Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-25 . .'�►' �r�° . ���'"�\ CITY OF PALM DESERT _' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . • MINUTES JANUARY 25, 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 1 1 Kristi Hanson X 2 Chris Van Vliet X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Ray Lopez X 2 Karen Oppenheim X 2 Karel Lambell X 2 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 11, 2005 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of January 11, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 .. � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for 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 Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-177 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESSI: ONTARIO NEON, ROY COURTNEY, 303 W. Main Street, Ontario, CA 91762 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Wendy's. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that given the sensitivity with which this project has gone forward we wanted the commission to review the signage as well as the architecture. The letters are internally illuminated. The applicant did address some of the concerns that we had with centering. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the other signage is like in the area. Mr. Smith stated that the center to the west with businesses fronting on Country Club use reverse channel letters. The sign program for that center states that signs facing Country Club use reverse channel letters, while the remainder are allowed to use G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050125.MIN 2 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 AGENDA internally illuminated tetters. The current proposal for Wendy's shows channel letters on all four sides. Commissioner Lopez stated that when he first saw it, I thought that the size of the sign compared to the background looked fine. I know that the height of the sign is 42" but it doesn't seem that big in relation to the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if we know what the red is going to look like. Mr. Smith passed around a sample of the red for the commission to review. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his only concern is that there's so much signage on a small building. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. 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: Approval of revised elevations for The Village at University Park. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050125.MIN 3 � �rr� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a 4' high front courtyard wall, 7' from the curb. LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this is a fence that basically complies with code. The gentleman was here two weeks ago with a previous application. He has reconsidered and has come back with revised plans. As I indicated to the commission earlier, the City Council has requested that all front yard walls come through this commission while the ordinance amendment is in process. Hence, the reason for this item being here. This is one of the few instances in the City where having a wall at 7' back from curb is still on private property. There are a handful of streets where the right-of-way is 7' beyond the curb and this is one of them. It's not an exception. It complies with current code at 7' back. In this instance, it does not need an encroachment permit. Commissioner Gregory stated that assuming that this wall is meant to serve to meet the requirements of the county for a pool, it has to be 5' tall. That might present a problem when you go to 5'. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant is indicating a pool enclosure separate from the 4' wall. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant is indicating a separate fence within the wall. Abdi Haile, applicant, was present and stated that the 5' fence will be just around the pool. Mr. Smith stated that the fence would have to be 5' in height to comply with code and it could not be temporary. It has to be permanent because it has to meet the swimming pool code. Commissioner Lambell stated that it will be a foot higher than the stucco wall and it will be visible. Commissioner Gregory stated that what if one day the applicant gets a wild idea to pull the 5' wall fence out and then he will be in violation of the county requirement with respect to preventing kids from drowning themselves. These could be neighbor kids who might climb over the fence. It would be very tempting someday to pull that fence out and when you do that, then you are open to liability. From an aesthetic perspective, he could plant bougainvillea on the front masonry wall and maybe it would screen the 5' wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was okay to rely on landscaping to screen something that would otherwise not be appropriate. Commissioner Gregory stated that Mr. Haile has an unusual situation where he's putting the pool in the front yard. Could he go 5' and meet the City requirement? Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050125.MIN 4 , "�rr" ''�'� ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Smith stated that he can't go higher than 4' at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the only thing that he could do is depress that area around the pool. It could be depressed one foot lower inside his yard to screen the interior fence structure. Commissioner Gregory asked if he could depress it one foot on the outside, thus making his 4' wall essentially 5' to meet the county requirement so that the top of the wall is only 4' higher than the adjacent curb. It would be sloped down and then he could put in some kind of drainage accommodation and then he'll meet the spirit of the county requirement and we'll only have a 4' net high wall. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out that he has an existing driveway where he'd have to make up the grade differential. Mr. Smith stated that we are putting a clause into the new wall standards requiring it to be measured from natural grade at the location of the wall. Commissioner Gregory suggested that as the wall approaches the driveway it starts to wrap up a little bit and we allow him to start ramping up so he always maintains the 5' height relative to adjacent finished grade and then along the driveway it's 5'. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission ignore the fact that the pool is there because we're not approving the pool. The applicant needs to come up with a concept for a solution for the pool that still meets the swimming pool enclosure requirement. The interior wall that's indicated on the plans don't show any details. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the result will be that we'll see a screen around the pool over the wall. Mr. Smith stated that he's going to need a permit for the 5' wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he lived next door to this house and could see this fence it wouldn't be great to look at. Would it be fair to the neighbors? Mr. Haile stated that all you would see is one foot of metal pieces above the block wall. If we have landscape outside the wall in the future, you're not going to see anything and you're not going to be able to see any metal sticking up. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the pool fence will come back for approval because it's going to be visible. Mr. Smith stated that it would come back for approval. Any fence in the front yard will be coming to the commission for approval. Commissioner Vukic stated that he would like to make a motion to approve the 4' stucco wall with the understanding that the commission will be seeing the other fence at some point in the future if he ever proceeds with the pool. Mr. Haile commented that to his understanding, a pool enclosure is not a fence. This is just a 5' enclosure around the pool. We're not G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�P,R050125.MIN 5 '�r►' "'� " ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES proposing a whole fence in front to the house. If you want to interpret the ordinance more conservatively, maybe you can do that. Mr. Drell commented that he wanted it to be very clear that we're not approving a pool or any fencing inside. The applicant is simply asking for a 4' wall 7' back from the curb, which complies with code. Mr. Haile stated that they can approve the pool too. Mr. Drell stated that the Architectural Review Commission doesn't approve pools. Mr. Haile asked if he would have to go to the Planning Commission for approval of the pool. Mr. Drell stated that he'll have to go to the Building & Safety Department with his pool plans and they're going to ask about a 5' fence. Mr. Haile stated that he can deal with them but wanted to know if they will send him back to the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that they will send him back to ARC for the pool fence. The simple solution would be to move the pool. Commissioner Gregory stated that most pools are in backyards or in bigger front yards where it's possible. Mr. Drell stated that his front yard is plenty big but Mr. Haile has made a decision to make it as difficult as possible in terms of where iYs located. That's the choice that the applicant is making. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the commission was very clear at their last meeting that the applicant should push the pool back and he's chosen not to do that. That's the applicant's choice. Mr. Haile stated that everything is about choice but I can say that this space is really important for us. As property owners, we're going to utilize our property nicely and we will comply with the commission. Commissioner Vuksic clarified to the applicant that the commission is going to be acting on the 4' wall. The 5' wall is something that can be seen from the front yard so the commission will have to treat that like another fence or wall to be approved so it has to look nice. At this point, we don't know what it looks like. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant drop the grade by one foot so that he could have the 5' wall, which meets county requirements and the wall is only 4' higher than existing finished grade. When you're standing at the base of the wall, it's 5' high but when you view it from the street it has the impact of a 4' wall. This way he doesn't have to build the inner wall. We're compromising but in a way, it's conforming to the various competing requirements. Mr. Drell stated that the wall can be 4' on the inside. Mr. Smith asked how he would come up against the adjacent property to the west. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050125.MIN 6 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Gregory stated that the wall would have to go to the corner where it would be 5'. Mr. Drell commented that the commission has the authority to approve that but a case has to be made to the City Council when all the walls get called up. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the commission is trying to find a solution to a problem thaYs generated by not pushing the pool back. I don't know why we're going through all these gyrations because he could solve the issue by pushing the pool back. Mr. Haile stated that he could do that but the pool would be against the window of his house. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned that the motion is possibly cynical if the applicant thinks that this means that he has a chance to go forward with this pool and a separate fence and then he finds out that he'll be right back in front of the commission again for us to look at the second fence and then go through this again. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that the applicant is not listening to what we're trying to tell him and help him. We understand his issues, however, it doesn't mean that we can just approve whatever we want to approve when we know that it will be denied further along so we're not helping him in that regard either. Mr. Haile stated that he's listening if they have a solution for him. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that we're trying to tell you what will likely be approved in an expeditious manner, but you don't want to do it. We're sympathetic to that but we can't just arbitrarily approve something because it's convenient for you when you truly have other solutions available. Mr. Haile stated that if you don't think I have a good argument, then you can deny me but we need this space. You've done it before and you can do it again. