Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-14 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 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 14 3 Kristi Hanson X 15 2 Chris Van Vliet X 14 3 John Vuksic X 16 1 Ray Lopez X 16 1 Karen Oppenheim X 17 Karel Lambell X 11 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: AUGUST 24, 2004 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of August 24, 2004. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-114 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, 72-800 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of signage for the Kingdom Hall. LOCATION: 72-800 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 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 Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion subject to landscape plan approval by staff and providing a site plan. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant submitted a revised exhibit prior to the meeting. On the east elevation, the word "hand" has been deleted as well as the letters underneath that say "of Palm Desert" in order for him to stay within the maximum allowable square footage. It will read "Car Wash". Staff agreed with the applicant's rationale that 36" high letters would be appropriate so that the message doesn't get lost on the long wall. This wall is considerably longer than Jiffy Lube. There the lettering is 25" high, except that they had a lower case and upper case which resulted in almost a 36" appearance. Commissioner Hanson asked about the width of the band on the east elevation, is the banding going to stay and what are the black squares on the banding? Mr. Urbina stated that the building is under construction and the black squares were not on the working drawings. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the stripes were going to be there. Mr. Urbina stated that there will be three bands of color on the east elevation. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't like the idea of the letters being on the top band, especially if the black square cut-outs aren't going to be there. Mr. Smith asked about the distance from the east elevation to Washington Street. The applicant stated that it's approximately 28' to the street. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they should reduce the letter size and suggested 18" in height. Commissioner Gregory commented that they could be bigger but stated that now the signage makes it look like a very generic car wash. The applicant stated that he doesn't want it that way, but based on what the City is allowing him with the overall square footage this is all that they can do. Commissioner Gregory stated that if they push the letters down lower on the wall then maybe they will have the opportunity to put a name on as part of the signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would rather have "Hand Car Wash" and get rid of the other two signs on the sides. Mr. Smith stated that the wall curves and you won't see them both at the same time. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 3 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA Commissioner Van Vliet suggested 24" high letters. Commissioner Gregory suggested putting "Hand" back in and lowering the sign down. The applicant stated that the name of the car wash is "Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert". However, because they're not being allowed to have this then they have no choice but to just have "Car Wash". Mr. Urbina stated that they're allowed a maximum of 86 square feet facing Washington. Commissioner Gregory asked if the sign were made smaller could they say "Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert". Mr. Urbina stated that they could have it. The applicant stated that you would need glasses to see the name of the car wash. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant wants the largest possible letter size that he can get, which means that he would be exceeding the maximum allowable signage area. If they reduced the letter size and lowered the sign, it could say "Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert". The commission measured out 28' and drew 36" high letters on the white board to get an idea of how big the sign would be. The commission felt that 36" letters were way too big. They suggested a maximum of 24" high letters. The applicant insisted on larger letters. Mr. Urbina stated that on the south elevation they're proposing 24" letters for "Car Wash" and 16" letters for "And Detailing Center". Commissioner Hanson stated that they'll have the same size letters on the sides of the wall as you would on the east elevation facing Washington. The applicant stated that the letters on the east elevation will be 36" high. The commission stated that they won't be 36" on the front. Commissioner Hanson asked if the bands narrow down on the end elevations. The applicant stated that it's probably just perspective and the bands stay consistent throughout the length of the wall. Commissioner Gregory commented that he thinks that the band narrows at the ends. Commissioner Hanson stated that the signs on the ends should be reduced in size to fit in the band. The applicant suggested having 30" letters on the front elevations and "the detail center" at 18" and 24" on the sides. Commissioner Hanson commented that it doesn't make sense to show a sign exhibit that doesn't show the banding. They haven't taken into consideration the architecture of the banding in relationship to the signage. They've put the signage straight across and the banding is going up at an angle, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 4 `'rir+✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 which will look odd. Somehow the sign has to be architecturally integrated into the building face. The applicant should be given the opportunity to come back to the commission with the right signage in the right location. They need to give this some thought. Commissioner Gregory suggested showing the east elevation signage at 30" and another rendering showing the lettering at 24" in height. This should be shown on the elevation on the banding. It's a very interesting building and from that standpoint the applicant should take the building into consideration when doing the signage. They have an opportunity to make it something interesting. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it's scary to change the name and all of a sudden call it "Car Wash". Commissioner Hanson suggested doing something fun with possibly a neon-kind of look which could be interesting in the banding. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that (1) show reduced letter sizes, and (2) show signage relative to the banding of the architecture. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-41 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KIMBERLEE MORGAN, 72-837 Tamarisk Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' redwood fence facing a public street. LOCATION: 72-837 Tamarisk Street ZONE: R-1, 12,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: RV 04-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRANK PROULX, 77-260 Indiana Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 5 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store a 23' fifth wheel RV in an abandoned driveway of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 77-260 Indiana Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that pictures and site plan were included in the commissioner's packets for their review. The RV is surrounded by landscaping on the north and south sides and he's proposing to use moveable planters on the street side. We did receive two letters from the neighbors. One neighbor had no problems with the proposal but the other neighbor was opposed to having RV's stored in the City at all. The applicant, Frank Proulx, is present to answer questions. Staff recommends approval because it's well screened in a clever way. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it is screened but the location of the screening goes right out to the sidewalk. Commissioner Hanson stated that we don't allow walls over a certain height within a certain distance from the curb so how does that change if it's a shrub right behind the sidewalk? Mr. Drell commented that the City used to specifically regulate the height of shrubs but we don't have it in our ordinance at this time. Unless the landscape creates public safety site obstructions we don't regulate the height of landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that to some extent a wall is different from a shrub. Looking at a shrub isn't like looking at a wall. When you look at the photographs you're immediate impression is that it's a solid mass that looks so contrived and unnatural. Commissioner Lopez commented that living in this area he knows that people don't drive 25 miles per hour. Pulling out of the driveway could be dangerous for the neighbor which is why walls are kept at a certain height. Commissioner Gregory asked about the letter from the neighbor who was opposed to the proposal. Mr. Bagato commented that the letter stated that RV's shouldn't be allowed on any property in the City. The other neighbor was in favor and stated that the screening hides the RV pretty well. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Commissioner Hanson commented that her issue with the request is that the shrub is directly behind the sidewalk. There's nothing in front of it and it's very tall and it looks abnormal. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she has a problem with the proposal. I hear the argument of shrubbery vs. walls but walls would be an approved permanent structure and shrubs die and look tacky after a while. I have a real problem with how it looks and how it's going to look six months from now. Commissioner Vuksic commented that even if it's a thriving hedge it looks unnatural and even looks like a "work in progress" because they have the pots on pallets and it looks very odd. Frank Proulx, applicant, stated that he came to the City approximately four years ago about this RV. At the time, the City told me that I need to screen it. I bought the property when it was still in the county. I built a double-car garage, abandoned the existing carport and left the driveway with the specific purpose of putting an RV there. It was annexed into the City after that time and that's when I came to the City and was told that it had to be screened. In looking at the ordinance that says, "appropriate or substantial screening" we felt that this is certainly substantial screening. In looking around the community, I find many hedges that are 7'-8' tall that go out to the sidewalk. I felt that by using these particular plants that it would certainly enhance the property and certainly fit in with the rest of the area. Commissioner Gregory stated that the word "substantial" is a subjective-type word so substantial to one person might be something different to someone else. He asked the applicant how long the RV has been stored in this area. Mr. Proulx stated that it's been there for about three years. Mrs. Proulx was present and stated that the most recent part of the screening is about a year old and hasn't really filled in yet. The landscape screening on the east side is almost totally filled in. The driveway that's on the west side is a supplemental driveway for that home and they don't use it except for parking a vehicle there and the car isn't moved more than 3-4 times per year. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are any other options for locations on the site to store the RV. Mrs. Proulx stated that they built a double-car garage on the Elk Horn side of the corner property so G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 there's no access behind the home. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the setback on the garage side to the property line. Mrs. Proulx stated that they have 10' to the property line. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the width of the RV. Mr. Proulx stated that it's about 6'-7' wide. Mrs. Proulx commented that if they ever sell the home, that area would make a very nice screened in front yard patio. It's cemented and has landscaping inside the hedge area. Commissioner Vuksic asked if staff has seen the property. It looks like there's an awful lot of land that might be pretty deep. Mr. Proulx stated that he didn't draw the site plan to scale and I probably should have. There is about 10'-12' between the retaining wall and the house. The retaining wall to the sidewalk is about another 3'. Commissioner Vuksic wondered if there was an opportunity to tuck it in next to the building. Mrs. Proulx commented that they would have to add another driveway. There's no place to put the RV behind the house or beside the house because of the way that the land goes down to the street. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could carve it in the same way that they did the garage. Mrs. Proulx stated that it would be a visibility issue for the traffic on the street. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested continuing the request so that they could get a better picture of what's going on because it's not really clear. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was concerned that they haven't had the opportunity to see what is a very well intentioned approach at screening the RV but we talking about precedent if it's approved. The commission should really feel comfortable before approving it. Mr. Drell stated that the screening is definitely substantial, but is it appropriate. Commissioner Gregory commented that the other problem is that they would be relying on a landscaping solution, which to keep it looking neat would require a fair amount of work. Mr. Drell stated that the presumption would be that the landscaping would be maintained. If it's not, then it's not in compliance anymore. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to (1) allow the commissioners to visit the site, and (2) staff to take photos at the site. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 8 *4100 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-117 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILLY MEILDAZIS, RED 74, 72-990 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Red 74 LOCATION: 72-990 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: SA 04-118 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOTAL IDENTITY GROUP, 13-810 S. Lakeview Circle, Olathe, KS 66061 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Applebee's LOCATION: 74-995 Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that Jim Engle is present on behalf of Imperial Sign Company. There will be no external raceway. The letters for "neighborhood grill and bar" will be individual letters. The signage complies with the square footage requirements. They are proposing a red LED border that goes around the building which is similar to what was approved on the ARCO gas station near the freeway. I talked to Appleby's about getting a rheostat control device and they agreed to having a rheostat installed so that we can control the brightness. Mr. Drell stated that it would be a rheostat that will be adjusted to the satisfaction of the City. Mr. Bagato stated that the specs show that you can use a rheostat on an LED light. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the difference is between LED and neon. Mr. Engle stated that the LED tubing is easier to work with from the installation standpoint. However, the capability of being able to dim the light is probably the same for both LED and neon. LED could be as bright as neon. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there shouldn't be a neon band around the building. Mr. Engle stated that the track is about an inch and a quarter and the LED is less than that. Mr. Drell reminded the commission that they're dealing with a black environment at Cook Street and Frank Sinatra so it doesn't take very much light for it to be adequate. The ambient light in that area is very dark. Commissioner Hanson asked how necessary the LED would be for Appleby's. Mr. Drell stated that it's just architectural lighting. Mr. Engle commented that he could dim the light to the satisfaction of the City. Mr. Drell commented that the site is on a semi-residential corner. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she doesn't mind the LED stripe. Mr. Engle stated that Appleby's came to him and expressed that they would really like to have the red LED stripe. He did tell them that it would need to be on a dimmer where a city planner could come and dim the light as required. Commissioner Lambell suggested that Appleby's paint a red stripe or use some other medium than LED or neon. Commissioner Lopez stated that he's not offended by neon if it's done right. It can add to a setting. Mr. Engle stated that the LED stripe is a very thin strand. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of the signage (excluding the red LED stripe). Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to consider the request to allow red LED striping on a rheostat control to control light intensity. Motion failed 3-4 with Commissioners Gregory, Hanson, Lambel and Van Vliet opposed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 10 MO# ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-49 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHOICE ENTERPRISE, 74-818 Velie Way, Suite 12, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a single family residence with an 18' roof height. LOCATION: 46-366 Shadow Mountain ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 01-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a community center facility. Jewish Community Center LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith commented that the revised color elevations were included in the packets for the commissioners. Commissioner Hanson asked if these are the real colors. Mr. Ron Goldman, architect, stated that he gave them Xerox copies. Commissioner Hanson commented that she went through all the plans and she wanted to see what the real colors are going to be. The only element that sort of troubles me, particularly since it's going to be by itself for a very long time, is the tall tower with the emblem on it. It's very, very tall. Even as I looked at it from the standpoint of having other stuff next to it, it still sticks up out there and I wondered if you could look at that element again. It's 30' high, which is 16' taller than the element next to it. Mr. Drell asked what it was for. Mr. Goldman GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN I I 'M+ *"Ov ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES stated that part of it is the entrance with a high ceiling and the balance is the screen around the mechanical equipment as well as taking advantage of the Shalom greeting at the top. About 7' of it is for screening