Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-10 �rr� � ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • � MINUTES MAY 10, 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 7 2 Kristi Hanson X 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 6 3 John Vuksic X 9 Ray Lopez X 8 1 Karen Oppenheim X 9 Karel Lambell X 9 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 26, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of April 26, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinus 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-17 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): BOB SIPOVAC, 72-651 Theodora Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for a single-family residence with an 18' roof height. LOCATION: 73-487 Grapevine ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: TT 30706 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL KAUFMAN, 12345 Ventura Blvd., Suite H, Studio City, CA 91604 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two prototype single-family residences for a 16-lot subdivision. LOCATION: South of Gerald Ford and west of Portola Avenue; Portola Pointe ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 5403 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations for the one-story office building. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane West ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-44 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): SCOTT A. POLIMENI, 35325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 243, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for new location of business signage with deviation to the sign program. Centerpointe Lending LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that this item was before the commission at their last meeting where it was approved with the condition that staff approve a location for the signage. The applicant and staff couldn't come to an agreement. Mr. Stendell stated that staff wasn't comfortable approving the location that is shown on the information included in the commissioner's packets, which is why it's being referred back to the commission for their review. The applicant has property owner authorization. The sign would exceed the 20' maximum height restriction, but if the ARC feels that this is an appropriate location, then it can be approved. The applicant's concern was that the visibility of the sign from Fred Waring was fairly dismal being that there's so much landscaping in front of their suite. Commissioner Vuksic asked if anything can be done with the landscaping. I drove by the location and it's not really clear in the photographs due to the angle is that there's a stepped detail at the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR050510.MIN 3 �+i'' `�Mrr'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES upper portion of the building. The sign would look very cluttered in this location. It's not the place for a sign. The sign itself is very stylish. I'd rather see the sign near the Keith Companies sign. Scott Polimeni, applicant, was present and stated that he would be encroaching on other people's signage. We had committed to this property and the corporate president gave us zero latitude on the signage and the ARC helped out by approving the colors of the signage at their last meeting. When we moved our business, we incurred a great degree of cost and the logistics involved were substantial. It was all for one reason; location, location, location. We wanted to be in Palm Desert and the signage on Fred Waring was the single most important factor on our relocation to the City of Palm Desert. My signage should be visible. The proposed location is the only place that I won't be encroaching on other people's signage and allowing my signage to be seen. The approved area for my signage according to the sign program is completely encompassed by foliage. I know that the sign is not supposed to go over a certain height, but in the scheme of things, I cannot think of another place that makes more sense. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he's talked about removing some of the landscaping. Mr. Polimeni stated that he can't imagine his landlord, Dr. Shah, ever spending a penny on allowing my signage to become more important than the rest of his tenants. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that Mr. Polimeni offer to pay for the removal of some of the landscaping which is pretty thick when you drive by. At the angle that you see it from Fred Waring, you can't even see much of the building because there's so much landscaping in front of it. Mr. Polimeni stated that these are very large trees and would be very difficult to remove. Commissioner Gregory stated that it looks really daunting, but it's not as hard as it may look. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, stated that the landlord has actually raised the heads of the palms, when typically he would've just had them "topped". Mr. Polimeni stated that the trees grow into one another right where the signage is supposed to go. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the commission walk over to the site at the end of the meeting to look at the building. The applicant commented that if the commission could find another place on that building that drive-by traffic without making undo effort to find the signage then I would be fine with that. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 4 �rr" '�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES At the end of the meeting, the commission walked to 73-733 Fred Waring to look at the building in person to identify an appropriate location for the signage. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the landscaping in front of the building had been trimmed substantially. It was determined by the commission that the appropriate location for the signage would be in the approved location, per the sign program for the building. The proposed location was noted to be too high on the building. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request because the proposed location was too high on the building resulting in an inappropriate appearance and the appro�ed location, now that the landscaping has been trimmed is the most appropriate location. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-21 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESS): YGNACIO HERNANDEZ, 37-675 Driscoll Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of the exterior paint color of a single-family home. LOCATION: 37-675 Driscoll Street ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell stated that the commission looked at this case at their last meeting. The applicant is present and would like to know if he can keep the blue on the trim and re-paint the rest of the house "Florida White". Mr. Ygnacio Hernandez, applicant, stated that the painter will charge him $4,000. instead of $7,500. if he just re-paints the walls. Commissioner Gregory stated that there are other homes with blue trim in the area. Commissioner Hanson stated that white and blue looks nice. Mr. Hernandez commented that he would also like to keep the wrought iron and garage door blue. Commissioner Hanson commented that she was concerned with the garage door being blue. She suggested painting around the garage door first and have staff come out and look at the contrast of the blue door and white wall. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES Hernandez was concerned about having the painters come out twice. If there's going to be a problem, I'll have the garage door painted white. Commissioner Gregory stated that he would like the garage door painted white and also suggested that the applicant be given 90 days to re-paint the house. Mr. Smith stated that the commission can recommend a 90-day time frame, but it's really the decision of the Code Compliance Department. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of exterior paint color, subject to the color of the trim and wrought iron remaining blue and the walls and garage door changed to "Florida White". Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 04-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOP OF THE LINE SIGNS, ERIC MERTEN, 74-882 Joni Drive, #5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of sign color for Keller-Williams signage. LOCATION: 78-000 Fred Waring Drive (Lyle Commercial building) ZONE: O.P. Mr. Stendell stated that the last time the signage for the Lyle Commercial building was before the commission it was requested that the applicant return with the color for the Keller-Williams sign. Eric Merten, applicant, supplied the commission with a variety of red-tone colors for them to choose from. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the idea is to get it as close to a rust color as possible. The commission selected a color from the color chart and marked it with an "X". Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of the red color for Keller-Williams as marked by an "X" on color sample (on file) provided by the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050510.MIN 6 �wrr✓ `�rr�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: SA 05-52 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE, JR., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of sign program (excluding the monument sign) for Country Club Business Center. LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that this is for the Canyon Bank on the north side of Country Club, east of Portola. There's an office complex at the rear. The applicant is seeking an exception from the ordinance. Typically, they would be limited to one free-standing sign and there's already an existing free-standing sign on the site. Mr. Stendell stated that the proposed sign program is within the allowed amount of square footage. The letters are 12" in height and are non- illuminated. The colors are indicated in the packets (blue, dark green and rust). Jim Engle, Jr., applicant, stated that there's speculation about the owner purchasing the land adjacent to the bank. Conceptually, they would like to locate the sign where the "For Lease" sign is in relationship to where the Canyon Bank monument sign is. It's not on the bank's property, it's next to the bank so that it would be off-sight signage. Mr. Stendell stated that he was under the impression that it would be located on the bank's property. Mr. Engle stated that it's not. Mr. Stendell stated that now they don't know whose property it's on. Mr. Smith asked if the property has been merged with the bank's property. Mr. Engle stated that it hasn't been merged yet. Mr. Smith commented that the commission can't review it. Mr. Engle stated that he wanted the commission's opinion on the conceptual idea of the monument sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that you can't locate a monument sign on property that you don't own. Mr. Bagato stated that you can't put a monument sign on vacant property. Mr. Engle wanted to know if the commission liked the design of the monument sign. Commissioner Lambell asked how the commission could approve G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050510.MIN � � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES something that's conceptual. We don't even know what the building is going to look like or where it's going to be. Mr. Stendell stated that the commission will not be acting on this today. Mr. Engle stated that there's some speculation that the owner is going to purchase the land where the sign is being propose. He was asked to present the proposed sign design to the ARC for review in the event that he was to purchase the land. Commissioner Gregory asked if he was looking for comments on the design of the monument sign as wetl as the location. Mr. Engle stated that he wanted to know if the sign looks nice. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the forms are alright on the monument sign. It's a little thin. It goes from 8" down to 4" at the bottom. Commissioner Hanson stated that the stone element should close over the top of the sign. Commissioner Lopez stated that they should be careful about the signage on the bottom because of plant material that would probably grow taller than 12". Commissioner Hanson stated that she's fine with all the locations for the building signage. Commissioner Gregory asked about the color blue as one of the letter options. Mr. Engle stated that the idea was to , follow the color scheme of the bank. Commissioner Vuksic suggested deleting the blue color for the color choices for the sign program. The letters are scaled larger than 12" on the drawings but they're called out at 12" in the sign program. Mr. Engle stated that they will be 12" in height. The designated sign locations are 12" x 72" so the letters could be smaller if they have more letters. They have to be proportionately placed to a height and length ratio so they won't be scrunching letters in. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the size of the letters on the monument sign. Mr. Smith stated that they're taking the monument sign out of the request because we're not even sure about where it's going to go. Mr. Engle stated that the doesn't have a problem taking the color blue out of the sign program. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of the sign program, excluding the monument sign, subject to the color blue being deleted from letter color choice. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR050510.MIN g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: PP 04-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM J. SCHILDGE, JR., P.O. Box 1017, Cardiff, CA 92007-7017 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of addition to existing office/commercial building. LOCATION: 73-722 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-03 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, Thomas W. Gilmer, 701 S. Parker, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations and landscaping for eleven office/industrial buildings. LOCATION: 73-800 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that revisions have been made to the architecture. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has submitted a site plan that shows the color of each building. Building 1 now has a 10' recess and a new window element was added to provide some relief. A tower element was added with a metal eyebrow near the top. The applicant was asked to provide a line-of-sight study. They have shown the landscaping on the color elevation that matches the landscape plan. They've made revisions to Building 2 by beefing up the elements in the middle and changing some of the windows so that some of them go all the way down to the ground. Staff would recommend approval with all the above-mentioned changes. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that the revisions are a very nice improvement over the prior submittal. It looks pretty good. Ms. Hollinger stated that she hasn't seen the revised landscape plan. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't feel as good about the elevations as Commissioner Gregory. It looks like they're just doing enough to get it approved. There should be a minimum standard for projects like this. A lot of it has to do with the forms and how they return. Jack Selman, architect, was present and he described the changes that he made to the elevations. He attempted to address the issues that were called to his attention at the last meeting. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the parapet above the main parapet line. Mr. Selman stated that the large towers are 6'6", the middle ones are 4' and the regular one is 2'. It's a 1:2 ratio for the line of sight. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the lower parapet. Mr. Selman stated that it's 21'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that "eye level" is approximately 5' and so there's a difference of 16', which is 2:1, so at 32' away you'll be able to see the back of the parapet. Mr. Selman stated that you wou�dn't be able to see the back. You'd have to be pretty far away to see it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if you were in the parking lot and looked at any one of the buildings, you'd be over 60' away and you would see the back of the parapets. Thomas Gilmer, applicant, was present and showed the commission pictures of another project with similar architecture that they've constructed. Commissioner Vuksic asked the architect how he's not going to see the back of the parapet. Mr. Selman stated that if you got far enough back and looked across, you might see it. Also, the small tower element is supposed to indicate an entrance and so the 4' return should be fine. As you look at it from a distance it should feel like it's an element. It might not look like a full tower. I don't think that with the landscaping it shouldn't pop out at you as an issue. If you wanted to go out there and look at it, you could see a piece of it from far enough back. Commissioner Gregory stated that at the last meeting Mr. Selman had said that it would be very expensive to make the returns because there was no support holding up the structure. Mr. Selman stated that they're concrete panels and they need a special roof system to hold the panels. Commissioner Gregory commented that it appears that Mr. Selman has a stumbling block with the commissioners and wondered why he wouldn't consider returning the parapets. Mr. Selman stated that if they have to, they will. Commissioner Gregory stated that they will. Mr. Selman stated that the money isn't the only concern. I've seen these done all the time and they look fine. I don't think that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 1� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES there's any magic number about how far the parapets or tower elements have to be returned to look right. Commissioner Gregory stated that the ARC doesn't like the appearance of a stage set. They should have the parapets return so that it looks like a real tower element. Commissioner Hanson stated that they also have to consider the fact that the freeway goes right by this property and there's some concern about what it's going to look like from there as well. It's not only pedestrian level and from Dinah Shore. Mr. Selman stated that you won't see anything from the freeway level. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the architecture for this project is very marginal. These are massive buildings with only 6" offsets. There's only 2"-3" from the wall to the glass frame so it's a very flat building, much more so than it appears on the elevations the way they're shadowed. The tower elements with the eyebrow elements near the top was questioned. Mr. Selman stated that this is a trellis element which will create a shadow line. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the air conditioning units for each building. Mr. Selman stated that they have a 5-ton unit for the 5,000-6,000 square foot buildings because 80% of the buildings are warehouse. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they'll have anything cooling the warehouse. Mr. Selman stated that at this point they don't. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they'll probably want to add some evaporative coolers. If they return the elements, they'll have plenty of opportunity to add the units to these areas. You can see the mechanical equipment on the roof of the One EI Paseo building and it's 30' high. When people say that you're not going to see it because it's so tall, I have a hard time believing it. As a minimum standard, the tower elements have to return so you can't see the ends of them. There should be a proportion of 1.5:1 so that it looks like a form. Commissioner Lopez asked if there are any shade structures for this project. Mr. Selman stated that there are none. Commissioner Lopez stated that Mr. Selman should check his shading requirements for the parking lot. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) return parapets so they are forms, (2) create deeper recesses (more than 6"), (3) return tower elements on all four sides to 1.5:1 so that they are forms, (4) continue metal eyebrows on all four sides of tower elements, (5) be sure that drain pipes are all interior, and (6) approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KSC INC., KEN STENDELL, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations two new industrial buildings totaling 9,680 square feet. LOCATION: 73-750 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that based on the discussion at the last meeting, the applicant has made some changes, mostly in the front. It was suggested that the stone column on the east of the building match the west column and possibly thicken the fascia. The landscaping has been changed which now includes palm trees. A trellis was added over the roll-up doors. Staff is recommending approval with the above- mentioned changes. Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks better. They have successfully picked up some of the details that they were trying to accomplish in the first submittal. An additional 6" should be added to the fascia and the east column is to match the west column. Commissioner Lambell asked about the property adjacent to the proposed building. Mr. Bagato stated that it's vacant land with no proposed development at this time. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) thicken fascia an additional 6", (2) east column to match west column, and (3) approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. 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 conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that Jiffy Lube is not considered a gas station by City code. They went to the City Council and Planning Commission to request a determination of use to try and see if this would meet the standards of a gas station. They got the blessing to move forward to submit a design. The original proposal had a flat roof and the revisions show tower elements. I've expressed my concerns when meeting with the applicant. The applicant intends to work with the existing building. One of the areas of concern is that they're showing roll-up doors facing a public street. If we were to recommend approval of the building that has exposed doors, the architecture has to be something special. Revisions were made, but they're still trying to work with the existing building. Staff is not willing to recommend approval of the proposed design and architecture of this project. The applicant, Ernest Ramirez, is present to answer any questions from the commission. Commissioner Hanson commented that the screen wall at the last Jiffy Lube that was built on Fred Waring didn't come out the way that they had proposed. On the plans, it looked like the wall would have recesses and they were painted on and it doesn't look good. Mr. Ramirez stated that in terms of the site plan, they feel that they met their preliminary requirements. Instead of leaving the existing landscaping in place, they decided to take it out and start from scratch. We're trying to maintain the existing building. If it's a desire to completely re-do that existing structure and get rid of the existing wrap- around facade, we'll take that approach and come back with revised elevations. If we come back with an A+ design on the building, are we still going to be looking at issues on the site plan? Mr. Bagato stated that the site is very constrained because it's on three public streets. We never asked for the tower elements but stated that we need better architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated that to create a strong design will take a lot of work from where you are now. You have a very flat building with roll-up doors right on the face of the walls. It doesn't look like there's a purpose for a symmetrical two-tower element on the building. The package looks very inconsistent. There's no roof plan. The roof looks like it's not possible. Instead of creating an artificially long looking, tall looking front to this building, define more whaYs happening when you go inside and create an entry and then create other pieces that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MW 13 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES somehow work with that entry. Mr. Ramirez stated that the entry is generally where you bring in the cars when you drive in. We're willing to work with the existing structure and create a focal point as an entry. Commissioner Lopez stated that there's a Jiffy Lube on Washington where they have a system where you come in from the side and go out in a horseshoe shape. It's walled on three sides so they've taken care of the problem with the doors facing a public road. Mr. Ramirez stated that they have a bigger site to work with on Washington. Commissioner Lambell stated that they may be trying to make something out of something that could be hindering the process because of the restrictions of having no roll-up doors being visible on public streets. It was suggested that they start with a clean piece of dirt and start from scratch. Commissioner Vuksic stated that architecturally, the existing building isn't a bad base. If you take the eyebrow off it, you have a clean face. Commissioner Gregory commented that the site is small so if they really feel that the location is important they're really going to have to do an excellent job. They're trying to do too much with a very limited site. It's small and there are also streets on three sides. Their best luck might be to not try to make use of the existing building considering the constraints on the site. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue to allow the applicant to return with alternative architecture with a recommendation that the existing structure not be used as part of the design. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. 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 restaurant, officelretail elevations for Casuelas Cafe. LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R050510.MIN 14 �►rI `'�''' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the request is to expand the existing project and add a second story, which would be offices. Casuela's Cafe, Enterprise Rent-a-Car and some on-site parking (approximately twelve spaces) are existing. The parking spaces and rental car business will disappear. The restaurant will remain and it will have an interior courtyard. From a site planning perspective, there are concerns relative to parking. What you're seeing today may end up being changed as a result of site planning and parking issues, which we'll take care of at Planning Commission. We did want the ARC to see the preliminary architecture at this point and if we have to come back with revisions we will. At this point, we see the total building area being over by 6,000 or 7,000 square feet and the parking survey that the applicant has provided doesn't help us in that it doesn't confirm that there's anything vacant. There are also some issues with the lack of landscape treatment on the Highway 111 elevation where the planter depth is only 2'-3'. Ron Lieberman, representative for Design Development Company, was present to address the commission. The criteria from the owners was an interpretation of some degree of San Miguel and sort of a Spanish/Colonial-type of feeling. The other criteria was to use the land to the best use and to re-locate the restaurant, which would be done in phases. The restaurant would be moved toward the front of the property and that will be built first. The L-shaped building will be built around the restaurant creating a beautiful courtyard, which will be used as patio seating for the restaurant and also access to the retail or office space. We have had several conversations with Planning and we felt pretty comfortable with the preliminary drawings including landscaping. There is approximately 24" of setback for the landscaping. There's a planter in front of the building where we would have various types of ivy, bougainvillea and three new palm trees. We've created what we believe is an interesting, distinctive improvement to the community and to that property. We did a very preliminary parking study with a lot of counts during different times of the day. We found that there was a lot of vacancy, as far as parking, on the property. Because the property line really extends all the way into the parking area, there's about an acre of actual land for the project. Based on the square footages and the net square footage of the actual usable space, we felt we were pretty close to being okay with the parking. We could do additional studies if needed. Ray Rodriguez, applicant, was present and stated that the three issues that were raised were the parking, landscaping and square footage. Enterprise Car Rental rents out 40-50 cars on a routine weekend so we will be losing 40-50 parking spaces that are occupied currently on any G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR050510.MIN l s �rrr� ``�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES given day. On a typical day, they use 30-40 parking spaces. Commissioner Gregory stated that they cycle cars through this area and don't leave them all in the parking lot. Mr. Rodriguez stated that frequently they do leave cars there. We are losing them as a tenant and we can discuss how that will impact the parking. Certainly, a rental car company is going to impact your parking spaces. We're very open to suggestions on landscaping. The square footage was based on numbers that were provided to us by the City. We had preliminary meetings a year ago and have had meetings since then and these are numbers that staff told us that we were allowed, given our footprint. Our early meetings were with Phil Drell, Building & Safety, Fire, etc... Mr. Lieberman stated that they've met with all the different agencies. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he wants to work within the rules. We're not here to ask to stretch the rules. Certainly, if we've been misinformed, we need to know and we need to research that so that we can understand what we can do to deal with that. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they were taking the car rental company that was leaving into account when they did the preliminary parking study. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they did not. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the average number of rental cars in the parking lot is 30, then that's about 7,000 square feet worth of cars. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's not true. I've been there many times and there aren't 30-40 spaces with cars sitting there. There might be that many cars rented, but they're cycling through and they don't park them all in the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated that this is consistent with their certificate of use, which limits them to a maximum number of cars there at any one time. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they're cycling from our parking lot, the Elephant Bar parking lot and a couple other nearby lots. They're not cycling them in from Palm Springs. Sometimes they get lazy and we do have 25-30 vehicles in the parking lot. They've been really good since we've complained about playing the "shell game" but they're still parking well within the area. Commissioner Gregory asked if parking dictates square footage. Mr. Smith stated that basically in the EI Paseo area where they back onto President's Plaza, which is the case with this project, the square footage is dictated by a 1:1 ratio of the area between the sidewalks. Above and beyond that, it would need an exception or an adjustment. The fact that there's a restaurant there, it has a higher parking demand than does a regular retail-type use. Mr. Drell calculated the excess square footage to be 7,000 square feet. The difference was 96 parking spaces versus 124. IYs 28 parking spaces short. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they do have a restaurant there and they would hope to continue to do business there. Our needs are primarily at dinner time. I suggest G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MW 16 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES that you drive through those parking lots at dinner time. You could have a Civil War there without hitting a car. Our needs are not primarily daytime. Those are lower numbers and a lot of people walk in from the area. We do have some customers drive in. Where we're looking to increase usage is complimentary to when the parking lot is empty, which is after five o'clock. That's when people go out to dinner. If you drive through the parking lot at night, there is no parking issue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that usually the commission doesn't get involved with parking issues. This is something that the Planning Commission will look at. Mr. Smith stated that the only reason why it was brought up was because the commission may very well see changes, but this is where they're starting, from an architectural perspective. Commissioner Gregory commented that his concern was if the commission started embracing the design and then find out later that it won't work, then we're wasting everyone's time. For the applicant's sake as well as staff, I want to make sure that we're all starting off at the same point. Mr. Lieberman stated that they will always try to maintain a Highway 111 elevation so he would like the Commission to make comments on the architecture. The building on the far right is existing and they plan on doing a facade enhancement. Commissioner Hanson commented that the architecture is really lovely. The thing that's not being shown on the plans versus the colored rendering, is the ins and outs that are apparent on the rendering, but not on the plans. This is a concern. The rendering shows areas that look like a 2' recess but the plan shows only 9". That would be a problem because that's a very large face coming onto the street and I would want to see the depth of change in order to make it read the way that the rendering is showing. This is very important. The roof only shows 42" of parapet height, which isn't anywhere close to being high enough to hide all the kitchen equipment. Mr. Lieberman stated that the actual equipment well is going to be to the left and to the right of the center entry area. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're going to have to have 6' to screen the kitchen equipment. Mr. Lieberman asked where that formula comes from. Commissioner Hanson stated that once you put the curbs on and get all the air handlers up there, it ends up having to be 6' in order to cover it. At the Las Casuelas in La Quinta, I had 5 '/Z' and it still wasn't enough. Mr. Lieberman stated that there are different types of equipment with low-profile exhaust units. For the last twenty-five years, we've done about 50 restaurants per year and I've never done a 6' parapet. We'll do what we have to do. Commissioner Hanson highly recommended that they check it because G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R050510.MIN 1� � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES it's really important. It's amazing how far away you can see the equipment on top of a roof. Design intent and reality sometimes don't match. Plan on having the parapet higher than what you anticipate. Mr. Lieberman offered to do sight lines with the actual height of the equipment. We're actually not at that level of actually selecting the equipment. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that as the civilian of the commission, I think it looks stunning. It's such a wonderful asset to that street. I've lived here for more than twenty years and this would be a huge improvement. Commissioner Lopez stated that the applicant should talk to Diane Hollinger about the landscape palette. An windmill palm in this area will die in full sun. Also, I don't know where you're going to find one that's 8' tall and if you do it will probably be very expensive. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they're open to landscape suggestions. Diane Hollinger stated that if they want trees in front of the building, they're going to need 7' planters. If you want a tree to live, you have to give it room and it can't be any less than what our parking lot tree standard is. Mr. Rodriguez asked if there are any alternatives to trees. Ms. Hollinger stated that there are shrubs and flowers that can be used. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's a lot more comfortable with this proposal than what was approved immediately to the east of it. The building is so massive on this project that on the second floor where there are no canopies, those windows need to be recessed. The rendering does have more ins and outs than the floor plan. Mr. Lieberman stated that he reviewed it in advance of the meeting and they made a couple of revisions, one of which was to get rid of a little bit of the in and outs and shadow lines. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should be going the opposite way. More ins and outs would be better. Mr. Lieberman stated that he understands and will give them more ins and outs. Commissioner Vuksic suggested using a mottled paint treatment on the exterior. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations consistent with architecture delineated in the perspective drawing. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 1 g � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP 03-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOWARD HAIT, 44-650 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of test panels for mural element. LOCATION: 44-630 Monterey Avenue, Hearing Healthcare Services ZONE: O.P. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050510.MIN 19