Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-14 `fir' CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JUNE 14, 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 9 2 Kristi Hanson X 9 2 Chris Van Vliet X 8 3 John Vuksic X 11 Ray Lopez X 10 1 Karen Oppenheim X 11 Karel Lambell X 11 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 24, 2005 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of May 24, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 05-65 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RJ VENTURES, LLC, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of signage for the Desert Gateway Center. LOCATION: 34-100 — 34-940 Monterey Avenue ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the signage does not exceed 6' in height. The signs will be lit from behind. They did provide a photo simulation of what the signs will look like at night. Staff felt that the stone veneer base is not substantial enough and felt that it might look better with some native rock at the base. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the number of tenant signs that are allowed on a monument sign. Mr. Drell stated that we've had three in the past, however, policy changes. Does the design of this sign look good? The commission hasn't seen a design like this before so it's worthy of consideration. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she felt that it looks good. Mr. Drell commented that he thought that it would look better with the actual signs on it. The rendering shows areas on the signage with the words "Anchor, Anchor, Anchor" so it doesn't look realistic. The base would look better if were designed using abstract rocks. Commissioner Lambell stated that it looked busy and it's going to be hard to read. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it will look bad at night and they're going to have five monument signs around the property. Mr. Drell stated that they may have to reduce the number of tenant signs on the monument signs to three. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that five tenant signs make it look cluttered unless they were downsized. Mr. Drell stated that they aren't that big to begin with. They're only 12" in height. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Lindsey Kozberg, representative for RJ Ventures, was present and commented that they're working with a 70-acre site with 700,000 square feet of leaseable area. They're trying to attract a tenant mix of some major national retailers who have certain expectations for signage, no matter where they go. They're accustomed to some really big signs. There's a 40' grade change from one corner of the site to the other. The pads on the east end of the site dip lower than the Monterey frontage. In many cases, some of the national retailers won't have their building signage at all visible to the main frontages. Given the topography of the site, it's extremely important for them to be provided with some designation along the main frontages. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we have a standard of three tenant names on monument signs for projects that are way smaller than this one. To hold a project of this scale to that standard wouldn't be right. We need to allow more signs. It looks like the applicant is going to quite an effort to make a good-looking monument sign. We should look at the size of the lettering and reduce it a little bit because it they actually produce 13" high signs, it would look cluttered and too packed. Commissioner Gregory stated that historically they've limited the number of tenant names to three. Mr. Drell stated that the issue is that we've never had a sign that was designed like the proposed sign so the commission can determine the number of tenants if they think that it looks good. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the major tenants would have signage on their building as well as on the monument signs. Wal*Mart will have signage on their building as well as on the monument signs. Ms. Kozberg stated that in most locations the larger lots that are located near the back (Wal*Mart and Sam's Club) sit very far back and in some cases are below grade and typically none of the buildings will be visible. There will be building signage but the signs won't be visible from the street. They'll either be blocked by buildings or by the topography of the site. John Hadai, representative for Ultra Signs, was present and stated that the frontage on Monterey is over 2,000 feet and they're only asking for two monument signs. There will be some hidden neon to accentuate the desert scape that the whole sign is designed towards. The sign isn't very big with the lettering being only 13" in height. They tried to use materials for the base that are being used on the building, but that could be changed to native desert rock. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if sign A2 and sign A3 would have any duplication of names. Those are the two that front Monterey. Ms. Kozberg commented that she didn't think that they would have duplicate names. Commissioner Gregory asked about the number of anchor tenants for the center. Ms. Kozberg stated that they have Sam's Club, Wal*Mart and also three large boxes in the far southern portion of the site plan, which would be either anchors or majors. Commissioner Gregory wondered if they have six anchors. Mr. Drell stated that there appears to be five anchors. Commissioner Gregory stated that his major concern is having a plethora of names on a menu board. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the signs that say "Major". In the nighttime presentation, the letters are distinctly smaller, yet in the dimensioned plan there isn't anything that says that they're smaller. Mr. Hadai stated that the size of the letters is the same, but the space for the entire area where they can put their sign is smaller. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's important that they create enough variety in the signs so that it doesn't look cluttered. Mr. Hadai stated that the copy can go up to 13" in height, but if there's a logo it may just be 9" in height. Commissioner Lopez commented that overall, the sign concept is good but agreed that they could end up looking cluttered. It could be easier approved if all the actual tenant names were shown on the monument. Mr. Drell stated that we could approve the signs later. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposal shows a very light color where the signs are so that they might stand out a little bit more, but it would look better if the color was warmer than the Navaho white so that it's not going to be glaring. Also, there are bands that are shown between the tenant names which look like they're protruding out beyond the background. It's hard to imagine how they're going to look on the ends. It doesn't seem like they're going to look very good. What happens at the irregular edge? Mr. Hadai stated that there's a section in the plans that shows the edge. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like they've got them wrapping around and going back into the other mass, but that's not really what's happening when you're looking at the end. They'd have to actually be sticking out to do that. Mr. Hadai agreed. It was suggested that they use a reveal instead of a band on the monument signs. Commissioner Lambell suggested that the applicant return with the actual tenant names rather than theoretical G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 4 SOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 AGENDA ,tenants. Mr. Drell stated that they'll have to come back to us anyway, but if the premise of this is seeing how these signs mix and you want to see how they mix, then they'll be brought back to the ARC for approval as they come in. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) individual tenant signs are to return to ARC for approval, (2) irregular natural stone to be used at base instead of stacked stone veneer, (3) Navaho white-colored background to be changed to a warmer color, and (4) use reveals instead of horizontal metal bands on the monument signs. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 04-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FKC PALM DESERT, LLC., 151 N. Kramer Blvd., Suite 120, Placentia, CA 92870 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a one-story 6,720 square foot retail shell building. Starbuck's & Panda Express LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street, Plaza de Hacienda (Albertson's Center) ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that there is a concern relative to the visibility of the A/C units. Mr. Stendell stated that they did return the parapets, as previously requested by the ARC. The architect, Everitt Martinez, was present and stated that they raised the parapets to 22' high. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to make sure that the roof-mounted equipment would be screened. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to the parapet being high enough to screen the roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 5 "ftle ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 05-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIXTH STREET PARTNERS, LLC, 7143 Vatella Avenue, Suite B, Stanton, CA; SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage with an exception to the sign program. Wireless Toyz LOCATION: 77-898 Country Club Drive ZONE: C-1 Ed Landen, representative for Sign-a-Rama, and Vic Vikers, business owner, were present. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the areas that light up on the sign. Mr. Landen stated that the background (the oval shape) is lit and there are raised channel letters on top of it that are internally lit and the small letters on the bottom are channel letters and are LED. The "Wireless Toyz" words are flourescent and are part of the can sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the standard is for the center. Mr. Smith stated that they have individual channel letters throughout most of it, with the exception of the businesses where they actually face on Country Club, which are reverse channel letters. There are 3-4 approved colors (gold, green, blue). Commissioner Vuksic suggested having an opaque background. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. They really have a can sign with channel letters on top of it. Mr. Vikers stated that the Wireless Toyz proposed signage is about a third of what they typically have. They usually have neon and awnings with signage. Commissioner Gregory commented that one of the concerns that the commission has expressed in the past is with sign backgrounds that are white or near white. Part of the allure of Palm Desert is that things are subdued here. Perhaps and ivory-colored or darker background would work on this sign. This is a concern that the commission typically addresses. Mr. Landen stated that it would be considerably more money to light just the letters. If we could use the opaque white G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 6 `rrr► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES background, we could put another layer of vinyl over that and soften the back some more. This way just the letters would be lit. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the overall depth from the face of the building to the outside edge of the signage. Mr. Landen stated that the aluminum box is 8" and the letters are almost 5". The sign is 12' long. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the sign was too big. Commissioner Lambell stated that the letter height on the box on the east elevation is 10'/4" and the letter height on the sub-line is 6". The south elevation has a letter height on the main sign 13" and the letter height of the sub-line at almost 8". Why is the smaller sign shown on the larger space? The south elevation should have the smaller sign. It was suggested that the applicant revise the plans so that they're to scale. Mr. Landen stated that the letters on the building as they're shown on the colored exhibits are to scale. Commissioner Gregory suggested having a 6" relief on top and bottom of the sign because it looks crammed into the space. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he's concerned about having a can sign in this location and asked the applicant if they could use individual channel letters. Mr. Vikers stated that they would then be deviating from the trademark. The only other options would be to paint the sign on the building or paint a sign on some kind of a board. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested downsizing the sign if they want to keep the same design. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval subject to (1) white background is to be opaque, and (2) sign on south elevation is to be reduced in size so that it's the size of the sign on the east elevation. Motion carried 4-2-0-1 with Commissioners Lambell and Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-69 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CUCINA PASTA, 73-540 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 7 *ft✓ "wwr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new steel frame awning with business signage. Cucina Pasta LOCATION: 73-540 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP/PALM DESERT, LLC, 301 Forest Avenue, Suite 200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an addition/remodel of existing commercial building. LOCATION: 72-885 Highway 111, Palms to Pines East (rear) ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the case at the request of the Director of Community Development. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 05-70 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LITECO, ROD CALDERON, 82-375 Market Street, Suite 1, Indio, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for South Beach Restaurant and Night Club. LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 8 fir►' 'r✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES ZONE: PC Mr. Stendell stated that the sign proposal is consistent with the new exterior colors that were recently approved. The raceway of the signage will be swirled metal. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the raceway was so big. Rod Calderon, representative for Liteco sign company, was present and stated that there isn't a place for him to run the electrical portion of the sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the raceway on the building and wanted to know why it's so big. Mr. Calderon stated that he was trying to match it to the sign on the corner. It could be reduced in size. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't like the concept of having a big raceway. Mr. Stendell commented that the swirled metal makes it look artistic. Mr. Drell stated that if it's integral to the sign, then it's not really a raceway. Mr. Stendell stated that they can shape it any way you want. Mr. Calderon stated that they're going to use purple neon inside the reverse channel letters. You'll see a purple reflection on the aluminum background. Mr. Drell stated that they're trying to attract a little attention. Commissioner Oppenheim noted that nightclub should be one word, not two, as indicated on the drawing. Mr. Drell stated that when the previous owner put in the exterior wall, he was supposed to submit a landscape plan for the replacement of the lawn that was killed but he never stayed open long enough to get that done. Now is the time to look at the landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet stated his concern about putting an internally illuminated sign on the wall. The sign needs a little more architecture with a minimal raceway behind it. Mr. Drell stated that the can is part of the design. The font styles of "South Beach" and "Restaurant and Nightclub" are different. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it looks amateur-ish. Commissioner Gregory suggested using a more elegant font on "Restaurant and Nightclub". Also, the landscaping needs to be addressed with a new landscape plan. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing (1) a more elegant font, and (2) submit a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES landscape plan for the front of the wall. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for the retail building (building B) on the Wendy's fast food restaurant site. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Sam Spinello, representative for the applicant, was present. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the details on the tower element don't wrap around the sides of the tower. The commission reviewed the plans and determined that the opening leading to the roof of the tower be a maximum of 48" high from the roof with the parapet carrying over the top of the opening so that a person could crawl under it. Also, Commissioner Vuksic commented that the 20' parapet be reviewed by the architect and raised, if needed, to be sure that the top of mechanical equipment does not exceed the height of the top of the parapet. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval subject to (1) the step detail at the tower parapet in the southwest corner be carried around all four sides of the tower, (2) the opening leading to the roof at the tower be a maximum of 48" high from the roof with the parapet carrying over top of the opening creating a crawl space, (3) the 20' parapet be reviewed by the architect and raised, if needed, to be sure that the top of the mechanical equipment does not exceed the height of the top of the parapet. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 10 %W '"04'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOST HORSE MOUNTAIN, LLC., 45- 445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of an 11,395 square foot commercial/retail building with a drive through for Starbucks. LOCATION: 74-836 Technology Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that David Prest, architect, was present. Mr. Prest stated that the site has minimal building coverage. Starbucks had some minimums with requirements to back up and there were strict parking requirements as well. The architecture has plaster with cultured stone veneer. The dome is a skylight. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the roof-mounted equipment would be screened. Mr. Prest stated that they've added screen walls. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the building looks great and Commissioner Oppenheim concurred. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscaping should go up to Cook Street. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to having the landscaping continue up to Cook Street. Motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioners Vuksic and Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 05-08/CUP 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELGADO / RODRIGUEZ, 73-703 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations and landscape plan for restaurant, office/retail for Casuelas Cafe. LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell stated that the revised plans are an improvement over the last submittal, but it's still not anything close to having optimum G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 1 1 err► "400°` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES landscaping. They've created some spaces for palm trees on the Highway 111 elevation. They've added some grates along the sidewalk to make the planters bigger. There is a problem in that they're showing palm trees in front of a window with an awning. The awnings project away from the building about 18" so obviously you can't put a tree in front of the windows. The root ball of a 35' palm tree is probably 3' so you're going to have to shoe-horn the tree into the 3' planter. The trunk of a palm tree is about 24" at the base and the head of the tree is about 6' in diameter. Our suggestion is to take 3' off the back of the building along the parking lot and put that 3' into the sidewalk, which would allow room for palms similar to what we have along El Paseo with the palms lining the street along the sidewalk. This would allow plenty of room for the palm trees to grow. Ron Lieberman, architect, was present and stated that he was confused. Right now they're showing what he thought was what he was asked to do the first time that he brought this project before the ARC. His interpretation was that the elevations were fine, but more undulation along the face of the building was required to add definition. This is what we attempted to do. We added deeper ins and outs up to 3'6" and where they had previously shown 2', it's now 4'-5'. We've really compromised considerably with the real estate. Obviously, we have to consider the smaller the building, the less that the owners can rent and the value of the building might not be worth building if they have to take too much real estate away. It wouldn't make sense. They have about one acre of property, which they can really use (19,000- 20,000 square feet) and now if we ask them to even compromise more by moving the building back 6' would be too much. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't suggest moving the building 6'. He suggested 3'. Mr. Lieberman stated that it's already set back 3'. Mr. Drell stated that the configuration doesn't accommodate the plant material that they're specifying. Mr. Lieberman stated that he lives here in the valley and he took a lot of pictures and in front of his house at Palm Valley Country Club where they have 3,000 palm trees. In front of his house, he has palm trees that are in 3'/2' planters and they're beautiful. Maybe it doesn't work for the City. As far as I'm concerned, I think it's done all the time. We do it an awful lot. You just don't have the flexibility sometimes to have as much setback as you want, so we have these little niches set back 4' and 6'. Mr. Drell stated that some of the exhibits show the palms in different places. They could actually move the building back 2' because they're showing some 1' planters. If you can get the trees into the sidewalk, then you don't need 4' and 5' planters against the building anymore. They've never shown me that it can't be done or what it might look like. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\NR050614.MIN 12 `rr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES The goal is to create enough room to maintain at least a 4' clearance in the sidewalk and a palm tree at the curb so the tree has plenty of room to grow. Then you don't have to plant large material up against the building. You could get by with vines and small shrubs in the small spaces and give the palm trees a street tree type of feel that would be far more attractive. It would start the project at the curb and it would incorporate the whole sidewalk into the project. This project is an anomaly by virtue of its architecture. It's a stand-alone project. Ray Rodriguez, owner, was present and stated that the project to the west is a two-story building so by no way, shape or form is this an anomaly height-wise or will this be. Our immediate neighbor to our east is the Pete Carlson building and they are undergoing a facade enhancement, which will bring added height to their entire facade. This is not an anomaly height-wise in the area. If you proceed further east, there is the One El Paseo building. I would love nothing more than to see the project approved. I do not and cannot afford to have the value of the project eroded. With that in mind, I went to see the One El Paseo building, which is right on Highway 111. We are not right on Highway 111. We have landscaping between Highway 111 and the frontage road, then we have the sidewalk and then we will have landscaping and then we will have the building, which will be in scale with what you've seen along Highway 111. This is not an anomaly stand-alone building. I cannot take 3' off the back of the building without dramatically eroding the economic impact. Commissioner Gregory stated that he finds it strange to believe that you're so close to making this project pencil and Mr. Drell stated that they could just move the building back 2', not 3'. Is that really going to make a difference between this project penciling out and then they have no parking? I don't get this project one bit. Where's the parking? Mr. Lieberman stated that when you figure out the square footage, like Mr. Drell and I have, and parking wasn't part of this particular approval. Mr. Drell stated that the commission doesn't have to discuss the parking issue. This will be dealt with at the Planning Commission level. We're trying to focus on the facade and if they believe that the landscape design is sufficient, then you can approve it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this has turned into a "grind" project. The commission made it clear from the beginning what they wanted and it keeps coming back kind of the same. Mr. Lieberman stated that he specifically recalls at the first meeting that the criteria was that the building was fine, but it was the front landscaping that needed work. Then I was told that the issue was that they wanted more definition on the face of the building. We had about 18" of offset and we've made G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 13 'mow►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES significant changes to 4'-5' in some cases. We were told that we could add three palm trees originally and then we were told five palms. We put in five palms and moved the building back 4'. We've done everything that the commission has asked us to do. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is Mr. Lieberman's interpretation. I had even suggested that they move the building forward to eliminate the planters and move the building back in certain areas to add some planter areas. I was trying to help. I looked at the plans and it hasn't been done. Neither Mr. Lieberman or Mr. Rodriguez were present at the last ARC meeting. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission has been trying to work with the applicant to make this an easy process. I understand that if you weren't at the meeting, then you didn't get all the information. We all agreed that you have an attractive-looking design and we weren't asking for much. What we're meeting here is solid resistance. I see you objecting and talking about a foot here and a foot there, but it's not enough. I just look at this and I don't get it because you have a valuable piece of property here. What makes you so special compared to everyone else who has to go through this review and they're asked to make changes as well. I don't understand why it's a make or break thing on a couple of feet. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he would be very interested in hearing about the recommendation about moving the building up. Clearly, this is new information for both himself and his architect. Commissioner Gregory asked for the past minutes, which were produced and a copy was given to Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Lieberman. Commissioner Lopez stated that he had made a comment at a previous meeting about the Windmill palms that won't survive in this location and they're still shown on the plans. This is an example showing that items that the commission has recommended don't get changed. Mr. Drell stated that looking at the plan that's being submitted, is it important to have palm trees in the front of the building? Is it important to have a vertical element to soften the scale of the building? Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he felt that it was important. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a huge, tall building and to have some softness that's tall will help it. Commissioner Lambell asked about the required planter size for a large palm tree. Ms. Hollinger stated that it should have a minimum of 5'-6' planter. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's opposed to this in concept. You're talking about having telephone poles in front of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES building. Mr. Drell commented that this is why he suggested putting the trees out on the sidewalk, then they can be lower. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a great idea. Then they can put smaller plant material, such as flowering vines, against the building. Mr. Drell stated that in his twenty-five years of shepherding projects through the City, many of which have been very difficult, if they get this project through, given the issue of the lack of parking, by only losing 1,000 feet off the building I would be ecstatic. If we succeed in getting this project through with only losing two feet, I will be thrilled and I think that the developer should be thrilled if that's all it takes to get through Planning Commission. It's a little bit discouraging that we can't even lose that amount of square footage. Part of the issue was to get the front so attractive looking that they would be willing to only accept the two feet and brave the parking problem because the project is so wonderful looking. Part of the way of overcoming the problem is to come up with an elevation that people fall in love with. Getting the palm trees in the correct location is part of the conflict of getting them to fall in love with it. Commissioner Lambell stated that she's in love with the elevation. Whether or not the palm trees will work, the number of palm trees, how big a space the palm trees need, that's all stuff that I would expect the architect and staff to work through. If you're looking at the commission to say if it's acceptable, then the answer is yes, of course. However, we have landscape people and staff people that need to work out these issues. That isn't for this group, in my opinion, to have to deal with. We can certainly give our opinion. Commissioner Gregory stated that he respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Lambell. This commission is supposed to look at the landscaping. An applicant could have the most thunderously gorgeous elevation in history, but if it doesn't fit with other things that are part of our concern, it still doesn't work. Just like if it costs them $20 million dollars to build this, they may decide that it's too much money so they may not do it. There are a lot of issues that come to task here. We're talking about something that's not a huge deal. The sense I get, is that if there's any way that the applicant is pushing the edge of the envelope with no give and take. Mr. Lieberman apologized and stated that this is not the case at all. He's worked here before and intends to work here in the future and this is not the environment that he wants to create. We're trying to get a project to go forward. We're working for our client. My interpretation at the first meeting was different from what the commission meant. I G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 15 WOW `"Of ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES apologize for not being at the last meeting but we did have somebody here. They brought back what they thought was pertinent information and passed it along. The idea is that we have compromised at this point. Based on code, I understood that you could build 1:1 on this site. Mr. Drell stated that as a one-story retail building you can cover the site from sidewalk to sidewalk. Mr. Smith stated that they're proposing a restaurant that has a demand for 2'/2 times as much parking complicates the issue. Mr. Drell stated that given that the applicant is asking for an amendment of a conditional use permit because with the restaurant, they're exceeding that entitlement. Every project, regardless of what the entitlement on paper is, it has to be approved by the ARC. Mr. Lieberman stated that they're giving up 1,000 square feet of supposedly buildable land to provide this setback. Mr. Drell stated that they're in excess of buildable land by 3,000 or 4,000 square feet because of the restaurant. Mr. Lieberman stated that he didn't know where these numbers were coming from. Mr. Drell suggested that they have a working session with himself, John Vuksic, Diane Hollinger, Spencer Knight and Mr. Lieberman. Because of the restaurant, they're in excess of the entitlement and it's a discretionary approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he remembers talking about the offsets in this building because it is so long and so massive. The offsets that were represented in the perspective need to be realized in the working drawings. It's as simple as that. The project is so close on the architecture but we're arguing over small things at this point. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory to continue the request with the understanding that the architect is to have a study session with Phil Drell, John Vuksic, Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Introduction and discussion of an 810-unit mixed residential development. LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (Emerald Desert site) G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 16 'err►'° *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 M Gil Miltenberger, Regional Manager for Taylor Woodrow, was present and introduced Tim Day, Senior Project Manager. Taylor Woodrow has been in Southern California for 28 years and are known for high quality master plans and housing. Emerald Desert is currently an RV park and they thought that this would be a special opportunity to bring a mid- density project to the desert. Monica Simpson, SWA Landscape and Bob Heide, Heide Architecture are on the team for this project. They are going to create paseos, pathways and walkways throughout the neighborhood. There will be five product types, which vary in density and brings the overall density to between 8-10 per acre. They have about 70 acres to work with. Two of the product types are attached, two that are detached and then future apartments. Ms. Simpson, SWA Landscape, stated that each housing type is broken down into small, interconnected