Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-08 � � ��•�"�\ CITY OF PALM DESERT �- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** 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 2 1 Kristi Hanson X 2 1 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Ray Lopez X 3 Karen Oppenheim X 3 Karel Lambell X 3 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 25, 2005 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of January 25, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. 1 � '�rrry ''�rri° � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: TT 32655 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: DESERT WELLS 237, LLC, 5005 Calle San Raphael, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape plan. LOCATION: South of Gerald Ford and west of Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARTIN & SHANNON MEEHAN, 73- 910 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high front yard wall. LOCATION: 73-910 Shadow Lake Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that this is a corner lot on Shadow Lake Drive and Mountain View. There's an existing tan, precision wall along the side yard and rear yard. The applicant is requesting approval for a new 6' high stucco wall that would have pilaster columns approximately every 12'. The pilaster columns would have a stacked-stone finish. The applicant is proposing that the wall be located 12' back from the curb face. At the entrance, a portico structure is being proposed with a rough sawn wood trellis over it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the wall would have to be located 15' from the curb to comply with the current ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that currently the wall could be 4' high and 12' from the curb. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant wants to create a courtyard in the front yard area because of the mountain G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 2 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES views to the south that they don't enjoy from the rear yard and they want privacy. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if a 4' high wall would work for them because a 6' high wall doesn't meet the ordinance. Mr. Meehan stated that a 6' high wall is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The lot is elevated from the street by 3'. Mr. Smith commented that a 6' high wall will have to be 20' from the curb in the new amended ordinance. Commissioner Vuksic stated that recently we had a person who wanted to put a pool in the front of their house with a wall around it, and I don't see how this is any different. Commissioner Gregory explained to the applicant that the City Council is upset about the way that walls have been going in. You're seeing other homes with walls in their front yard because they could at that time, but because they did it is why we're having problems. Looking at how your home is raised, a lower height wall could be as effective as a 6' high wall in some ways. There's no provision yet about planting something behind it if you would like to have privacy through some other means. We have to be very careful about granting approvals on deviations from the new ordinance guidelines. Mr. Drell stated that under the new ordinance, a 5' high wall will have to be 15' from the curb. A 42" high wall can be at the property line no closer than 7' from the curb. A 6' high wall will have to be 20' from the curb. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if they could move the wall back 3'. Mr. Meehan stated that it would be pushing up close to the entrance. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could articulate the wall so that it averages out. Mr. Drell stated that if there are existing physical features of the landscape that would force them to jog the wall in and out. Mr. Meehan stated that this is a pretty uninspired corner right now and the wall would be an improvement. Mr. Drell stated that this commission has the authority to grant exceptions to these standards if you can say that there are unique conditions that exist on this site. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that there should be some undulation in the wall. When I look at the plan it looks like it's been pushed to the limit. There's no relief anywhere. Mr. Smith commented that a condition of the new ordinance is that it will require the stepping of walls. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would consider approving this if there was some effort to average it and have some compromise as far as spacial give and take. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050208.MIN 3 �rr�` "�rr+r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AGENDA Commissioner Lambel suggested having a 5' high wall with some of it at 15' from the curb and some of it at 12' from the curb. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing a 5' high wall with undulation between 12' and 15' and also submit a landscape plan for approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANTHONY KELLEY/AKC SERVICES, INC., 31681 Riverside Drive, #J, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage. Marriott Courtyard LOCATION: 74-895 Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval options 1 & 2 by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: HOLT ARCHITECTS, 41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of buildings 1 & 2 of University Center Professional Park. LOCATION: 41-555 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050208.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to add Case No. PP 04-24 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD DEBONNE, P.O. Box 1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for a 17,061 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-851 Village Court ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that there are no changes on the working drawings. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for final approval of architecture. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE EVANS COMPANY, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations for The Village at University Park. LOCATION: 37-825 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Commissioner Vuksic commented that a substantial re-study has been done on the elevations. It was determined that the project didn't look enough like a "desert" project and it had certain ornamentation on it G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmiMAR050208.MIN 5 "�r'" � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES that didn't seem appropriate. We went through it and established more forms and articulation to pick up shadow lines and create opportunities for color changes and good opportunities for tenants to do some interesting things with their store fronts. The materials include split- face concrete block, different plaster textures, as well as some metal on the sides of the buildings. There are different patterns on the Cook Street elevations that indicate raked plaster and split-face concrete block. The top of the high element has a metal screen element, which is a heavy reverse ribbed material where the ribs go in, rather than out. On the south elevation, you can see more of it. The two buildings are a mirror image of each other like the previous plans. There are some metal awning scattered around the building that are cantilevered out and supported, to some extent, with steel cables and different insets ranging from corrugated/perForated metat to small bits of tube steel to create a trellis so there will be a variety of elements. On the west elevation, which is the arcade section, there are steel telescoping poles that will come up at certain intervals and hold out a large steel structure that's cantilevered and raised up as it goes. That theme is repeated on the corner portion as well where there are split-face concrete columns that have slots in them where steel poles come up through the slots and support a steel canopy structure that wraps around two sides of the building at both levels. We purposely left the drawings white, which I know is unusual, because we've been talking a lot about color and what would be appropriate. The owners' intent is to allow the storefronts to have the ability and the flexibility to really create the "pop" and the buildings to be attractive and warm, but not to overpower the storefronts. Rick Evans, applicant, stated that they've added another member to their design team. John Farnum is a resident of the desert and has done several stores and store fronts, primarily Nike Towns and some other stores like that. We wanted John to join us because we wanted to add some retail sizzle to the buildings and we also wanted to make sure that as we got into the elevation elements of store front that we left flexibility for the stores to be designed with characteristics that are more characteristic of the store than characteristic just of the building. That was an objective that we had in the last three or four weeks. Another objective we had was to study our colors and get our color palette softer, as opposed to dark and startling. We wanted to save the accent colors for the accent elements. There are four colors for the base building and a series of accent colors to choose from. We suspect that we will probably be adding some more colors to the accent colors because we think the range is a little too narrow and there needs to be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050208.MIN 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES a couple of lighter colors in it. In our design criteria book, we're going to instruct people how to use those colors. Our intention is to use those colors on accent elements, i.e. awnings, strokes of neon in signs, canopies, umbrellas, and pots. All the color comes out in those elements that allows us to give range to the store fronts and allow the store fronts to have a coloration degree of separation from each other. As we look to remodel the center, our basic remodeling will become our accents, as opposed to the base building. As stores change and different stores come in, there will be different store fronts. If we get tired of the accent colors in four or five years, we might come back and recommend a whole color change for the accents of the project. It's a very simple way to keep it fresh and enjoyable. The characteristics of the building will come together a little bit more formally and still not lose the excitement that the retailer brings. Some of the bays are similar, but they're intended to be an arcade so they'll have blade signs that hang down. Commissioner Gregory commented that Mr. Evans has done very well as to give the commission the big picture of the substantial changes that have been since the last submittal. I would like to hear from some of the other people to get different perspectives. Mr. Farnum stated he's been working with John Vuksic along with The Evans Company. I'll continue working with The Evans Company in developing the tenant design criteria for the various tenants. We'll be creating a handbook and I'll also be involved with review of tenant designs. I've done a lot of fairly high visibility retail projects and some restaurant work. One of the lessons that I learned while working with Nike and Discovery Channel is that given an opportunity and a building that provides options to them, tenants can get pretty creative. Even The Evans Company idea of local tenants, probably more than national chains and brands, need that kind of prodding. They want us to help create those kinds of opportunities beginning with store front options. We've created an aluminum system that could be configured using the same components into 9 or 10 or 12 or even 20 options. The system could also be used in different bay widths ranging from 14' to 20'. The idea would be that we could use this system to create different options. Sketches were shown to the commission to illustrate the idea that many different options could be generated with this system. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Farnum if he would be reviewing signs as well. Mr. Farnum stated that he will be reviewing signage and awnings. Fred Evans stated that a tenant book will be presented to the commission that will cover signage, store front design and awnings. This package will be used to develop the store fronts for each tenant. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN � �rw" � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell stated that the colors were weak. I'm into the "wow factor" of strong, natural colors. I'm concerned on how these colors are going to be utilized in signs, awnings, store fronts and all of the creature comforts that we're going to find there. It's going to be a challenge to make the tenants make a statement, whereas, when the building is making the statement they can come in with what they want and still be there. We're going to have to see the colors on the walls. Mr. Fred Evans stated that they're going to do a sun study and take some time to do that analysis and look at it over the next few months and pick a better, stronger palette and see how it works in the daytime and the nighttime. Commissioner Lambell commented that she was concerned that the proposed colors would just become sand and then we're not going to see the building at all. I think the building, architecturally, has come a superbly long way since the first submittal. The architectural details and the architecture of it has tremendously improved. Mr. Rick Evans stated that they do like the lighter colors but they do recognize that they have to be a good strength. We are intentionally wanting to put forth a building that's neutral. We want the signs, awnings and store fronts to take the lead. We want them to speak. When we started looking at dark colors, it was very difficult make the store fronts speak. We want the store fronts to be the loudest, crashing appearance that's on the corner. That's not going to be easy. Commissioner Lambell stated that the colors will come back for the commission to review prior to final approval. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission has been doing with the last few projects where we weren't sure about the colors. I don't think the applicant has a controversial problem here. If anything our concern is for the applicant, because in our experience when colors are light in the bright light of the desert they tend to almost look like off-white. You'll lose the difference between them so you may find yourself using stronger colors to get the goal you want. Mr. Drell commented that he had a question regarding the inside of the building where you have fairly discreet, easily recognizable store fronts, but on Cook Street they get far more ambiguous. When you put signs on them they start looking like the back of a building. It's hard to tell where the signs were relating to the storefront. Why didn't you carry the individuality from one side to the other side? I don't see how you're going to individualize them. Mr. Rick Evans stated that they're not going to individualize them. Not everybody in the center is going to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050208.MIN g �` � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES have a sign on Cook Street. Most of the stores don't go from front to back. One area has a kitchen along Cook Street but there will be another tenant on the interior part of the building. Some of the tenant spaces could be 600 square feet with another tenant space that wraps around the back. Mr. Drell commented that it could end up looking odd with signage if it doesn't relate architecturally to a particular store front. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a point well taken, but one of the other concerns is when we go too far the other way, for example with Desert Crossing we wanted the domes to be very important and look like they were well placed for large stores that were under the domes but the developer really didn't know who might be leasing these spaces and the size of the spaces. They were getting this heavy architectural theme in front of their leasing. Mr. Drell stated that this is far more detailed architecturally and the arrangement of the Cook Street elements might change depending on how it gets leased. Mr. Rick Evans stated that he doesn't see how it's going to happen. That last end cap is going to be a big restaurant with full depth front to back with a kitchen that wraps around the back of one panel of the arcade. Mr. Drell stated that whether or not the tenant has frontage, those stores will want signage on Cook Street. Then we get into an argument about where to put it that makes sense. In anticipation of that, have logical places where you can have signage and an illusion of what looks like a store front. Commissioner Gregory commented that the commission will have an opportunity to address this when the design guidelines are submitted. If they need to change the architecture to reflect difficulties with the signage, they'll do it. Mr. Drell stated that this was just a comment. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval of revised architectural plans. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: TPM 32315 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC., 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for a new 6,086 square foot retail building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 9 °'�+"' `�rr✓ � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 78-010 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that this is a request for preliminary approval for a retail building on the Wendy's site at Washington and Country Club. Richard Finkel, applicant, was present to address the commission. The tower element on this building is a mirror image of the tower on the Wells Fargo building right across the street. We're using some of the same elements that the bank used. They have more of a flared feature that we're not incorporating. Part of the thought was to create Country Club Circle as somewhat of a gateway element into the center as well as the center next door. I'm trying to do something where we're picking up on some of the architecture of the Wells Fargo as well as Wendy's. � We don't have tenants yet and there are issues with trying to create towers and significant entry statements when we don't know if we're going to have an 800 square foot tenant of a 3,000 square foot tenant and we don't know where the doors are going to go. We're trying to allow interest but without locking into a area where the entry will be. The curving elements are meant to pick up on the Wendy's design as well as the materials and colors. Commissioner Gregory asked about the eyebrows. Mr. Finkel stated that they're shading devices and a way to create interest with depth and shadow. Commissioner Gregory commented that he likes the eyebrows but wondered if they could come out a little further. Also, the parking area shows a dead end. A lot of people will go to fhe end only to find that there are no spaces so they'll have to make u-turns. The hammerhead is pretty small. Mr. Finkel stated that they had originally drawn it deeper but Ben in Land Management looked at it and said that he didn't want it to be deeper because people will think that iYs a parking space or an area for delivery trucks. We originally didn't have dead-ends, but there was a desire to hide the drive through. Ben and Phil Joy said that they didn't want the parking lot that wide so they made it narrower and added a dead end. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would be more convenient to have a wider turnaround. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she really loves the clean lines and the different textures. It's very simple and refreshing. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's an important counterpoint to the more dramatic style of Wendy's. Are there any actual proposed colors to review? Mr. Finkel stated that he doesn't have a full color scheme to present. I want to make the colors complimentary to the Wendy's. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR050208.MIN 10 �� � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks great. I like Commissioner Gregory's comment about extending the eyebrows because the masses are so big. Where is the roof access? Mr. Finkel stated that the roof access is all interior. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the parapets. Mr. Finkel stated that they'll have 5' parapets. Mr. Knight commented that the landscape staff is going to want to see that the irrigation is separated per property lines. By design, it looks like it's intermingled. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he loves the soft curves but wondered if they might be so subtle that when it's built you're not going to realize that it's curved. Mr. Finkel stated that they may do a physical model to study the curve. It makes it a little difficult to lease the inside when the walls are curved. Commissioner Lopez stated that the tree placement should be studied to make sure that they're not too close to the building. The plans show a bougainvillea vine in a shaded area and you might want to look for a different vine that's a little more shade tolerant. The cobble in a commercial area looks great when it first goes in, but it is high maintenance. The only way to clean it is to blow it out with blowers. We get a lot of blow sand and the cobble tends to get buried. The boulders are great. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval with suggestions regarding extending eyebrows, enhancing exterior colors, irrigation and landscaping. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COLT SECURITIES & INVESTMENT SERVICES, 41-625 Electric Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 7,408 square foot, two-story office/industrial building. LOCATION: 34-751 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050208.MIN 1 1 � � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Smith suggested continuing the case so that the architect can be present. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the architect to be present. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBYN S. RITCHEY, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, S-104, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 9,500 square foot office/warehouse building. LOCATION: 34-751 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that Robyn Ritchey was unable to attend the meeting, however, one of her colleagues was going to be present. Staff is bringing this project before the ARC for comments on the architecture. The site plan is going to be redesigned and the building size is going to be reduced. Mr. Drell had suggested that the commission review the architecture and give the applicant some feedback. Staff's major concern is with the north elevation, which is on a zero property line. The parcel to the north is the approved Glass Block products building, which has a parking lot to the north and the main entrance would face south looking at a wall. I have expressed to Ms. Ritchey that she should redesign the north elevation. Commissioner Lambell asked about the materials being proposed for the east elevation. Mr. Urbina stated that it's precision masonry block. Commissioner Gregory commented that the east elevation looks very awkward. A lot more can be done there. The north and east elevations need to be stronger. Hopefully, our points can be directed to the architect so that when she shows up for the next meeting she will have an idea of what we're looking for. Mr. Urbina commented that Ms. Ritchey would like to be continued to the meeting of March 8, 2005 because she needs more time to find a substitute teacher for the COD class that she teaches on Tuesdays. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 12 �� 7 ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lambel moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to March 8, 2005 to allow the architect to be present and to revise plans showing stronger north and east elevations and screen all roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of five office/industrial buildings totaling 61,857 square feet. Venture Commerce Center LOCATION: 73-700 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the property is located on the north side of Dinah Shore and backs up to the railroad. About six months ago, we approved the self storage facility right next door. The other side of the property is currently vacant. Five buildings are being proposed. They would like to do individual condos so that they can sell spaces to individual businesses. There parking will be for office use, but they'll have a variety of office and industrial uses. The original submittal has been revised so that it relates more to the desert. The overall building height is 30' with elements that exceed 30' requiring City Council approval after Planning Commission approval. Some of the buildings that face the north might have roll-up doors if they're industrial so they've incorporated some designs that shows how the doors can be added. The columns look too thin for the size of the building. There's only one color scheme for the project and I would suggest that the applicant use different colored awnings for individual tenants who want to express their identity. Staff is recommending approval of the revised plans. Brock Grayson, representative from Ware Malcomb, stated that the units will be sold individually at 1,000-3,000 square feet each. These will be for small business owners and we tried to break up each building so that they're easily identifiable. We'll develop a sign program for the tenants so that there's a consistent theme with a little bit of individuality. We've done projects similar to this in the San Francisco Bay Area, San G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR050208.MIN 13 �y � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Diego and Sacramento. I�/Ir. Drell stated that you lose a lot of the detail on the