Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-28 +err' ��✓' CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 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 10 2 Kristi Hanson X 9 3 Chris Van Vliet X 9 3 John Vuksic X 12 Ray Lopez X 11 1 Karen Oppenheim X 12 Karel Lambell X 11 1 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Ryan Stendell, Planning Technician III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 14, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the minutes of June 14, 2005. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. 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: Confirmation that the parapet is high enough to screen the roof-mounted equipment on 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 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WISE MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION, 53-685 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for construction of a parking lot for vehicle parking, refueling, and wash facility. Cardiff Limousine &Transportation LOCATION: 75-255 Sheryl Avenue ZONE: SI Mr: Urbina stated that the applicant has submitted revised plans. The depth of the landscaping in the front area has been increased from 12' to 20'. There's a proposed 8' high block wall with a white stucco finish with blue fluted block along the front. There's a 24' wide sliding metal gate, which is 6' high with a perforated metal screen on the back. G91anning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR050628.MIN 2 �`W *40' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES There's a proposed 10' high above-ground fuel storage tank located 122' back from the property line. The applicant wants to secure the site so he's proposing to continue the 8' fencing along the side property lines with 41' of new 8' high stucco wall along the west side of the property. This wall would come down to 6' to meet the existing 6' wall in this area. There's an existing 6' high chain-link fence and he's proposing to place 3' of chain-link fencing on top of it. Along the easterly property line, the applicant is proposing an 8' stucco block wall. There's an existing 3' high wall for the rest of the easterly property line. The applicant is proposing a 5' high chain-link fence on top of it for an overall height of 8'. Along the rear property line exists a chain-link fence with barbed wire that's owned by CVWD. This is proposed to remain. Elevations were displayed of the proposed bus washing and cleaning building. It's a rectangular building with a flat roof. The exterior finish will be stucco. There will be two bands of blue fluted block for accenting. The building is 237 high. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the fuel tanks. Ed Wise, applicant, stated that it's an above-ground circular tank. Mr. Cardiff, owner, stated that at the last meeting he brought in the engineering company who is installing the tank. They showed the commission pictures of similar tanks that are installed at Eisenhower Medical Center and another location in Palm Springs. There was concern about the colored rendering. It was supposed to be done as if you were viewing the building from outside the wall. The way it was rendered showed it so you see everything looking down at the building. Nobody is going to be that tall. I asked Commissioner Oppenheim to visit the site. With the 8' high wall you're not going to see a lot of the building. You're not going to see the tank at all because it's surrounded by trees plus there will be an 8' high wall there. It'll be totally hidden. You'll only see about 8' at the top of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was concerned about the building itself. Mr. Cardiff stated that they're proposing the same architectural element that they did on the original building. Instead of it being all white, they added two bands of blue block. You're only going to see the top section from the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the view from in front of the gate. Mr. Cardiff stated that you'll probably see the busses before you see the building. The busses are 14' tall and the building is 23' high. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that you'll still see 9'-10' above the busses. Mr. Cardiff stated that if you're in front of the wall, you're only going to see the top 8'-10' of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he visited the site because of the rendering, which made it look ominous. When I went to the site, I G:Planning0onna QuaiveAwpdocs\Agmin\AR05W28.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES realized that the building will be way in the back. The scale on the rendering is completely off. It's an 8' high wall with a 23' high building and the building is way in the back of the site so it's not going to look anything like the rendering. I was fine with it after I went to look at the site. The existing building is a much larger box than the proposed building. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the existing building doesn't have a lot of architecture. It's big, but the busses are big and he's trying to keep it tasteful and clean. Commissioner Vuksic stated that because of where the proposed building will be located and the fact that it's going to have busses in front of it, that its not a big deal. Commissioner Gregory asked about the suggested use of chain-link fencing and was wondering if it was per City ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that it could be allowed through the exceptions process. Commissioner Gregory asked if there would be a reason why chain-link would be accepted. Mr. Smith stated that it's location would be taken into consideration and the fact that you have 2,000' of chain-link fencing along the southerly property line that's existing. The Water District has had it there for many years. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Van Viiet opposed and Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD/SPINELLO, LP, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 2,813 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive thru. Jack-in-the Box LOCATION: Northwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD/FCOZ G:Planning0onna QuaiveAwpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that this is a drive thru restaurant on the property north of the Arco station at Gerald Ford and Cook Street. It was approved as a drive thru restaurant site as part of the Arco approval and we're now getting actual architecture for the building. David Prest, architect, and Sam Spinello, property manager, were present. Mr. Prest stated that originally the building was designed by a Jack-in-the-Box architect and he was asked to take a look at it and we changed the exterior design. We didn't do the site planning. We're not the architect of record, we're just the design architect. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the retention basin located along Cook Street and wondered if they could utilize that space in a different way. It seems like retention basins are so wasteful. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager, stated that they can landscape that area. It will be required that they landscape the retention basin. Diane Hollinger has reviewed the plans and made comments for the applicant. Mr. Spinello stated that they added the retention basin because they had to by code. It's a requirement. Mr. Smith stated that there are other solutions to store water underground to keep the surface area flat. Commissioner Gregory asked if the City would be open to this solution. Mr. Smith stated that this is the way that the project has been designed. Mr. Knight stated that retention basins are approved all the time. Mr. Smith stated that if you wanted the applicant to look at other solutions, this is something that could be done between now and working drawings. Mr. Spinello stated that he's been having a hard time with underground retention. The plastic pipes get plugged up with sand and silt. It doesn't seem as prevalent in non-desert areas. They're having better luck in areas that don't have sand. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is sufficient mounding such that the parked cars will be screened from Cook Street, pursuant to another ordinance which requires that cars be screened with non-landscape solutions. Mr. Smith stated that Cook Street rises at this point. Commissioner Lopez stated that trees would help. Mr. Smith suggested having a wall on the west side of the retention area at 42"-46" in height, which doesn't have to be solid. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding a tree for shade on the southeastern exposure of the building. A combination of berms and walls could screen the cars in the parking lot. G:Planning0onna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR050628.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez stated that they're showing a 2" layer of 3/4" rock, which is basically gravel. I've found that it's very high maintenance. It's hard to clean it unless you use a leaf blower. In a commercial area, 3/4" rock tends to get kicked into the roadways and with kids around they can be projectiles. This size of rock tends to get thrown. 1 would suggest using decomposed granite, 2" deep after compaction. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval of architecture only. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 05-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for a facade enhancement of existing building. LOCATION: 73-750 El Paseo (Coble building) ZONE: C-1 Chris McFadden, architect, presented revised elevations to the commission based on the comments from the last meeting. The corner section was opened up and a canopy was added. An enclosure screen was added all the way around the upper roof so you don't see the the roofing. The signage has been taken off the fascias and they will use blade signs. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that one of the things that Mr. Drell was so concerned about at the last meeting was the corner and how important that was. I think that you really have made it interesting. Mr. McFadden stated that they're adding carports at the rear of the building. The entire parking lot will be enhanced. The older looking slump block will be washed and sacked. The plaza area along El Paseo will be more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof element be lowered to the top of the clay roof tile. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval subject to lowering the roof element to the top of the clay roof tile. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the plans were included in the commissioner's packets. The new plan is showing a brand new building. There are no plans for the 6' high wall. There will be roll-up doors facing the street, which will require a variance through the public hearing process. Our code currently states that bays are not supposed to be visible from any public streets for any automobile service or gas station. There are three streets that surround this project and it's a small site. The landscape area that's shown could be used for a waiting area for customers. Mr. Smith stated that they've added a trellis over the entry doors on the west side. Ernest Ramirez, applicant, was present and stated that they're going to demolish the existing building. The new building shows a lot of landscaping and they increased the size of the planter areas. A trellis has been added over the roll-up doors to soften this area. They're expecting to have 35 cars a day. Mr. Smith asked about the number of employees. Mr. Ramirez stated that they will have approximately three full time employees and some part-time employees. Commissioner Lopez asked about the pilasters for the trellis. Mr. Ramirez stated that there will be four pilasters. Commissioner Lopez asked if they could be cantilevered. Mr. Ramirez stated that he could look into it. G:Planning0onna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were going to use enhanced paving at the exit area. Mr. Ramirez stated that it's going to be a reconstructed driveway so they could do something there. Commissioner Gregory suggested using pavers. A cantilevered trellis with pavers with a nice color would be really nice. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they're showing a really nice landscaped area and wondered why they didn't move the building down so that there's more landscaping on the comer. Mr. Ramirez stated that they created the site plan based on comments made at a prior meeting and also for flow of the vehicles. There could be a stacking situation. Commissioner Gregory stated that staffs suggestion of having an outdoor waiting area is really good. The landscaped area is very large and it would be very difficult to maintain. Mr. Knight stated that he was concerned about the garden walls being shown at 6' in height. They seem to be out of scale and too high. We're not trying to screen the building. Some mounding and shorter garden walls would look much better. 