neighborhoods. They're connected by a main landscaped boulevard which goes from Frank Sinatra to Gerald Ford. The idea is that the community park is located central to the project so everybody has the advantage of driving by it. There's also a variable landscape setback along the boulevard and other open space features. All the streets connect to the park in different ways. The paseo system leads to the community pools and the park. It's a very walkable, open environment. There's also a city bike/walking project with gardens and parks that connect to the trail. Rather than surround the project with a 6' wall they decided to open up the project and create some architectural presence along Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. Mr. Heide, architect, stated that there is a great deal of emphasis on the paseo system that works through the entire plan. Every one of the programs that they're presenting puts emphasis on a pedestrian system that really works off the street. If you look closely at any one of the product lines you're going to see the suggestion of a paseo system. It mandates that there is a strong architectural presence on the paseos. We're forced to use four-sided architecture consisting of stucco and tile roofs. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the Fire Marshal would approve the hammerhead portions of the design. Mr. Heide stated that they've met with the Fire Marshal and it was approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the circulation and the park is very nice and it meanders so you can't see all the way down to the end. It was suggested that they take the same meandering idea with the secondary areas. Ms. Simpson commented that some of the roads actually stop in a pocket park so you won't see all the way down the street. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 17 fir+" *rd ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the product and that it's very nicely done. On a project like this, it's going to come down to the details. The windows need to be recessed and be careful with proportion. The roof tile on one of the examples is very beautiful. It's two-piece tile with mudded bird stops. Mr. Miltenberger stated that there is a real commitment to detail, however, we probably won't be able to represent that particular element. We will be doing projected balconies and using doors that are recessed. Commissioner Vuksic encouraged the applicant to use tile that looks like two-piece tile, instead of using S-tile with manufactured bird stops. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the first course of the eave is done with a two-piece product and then they fill in the balance of the roof with an S- tile, which is a great way to disguise the roofing system. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that they're showing one main pool and three satellite pools but they all seem to be toward the north end of the project. He was wondering about the proximity for many of the people along the massive southern portion of the project and if there could be a more equitable distribution of pools. Ms. Simpson stated that the Auto Court product and the Compact Lot product has the ability to put dipping pools within their lots. Mr. Miltenberger stated that they wanted to put the pools in the higher density areas. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to make sure that the possibility of putting dipping pools on the southern prototypes would be available. Commissioner Oppenheim asked about the size of a dipping pool. Mr. Miltenberger stated that it could be 15' x 15' or 15' x 20'. Some are 10' x 10' and 3' deep. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioner Vuksic's comments. There are some really nice elements on the northern side, but it seems like the lower corner is linear with higher density and not quite as interesting in terms of the street layout. The paseo concept is great, but it puts all the garages on the back side which becomes a harsh corridor of concrete. There isn't much room for landscaping. There's just a whole series of garages with hardscape. Enhanced paving could make it look interesting. Most people are going to come into their houses that way. Ms. Simpson stated that there are a lot of pockets where landscaping could occur that would spill out into the lane, which would soften this area. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there's minimal landscaping in the Flats product. Ms. Simpson stated that there are some opportunities to add vertical plant material that would help soften up this area. The alleys are 30' wide, door to door. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez asked about the trash locations and wondered if they were using dumpsters. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the trash cans will be brought out to the curb face by the homeowner on trash day and then they'll be stored in the garage or the yard area after the trash is picked up. Commissioner Lopez stated that the architecture looks good, but when I first looked at this on the site plan I thought that it was very linear. I see a lot of this when I go visit my dad in Orange County. I think it looks good but I have a little problem with the site planning, but I understand that there are costs involved and you have to make money too. You've addressed a lot of that with the architecture and landscape design. Sometimes there are buildings there where they don't need to be linear. They don't have to be in a straight row. Sometimes when they're linear and you can tweak the buildings, you're not looking into someone's backyard or windows. Ms. Simpson stated that they have tried to vary the buildings from the street so you don't get too much of a line. Commissioner Lopez commented that he agreed with Commissioner Gregory about the pool locations. Mr. Heide stated that there are a lot of playful characteristics with respect to how the buildings layer back. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager, stated that one of the major concerns that he has is that they have a reduction of planting space. The concept is that they can just fit it in and the plants will grow anywhere. At this point, you're really substandard in your planting spaces. They're too small. There are no spaces that are substantial enough to support the type of tree population that's shown on the design. The planting spaces need to be looked at and considered carefully. Ms. Simpson stated that they're actually wider than what you see between curbs and sidewalks. Mr. Knight stated that Palm Desert isn't like the rest of the world. People try to put large trees into 5'-6' wide spaces and it doesn't work. Ms. Simpson stated that the larger trees are located along the boulevard and they have 15' between the curb and the wall. Mr. Knight stated that this is something that he looks for in his review and it becomes an architecture problem because you can't shoe horn trees in to small spaces. In terms of a single planter space for a tree, the minimum planter size is 6' x 8' clear space. Ms. Simpson stated that a lot of that depends on what kind of tree it is. Obviously, we're not going to put a big tree in a small space. If we have a 6' x 6' planter, we'll use a small tree. Mr. Knight stated that they won't have a 6' x 6' planter. It's too small. They need 6' x 8' of clear space. Mr. Heide stated that they have 6' x 8' planters along the paseo. Mr. Knight stated that the other dynamic is that this design will not pass the water efficient ordinance, based on the plant palette demonstrated here. With our water efficient ordinance, you have to consider water conservation at the front end of the design, not later. Ms. Simpson stated that a lot of it will be gravel and the plants were taken from the G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 19 1%W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES City's plant list. Mr. Knight stated that it's the planting density that's the issue. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant make sure that they're in sync with whoever lays out the utilities. In high density projects, it's common for utilities to run their lines right through the planters. Commissioner Lambell stated that the trick in her mind is to make something look like what it's not. What it is is 8-10 units per acre. There are long straight streets with little, tiny trees. Make that high- density reverberate as you're trying to find that address. Anything that you do that meets the landscape requirements and architectural requirements, we urge you to do because that will stop it from looking like 8-10 units per acre. That's what we want to try to negate. Commissioner Gregory asked that on the very high-density units where you do not have planting on the Auto Courts, what will be done there. Mr. Heide stated that they don't have dimensions for a tree so there will be 3' x 4' pockets for smaller planting. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to address this now. Staff is going to want some type of tree to soften those alleys. If trees can't be planted in spaces smaller than 6' x 8', is it possible to add some areas for trees. Mr. Heide stated that this program requires one garage door after another. We don't have room for a 6' x 8' planter for a tree. All of the other programs will have room for the 6' x 8' planter areas. This higher-density program with so many garage doors doesn't allow us to carve out areas for planting. It's an internal parking area to service the homeowner. Mr. Knight stated that what he's seeing in a high-density population is the reduction in the size of the planting spaces where they try to shoe horn trees in and think that everything is going to be okay. The bottom line is that it won't be a long term solution. You're developing in one of the worst areas in the desert in terms of climatic conditions, so you're got plant material that's being forced to grow in a harsh environment in concrete in undersized spaces. It needs to be taken into consideration and it wouldn't be professionally sound on our part to allow that to happen. It happens on the coast because the growing environment is much different than it is here in the desert. Mr. Knight asked if the alley was going to be concrete or asphalt. Mr. Heide stated that he wasn't sure if they've gotten that far yet. Mr. Knight stated that the soil in the root zone in an area with asphalt in the desert is 110°+. Roots will not grow in anything over 104°. With asphalt you get no penetration underneath it. Concrete is a little different because of the reflective properties which tends to insulate the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 20 Nawe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES soil and drop it just enough to allow root penetration. If you use asphalt, know that the roots aren't going any further. If you use concrete or pavers, then they might have a chance. Pavers are even better than concrete. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for conceptual approval and the applicant was directed to return with more detailed drawings of each product, as well as a revised landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion regarding height of the Henderson Community Building. LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Entrada) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050614.MIN 21