equipment and 7' is the higher ceiling. Could it be reduced? Yes. Commissioner Hanson stated that maybe it's not a situation of reducing the tower, but maybe it's a situation of bringing something else up so that there's more of a step down. When you look at the elevations it shows a very tall separation and nothing around it brings it back down and it just sits up there by itself and it doesn't tie to anything and looks odd. Mr. Goldman stated that he knows that they shouldn't rely on landscaping, but they do have a stand of date palms in front of the tower element which would actually be a taller element. Commissioner Lambell asked if the word "Shalom" located on the tower has to adhere to the regular signage requirements. Commissioner Hanson thought that it's not really signage. Commissioner Hanson suggested bringing the tower element down. Mr. Goldman stated that he didn't want to make the longer wall higher and making the two elements the same height. Commissioner Hanson suggested making them 1' different. Bring the tall element down to 25' which will pull it into a better relationship between the lower building and that element itself. Mr. Goldman stated that the only thing that he's concerned about is if the signage would be cut off from the street. Otherwise there shouldn't be any problem reducing the height. Mr. Drell suggested doing site line studies. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is an awfully blue building. Mr. Goldman stated that the plans didn't reproduce well. Mr. Drell stated that they're very blue. Mr. Goldman stated that originally they were going to use subdued muted colors and then they tried a warmer color scheme. I was concerned with the amount of warm, brown and beige tones and the sense of coolness would be refreshing in that sense. I also felt that because the buildings could get large, they needed to reduce in their mass. If we used the darker blue on the one building combined with the lighter blue and then terracing it so we would break up the mass and layer the buildings. Then we would use the lighter blue color to do the same thing with the second building. The lighter blue would also be used on the curved wall at the entrance. It was a way of juxtaposing those three main elements with three base colors. The accent colors were introduced in the frames of the windows or the cut-outs. We were trying to be playful instead of using just one color. When you take the colors in the sunlight, they change colors. They also change when you look at them from 30' away. Because the buildings are about 100' away from each other, we didn't want them to GRanning0onna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 12 tirrf ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES look like to different building blocks of primary colors. It would probably help to have larger color chips to take outside to look at in the sun. Mr. Drell stated that when dealing with unusual colors, you have to have better exhibits. Commissioner Hanson stated that these colors are in "uncharted territory". I think that we're going to have to have very large samples put up before I would ever dream of approving any of those colors. Mr. Drell stated that when they reviewed colors at the Cal State campus, we had 4' x 8' sheets of plywood which were put up on the exposure where they were going to be so that we could look at the colors in the field. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't feel comfortable at this point approving the proposed colors because I don't have enough experience with this color palette to say whether or not they would really work. I would like to see larger color samples to look at outside on the site. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant might want to do that anyway for verification. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his only experience with that color palette was on Captain Cook's Restaurant. Mr. Drell stated that you'll be seeing it in contrast to green, which would be the landscaping. Mr. Goldman stated that generally in this climate the grey to grey/green landscape will meld in with this. If the entire second phase were the same colors and same proportions, it would be too much and too blue. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested reviewing the colors about halfway through construction to see what the colors are going to look like on the buildings. Mr. Goldman stated that he would welcome that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he loves the simple, strong forms. This is very interesting looking architecture. Maybe using the Captain Cook's comparison isn't fair because that's so different. This sort of architecture might warrant some of these colors. When I saw this before I had some concern about the depth of some of the elements. I assumed that these were deep walls with things punched in and then I saw the floor plan and I saw thin walls with the openings. They're not represented as thin walls in some of the drawings because they have nice accent shadows on them that make them look like things are sunken in when they're not. That concerns me. Mr. Goldman stated that certain accents are supposed to be thin and act as eyebrow window shades. Commissioner Vuksic commented that you clearly show a shadow line between each of the slot windows and yet it's a flat wall. The glass is right up to the face. The wall facing the street with all the little square openings looks like it should be 18" thick and it's actually only 6"thick. Mr. Goldman commented that he could use an 8" wall and inset the windows to the inside so you'd get a 6" reveal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is not what he would've expected to see in the plan due to the scale of the buildings. There should be at G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES least 12" from the glass to the face of the wall. As much as I like the concept, I'm concerned about those sorts of details. I like the large block form where the letters are but in the perspective it looks like it's artificially high. It doesn't seem to nestle in with the rest of the buildings. Mr. Goldman stated that he's worried about when you're on the street coming down Portola. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) restudy tower height, (2) increase depth of cut-outs to 12" along Portola, and (3) evaluate exterior colors in field. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, 73- 735 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260-6999 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised conditions for recessed windows on the east elevation of the Ironwood Country Club clubhouse. LOCATION: 73-735 Irontree Drive ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STORAGE DEPOT 3 LLC, c/o Malcolm Riley, 11640 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90049 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for a 95,583 square foot self-storage facility. LOCATION: North side of Dinah Shore between Portola and Monterey Avenue ZONE: SI G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the commission reviewed the plans at their last meeting and the applicant has returned with revisions. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant lowered the tower to 30' which is the maximum for the zone, changed the design of the storage building, changed the colors so that they match the colors of the manager's building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was concerned about the south elevation along Dinah Shore and looking at the back of the parapet. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it looks like it's open on one side. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the color of the tower element. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's the orange/red color on the material/color board. There are two different types of block on the wall and it will all be painted the same color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it will look subtle with different textures and not just scoring. Mr. Bagato stated that there will also be landscaping in front of the wall. Commissioner Vuksic wasn't sure about the color for the tower. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant to enclose the entire parapet on the A2 elevation so that it has four sides. Also, the tower color should be evaluated by the commission in the field during construction. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) close back of parapet so that it has four sides, and (2) evaluate color of tower in the field. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD DEBONNE, P.O. Box 1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a two-story 17,061 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-851 Village Court ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that this is a new office building on Village Court on two vacant parcels. They may need to add some trees to comply with the parking lot shade tree ordinance. Overall, the building complies G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 15 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES with all the setbacks except for one tower element located in the back of the building near the parking lot that's 30' in height. The tower element will require City Council approval because it's over 25' in height. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant why he chose tile roof as opposed to a metal roof. The architect, David Prest, was present and commented that the whole Village Court area has a Spanish theme. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thinks that it's great architecture. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of model homes for 159-lot single family subdivision. LOCATION: Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that this is a new project that going to be going in at Gateway and Gerald Ford near the Sares Regis apartments. The applicant is proposing two-story homes with a recreational area with a pool and common walkways within the complex. Paul Depoliatus, Project Manager for Rilington Communities, was present to address the commission. The project is a small lot-type of project with lots being approximately 4,200 square feet. The architect for Rilington Communities stated that Plan 1 is 2,127 square feet, Plan 2 is 2,239 square feet, Plan 3 is 2,300 square feet and Plan 4 is 2,633 square feet. All four plans have two-car garages and are on narrow lots. All the plans have a large covered porch that can serve as an outdoor living space. Three architectural styles have been incorporated: Tuscan, Italianate and Spanish. All of the windows on the front elevations are deep set for shade relief. Plan 4 has a side G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES entry with a courtyard. The homes have 9' ceilings on both the first and second floors with 4:12 roof pitches. That makes the ridge heights from 25'-26'. The height limit in the area is 24' but there was some discussion about increasing the ceiling height on the first floor to 10'. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's not used to seeing two- story houses that are pretty long. The two-story elements go almost from the front to the back and the windows are right at the face. There isn't a lot going on on the walls, but they're just windows as they're needed for bathrooms or bedrooms. The sides are pretty stark looking. There isn't much depth in the walls in the front and rear elevations. The windows on the front elevations look like they're recessed about 6" and I think you need more than that. The applicant stated that there are no fireplaces and the mechanical equipment will be located in the side yards on the garage side of each home. Commissioner Hanson commented that they may have to put the mechanical equipment in the rear yards because the Fire Marshal requires 5' clearance in the side yards. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the articulation in the front and there are some really quaint-looking features, however, the two-story walls on the sides look stark. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the garage on Plan 2 the narrow sides should be thickened. On the plan it looks like it's about 12" which isn't thick enough. The fact that there are 2 x 4 walls on the exterior requires that they use 2 x 6 wall with a 2 x 4 inset if they're going to use nail-on windows with a 12" recess on the front elevations. They should also use 2 x 6 walls on the rear elevations. The front elevation of Plan 2A shows a little detail that's very "wimpy". Either push the roof up or pull it down. The end of the tub in the master bathroom on the side yard view shows a large window which makes for a very narrow stile on the side of the wall towards the corner. Is the window necessarily important or can it be made smaller or moved over to make the window more of a feature? Don't just leave a 12" wall face there. On Plan 3C, the upstairs window shutters look too oversize and should be brought into scale. The same comment applies to the garage side and also at the top of the lower window between the eave detail and the top of the window. Plan B with the same elevation has nice proportions with the shutters. What is the eave detail? The architect stated that the Italianate detail is a flat stucco eave. The Spanish is a stucco corval. It's a stepped stucco detail. There's also a guest bedroom window upstairs that looks like it's tight to the wall. Plan 4, front elevation B was a little bit tight with the size of the window shutters. The side entry gate looks "wimpy" so why even bother. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 17 GIs✓ tires' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked if any of the homes are going to have pools. Mr. Depoliatus stated that the backyards are going to be 20' deep. Commissioner Vuksic stated that having a pool in a yard requires a higher wall. The architect stated that the wall will be high enough for a pool. The gate that's shown on the elevations is an architectural element in front of a wall that will enclose the whole yard. Commissioner Hanson stated that on Plan 4A, the window on the right side is very tight and the proportions on the upper window on the left seems out of scale. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the space above the stone arches is small on the elevation that shows stone. The manufactured stone looks like it was put on and then just sawed off. It needs to be placed in a way that it looks like it's built out of stone and that it's structurally making an archway. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the side yard setbacks. The architect stated that they're 5' and 5' so the homes are 10' apart. The side walls are 10' away from the next house and not necessarily visible from a distance. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they show a 2' overhang on each side so the houses are really 6' apart at the roof structure. You're really creating a tunnel effect to the plate lines at 18' or 19' in the air, which is too bad. You're putting an awful lot of house on extremely small lots. Commissioner Lambell asked about the price point for these homes. The architect commented that the homes are geared towards a family- type market, which means there has to be a certain number of bedrooms and square footage. The owner of Rilington Communities, Mickey Riley, has pride in his homes and also a concern for affordability and having homes that are lower priced that everything else out there. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic regarding the comment about having architecture on all four sides of the building. You made an attempt on the first pass to only have architecture on the front of the building. The sides are going to be visible because of the height of the buildings in certain areas. From the backyards of the adjacent properties the upper structure will be very visible. Commissioner Vuksic suggested alternating the plans so that two very tall side walls won't be right next to each other. Commissioner Gregory asked if they were adding sidewalks within the neighborhood. The applicant stated that they are not. Commissioner G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 18 vftv ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES Hanson commented that if this is a family neighborhood, then kids shouldn't be walking in the street. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned about the very small amount of planting area where there will be a need to somewhat soften the tall buildings. If you look at the way that the trees have been worked in on the front yards, it gives it a very urban feeling. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he has a deep concern about the two-story walls with "as needed" windows placed in them that they show right now. The comments about some proportions and details are minor in comparison to my concern about what's happening on the sides of these houses. Maybe so much house is being crammed onto a small site and this is causing the need for what we're seeing. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant what they were doing for site drainage. The applicant stated that they were counting on using street trees and street curbs so that they have proper drainage going down the street. That's the only drainage that he's aware of. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they have to handle their own drainage on their own site with retention basins or an underground dry well system. The applicant stated that David Hacker has looked at the drainage on site, however, he was not present at the meeting to comment. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he's not talking about street drainage. Typically, you have to handle your own drainage within that site. Mr. Smith commented that in this case that they're working with the school and park to the north regarding water retention issues. Commissioner Lopez stated the importance of showing a place, possibly with a wall, to screen an area for trash can storage. Also, natural gas and electric meters should also be screened. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show (1) more architectural detail on side elevations of two- story walls, (2) use 2 x 6 walls with 2 x 4 insets to show recess of windows, (3) thicken area around the garage on Plan 2, (4) on the front elevation of Plan 2A, either push roof up or pull window element down and also make the bathroom window more of a feature, (5) on Plan 3C, bring the upstairs window with shutters to scale and increase the area around the garage, (6) on Plan 4B, the right side window is very tight and the proportions on the upper window on the left are out of scale, (7) on Plan 4, thicken the stone element above the front window, and (8) increase architecture on all four sides of the building. Motion carried 7- 0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 19 1490, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040914.MIN 20