42" high walls at the maximum would work along with berming. Washingtonia foliferas would look very nice on this site. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was having a hard time reviewing the proposal because the floor plan didn't seem to match the elevations. The windows are in different places. The west elevation and the east elevation both look like they have a tower on the corner, which isn't the case but that's the way the elevations read. It made me wonder how it really works. There's no roof plan so there's concern about the screening of the mechanical equipment. I didn't have any information to help me see how it was going to be done. Mr. Ramirez stated that they only have a small unit that they will place close to the tower. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were going to have evaporative coolers for the work bays. Mr. Ramirez stated that they will have evaporative coolers that will be installed on the roof using a low-profile model. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there was some concern when traveling west on Highway 111 and thought that the units would be visible. Mr. Ramirez stated that they could move the units back. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the car bays. Mr. G:Planning0onna ouaive6wpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U N E 28, 2005 MINUTES Ramirez stated that the ceiling would be 12' in height. The parapet will be about 3'+. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that 3' won't be enough to cover the mechanical equipment. Mr. Ramirez stated that they'll make sure that the equipment is screened. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the parapet has to be higher than the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't want to leave it to chance that the equipment will be screened on the roof. He wants to see how they intend to do this. Also, the floor plan shows all the walls being flat with windows right on the base of the walls. On the elevations, there's a little bit of pop out, but judging on the south elevation it's very flat with no recess at all. The eave detail doesn't match the elevation. The plans don't match, making me worry about the level of thought that went into these details. Inside the tower there are lots of windows, which must be on a flat wall because there's no other room. Mr. Ramirez stated that the tower windows are in a flat wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt that this was a substandard relationship of glass to walls. It's all flat with little pieces of wall in between glass. This building is on Highway 111, which is on a main corridor. It's an extremely mediocre building, at best. It's very predictable. It's very flat. It's going to look old and tired right after it's built. I can't imagine that this doesn't need quite a bit of work. The site plan works well. The concept is fine, but the architecture needs a lot of help. Mr. Ramirez stated that this is a directive that has no direction. Commissioner Gregory stated that before it seemed hopeless and now there's hope. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's not close enough to recommend minor changes. It's not that simple. The architecture is not to the point where you can effectively critique it. There has to be enough architectural interest and care in the details and right now that's severely lacking. I can tell by how inconsistent the drawings are. Commissioner Gregory commented that perhaps the building should look more authentic, because right now it looks like a "pretend" building with respect to that particular style. They have a 6" pop-out, as opposed to what a tower really should look like. If this was supposed to be a take-off on some type of architecture (Mediterranean or Mission or some variant of that style), that if it were made to look more authentic in that sense it would play better here. If you want it to be Mediterranean style, you need to make it feel like that. Mr. Ramirez stated that whatever he does to the exterior, it's not going to change the function of the interior. Commissioner Gregory pointed out the roof tile and G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES suggested that they should use more authentic tile. Maybe this isn't the place for faux Mission tile. It's such a small roof that it probably wouldn't be that hard to use real the with mud. Commissioner Vuksic stated that right now they show a rock wainscot which is basically glued on to the plaster. It would look better if they didn't have it at all. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they don't have to stay with this style of architecture. If they want to change it or go in a different direction, then that would be okay. Commissioner Gregory stated that it should be something that we could be proud of because it's on our main drag. Mr. Smith stated that all of this contributes towards the variance that's required for this project. Mr. Bagato stated that there will be residents who may not be in favor of the project so the better it looks, the more likely that it could be approved. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 05-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SRW INVESTMENTS, LLC, P.O. Box 986, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-0986 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a four-unit, two-story apartment building. LOCATION: 73-692 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion, subject to (1) deepening balconies so that they're useable, as previously discussed with the applicant, and (2) windows to have mullions, as shown on the elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. GRIanning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 10 `err►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: PP 05-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPYDER BUSINESS CENTER, LLC, 471 Old Newport Blvd., #301, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of four industrial buildings. LOCATION: 73-770 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Stendell stated that the Commission received 11" x 17" plans in their packets but some of the elements were hard to see in two dimensional, therefore, the applicant has submitted a 3-13 model for their review. There are a lot of landscaping