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is the part that you're not listening to. We may have the authority to do it, but when you go further on, which you will have to do, it will most likely be denied. In the past, it may not have been the case. Mr. Haile stated that there's no law like this in the books right now. Mr. Drell stated that an approval of the 4' wall moves him no closer to getting a swimming pool in his front yard. Commissioner Gregory stated that he could possibly move the wall back another 8' and legally put in a 5' high wall but that wall actually serves as a retaining wall so your pool abuts that wall and that way the pool only comes back just a few feet from where it is now. It won't be as long as it is now. This wouldn't be just a standard garden wall. Commissioner Vuksic drew a diagram on the white board of the conference room to illustrate the wall detail. The wall would be 15' from G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050125.MIN � � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES the curb and 5' high. There would be a raised planter between the pool and the wall so that the pool wouldn't just be right against the wall. We do this all the time, especially in confined situations because you're giving up having a deck on the back side of the pool. Mr. Haile would lose a few feet with this plan, but it would be totally legal. Mr. Haile stated that he would really like it if the commission would show him some mercy and allow him some space. Eight or ten feet is fine but fifteen feet is the standard. I'm asking for mercy from the standard. Commissioner Gregory stated that mercy is no longer an option because the Council has decided that they don't like walls in the front yard. Mr. Drell stated that to prove an exception there has to be an exceptional circumstance so that this body could at least retain a little shred of credibility on these actions going to Council. If they can't identify an exceptional circumstance, which there isn't in this case, then they really have no ability to approve an exception. Mr. Haile stated that he understands that the Council has a concern about brick walls, not necessarily the space into the land. They are concerned about the look of the "fortress" watl. I'm willing to use any landscape using wood, trees or anything to make this commission comfortable to give me more space than the standard space. That's all I'm asking. I'm willing to spend money. Commissioner Gregory stated that we expect landscaping in front of a wall. Mr. Haile stated that the commission has told him that he hasn't proposed a compelling reason for this. You are the commission and you make your own judgement. Mr. Drell stated that we're far more lenient and liberal in that interpretation than anyone else. Mr. Haile commented that the commission has previously approved a wall like this and for reasons that are less compelling than mine. I just want to tell you right now that you can easily approve this but you cannot find in your own thinking what is compelling is interpretation. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You have approved walls on this street. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of two options: (1) a 4' stucco wall, 7' from the curb with the understanding that the Architectural Review Commission will review the pool enclosure fencing at a future date, or (2) a stucco wall 15' from the curb at 5' in height. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN g . . , � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICH STEIN, 74-020 Old Prospector, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 6' side yard wall 15' from the curb. LOCATION: 74-020 Old Prospector ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this is a small wall segment, 6' high and 15' from the curb. It complies with current code. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Gregory asked for clarification of the code. Mr. Smith stated that currently a 6' high wall must be 15' from the curb, but this may change. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 05-04 . APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PINNACLE BAR & GRILL, 73-040 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint colors, landscaping and signage. LOCATION: 73-040 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the commission received the proposed colors and landscaping in their packets. The signage package was submitted today and sign plans were distributed for the commission to review. Mr. Drell asked the applicant if there was going to be a sign that faces north on the tower. Lisa Melero, applicant, was present and stated that due to financial burdens she would not be putting a sign on the tower. Mr. Drell stated that she could propose it, but she doesn't have to build G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 9 . . , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES it. Ms. Melero stated that she would like to propose a sign on the back tower facing north towards the parking lot. The letters are reverse channel letters and the background portion is already on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the signage looks large. Commissioner Gregory concurred and stated that it should be brought in a little bit. Mr. Bagato stated that the letter "P" is 26" and the letters are 20" for a totat of 28 square feet, which is well within their allowable amount of signage. The commission agreed that the east tower sign should be reduced in size to the size of the sign on plan "B". Commissioner Vuksic suggested modifying the border for the signs and bring it in proportionately. Mr. Drell stated that the border is existing on the building. Ms. Melero suggested removing the border from the building and re-stuccoing and painting this area. The commission agreed that they like the proposed colors. The landscape must be approved by the Landscape Manager. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of colors and signage, subject to sign A being reduced in size to sign B and remove borders if the applicant wishes. Landscaping is subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES CHESTER, 73-845 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of facade enhancement for Manhattan Bagel. LOCATION: 73-845 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050125.MIN 1� ' "�rrr' '�r+� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: MISC 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLEN BIXEN, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of facade enhancement of Matsuri Restaurant, Pete Carlson's Golf & Tennis, and Chinese Antiques. LOCATION: 73-741 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Charlie Martin, architect, was present to address the commission. He stated that this is an old building and he'd trying to do something with it without tearing it apart. It has an existing overhang on the Hwy. 111 side and the parking lot side. I would like to keep that structure. Behind it on the roof is a parapet that goes around the whole building where all the existing mechanical equipment is located. Most of the roofs have two layers. The building on the right has three layers on the Hwy. 111 elevation only. From the parking lot, you probably won't see the third roof. The restaurant has a 40-foot face, Pete Carlson's is 124' and the Chinese Antique store is 40'. If you take the existing overhangs that are out there, you come back into it, especially at Pete Carlson's. He's done a lot of security shutters that come down that are mounted on the face of the building. The security shutters that come down are a great roosting place for pigeons. Underneath the overhang, I'm planning on adding expanded metal sheets that go down the face of the security shutters. On everything else, they're going straight back into the building to hide 6,000 old telephone lines. We've had people come look at it to have it removed, but they said that they'd never get it to work again. It's a mess underneath the beams and also on the roof. Pete Carlson only has storage on his Hwy. 111 elevation. At first, we had that side blocked off but after meeting with the staff, they wanted to have some kind of display on that elevation, which is why I added the three round windows. These will be display areas for sporting equipment. The opening to the right is an access doorway and the one further to the right is an entrance from Hwy. 111. They claim that about 10% of their customers come from this entrance and 90% come from the parking lot. The Chinese Antique store is just sort of a quiet place that just sits there. On the far end, there is a Japanese restaurant. Between each roof section is a walkway. The roof stops in these locations and the overhang is sliced back. The ends of the metal roofs G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 1 1 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES are cleaned up completely. You don't see into them. They're closed off. The long elevation that shows a trellis which is existing. We're re- building the trellis. The metal roofs on the Japanese restaurant and the Chinese Antique store are flat planes. The metal roof on the Pete Carlson store is curved and it rolls back. The signage locations are indicated on the colored rendering. Mr. Drell stated that the Hwy. 111 elevation of the Japanese restaurant looks like the back end of the building. Mr. Martin stated that currently Matsuri doesn't have any windows in that area. Mr. Drell stated that it still looks like the back end of a building and building elevations on streets have to look like a front. Unless you do something more interesting with the brown wall, then it's still going to look like the back. Mr. Martin commented that he had tried to add a window on this elevation but the tenants didn't want one. Mr. Drell suggested that Mr. Martin tell them that it has to look like a front and it's up to them to figure out how to do that. The front door looks like a service entrance. Mr. Martin suggested adding a sign by the door, but Mr. Drell commented that it needs more than that. We've made the mistake of putting a building on a major street that looks like a back. It shouldn't look like a pretty back but should look like a front. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Hwy. 111 elevation of Pete Carlson's looks like a back. It is the back, in his particular case, but there's got to be something done to make it not look like a back. Mr. Martin stated that he had to talk Pete Carlson out of adding murals to the Hwy. 111 elevation. He truly does not use this elevation as a front. Mr. Drell commented that it's still their billboard to the public. Commissioner Hanson commented that there are some clever things that can be done to make it interesting. The design is a lot more stark than what we're used to seeing on fronts of buildings. I love the idea of a metal roof. It cleans that whole building up a lot, but I think that the forms themselves between the buildings, even though they're different uses, it really is kind of all one building. There needs to be a little more connection between some of them and ultimately a little more work needs to be done to make the Hwy. 111 side look more like a front, even though it's not. Mr. Martin asked what they would think if the plans were reversed and you were looking at the parking lot side with all the glass and display areas. Does the face on Hwy. 111 need more glass because the Chinese Antique store is all glass? Commissioner Hanson stated that that one is fine, but it's the starkness of the rest of it that bothers me. Commissioner Vuksic stated that conceptually, iYs very interesting. I would worry about the details because this is a classic example of a building that could either be really neat or really bad depending on how it's developed and executed. It doesn't bother me that each building is different. I like the metal roof, which is the common element across all of them. I worry a lot about the ends of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 12 1 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES roofs and what they look like at different angles. You've got sides of these that really, really concern me that you get peeks of. The ends are all basically flat, which really concerns me a lot. Right now it seems like there are some display areas with some solid wal�s and I'm not really sure what the intent is. Mr. Martin stated that some of this is existing. Pete Carlson also has his display with storage pushed up against it. He closes his shutters down and never opens them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the drawings probably look a lot better than it probably is because it's really clean and consistent, but in reality it's really kind of a hodge-podge of stuff going on along the facade. That really concerns me. It's hard to understand exactly what's happening on a lot of the elevations. It's really important to know where all the different elements are coming together from different view angles. He asked Mr. Martin about an area on the Japanese restaurant. Mr. Martin stated that there are some windows on the restaurant where some are open and some are plastered over. In terms of the ones that are open or plastered over, there's a metal screen on the face of them. I can't go in and start opening up windows in the restaurant. I tried that and they don't want me to do that. That screen simply covers them up. Mr. Drell stated that you simply can't remove windows and expect them to look right. Commissioner Gregory commented that it looks like a bar. Mr. Drell commented that this project is applying for facade improvement money. The City will possibly be paying for up to half of the cost of the exterior remodel. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes color, although I'm not very good with it and make a lot of mistakes and try to fix them and usually the developer lets me. This concept looks strong enough that it warrants some real playfulness with color. I hope it's something that the applicant would be willing to refine in the field and be willing to budget to repaint it two or three times to get it right. Mr. Martin stated that he agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. Pete Carlson wants blue and green because those are his favorite colors and they can fade out to pastel colors. I would like to add a 10% shade of grey to them. I'd rather paint a five foot square on the walls on site and have the commission take a look. The Chinese Antique store doesn't have much color to it. It's mostly glass. The restaurant could be a darker ruddy brown and then add a lot of grey to the blue. The only reat excitement would be on the yellow on the top. Commissioner Hanson commented that the restaurant colors aren't bad, but the rest of the colors need more thought. Mr. Drell stated that the reason why we offer the facade enhancement program instead of business loans was the feeling that we'd get a facade change that would create a successful facade for that business or the next business G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 13 ` ' '�rrr °'"�'" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES that might go into that space. Specializing a facade so directly for a particular tenant wouldn't be a good idea. Mr. Martin stated that he understands all the comments made and he will respond to them in the revised plans. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Martin for a more detailed roof plan. There's nothing that really shows what's going on on the roof. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 05-05 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): JAMES McEACHERN / DENNIS RIVIZZIGNO, 970 E. Sierra Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264-0500 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 17'9" roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 73-224 Fiddleneck Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 33018 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): PELE DEVELOPMENT, 100 S. Sunrise Way, #498, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for model homes, site plan and landscape plans. LOCATION: 37-970 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 14 ,. , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of proposed solutions for issues regarding wall, business signage, and exterior colors for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Mr. Drell stated that an agreement document was created which summarized the changes that need to be made on the Hand Car Wash. The commission had been asked to visit the site, which they did. There is also a document from the applicant that details where they agreed to try to clean up the lines on the wall, add texture, add detail elements, add more landscaping, re-float the top curve of the wall and re-paint. I would suggest that we look at a different color palette. Every building in the center doesn't have to be painted with the same color scheme. By the nature of its unique design, maybe purple isn't the color that we want on it. The applicant would like to remove the signage facing Washington located in the middle of the wall. Dean Holm, superintendent, was present and stated that they would like to propose square one-inch tubing in the form of an awning that's sideways. Mr. Drell stated that it would be tubular steel in a triangular structure that would be bolted onto the wall. Mr. Holm stated that if you looked at it straight on it would look solid, but wind would still be able to travel through it. It would be open on both sides. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be more of a fin. Mr. Drell stated that it would be rectangular and canted at an angle to the face with open sides. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the execution would have to be really good. Mr. Drell stated that we should possibly look at different solutions and not try to retrofit what the plan was. Mr. Holm stated that they would like to re-float the sides of the wall because the sides do die down to get to the bottom elevation and there was also a kink in it that they had a problem working out. Commissioner Van Vliet G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 15 . . , . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES stated that this is not what the commission wants. We want the wall higher in the center. Mr. Drell stated that they want it higher in the center or lower on the sides. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission wants what was drawn on the original rendering. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they'll probably have to rebuild the wall in the center in order for it to be higher. You can't just float it. Commissioner Gregory commented that these are two different projects. They're so far removed from floating this to make it look similar to the rendering that it's not going to work. You have a lovely drawing and it turned out looking like the back of the high school bleachers. You have a problem here. Commissioner Vuksic stated that by looking at the proportions on the rendering and then the photographs of what was actually built, it turned out to have a big, huge salmon wall. Mr. Drell stated that the proportions of the striping is in the same universe, but it's not in the same galaxy. Commissioner Vuksic stated that rather than raising the middle portion of the walt up higher because it's already a massive wall, could they cut the wall to make it look more like the picture? Mr. Drell stated that it's possible. The applicant stated that he would like to add to the middle of the wall because of the height of the gate for the tunnel of the car wash. Mr. Holm stated that 4" would make a big change. Commissioner Gregory commented that he has no confidence in this plan. Mr. Holm commented that according to the drawings, it calls for a 2" change from the center. Mr. Drell stated that the original elevation is reproduced in the working drawings. Mr. Holm stated that there's another drawing that tooks more like the rendering and it was done on CAD and this is the drawing that I used. Commissioner Gregory stated that they're just wasting time and suggested that the applicant get a real architect to draw something that shows the changes. I've never seen a project so different than the way it should've been. It makes a mockery of this process. The applicant built their own building, but it's not the building that was proposed and approved. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that Commissioner Gregory has a good idea. They need a professional architect to make the changes. Commissioner Lambell agreed that the applicant should have an architect see what they can do to get closer to what the drawings are that we've seen and approved. Commissioner Gregory stated that they could also come up with something that works. There's a problem here and we want them to be in business, but it needs more than just tweaking. Commissioner Hanson suggested berming up against the wall. Mr. Drell asked the commission if the applicant should work on a different color palette. Commissioner Vuksic commented that because of the fact that this is a solid wall and not a building with a lot of windows in it, it makes it different. It's obviously not right. The colors are stronger and don't look like they're part of the facade. Commissioner Hanson suggested deeper versions G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 16 , � � • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES of the colors. Mr. Drell suggested getting rid of the stripes. Commissioner Gregory stated that a new architect should take the colors into account. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she felt that the applicant doesn't necessarily have to come back to get as close as they can to the original drawings and if there's some other solution, then that should be their option. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and advised the applicant to meet with staff and an architect and return with a solution to create an elevation identical to the rendering or an equivalent alternative. Motion carried 7- 0. 2. Commission comments regarding amendment to wall setback standards in residential districts. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has directed staff to process an amendment for front yard walls. They want to get away from the "Alamo" look. What we're looking at doing thus far, and we're certainly open to suggestions, direction and comments from the commission is making the following changes to the current code: The 48" walls that we currently allow at 7' from curb, which happen very infrequently because we don't have a lot of 7' parkways (10' or 12' is more the norm with 90% at 12') would be lowered f rom 48" to 42". Previously, we had a category above 48"-72" and now we're going to split that and create an area between 43"-5' at the current setback of 15'. We're also going to do away with the special provision for street side yards. They'll both be treated the same. IYs a problem because it takes away from backyards, however, it protects the lot next door. Mr. Drell commented that the side is really the front for the person next door. Mr. Smith stated that walls from 61"-72" would be 20' on both sides from the curb. We're looking at inserting a provision clarifying that walls are measured from natural grade at the location of the wall and also a provision requiring that every 30' in a wall we have at least a pilaster or a significant horizontal step or undulation. We are inserting a requirement that a formal landscape plan for the parkway area be provided and approved by the Landscape Manager's office. Mr. Drell stated that it must include irrigation. Mr. Smith stated that this must be done before a permit could be issued for a wall. They will not get a permit without approval of a landscape plan. We're looking at a provision to give some relief to swimming pool enclosures where they choose to use an open-style wall (i.e. wrought iron) so that it needs to be 5' in height and could be 12' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be straight wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron next to masonry sections. Mr. Smith stated that the way they have G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050125.MIN 1� . . "�rrr+' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES it now it would need to be open for the area between 12' and 15'. Any solid portion of the wall would have to meet the above criteria. We're putting the incentive on open systems and they'll be required to landscape in front of the fence. Mr. Drell stated that they could put a hedge in front of a fence, but it's still softer than a masonry wall. Commissioner Gregory asked about what happens when the hedging grows up 6' tall or 100' tall. Mr. Drell commented that we don't regulate the height of hedges. We had also suggested at one time, limitation on the percentage of frontage that you could enclose. You could not enclose your entire front yard. You could only enclose a certain percentage of it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the person at the corner of Ironwood and Burroweed (Stan Smith). His wall essentially incorporates the entire side and front yard. Mr. Smith stated that his front on Ironwood complies with current code. It would not meet the proposed amended code. Mr. Drell stated that there still might be council members who do not want entire front yards enclosed. I actually don't like wrought iron fencing. It creates more of a prison look. Commissioner Hanson stated that you would see all of their ugly lawn furniture. I would prefer to see a solid wall with some landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Gregory asked if we really want open fencing. I don't see anything neat about it. Commissioner Hanson stated that dogs rush up to the fence and bark a lot with an open fence. Since you made a provision for other fencing that has to have pilasters every so often and then we don't like the wrought iron and that doesn't have any pilasters because you can't have them at 12' so it's almost like we're getting the worst of the worst. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that we wouldn't want wrought iron without pilasters anyway. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look better with pilasters. Mr. Smith clarified by saying that wrought iron would be acceptable with pilasters at 20'. Mr. Drell asked if the commission felt that wrought iron is a more superior surface than a masonry wall. The commission agreed that wrought iron was not a superior fence material and felt that it was actually inferior. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nicer to have more landscaping in front of a masonry wall. I would rather have a wrought iron fence further back and require the pilasters every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he never had a problem with the "Alamo" concept. Although, on the house on Ironwood that we reviewed recently, you drive by that place and it looks like they just built it to code. It's just one huge, long, straight wall at the setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the new rule would require some type of undulation or articulation every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was even wondering about requiring a pilaster every 30' is what we want to say. Then we're going to end up with a whole bunch of walls that are just these long, straight walls and every 30' they've got their pilaster. Mr. Smith stated that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 1 g � � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES they're calling for some form of undulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could come out a foot and then go in a foot or two feet. Mr. Drell stated that basically it would go from 18'-22'. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes that. Mr. Drell stated that in reality, in terms of functional space on the inside it's set by the closest. They part that's undulating out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo" contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 '/2" x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be like a design guideline that you would get at a country club. A wrought iron detail with a pilaster option or something to show people as good examples. Mr. Drell stated that our landscape department is in the process of putting together something that shows design typicals of doing landscaping and maybe we could add walls to that. Walls are really a part of the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that this would be really important and it would make everybody's job a lot easier. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a number of the commissioners deal with design guidelines all the time. They have lots of pictures of examples. It's funny that the City doesn't have something like this. I think that it would be a good idea because they really help. Commissioner Lambell asked about the decision on wrought iron. Mr. Drell stated that wrought iron won't be encouraged, therefore, we're not going to give it a break in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they can still use wrought iron, but it has to be at 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it also needs pilasters every so often. Mr. Drell asked if they should be every 15'. Commissioner Gregory stated that they should not give a specific number because someone might have a really cool idea and shouldn't be limited to a set number. Mr. Drell commented that we're still going to have an exception section. People can always propose interesting things, it's just that they have to be real exceptions. I think that we need a conservative minimum distance between pilasters. Are the panels 8'? Maybe they should require a pilaster every 16'. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050125.MIN 19 . �IwIM'' "� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wali materials are going to change. Mr. Drell stated that they still have to have a decorative finish with decorative block or decorative stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about wood. Mr. Drell stated that the only wood that I would think would be acceptable would be on the 42" walls, which could be a picket fence or split rail. No dog-eared cedar plank fencing. Sometimes people come in with vinyl fencing. I try to get them to use a tan color because the white fencing looks hokey. Commissioner Hanson commented that vinyl melts. Vinyl windows melt here. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the distance for pilasters on a wrought iron fence be three times the height (i.e. if the height is 5' then the pilasters would be every 15'). Mr. Drell suggested that they have at least three pilasters. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they don't specify the amount of undulation and just say that undulation will be averaged in front and behind the wall on walls over a certain length. Mr. Drell stated that a typical lot in South Palm Desert on a 10,000 square foot lot has about 70' feet of frontage. Mr. Smith stated that a wall of more than 60' in length shall require undulation. Mr. Drell commented that what we need to say is a general statement that we make a design judgement on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the idea of adding architecture every 30'. It can't just be an average of 20' because somebody will find a loop-hole in that and make part of it 12'. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a minimum where if the wall were undulating they could go to 18'. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to endorse in concept the revised wall standards. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050125.MIN 20