimous approval of the surrounding neighbors. In this instance, the applicant obtained approval of three or four neighbors. Mr. Cappella stated that the board of the HOA is planning to send his request back to their architectural committee for their approval, even though they say it's a second unit. The architectural committee wants the board of directors to approve or disapprove it and the board thinks it's the duty of the architectural committee. This has been going on since June 8, 2004. I've been to various meetings and they all seem to be fighting amongst each other, not only on this issue but on other issues as well. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that technically we make our own independent decision and actually the HOA doesn't technically have the final approval. We can continue this case again if the board is going to make a decision. Mr. Cappella stated that the board is leaving it up to the City to make a decision. Mr. Smith commented that he had hoped to get something in writing from them but they never produced anything. Mr. Drell stated that we can make our decision based on the pure merits of this case and then if one of the adjoining neighbors wants to appeal that decision they can take it to the City Council or if the ARC denies it, then the applicant can take it to the City Council. Mr. Smith commented that staff has approved many casitas in Indian Ridge Country Club at 2' and 3' and several at zero setback based on the approval of the homeowner's association. In that community, this is normal. Mr. Drell asked if this unit inordinately impacts adjacent property owners. Mr. Smith stated that there is a letter from the adjacent property owner that she has submitted to the board. Commissioner Hanson stated that according to the photographs, the proposed unit is up against the neighbor's garage. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the unit goes beyond the garage. Commissioner Hanson stated that it sticks out a ways from the neighbor's garage and it's 33' deep. Mr. Cappella stated that it parallels the neighbor's garage and their walk-in closet which has no windows and it goes about 1'6" towards their bathroom window. The window is located over the tub, and is about 1' high and 5' long. When you're in their bathroom standing on their floor looking out the window, you're looking at the roof of my house which is roughly 26' away from that window. Commissioner Lambell asked if they would be looking at the roof of the proposed casita. Mr. Cappella stated that the line of sight will hit the corner of the roof of the casita. Commissioner Gregory asked if anyone was present in the audience who would like to address the commission. Mr. Smith stated that the neighbors were notified of the previous hearing and they were sent a notice of action from the last meeting which stated that the proposal would be continued to this meeting. Commissioner Gregory stated that we have certain rules regarding setbacks in non-country club situations of adjoining-type structures and he asked if those setback rules apply here. Mr. Smith stated that it's in a PR zone where there are zero lot line units. Staff has approved casitas over-the-counter with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES homeowner's association approval. Mr. Drell stated that we cannot enforce private CC & R's. We use the input from the homeowner's association in making our decision whether to approve it or not. If they don't have approval from the HOA, then they have a civil problem with their association relative to their CC&R's but that's between them. Commissioner Gregory asked why the ARC is looking at this if they meet all the zoning guidelines. Mr. Drell stated that when there's controversy, we rely on the ARC to make a decision to show that we've judiciously considered it and it wasn't just the decision of one member of the staff. The commission agreed that the casita is okay with respect to their guidelines. Mr. Smith reminded the applicant that there is a 15-day window for appeals. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 10. 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 Mr. Smith stated that this request came to the ARC two meetings ago and the commission asked if the applicant could relocate the signage somewhere else further away from the Best Buy sign. Dean Morgan, representative for Best Buy, was present to answer questions from the commission. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission's point was that the Magnolia Home Theater sign seems to argue a bit with Best Buy as GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES currently shown. It's only one aspect of your business so why would you give it so much importance. Maybe it could be located down and to the left or down and to the right that would still showcase it but not be so important. Mr. Morgan stated that he could pass that suggestion on but the company's thought process was that it's consistent with all other Magnolia Home Theater signs. Best Buy boxes are typical cookie cutter-style boxes which are uniform throughout and the Magnolia Home Theater signs that have gone up on the existing stores are also in the same format. They want to keep the same look so it's recognizable throughout. In keeping with the size and the prominence is that it's not something that's going in every Best Buy box. It's a company that's known in the Pacific Northwest and it's been around for about fifty years but it's name is not well known in Southern California. Advertising is not huge. It's a boutique-style business so we wanted to get the word out to the public. Commissioner Lambell stated that she visited the store and the home theater center is definitely an integral part of the interior. I can see how they need it to be of some prominence on the outside. The letters are 21" and 11" high. Mr. Smith stated that the Best Buy sign is at it's maximum square footage at 160 square feet. Commissioner Gregory wanted to clarify that the Best Buy signage is maxed out for the signage on that building. Mr. Smith stated that this is correct and part of their request will include an exception, which we will take to the City Council once we get an action by the ARC. Commissioner Hanson stated that the two signs fight each other. Either lower the Magnolia sign or move it off to the side, but I don't think that they deserve the same importance. Commissioner Gregory agreed with Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't mind it the way it's proposed. It's up to them as to whether they want to give it equal importance or not. It is halo lit. Mr. Morgan stated that Magnolia is a wholly owned, but separately operated company. Commissioner Hanson stated that Costco and Sam's Club, for example, only get one main sign and anything else has to be done differently. That's not what this is. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the businesses have to have their own identity. If this was two different businesses, we wouldn't approve this. We would say that it looks cluttered. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory told the applicant that the commission is not saying that they can't have a sign, but he's asking for an exception to an ordinance. We could go along with that if you compromise a little bit. I don't think you can have both an exception and a prominent sign competing with another sign which is already full size. Mr. Morgan asked how he could make it work. Commissioner Gregory stated that it could be located either on the column on the right or on the left side on the blank wall. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request with the suggestion that the Magnolia Home Theater sign be located on the left side of the entrance on the white portion of the building. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 11. 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 Mr. Smith stated that Mike Sentell was present to represent Shell. Mr. Sentell stated that the building has been painted Swiss coffee color with a grey accent at the bottom of the structure. The dispensers have been installed. Shell said that they could paint the fascia of the canopy yellow. They've reduced the signage across the tube bays to 2' from 32" so there will be more visibility in the windows. The owner has a landscape plan. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't like the idea of a yellow fascia and suggested using grey. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how the horizontal fascia was changed. Mr. Sentell stated that originally they were planning to put a new fascia on the canopy but they're not going to do that now. The horizontal element has been reduced to 24" on the building so that there's more glass exposure above it. The service center sign has never been a requirement of Shell, but the food mart sign is something that they really want. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he liked the way the shade G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 1 I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES structure looks in the photographs. A bright color in that area sounds scary. I like the purity of it the way it is. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) service center sign being omitted from it's proposed location giving the applicant the option of putting the service center sign in the area where the glass would be filled in to the far right of the front elevation, and (2) approving the canopy and Food Mart sign, as proposed. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 12. CASE NO.: PP 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRES DEVELOPMENT, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for sixteen industrial/commercial buildings. LOCATION: Monterey 10 Business Center; S.E. corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Leilani Way ZONE: Commercial/Industrial Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. 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 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 12 parr° "No, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES Frank Urrutia, architect, was present to answer questions from the commission. Mr. Smith stated that the commission had a question about the proposed glass. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Urrutia about the reason for the color of the glass. Why blue? Mr. Urrutia stated why not? There are some blue accents on the building and the blue glass is intended to compliment that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's hard to imagine that. In your opinion, is that a better choice than a bronze color, which would compliment the palette as well. Mr. Urrutia stated that bronze would be the safe way to go. Bronze would compliment the building, but that's not what they're trying to do. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he felt so comfortable with the color that they're just going to go ahead and order the glass and install it or are you going to have a sample piece put up to look at during construction. Mr. Urrutia stated that bronze would be the easy way out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the blue glass would be a little more risky and different than anything else. Mr. Drell stated that that's the point. Commissioner Hanson stated that different can be good, but it can also be bad. It's not that I don't like the color, I'm just not sure about it. I'm uncomfortable with it at this point because of the amount of glass in that color because it's quite bright and cool in flavor compared to the rest of the colors on the building. Mr. Urrutia stated that the accents are cool. In reality, the glass isn't going to look like the sample. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have any experience with glass in that color so it makes me uncomfortable. Mr. Urrutia stated that the glass is non-reflective. We don't want it to be reflective because part of the building is showroom and we want people to be able to walk up to that area and look inside. The last thing we want is a mirrored-type of glass which would prevent you from looking in. We're looking for just a tint. In reality, this is not going to look like the sample. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there's another building with blue glass in the area. Mr. Urrutia stated that there isn't another building around here. Commissioner Gregory asked which of the materials on the color/material board is the predominant building color. Mr. Urrutia stated that everything on the front elevation is stone. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the hues from the different types of stone are going to be wonderful. This is a beautiful office/industrial building. I've never seen the blue glass on a building and I'm really uncomfortable with it. Since you've had experience with it, I want you to say what your experience with this glass has been. Mr. Urrutia stated that he wouldn't be standing in front of the commission defending it if he didn't believe in it. We've used similar glass on the CBS 2 building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: TT 30795 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for (94) single-family homes and (26) senior villas. LOCATION: 42"d Avenue ZONE: R1-M Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PEGGY AMES & RANDY WERNER, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a new two-story, office/apartment, storage/warehouse building. LOCATION: Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this is going to be a new industrial building in the Gateway Industrial Park located east of the future Wal*Mart site and south of the freeway. The building is a Santa Fe-style design with concrete tilt-up construction. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the texture of the concrete. Mr. Bagato stated that it's going to be smooth. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there would be a series of expansion joints in it. Bob Ricciardi, architect, was present and stated that tilt panels come in sections so there will be joints but the joints will be caulked and painted so you'll GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 14 ' 14010 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES hardly see them. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how wide the panels are. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they vary but they're around 24'. Commissioner Hanson asked how thick the panels are. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they're about 9" thick. Commissioner Hanson asked if the step detail was going to be 9". Mr. Ricciardi stated that he's done a building like this in La Quinta behind the new Radio Active building where they put recess into the tilt, the actual wood is put into the recess. The steps will be 9" in depth. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the header elements above the windows. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they'll be re-sawn wood which will be stained. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they had enough depth on the roof to hide all the a/c units, especially the two evaporative coolers by the warehouse. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he's been able to hide all the equipment, which is why he went so high. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were all below the parapet wall. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they will all be screened by the parapet. Commissioner Vuksic asked how he was going to do that. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they'll definitely hide everything. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's having a hard time imagining it. The structure is 1 Y2' feet above and the structure is a couple of feet high and I see about 2' of parapet. Mr. Ricciardi stated that if worse comes to worse, he'll recess the roof. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that as long as the equipment is below the lowest point of the parapet it's going to be okay but that's going to be tough to do. Mr. Ricciardi stated that this is what he does. Commissioner Van Vliet disagreed and stated that he designed a building in Palm Desert that has 18" of roof-mounted equipment that's visible above the parapet wall so you don't always do that. Mr. Ricciardi stated that a lot of times what happens during construction is that they don't follow the architectural drawings and therefore they get cheaper units that are bigger and they don't use as many as they show on the drawings. The Ames people are really keyed in to having a great looking building. As you know, Peggy Ames has a really nice building down the street. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a concern about it. Just looking at the mechanics of the building it looks like there's a 2' parapet and a slope to the roof. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they have a 30" parapet on the property line and that will slope back to the parking lot. He should have close to 4Y2' for the parapet. The upstairs is an apartment so you don't have to worry about having big duct spaces for industrial use. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees a fundamental problem with dimensions to screen the equipment. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it'll be fine. Commissioner Vuksic asked how deep the windows are recessed. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the windows will be recessed 9". He'll put the glass in the back of the mullion so that there will be a 9" recess. Commissioner Hanson asked if any of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES windows will be able to open. Mr. Ricciardi stated that maybe only the ones in the apartment but right now he has none of them opening because it screws up the air conditioning system, especially in the office part. One gal could be hot and one gal could be cold and one's opening a window... On industrial or commercial buildings you don't have operable windows. That's the nature of the beast. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it should be up to the owner. If they don't want any ventilation then that's their choice. Randy Werner, applicant, stated that he thinks that having windows that will open is desirable because their current office is all glass and you can't open any windows. When it's cool outside, it's hot in the office. I personally, would like to have windows that open if there's no rule against it. Mr. Drell stated that there's no rule against it. Mr. Werner stated that they'll probably have windows that open. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he'd like see a little more depth to the elevations. I'm not just talking about making the walls thicker. I'm talking about the big, flat, tilt-up panels with the windows set in the back of the panel. It's a huge building with massive wall panels. It should be a little bit better. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could add some sort of a trellis or an overhang on the north elevation that would step the building back. Mr. Ricciardi stated that one thing that he doesn't really like things that are thin. Commissioner Hanson suggested using columns so it would be southwest in style and possibly use peeler poles. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they could add a little element there because he has about 4' of landscaping to play with. Mr. Drell stated that a trellis can go into the setback. Mr. Werner stated that their CC & R's probably won't allow a trellis with exposed wood. Mr. Drell asked if there was an exception in the CC & R's. Mr. Werner stated that they could possibly make an exception but it does say "no exposed wood". Commissioner Vuksic stated that it'll make the building look better and he'd be surprised if they said no to that. Commissioner Hanson suggested changing the back element to a slightly different color to offset it a little bit. It appears that it's going to be somebody else's business anyway. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could use the same color but a lighter hue. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant that if the CC & R's prohibit the use of wood, would you still be interested in some trellis design perhaps not made out of wood in an effort to break up the plane. Mr. Ricciardi suggested doing concrete columns. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) ensuring that the roof- mounted equipment is screened, (2) add trellis structure to the front elevation, and (3) use a second accent color for rear elevation. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES 4. 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 Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEDRAC INC., c/o David Carden, 5930 Lakeshore Drive, Cypress, CA 90630 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 6,280 square foot office/warehouse building. LOCATION: 77-621 Enfield Lane ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this has been to ARC and the Planning Commission sent it back. Mr. Bagato stated that it passed ARC on a 4- 3 vote. The Fire Marshal has some issues with it and recommended that the plans be modified. The reception area and the doorway has been flipped to create a larger doorway on the front elevation. The landscaping has been changed. It was recommended that the building be stepped but the architect stated that they couldn't do that because of the use of the tenant. Commissioner Vuksic had asked that the office be moved to the front and then lower that area and step the warehouse portion up. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he'd have to return the tilt panels because you can't leave the tilt panels hanging. There's a cost factor in trying to make this little building economically durable in the last lot to be developed facing a building that borders the railroad G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES tracks. The Planning Commission asked for the entry to be off the street rather than on the side so we quickly accommodated that request so it has a nice look. Now you have more glass facing the street than what you had before. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was thinking of the expense of carving out a niche by running the tilt up essentially outside the office and having the office conventionally framed. Is it necessary on this building in this location? Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they typically don't separate architecture because it's a location that no one is going to see. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's so little that's been done on this building from an aesthetic standpoint. It's not acceptable at this point. Commissioner Lambel commented that it needs some personality. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the ARC approved it once before with three little windows in it. Now we're back because the Planning Commission wanted it to be bigger and now we've made it bigger. Most of the front elevation has eyebrows and shade. I'm doing what the Planning Commission had asked for. Mr. Drell asked if the eyebrows actually project. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they come out 2' and go back 3' so you have 5' at the entrance of the building. The other eyebrows go back 2'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's a line that's hard to define, but projects are either over the line or under the line and this one is under the line. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the client has his problems with the rent structure that's there and he can't compete with that rent structure. If that's the case, then the building just won't be built and the land will be vacant which doesn't do anybody any good. He's trying to work within the economy of what's there and try to get the best looking thing that you can. That's what we've done. The colors are good and it's going to be a nice looking front. You can always do things better. You can always criticize somebody's work to do it better. It's not going to be a great looking building but it's going to be a good looking building. Commissioner Gregory asked how much the price would go up if the tilt up were brought around the office area. Mr. Ricciardi stated that this type of building usually rents for 80 cents per square foot so if he has to get $1.10 he's not in the market and that's the way it is. The bottom line is all return on investment. All these types of buildings are going to Indio because it's more affordable. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he couldn't say yes to this and feel good about it. It needs to look appropriate and well composed. Commissioner Hanson suggested doing a single story building. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he would prefer a denial rather than a continuance because they're under time restraints. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the request because the building lacks architecture. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041026.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2004 MINUTES Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Oppenheim and Lopez absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR041026.MIN 19