issues, per Diane Hollinger. She, has made her comments so the commission is to review architecture only. The applicant is not asking for a height exception. The material board shows reflective glass. Bill Skinner, architect, and Jim Summer, applicant, were present. Mr. Skinner stated that the reflective surface is on side two, which is on the interior side, which is quite reflective. This is actually a medium reflective glass. The mirrored portion is on the other side and it is setback from the road. The mirrored glass is also used as a means to conceal structures behind elements that extend across structural panels in the tilt-up construction. We really have to have something that has a reflective element to screen certain elements. Commissioner Gregory commented that he is somewhat ignorant about reflective glass terminology. You mention that this is a medium reflective glass. Mr. Skinner stated that this is correct and that it's not a high-performance glass. Commissioner Gregory asked if there's a glass that's more mildly reflective. Mr. Skinner stated that the back side of the glass is mildly reflective. We need to have enough reflectivity so we can't see through it. If you put a dark element behind it, it really tends to disappear. Commissioner Gregory suggested using a darker tinted glass. Mr. Skinner stated that he could use black glass. We have used black glass (gray light 14), which has no reflectivity other than the nature of the glass itself, but we were trying to keep an earth tone to complement the other colors, as shown on the color board. We thought that this would be striking. Commissioner Gregory commented that he wasn't picking on this but there tends to be a negative response to the reflective glass and he was just wondering if he could explain the G:PlanningOonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agrrin\AR050628.MIN 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES need for this particular glass. Mr. Skinner commented that he tnouyr IL he had explained the reason why they're using it. Mr. Summer asked the commission what their negative reaction would be to reflective glass. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that in the heat of the summer the last thing we need is more reflective glass. Mr. Skinner stated that the building is set back from the street so it won't be a traffic issue. We can understand that if you have a four-story building on Highway 111 where people are being struck by reflection off of these glass surfaces and that can be dangerous. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the metal element that looks like it goes through the building. Mr. Skinner stated that it's a steel tube that goes through the glazing. A model was displayed for the commission to show how the building works because it's too complex to.understand by looking at the plans. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the light colored band that goes around the building and wondered if that was a steel tube. Mr. Skinner stated that in certain areas it's a steel tube, but in other areas it'll be a gloss white reveal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's an interesting element but he wanted to know, architecturally why he feels the need to continue it all the way around the building. Mr. Skinner stated that it'll be intermittent between the roll-up doors. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the amount of offset in the pop- outs. Mr. Skinner stated that they're about one foot. We don't like to see the edges of concrete panels where you have a parapet go up higher than the adjacent parapet. It looks really chinsey if you just have a panel going up so what we've done is cantilever from above the roof and turn the panel back by about three feet. That's cast as part of the panel. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to know what the offset is. Mr. Skinner stated that it's about 1 Y2'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that that's more than what the model shows. Mr. Skinner stated that the model might be off scale. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the returns on the parapets. We've seen quite a few projects in this area and this is something that we talk about each time. The tall elements that are popping out don't look like forms unless they go back far enough to look like a complete form. Mr. Skinner commented that he understood what he was saying. They're sort of like the little corner things you like on your commercial buildings, those little built-up things with your little roofs on them that you put on them like what the previous gentleman had on his. The little funny towers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't like those. Mr. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgr inWR050628.MIN 12 `fir+► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Skinner stated that he doesn't think that that necessarily is that germane to this type of architecture. Yes, it would be beautiful if we could do that, but these are just tilt-up buildings with little offices inside. Structurally, it's difficult to handle because we have a lot of them. It is also, from our perspective, not meaningful. That's a subjective thing, I'm sure. It's hard to put them on the roof because you have flashing problems. These are just multi-tenant buildings that are not right on the street. I'm not convinced that it's necessary to return the parapets. We've done that on the front element and wrapped it around giving it a sense of greater completeness, but it's hard to drain them. We get roof leaks and there are all sorts of things that go on with those little towers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's done it there because he recognizes that it's a better solution than a flat front. Mr. Skinner stated that it's subjective. It's a different solution. It may be better in your mind but I have to balance the economics of the project and the long- term maintenance of the project. There are many things that I have to balance. I've been doing this for a long time and we've found that this works well. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they don't have very many areas where the parapets need to be returned. There are three on the Building One elevation. You need to return the parapets and they actually need to be four-sided elements. When you look at the building from eye level you can see the return and then there is just basically a flat front that you're creating. In the elevations, it looks like these are actually forms that might have space underneath them, but in reality you realize very quickly that it's basically a thin facade element. Mr. Skinner stated that they can't do them in concrete because there is no way to support that so we'd have to change materials. We can't effectively use sand-finished plaster because that doesn't go with the concrete. A typical plaster job won't match so it would have to be a smooth or steel-trowel finished plaster. It has to be light because it's sitting on a wood frame roof so it's difficult, expensive and meaningless, in our judgement. Anything can be done. It's a function of dollars. Then we would have to drain it so we'd have to hold it up off the roof so we'll need pitch pockets in every place that we support that. Do you know what a pitch pocket is? Commissioner Vuksic stated that he does. Mr. Skinner stated that a pitch pocket is another source of potential leakage so we try to avoid them. Out of practicality, it's cute but it's expensive. Mr. Summer stated that you don't see much of it from the street so it's not important. Bill Skinner stated that he has done a lot of these multi- tenant buildings over the last thirty years and owns a bunch of them. They stand up well. They're timeless in architecture. Nothing fancy, G:Planning0onna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES but it'll always look good. The easier it is to maintain, the better it's going to look. That's why we do what Mr. Skinner is suggesting. We've done enough of these to know where the mistakes are being made. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we beat up on the projects around you pretty bad. The project across the street from you got beat up pretty bad. Maybe the reason is because they didn't have a simplicity to their architecture and so they had to do it in more complicated ways to make it acceptable. Mr. Summer stated that they changed their plans after a meeting with Phil Drell and the first plan was too plain. Mr. Skinner stated that this proposal is a very straight forward solution and it's very clean and very timeless. That's what we always try to achieve. We don't like trendy. We don't want it to be post-modem 1998 because we find that offensive in the long term. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he appreciates that but this comes down to certain standards of carrying through your design so that it has some meaning to it. Mr. Skinner stated that you can force anything on us that you want to, I understand that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if you look up, you're going to see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees a lot of different levels on the plans, but on the model I see dimension. I like the simplicity of the design, but I want to see that there's a level of quality there. I want to see that it's not flat. Mr. Skinner stated that there is some reveal there. The entries are sunk in about 4' so there's a cavity that creates a reveal. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the horizontal tube steel band that's carrying back from the front. Is the surface above and below it recessed from that band element? Mr. Skinner stated that he has trouble recessing large surfaces of concrete because of the form work necessary to get the recess. If you have large areas, we have to actually build two panels. On the back building, we'll have to do two panels where we have large areas of material with one panel set behind another panel so that it's cast on the slab so we get a better finish than if it`were cast with a dent in it on form work. The form work always transmits to the face of the panel. The face is always cast down so when you lift it up you don't want form work to show. You can't grind it and you can't sand it. It always shows up in the sun. We're going to get a lot of shadow across it and it looks terrible if it's not properly done. Commissioner Gregory wanted to know if the reveal indicated on the model will be the same as it's indicated on the plans. Mr. Summer stated that it's difficult to make the formed concrete panels so they look right. G:Planning0onna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that there are areas where there are windows that have a sill that are about three feet high and have a solid material below them and a solid material above them before the horizontal element. What sort of plane changes happen there? Mr. Skinner stated that there won't be any change in plane in this area. We're accenting the white element that goes through the glazing. Right now we have the glass shown on the same surface as the wainscot element. It's all flush. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it doesn't look like a very imaginative area of the building with it being of equal dimension and flat. From listening to you, I know that you can do way better than that. Mr. Skinner stated that he could extend the sill out beyond the front of the glazing. It makes a thicker wall. A thicker wall means more mass. More mass means larger footings. We have to balance all of those elements. We normally do them flush, hundreds of times on hundreds of buildings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that that doesn't matter. Mr. Skinner stated that he understands that Commissioner Vuksic wants a projection there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the glass could run all the way to the metal element instead of having a little piece of wall above it. It's odd. Mr. Skinner stated that the glass could go all the way up. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the north and south elevations on Building One and Building Two need more depth. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the back of the elevations are very plain. Mr. Skinner agreed and stated that they are very plain. Mr. Summer stated that the buildings next to their site are right on the property line and they're essentially blank walls. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't know that they were there and that they might be looking at each other. He asked about the south side of the property. Mr. Summer stated that the land hasn't been sold yet and they don't know. what's going to happen there. Mr. Skinner stated that they've left a landscape barrier on that side so that it can be planted heavily. The planter is 6' in width. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that somebody could have a view of the back of the proposed buildings. Mr. Skinner stated that it would be highly improbable, given the nature of the site. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if you're on Dinah Shore you're going to look at Building Two. Mr. Summer stated that you will see it until something is built on the other lot. Mr. Skinner stated that one thing that can be done on the back side is to recess the service doors, which they've done in the past and put the man door on the side. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that that would help add some interest to that side of the building. Mr. Skinner stated that you won't even see all the little toys that we've put on the building. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR050628.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that anywhere that there's a raised element, it needs to go back at least two-thirds the distance of the width of the element. Mr. Skinner stated it would be huge to do that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we've held the other developers to the same standards. Mr. Skinner stated that you will argue that our standards shouldn't be applied to other people so you can't turn it around on us and say that you're applying their standards to us, but you can of course. We understand the power that you have, much to our chagrin. Mr. Summer asked if it really accomplishes anything. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it makes it look like it's an actual form. It's an actual three dimensional volume that is nestled in as part of the building instead of a facade. Mr. Skinner stated that it is a facade. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it should be a three- dimensional facade. Mr. Skinner stated that he understood that these were industrial buildings. It isn't like we're on Highway 111. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a standard that we've developed for this area that's different than the standard that we have for Highway 111. Mr. Skinner stated that they will ultimately acquiesce. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that the architecture changes from one building to the other. Mr. Skinner stated that they have another projection that's so far back that you'll never see it. There's a bump up there at the end of the building. Commissioner Vuksic concurred, but stated that it comes down to architectural integrity. You'll never see it unless you're driving through the parking lot. Mr. Skinner stated that he may take that bump off at the end so that they can't be asked to complete it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that maybe they can because it's a driveway where people are experiencing the building as they're going to their building, which might be somewhere else further back. Out of respect for what they see as they drive through the project, the element should be there. Mr. Skinner stated that he would like to do it to a point that's reasonable. You're going to reach a point where you can't see it because it goes back so far. You won't be able to get far enough away from it to perceive it. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the parapet. Mr. Skinner stated that there are two parapet heights. The lowest parapet is 20'6" and the highest parapet is 23' in height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it was 21' in height there would be a 6' difference if a person's eyesight was 5'. If you're back 40' you'll see the back of the parapet. 40' isn't very far. Mr. Skinner stated that if it went back 16' or 17', you're not going to see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it's back 16' and you're back 80', you'll see it. I'm talking about the tower element. Mr. Skinner commented that he thought they were talking about the depth of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he said that it should be two-thirds of the width of the element. Mr. Smith stated that this would also apply to G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agrfin1AR050628.MIN 16 rrw V"01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES the building along the highway. Mr. Skinner stated that he understands. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had a question about the finish on the concrete. Mr. Skinner stated that it will be smooth concrete. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some concern about the glass. The entry is west facing so it's going to get pretty bright and it's bright out here 360 days a year. Mr. Skinner asked if he would prefer that he used the black glass. I have to have something that will cover the structure behind because of the nature of the tilt-up architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it has to be something that's not reflective. Mr. Skinner stated that that leaves him with one choice; gray light 14. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the overall color scheme looks good, but can you do it with a less mirror-like glass? Mr. Skinner stated that nothing will work. We don't like to use spandrel glass, because then you get two different types of glass. The look is different. Commissioner Vuksic asked to see a sample of the gray light 14 at their next meeting. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they have enough height in the parapets to screen the roof-mounted equipment. ' Mr. Skinner stated that the worst one will be up front and it'll be a five-ton unit. It's 42" high with an 8" curb. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the placement of the evaporative coolers. Mr. Skinner stated that they don't have any evaporative coolers shown. They're only cooling the office areas. The smaller offices will probably use a three-ton unit that comes out 37" with a curb. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the business owners are going to want to put evaporative coolers in the warehouse areas. Mr. Summer stated that there are quite a few warehouses in the area that don't have evaporative coolers. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he couldn't imagine working out here in the summertime without having some kind of cooling. Mr. Summer stated that he's researched the market and they don't have them in an awful lot of instances. Mr. Skinner stated that standard evaporative coolers are higher than an air conditioner and they're very bulky. We would have to raise our parapets to conceal an evaporative cooler at the back of the buildings. We would have to raise the entire building, but it would stay under the building maximum height. We'd have to add 1 Y2' to the height of the building to conceal an evaporative cooler on the roof. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he's sure that people are going to want evaporative coolers because of the heat in the summer. Commissioner Gregory stated that the parapet height should exceed the height of the roof-mounted equipment. Mr. Skinner stated that just as he's reluctant to put these little fake things that he's asking for (the toys), the problem is that we don't like to screen G:Planning0onna QuaiverlwpdocsWgMn1AR050628.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES mechanical equipment. We prefer not to build a small screen around the equipment. We prefer to treat it with the parapet of the building. Mr. Smith stated that this is something that is required that the equipment be screened so it would be better to raise the parapets another two feet in anticipation of the owners adding evaporative coolers in the future. Commissioner Lopez asked about their parking. Mr. Skinner stated that he doesn't want to lose parking. They're parked 3:1,000 at this point. Commissioner Lopez asked about roof access. Mr. Skinner stated that the access in interior. Commissioner Lopez asked about exterior lighting. Mr. Skinner stated that they'll probably have some light standards at the street. We don't like to have lights on the front of the building. In each recessed area for the offices, there will be flourescent can lights in the soffit. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he'd like to see what the parapets are going to look like when they're raised two feet. Mr. Skinner stated that he'll probably raise the back parapet. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and 7. 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 Ray Rodriguez, applicant, was present to address the commission. He brought the revised plans with him and stated that he had just picked them up a half an hour before the meeting so nobody had a chance to review them prior to the meeting. Mr. Rodriguez met with Phil Drell last Friday and has made changes to the elevations and landscaping. The palms were moved to the sidewalk area and they pulled the building G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050628.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES back 2W, but he wasn't sure if it was pulled back in portions of the building or all the way across. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the planter was supposed to be eliminated in some areas and then pushed the building all the way up and in other areas, the planters were deepened so there were more offsets in the building. We would be happy to move the building up towards the sidewalk to whatever distance would be acceptable to the City departments. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they bring certain areas forward one foot and push other areas back one foot so that they won't lose any square footage. Commissioner Vuksic suggested leaving the glass where it is, but thicken the walls. The buildings' leaseable envelope would be in the same place but the walls would be thickened. It won't effect the planters but it would take the face and pull it closer to the street. By doing that, you've created the offset from the building next to it. Mr. Rodriguez asked if this was his only option. He asked if he could use columns instead of thickening the walls. He then noted that he could bring the entire face of the building forward. This would create an area for roaches and mice. Thick walls in the restaurant business aren't a good idea, but that's my problem. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval subject to (1) on the Highway 111 elevation, thicken wall sections by approximately two feet between the windows in the building and east of the entry area, and (2) modify sidewalk layout to accommodate deeper planters against building between palms, ensuring that the sidewalk is ADA compatible. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: RV 05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: TONY GONZALEZ, 44-770 Ramona Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store an R.V. at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 44-770 Ramona Way ZONE: R-1 G:PlanningOwna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR050628.MIN 19 %W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Stendell stated that this property is directly adjacent to a CVWD well site at the intersection of Ramona, De Anza and Alessandro. Photos of the home and a site plan were distributed for the commission to review. Coming northbound through this intersection, the R.V. is screened by the existing trees. The applicant is proposing to add some new trees (possibly cypress trees) next to the R.V. Commissioner Gregory stated that the good news is that they have a lot of space on their lot. Mr. Gonzalez, applicant, was present and stated that he's had the R.V. there since 1999 and dealt with Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Compliance Officer, originally and was allowed to store the R.V. in this location. However, Mr. Kilpatrick has visited him and told him that he doesn't remember giving him permission. Mrs. Gonzalez stated that the R.V. is located on the side of their garage and it's even with the garage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's room for a lot more landscaping. Mr. Knight stated that he has to be careful about what he plants or he won't be able to get the R.V. in there. Citrus aren't a bad idea considering the style of landscaping on the site. Commissioner Gregory stated that it'll be a long time before trees will really screen the R.V. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if he plants a Eureka lemon it'll grow really quickly. Mr. Knight stated that he'd like to see one lemon tree planted and so it'll have a lot of room to grow to full size. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he planted a small mesquite tree near the R.V. The R.V. is 29' long. It was suggested that the mesquite tree be removed and three citrus trees planted next to the R.V. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to (1) removing existing mesquite tree, and (2) planting three citrus trees (15 gallon minimum) to screen the RV. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050628.MIN 20