Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-13 r CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:27 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 18 5 Kristi Hanson X 19 4 Chris Van Vliet X 15 8*excused John Vuksic X 23 Ray Lopez X 19 4 Karen Oppenheim X 23 Karel Lambell X 21 2 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 22, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of November 22, 2005. The motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES C. REINMUTH, 5001 Tahquitz Canyon Way, #104, Palm Springs, CA 92767 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height above 15' on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 73-328 Juniper Street ZONE: R1 Mr. Stendell stated that he drove around and noted that there are a lot of homes in this neighborhood with roof heights that exceed 15'. Mr. James Reinmuth, applicant, was present and stated that he wanted to raise the pad and roof height to maximize the view from the master bedroom. We increased our finished floor height by 30". Mr. Drell stated that the roof height will end up being 19' from grade. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission needs to know what's happening on either side of the house and behind the house. Mr. Stendell stated that Mr. Reinmuth should also address the neighbors and get their approval. Commissioner Gregory asked if it might be necessary to put up story poles so that the neighbors can see how the line of sight might actually affect them. Mr. Reinmuth stated that he'd be happy to put up story poles. Commissioner Hanson commented that the thing that she felt was unfortunate about the architecture is that all you actually see are the garage doors. There isn't even a window on the front elevation. All you see above that is the roof structure. It appears that there are some other interesting elements that are not drawn on the elevation, such as pilasters and openings. We need to see what this is going to look like because right now it's being shown as a solid wall. If you add these elements, you could also add some other materials such as slate that would be compatible to other things that you're doing. Mr. Reinmuth asked if he could use another color rather than another material. Commissioner Hanson stated that she'd rather see a different material. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with building sections for the sides and rear, neighbor approval and the placement of story poles. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AGIM RADONI, 76-667 Florida Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high wall varying between 1 V and 20' from the curb. LOCATION: 76-527 California Drive ZONE: R1 Mr. Bagato stated that the request is for an exception to the wall ordinance. The lot is a small-sized lot in Palm Desert Country Club. The house has been designed so that it's pushed toward the rear, therefore, the applicant is going to put a pool in the front yard. This wall was approved one year ago, but it was never built so the approval expired and now the code has changed. As a compromise, it was recommended that the wall be lowered to 5' in height at the front and possibly adding a portion of open wrought iron in an area where the pool won't be visible. Skip Lynch, representative for the applicant, was present and stated that they would agree to add a wrought iron element to the wall. Commissioner Lambell asked if they could articulate the 30' stretch of wall so it's not just a long run. Mr. Lynch stated that he could add a column element at each corner. Mr. Drell stated that 30' is the limit for the length of a wall before articulation is required by code. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the new wall ordinance states that a 5' high wall has to be 15' from the curb. The plan looks like the wall, on average, is 15' back from the curb because it's going in an out. It looks better than if it was 15' straight across. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval, subject to (1) adding wrought iron at the 10'6" section to the left of the entry gates and the 7'Y section to the right of GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\lWR051213.MIN 3 err *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES the entry gates, and (2) limit the height of the wall to 5'. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 05-149 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LA CASITA RESTAURANTS, 411 E. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an existing sign for the La Casita Restaurant. LOCATION: 77-912 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Urbina displayed nighttime photos of the signage looking north. There was an approved sign program on September 26, 2000 by the Architectural Review Commission that required that signage facing Country Club Drive at Desert Country Plaza all have halo-lit lettering. There was a sign permit issued by the Building Department last year for internally illuminated channel letters. This has been an ongoing Code Enforcement case. This sign has never been finaled. The applicant is here to request an exception to the approved sign program to allow him to keep the "La Casita" lettering internally illuminated with channel-lit lettering. This sign is visible from the second floor of some apartments at the southwest corner of Country Club and Harris Lane. Mr. Urbina's recommendation is that the ARC deny the applicant's request for an exception to the halo-lit lettering sign program. Simon Moore, regional manager for La Casita Restaurant, was present and stated that there was a pre-existing Mexican restaurant in this location and La Casita took over the space. La Casita had their sign installed based upon the previous existing conditions. There was a channel-lit sign which we obtained when we took over the space. The property owner has approved the signage for La Casita. The portion of the sign with the "Mexican Food" wording was there. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was in violation of the sign program. Mr. Moore stated that it probably was. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign company had shown Jeff Winklepleck the proposed signage, but they only showed him the sign for the one that faces the parking lot. It was approved, but it was only supposed to be for the sign facing the parking GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES lot. Any sign facing Country Club is supposed to have reverse channel letters. Commissioner Gregory stated that we have a sign program so that we can create a certain quality in certain centers. They're there for that reason. We understand that the bright colors were selected because of their brightness and people will notice them, but what we're trying to do is make the sign less noticeable. I don't see that the prior ownership having a mis-communication would be a good enough reason to give them an exception. Commissioners Hanson and Lambell concurred. Mr. Drell asked if a permit was issued for the portion that says "Mexican Food" when it was originally installed. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign company only showed one elevation, but on the bottom they called out two signs. They used the sign that's facing the parking lot to get the permit, but they put up an additional sign facing Country Club. They have a permit for the signage, but the sign facing Country Club was never intentionally meant to be approved. The Building Department issued a permit. The sign has been up since 2001. Mr. Smith suggested that this item be continued to allow staff to review certain issues. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow staff to review issues. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-129 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CASTRO SIGNS, PAULO CASTRO, 3846 Tomlinson Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage for II Bambina's Pizzeria. LOCATION: 74-478 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 Mr. Bagato stated that the signage was installed without a permit. There is a new proposal from Castro Signs. They're proposing internal G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES individual channel letters on the red letters and a can logo for the baby symbol. It will be a can where the white background lights up. The comments on the last submittal stated that a can sign could not be approved. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant has gotten rid of the can sign, but in their effort to come up with a new sign, they've designed it so that there's so much going on that it's actually counter- productive for them. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that they have a lot of different pieces with no continuity. There's nothing holding it together. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission makes an effort to have signs that are easy to read and are aesthetically pleasing. We'd like to have things simplified. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that they're using two different colors and some letters are italic and others are not. The baby is there as possibly part of the logo. Commissioner Hanson suggested using the same color for the "II Bambina's Pizzeria" wording and the baby logo. It would be a much more successfully done sign. It was suggested that they use separate letters and then have the logo of the baby, then that would be an effective sign that will read nicely. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the letters look too big. The letter style looks too bold and simple for "Pizzeria" and it makes it look overwhelming. Choose a more interesting letter style. It was suggested that the applicant consult with someone regarding the design of the signage. The lower case letters should be no larger than 12" in height. Commissioner Gregory suggested that this item be continued so that the commission can review the changes. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing (1) 8" red individual letters for "II Bambina's" wording and to use the same font as the word "Pizzeria", (2) all letters should be the same style using a more stylish font, (3) use the same color for all the letters, (4) reduce letter size, (5) applicant shall work with staff before resubmitting plans to the Architectural Review Commission. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of maintenance facility elevations (including landscaping) at Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPR Mr. Smith commented that the landscape plan for the maintenance facility was continued from a previous meeting where the commission asked for a photo simulation of the berming around the maintenance building and the landscaping on it. Bill Munson, representative for Destination Development Corporation, was present to address the commission. Photo simulations were shown to the commissioners for their review. Mr. Munson stated that he met with the Carvers and they showed him where they wanted the picture taken from. The commission was told that the photo simulations were shown to the Carvers and they were happy with them. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for final approval of the suggested design solution, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 05-157 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES, 1160 Pioneer Way, Suite M, El Cajon, CA 92020 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a monument sign for La Jolla Bank. LOCATION: 44-495 Town Center Way ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: TT 31490 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588-3398 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of model units for 237 single-family lots. LOCATION: 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive, Northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell by minute motion granted approval of architecture only. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 05-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC., 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of a restaurant building at the Canyons at Bighorn. LOCATION: 312 Canyon Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 9. CASE NO.: SA 05-160 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WACKY WICKER, 74-104 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for WACKY WICKER. LOCATION: 74-104 Highway 111 ZONE: C1 Mr. Smith stated that the existing letters for the signage are 20" in height and it's 264" long. The proposed signage is 216" in length. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed letters will look bigger when they're installed on the fascia. Mr. Drell stated that the higher they're mounted on the fascia, the smaller the letters look. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Highway 111 is a few feet higher than the Wacky Wicker building so you're going to be looking right at the signage. The letters don't need to be any taller than 20". It's very easy to read. The applicant stated that if he reduces the size of the letter, then the sign might be too short. Commissioner Hanson stated that the proposal is 4' less in length than what he already has. Commissioner Gregory commented that Commissioner Vuksic made a very important comment which was in regard to the grade change from Highway 111 to the Wacky Wicker store. We won't be looking up at the sign as much as you think we are. The grade change is approximately 4'-6'. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) change letter color to Behr "Sun Porch", and (2) reduce letter height to a maximum of 20" for the words "Wacky Wicker". Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 05-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARBARA ROMANO, 48-120 Ocotillo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of a request for an exception to the wall ordinance for a 6' high block wall at 10' from the curb. LOCATION: 48-120 Ocotillo Drive GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 9 '410# ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has been before the ARC several times regarding their request for a 6' high block wall at their residence. We are recommending approval of the 6' high block wall located 10' from the curb. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant has informed him that their wall has been hit twice by a vehicle. The neighbors want to see the wall get built. They have provided a plan that shows a very nice-looking wall and landscaping with slate stone on the outside with a nice entry gate. We previously approved the wall at 12' from the curb. The two extra feet would make them feel a lot safer. Ms. Romano stated that she would like the wall to be 6' in height. Commissioner Gregory commented that if the wall is going to be so close to the curb, then it should be no higher than 5'. It would still be okay to have a 5' high wall around a swimming pool. We hate pushing such a tall wall so close to the curb. I understand why you want it, but I don't see how two feet would make you feel safer. I think it would make you feel more comfortable within the walls. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to a maximum 5' high wall at 10' from the curb. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRISTOL FARMS, JEFF DIERCK, 915 E. 2301" Street, Carson, CA 90745 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior remodel of the former Albertson's grocery store. LOCATION: 73-101 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the architect was present and elevations were shown to the commission. John Courtney Architects was present to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 10 "4pe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES answer questions. There is an 18' projection on the front. Commissioner Hanson asked about the thickness of the main Bristol Farms element. Mr. Courtney stated that it's a minimum of 2' thick. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the cornice detail wraps around all four sides of the element. The architect stated that they do wrap around all four sides of the element. Commissioner Gregory asked if the bell tower was finished inside the opening under the arches. Mr. Courtney stated that it has a glass finish. Commissioner Gregory stated that the elevations show trees, but when reviewing the plan I don't see where they're going to be planted. Will there be planters? Mr. Courtney stated that they intend to add planters. Commissioner Gregory stated that the trellis structure on the right of the entrance should have a planter under it as well. He requested other elevations, but the applicant didn't have them available. Mr. Drell stated that the front is the only visible elevation, other then the back end because it's part of a shopping center and has stores on either side of it. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there are still cornice elements that go around the side that can either stop abruptly or they can continue back until they're out of sight. Mr. Courtney stated that it's his intention to carry the molding until it's not visible from the public right of way on the street or in the parking lot. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the reason why he's asking about the sides is because more often than not when he hears that, it ends up being three-sided and it's virtually sawed off on the back. From the ground, you don't see it wrapping around behind where you can't see it anymore. You just see it sawed off. It makes a huge difference and we're going to look for that on the working drawings. Mr. Courtney stated that he'll do a good job with that. Bristol Farms is owned by Albertson's and it's a notch above the normal grocery store. It's a high-end version of a supermarket. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the 2' thickness is okay on the smaller elements but the big one in the middle is huge and wasn't sure if it would be thick enough. Commissioner Hanson stated that you don't want it too thick. 3' thickness would be fine on the large element, but I wouldn't go any thicker because then it's going to be too big. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that Mr. Courtney pay attention to the details at the working drawing level. Commissioner Gregory stated that a landscape plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Landscape Manager. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to submitting a landscape plan for review and approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5- 0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELLIOT LANDER, 16 Villaggio Place, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for a new two-story medical office building totaling 78,372 square feet. LOCATION: 73-650 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the site is located on the north side of Dinah Shore, east of Monterey. Elevations were displayed for the commission. The two-story building will be on the front of the lot with a parking deck on the rear side, adjacent to the railroad tracks. Mr. Urbina stated that in his opinion, the level of architecture being proposed for this building at a highly visible site on the north side of Dinah Shore, east of Leilani Way and also visible from the freeway is not up to the level of design that we would like to see in that area. The applicant is requesting a height exception to the 30' height limit to allow some variations in the roof lines up to 33'. The proposed color palette was shown to the commission. There will be a two-story parking structure in the rear. There will be landscaping between the parking structure and the railroad. Timothy Bunch, project architect, was present to address the commission. Mr. Bunch stated that the project is basically a decorated tilt-up building. They're using painted iron balcony railings with a curved metal roof. There are a lot of ins and outs and articulation. A photograph of a similar building in Murrieta was shown to the commission. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was hoping that the elements shaped like X's were made of metal and attached to the building. The proposed elevations have a lot of "gingerbread". It has a lot of detail, but it's still a very flat elevation. The arches above the windows are arbitrary and it doesn't really accomplish much. If it had some kind of a trellis element or an awning it would add some shadow lines. In looking at the floor plans, everything is just the thickness of the panels so you don't have a lot of shadow lines. Generally, we like to see at least one foot of depth going back in so you can create those shadow lines. The G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 12 *moll ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES forms themselves are okay. You've done a fairly good job of breaking up the elevations so that there's some interest. It looks like you've given quite a bit of ins and outs at 4'-6' back, which we like to see. You've done a really great job with making sure that all of the elements go back and wrap around on the roof so you can't see the mechanical equipment. However, you need to add some more depth to it. Commissioner Lambell stated that it's flat and it looks like it was run over by a "squisher". It needs to have some ins and outs and some different use of the "gingerbread". Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it needs some relief of all the sameness. Commissioner Lambell stated that she concurs with Commissioner Hanson in her comments. Commissioner Gregory asked about the proposed colors. Commissioner Hanson recommended that they change the Swiss Coffee color. The lightest that they should go is their proposed Brick Dust color, however, you should be very careful with this color because it's going to look very mauve-colored. You might want to use more of a tan color, if it's tan that you're trying to go for. That color has a lot of pink in it. Commissioner Lambell stated that the color will make a big difference when you've added the ins and outs and given the relief to it. Then you'll see spaces where the color should go. Commissioner Hanson stated that she knows that they have the tendency to change the colors, but it's a little bit contrived. You've got these elements so why not make certain elements a different tone with some accents in it, as opposed to "gingerbreading it up". The coin elements aren't my favorite on the corners. Mr. Bunch stated that the history is that Conrad Rider, who is the architect, visits his mom in northern Italy and he took the style of Italian architecture and made a composite of what he was seeing there. Commissioner Hanson stated that in Italy the coins are going to be big, bulky, textural stones instead of a flat detail in a building. It doesn't carry the same weight. Mr. Urbina commented that it would be helpful to have an amended materials/color board submitted. Mr. Drell stated that the trellis on the parking structure won't work very well if it's oriented east-west. If they're north-south and the slats are angled then you'll get almost 100% shade. Mr. Bunch stated that the small trellis is oriented north-south. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request with direction that the applicant return with revised elevations. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN t3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: CUP 05-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS MONFORT, 19-752 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 240, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 75-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower for Cingular wireless and an equipment shelter. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Honeysuckle Drive and Narcissus (within Palm Valley Country Club) ZONE: PR-3 Mr. Urbina commented that the Landscape Specialist had correction comments that were passed out to the commission. The commission didn't have any comments on the proposal. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 33120 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT MAYER CORP., LARRY BROSE, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for a 49-lot single-family subdivision. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Smith stated that the proposed project site is on the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club. About one year ago, the commission was presented with a three-acre shopping center with thirty-seven residential units. The commercial project was denied by the City Council. The applicant has returned with a 49-lot single-family subdivision for the entirety of the site. When the commission looked at it last, the project had all two-story units except for one unit that was G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES going to be single story, which we never saw plans for. They were going to be coming forward later. We now still have mostly two-story units, which will be the same as the units that the commission had previously reviewed. There will be eleven single-story units in the project. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on plan 0, elevation A looks really good but the rafter tails look like they're just sticking out after they install the fabricated trusses. They look like they're 2 x 6's with cut ends on them. Rod Greenburg, architect, was present. He stated that he could make the rafter tails larger. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was his intent to have them sawed off. Mr. Greenburg stated that he has some that are rounded, but it would be easy to round all of them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that elevation B on Plan 0 bothers me. Elevation A is very nicely articulated, but elevation B isn't as successful. He asked if the header over the garage door and the front door is plaster. Mr. Greenburg stated that it is plaster. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it protrudes out or goes in from the main face. Mr. Greenburg stated that it's a foam detail that's 2" thick. The air conditioning compressors will be in the backyard. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the exterior walls are 2 x 4. Mr. Greenburg stated that he's changing them to 2 x 6 walls and the windows will be recessed. Commissioner Vuksic commented on Plan 1X . Mr. Greenburg clarified that he's only building this particular model four times. These houses fit together like a puzzle. This model will be up against a two-story building, but they're required to have a one-story building because of the location on the site. The second-story has been taken off this model and the floor plan has been modified, but it's only plotted four times. They're using 2 x 6 exterior walls and they will be consistent with the two-story houses. The windows will be recessed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that elevation A looks terrific, but elevation B is substandard. You need to do a little bit more on that one. That's the only one that doesn't meet the minimum standards. The top roof element is all one plane, which creates a disadvantage because you have a main ridge and then you come down to the next ridge and there's no break anywhere. Right away it becomes substandard so you really need to work to get it above that line. Commissioner Gregory asked about the use of the wood members and wondered if they might twist and warp within about three years. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they might, but we could require that they use select structural wood members. On Plan 1X elevation B, you should really make an effort to dress that up. If Mr. Drell has any doubt about it, he'll bring it back to the ARC for further review. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell commented that it's absurd to have houses along Monterey. Who in the world is going to pay to live on this street? To have residential along this hugely trafficked intersection is absurd. Are there nine people who could live here and not care? It's going to be a tough thing. Mr. Greenburg stated that the sound will be mitigated on the other side of the buildings through the construction of the building. It meets the requirements. These units will probably be priced lower than the other units, but I'm sure that we'll find buyers. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval, subject to (1) Plan 0 - Elevations A & B rafter tails to be thickened to 4" x 4", trellis to made of select structural lumber and be free of knots, exterior walls to be 2 x 6 with 2 x 3 nailers to inset windows as far as possible, (2) Plan 1X elevations shall have 2 x 3 nailers on exterior walls and inset windows as far as possible, (3) Elevation B - improve to architectural standard of the other models and shall be reviewed by staff, and (4) subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP/ CUP 05-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73- 626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for a 12-unit, 36-key condominium hotel with the building height varying between 24' to 31'. (Height limit is 24' for this zone.) LOCATION: 73-811 Larrea Street ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that in 2001, a 12-unit apartment complex was approved on this one-acre site. The project was never built. Staff is considering an El Paseo Resort Overlay District which would apply to the lots and would allow more hotels to be closer to El Paseo. The applicant is proposing underground parking. The first floor has a deck with a community pool, the second level has pools that overflow into the lower pool. There are decks on the third floor with covered trellises and barbeque areas. This project will exceed the height limit, which is 24'. The buildings will range in height from 26-31' at the top of the tower elements. They're going to be asking for 12 units with 36 rooms. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 16 `"010, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES This project will be presented as part of a general discussion with the Planning Commission and the City Council. We want to promote resort-type of uses close to El Paseo. As land prices go up, we have to find ways to make the codes more flexible so we're working on a possible overlay designation. The properties will be delineated for the Planning Commission and the City Council. It will also be presented to the El Paseo merchants as well at their next meeting. We will recommend approval of this project. Juan Carlos Ochoa, designer, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson commented that she thought that it was a very exciting project. It looks really great. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a wonderful project and has so much going on. It's really amazing. We're really lucky to have this standard being set for this type of development. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if the project would be visible from Shadow Mountain. Mr. Ochoa stated that you won't be able to see it from Shadow Mountain. There's a two-story building located right behind this property. Commissioner Lambell asked about the total number of units. Mr. Bagato stated that there are 12 units, with 3 rooms in each unit. There are 36 keys. Bedrooms can be locked out and can be rented individually. Each of the 12 units will be individually owned by one investor. The developer stated that since the property is zoned for 12 condominiums, we wanted to build 12 condominiums but we wanted to have a CUP to operate it as a 36-key hotel. Our studies show that typically, couples would rent a unit for a week or more at a time on a vacation rental basis. There would be surplus units and we would like to have the opportunity to rent them on a nightly basis for the hotel market. We're going to be addressing two different business markets. Mr. Drell stated that people could rent two of the bedrooms in a unit or if someone had a big family they could rent all three bedrooms. Probably at any one time, it would be unlikely that there would be 36 keys out because there would be a combination of a fully occupied three bedroom, some one bedroom units and two bedroom units. Most likely, there would be about 24 rooms being rented. Commissioner Lambell stated that it seems really squished together for a residential area. It seems squished together for a hotel as well. Some of the elements are very reminiscent of the Westin Mission Hills. They have some elbow room to move around. Mr. Drell stated that this is an urban hotel. Commissioner Lambell stated that she agreed with Mr. Drell, but it still seemed squished for an urban and condominium facility. On the opposite side, I think that the elements are fabulous. It's a very exciting look that's going to come to an otherwise dreary street. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that there's a lot of old GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES stuff on that street. This is an exciting project and it's in keeping with The Gardens and with that level of sophistication in that area. Mr. Drell commented that for El Paseo to go to the next level, it has to have resort customers right there. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's the thing that we're missing in Palm Desert. While there are trade-offs with density, I think it actually adds to the excitement of the architecture and also the mix of people in our desert. The project is wonderful. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EUGENE S. VORWALLER, 72-875 Park View Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 72-875 Park View Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR051213.MIN 18