building when the color is repeated exactly over and over again. You've done a great job but consider having some sort of variation between the buildings to make each building stand out a little more. Mr. Grayson stated that his client is set on the proposed colors and they don't want to change them. They're really hoping that we can sell these colors. We're thinking about adding metal elements to the canopy structures to add a variation to the color theme. Commissioner Lambell asked about the height of the parapet. Mr. Grayson stated that the parapet is 31' in height. The roofs slope from the front to the back so there's a 4'6" parapet in the front and the back will be almost 7'6". Commissioner Lambell asked about the depth of the windows. Mr. Grayson stated that on the ends they have a 3/4" recess above the windows and the windows sit back 8" on the second floor. The first floor elements come out 4' so the glass sits 4' back into it. The center area sits back 2'. Commissioner Lambell asked about the texture on the pilasters. Mr. Grayson stated that they're going to do a form liner. They may sandblast the concrete to give it a rough texture and then painting over it. We want to get a different texture than just the .flat concrete panel. Commissioner Lambell asked about the lighting. Mr. Grayson stated that they have wall packs along the back side. We do have some architectural lighting as well. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the columns should be thicker on the front exterior elevation. Mr. Grayson stated that they could fatten them up and may taper them. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim granted preliminary approval subject to (1) thickening columns, and (2) approval by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0- 1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 04-36 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of architecture of warehouse/office/showroom building. Sierra Landscape G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 14 �� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 73-771 Dinah Shore; southwest corner of Dinah Shore and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Smith passed around the material samples, which are the same, but the elevations have changed. This building is for a single tenant with access on both Dinah Shore and Spyder Circle. There is a possible future pad on the northwesterly end of the site. At this point, they will be using the pad for outdoor storage for a landscaping business. Tom Sun, applicant and representative from Ware Malcomb, was present to address the commission. The design was started by getting input from the owner. The owner had sent some photos of the local architecture that he prefers and we incorporated certain elements into our design paying attention to the intersection of Spyder Circle and Dinah Shore. We've implemented a round element on the corner to give it prominence. We also have some saw-tooth articulation on the front elevation facing north. At this point, we do not have a landscaping plan to submit because we are very sensitive to that intersection and staff has made comments to incorporating Art in Public Spaces so we want to give that area special treatment. The plans will be forthcoming. The massing on the Dinah Shore Drive elevation on the left hand side will be utilized by Sierra Landscaping. They will have offices on the second floor and secured storage and shop on the first floor. It's possible that the other portion of the building will be leased out to another tenant. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees a dark area on the right side of the north elevation. Mr. Sun stated that the dark area is recessed glass. The canopy will be clad in aluminum with a projection. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the glass is recessed from the tilt panel. Mr. Sun stated that it will be recessed by about 4". Commissioner Vuksic commented that the parapets look like they stop on the roof of the round element on the corner. You're going to be able to see that even though it's up pretty high. Mr. Sun stated that the parapet height is 30' and you'd have to be pretty far away to see the returns. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be visible from the property across the street so it looks like they're going to have to return it and close it off. Mr. Sun commented that he could look into it and address that issue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he really concerned about the elevations are pretty flat for being such a big building. The glass will only be recessed 4" and I'm concerned with that as a standard. I think that we've been tougher in the past. I G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050208.MIN 15 � �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES recognize that this is a office/industrial area, but I think that there's a standard that we've been setting. Mr. Sun stated that he'll look at that and address the concerns. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when they're looking at recessing the glass more, they should look at introducing some other kinds of shade elements which could add to the whole texture of the building. The west elevation has huge expanses of glass and it was suggested that they look at doing something architecturally to add shade. Mr. Smith stated that the west end of the building is shown at 35' and the code is 30'. We have done height exceptions for architectural reasons and/or for internal operations within the buildings. If we're going to recommend a height exception to the Council, we need to have something special to justify an exception. Commissioner Vuksic stated that height limits stifle creativity and I don't think that this is there right now. Some parts of it are, but the parts that are higher are very flat. In order to support an exception to the height, it's got to be pretty special architecturally. The distance from the upper glass to the top of the parapet was questioned. Mr. Sun stated that he's holding the top of the roof to 30' so there will be a 5' parapet. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the glass. Mr. Sun stated that the glass and the finished ceiling is at 27'. Commissioner Vuksic asked how deep the structure is. Mr. Sun stated that that is yet to be determined. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he should be careful about that. We've found that when the equipment is even 6" or 12" over the parapet you can see it. We hold a high standard in keeping the equipment no higher than the parapet. It looks like you're in a really tight situation with the current plan. Mr. Sun stated that the heights were driven by the client's requirements for the internal use. Perhaps there can be some compromise. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the roof access was internal. Mr. Sun stated that it is internal. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the texture of the tilt panels. Mr. Sun commented that right now they're all the same texture. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the dark brown wainscot along the bottom. Mr. Sun stated that this is a painted wainscot. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there are any significant change in plane on the south elevation on the left side. Mr. Sun stated that there's just a recessed doorway. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they'll have wainscot and light-colored panels on this elevation and it needs more articulation. There is concern on the west elevation where it looks spindly. Commissioner Lopez suggested that the applicant think about where the signage is going to go. Mr. Drell suggested a monument sign on the corner. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the metal awning on the north elevation. Mr. Sun stated that it's an aluminum canopy. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050208.MIN 16 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES revised architectural plans with emphasis on creating more depth, whether it be recessing glass or adding architectural elements. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 04-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUZANNE LOPEZ, 3257 Primera Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90068 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a front entry vestibule and a 5' high block wall. LOCATION: 45-807 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-2 Suzanne Lopez, applicant, was present to address the commission. I was in Public Works regarding a 7' high wall with peelers going across it. I was told by Public Works to bring the wall down to 5'. The wall will be constructed of used concrete. Mr. Urbina stated that the revised plans show a lowered height of 12'10" for the vestibule, as required by Public Works. The wall will be set back 8'-12' from curb face. Mr. Drell stated that this will go to the Planning Commission public hearing as a variance. This is an unusual circumstance because this was a house that used to have a large front yard and the road was moved closer to the house. We're trying to preserve the residential quality of the house from the impacts of this growing, major arterial. Commissioner Gregory asked if there's any danger of people on the other side complaining about the roof height. Mr. Drell stated that there's a big back yard. Ms. Lopez stated that she intends to build a second unit behind the house within the next year and a half. Mr. Drell stated that the commission should look at the architecture and the wall. The variance is going to involve the additional portico. Ms. Lopez commented that Public Works already approved the portico. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't impact Public Works at all. The variance is for the front setback of the building. Ms. Lopez stated that she was asked to return with a landscape layout and a view of what the wall was going to look like. I was told that I had to bring the wall down to 5' but I was concerned because there's tremendous noise on that street and there's also a concern about a car crashing into the house if it goes out of control and it ends up in your living room. Some kind of protection G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 1� � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES from the street is needed. Because it will be partially in the Public Works variance, I said I want to stop the noise. They said that if I bring it down and then put the gate forward with pots with agave cactus in them to stop the sound and create some protection. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the architecture had previously been approved. Mr. Urbina commented that the garage and the colors were approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the drawings are different from the previous submittal. Ms. Lopez stated that she needs a high ceiling for doing large canvases and painting. The back of the garage is a single-story studio/workshop. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the architecture is sort of pueblo-style and then there is a long, narrow window with no depth to it. Howard Peterson, architect, stated that they might break up the window with panes. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that they use a series of small windows that are punched in deeper to match the architecture. Ms. Lopez commented that she's looking for light. On the top, I'm going to put in sky lights and I'm looking for light on the side. The rest of the space is going to be storage. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't see any glass on the east, north or west elevations. Mr. Drell commented that glass on the north would be important for doing artwork. Ms. Lopez stated that she's going to be building on the back wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he looked at the plan and thought that the wall looked really sexy, but when I looked at the elevation I was so disappointed because it's so predictable. It's a wall with a little archway at the door. It looks like a real "A" design. I'd love to see the creativity carried through with something unexpected in the elevation. I can see the wall changing height as it goes instead of it being all one level and forget the archway. Ms. Lopez commented that she wants to put wood antique doors in the archway. Commissioner Vuksic asked if she could have the doors without the archway like so many other doors. Ms. Lopez stated that she could but didn't think that it pulls everything in, in terms of protection, privacy and the feeling of blending Santa Fe with Mexican architecture together. If you have an arch, the wall pulls it in. Commissioner Vuksic commented that that would be a shame because you have an A+ in plan and a C in elevation. It's disappointing. Commissioner Lambell noted that on the plans it says that the existing carport is to be relocated and wondered where it was going to go. Ms. Lopez stated that she's going to put it in the backyard. Commissioner Gregory stated that a format landscape plan needs to be submitted for the City staff to review. Atso, it appears that two palm G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050208.MIN 1 g "'�r�'" '� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES trees are going to be incorporated inside the structure and wanted her to realize that they can live, but water will be coming inside the garage/studio. Just a caution in that there are some problems inherent with doing that so be careful. Commissioner Vuksic suggested having the wall go up to the level of the gate. Transition the wall from 5' up to the level of the gate in an artful way that has the strength of the plans. Commissioner Lopez suggested that the olive trees along the street are notorious concrete breakers so you might want to re-think the landscaping. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) long windows being replaced by smaller windows with 4" recess, (2) remove arch over entry gate, and (3) approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0- 0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-07 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): SCOTT PAUL HALTERLEIN, 74-057 EI Cortez Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 15' long gate across driveway to screen a boat. LOCATION: 74-057 EI Cortez Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Drell commented that this is a permit to store an RV (boat) in the side yard. Mr. Bagato stated that the gate is going to be 6' in height and won't completely screen the boat. Scott Paul Halterlein, applicant, was present and stated that the boat is on a trailer on a jack stand so you can pull a truck right underneath it so can be lowered down. That's not actually how high it always is. Commissioner Gregory asked about screening between the applicant's property and the neighbor's property. Mr. Halterlein stated that there's a fence between them as well as Japanese oleanders. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't feel that there's a problem with storing the boat if he pulls it back a little bit from the front of the house so that there's a little setback and make sure that the neighbor is okay with it. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R050208.MIN 1� • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-118 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion regarding business signage for Applebee's. LOCATION: 74-995 Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that the original approval for the signage at Appleby's was done through Pam at the Total Identity Group. We approved flush-mounted channel letters with no exterior raceway. What was actually built and installed was a sign with a raceway. Jim Engle, representative for Imperial Sign, was present and stated that the original sign company went bankrupt and they were called in to finish the job. We realized, after the fact, that they had installed a raceway. I didn't notice it on the plans until after the fact. After the inspection, I met Mr. Bagato at the project and they realized the raceway dilemma and I phoned corporate to tell them that we have a problem. As a mitigating tool, we thought that we would paint the raceway the same color as the building. If it doesn't look okay, we could flush mount the sign. Commissioner Gregory made a motion to allow the sign to remain as long as the raceway is painted to match the stucco on the building, although it might establish precedent. Mr. Drell commented that there's no structural obstacle that would prevent the sign from being flush mounted. I have no problem with precedence, if they're good precedence, but this isn't good. Commissioner Gregory suggested putting some additional raised elements to extend the raceway so it looks like it's on top of some form of attractive architectural panel. Mr. Drell stated that that would be more difficult. It would probably be easier to flush-mount the letters. Mr. Engle stated that by the time they built a feature it would probably be the same amount of work as flush- mounting the letters. Mr. Bagato stated that on most new buildings, we don't allow raceways. Mr. Engle commented that there's no structural G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050208.MIN 2� � � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES impediment to restrict them from flush-mounting the sign. Commissioner Gregory took back his motion and decided to recommend that the signage be installed per plan. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambetl to direct the applicant to install signage per plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 05-08 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): DEBRA A. BOEHRINGER, 74-078 Alpine Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 5' high block wall 21' from the curb. LOCATION: 74-078 Alpine Lane ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is not present. Alpine Lane is off of Shephard Lane in a new housing tract. The applicant is proposing a 5' high slump block wall, 21' from the curb. The wall will die back into the edge of the building within a few inches from the drain gutter. There will have to be landscaping in front of the wall. This proposal meets our current ordinance and the proposed ordinance except that it needs a landscape plan. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the wall lower to make it a little more intimate. Mr. Drell stated that the wall is in compliance and they're not asking for an exception. Mr. Bagato stated that if wall approvals weren't suspended, then this proposal would've been approved over the counter. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's no jogging of the wall, it's a straight plane, the gate is on the same plane of the walt. Mr. Drelt stated that when there are standards in the zone, they are a matter of right and unless the commission can prove a health and safety issue, typically you can't deny something that's a matter of right. There's no circumstance here that would distinguish it from other applications that would justify making it shorter. That's how our ordinance is written. Certain things are a matter of right and certain things are discretionary. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) jog wall inward at gate area and to provide room for a planter adjacent to the driveway, and (2) approval G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050208.MIN 21 r � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Hanson, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�P,R050208.MIN 22