Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-24 '''�d'` ""'� ��•��� CITY OF PALM DESERT �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . � MINUTES MAY 24, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 8 2 Kristi Hanson X 9 1 Chris Van Vliet X 7 3 John Vuksic X 10 Ray Lopez X 9 1 Karen Oppenheim X 10 Karel Lambell X 10 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2005 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of May 10, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP/HPD 05-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HABITAT ARCHITECTURE / GUY DREIER, 41-995 Boardwalk, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of elevations for a single-family residence within the Hillside Planned Residential zone. LOCATION: 700 Summit Cove ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK PACHACKI, 74-765 Del Coronado Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height over 15' for a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-775 Del Coronado Drive, Lot 2 ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 05-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK PACHACKI, 74-765 Del Coronado Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height over 15' for a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-755 Del Coronado Drive, Lot 1 ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of elevations for the maintenance facility and upper equipment shelter for Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-09 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): BARBARA ROMANO, P.O. Box 13790, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high wall, 8' from the curb at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 48-120 Ocotillo Drive ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R050524.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that he had a request from the applicant to continue the case. Staff recommends continuance. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 05-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID FIRESTONE, 73-790 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a facade enhancement for the Neil Building. LOCATION: 73-790 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 5403 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations for the two-story building. LOCATION: 41-340 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the revised elevations for the two-story building were briefly shown to the commission at the last meeting, however, it was not on the agenda at that time so no action was taken. Staff recommends approval. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050524.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: RILEY/CARVER, LLC, c/o The Carver Company, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations for Wal*Mart and Sam's Club. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey Avenue (Southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that he reviewed all the drawings to see if they match the elevations that previously received preliminary approval. The Wal*Mart elevations appeared to be the same, however, there were some changes on the south elevation of the Sam's Club building. One of the towers was previously shown at 40' and now it's at 52'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proportions look a little stretched because it's so narrow. Commissioner Hanson suggested moving the cornice detail higher and make the arch a little taller. Commissioner Vuksic concurred. They could either make the suggested changes or go back to their original design on the elevations that received preliminary approval. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval of Wal*Mart plans and approval of Sam's Club subject to either using original tower design on the south elevation or modifying the current tower design by raising the cornice detail and archway. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to add Case No. CUP 03-21 to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: CUP 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R050524.MIN 5 w'�,,,' '"�+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revision of exterior stonework and alternative stucco colors for a single family home in Cahuilla Hills. LOCATION: 45-815 Willow Street ZONE: HPR Mr. Smith stated that this is a single-family home in the hillside next to the tennis courts. It's in the middle of construction and the owner has been meeting with Mr. Drell to request an amendment to some of the exterior materials. Ms. Sarita Avery, owner of the home at 45-815 Willow Street, was present and stated that she has come before the commission to ask that the amount of stone on the exterior be reduced. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thought that it would be fine if the color blends in. Ms. Avery stated that it will be lime washed so it'll have a beautiful, mottled look to it. It won't be a solid patina of color. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it sounds great and thanked Ms. Avery for the effort. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant should bring the color of the stucco back to staff for final approval. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of the reduction to the amount of exterior stonework with staff to approve the stucco color. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., PETER RODHOLM, 7400 Shadow Ridge Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of modification of the approved Master Plan for Phases 7 thru 9. LOCATION: 36-750 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R050524.MIN 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the commission was interested in seeing the difference in the architecture between the previous phases and the proposed modification to the approved Master Plan. Peter Rodholm, representative for Marriott Ownership Resorts, was present and stated that he didn't have a copy of the original first phase versus the new phase in the book that was distributed to the commission, however, he did have one copy to show the commission. Stephen Withers, V.P of Architecture and Construction for the Marriott, was present as well as Houston Tyner, representative for the architect. Mr. Withers stated that they wanted to create individual villages within the project. We have listened to the City, the owners and their neighbors and have tried to make a village that's different and unique, but still keeping with the California/Mission/Garden theme that they started with. The project was originally plotted for 1,200 units and we now have 972 units and have completed 424 units. The site plan has changed. The pool now faces south and it's larger. It's also not on the side that faces the neighborhood. The setbacks have changed so that the buildings are 80' further back from where the other two buildings were. The buildings have been lowered by 2' in the architecture and 2' lower on the pads so that they're 4' lower than where they started with their approved plan. Construction will begin in late 2006 so we're getting a head start by getting comments from the neighborhood. This is the reason for the site plan changes. The architecture has changed so that the arches that were three stories have been dropped to two stories. They've taken the roof off and pushed it back. Some of the changes were in response to the guests saying that they like Desert Springs I and Desert Springs II. From an entry point of view, the facade is being lowered to give it a two-story type of character so all the arches have dropped and the roof has been pushed back. The colors will be desert colors and the landscaping will be more of the desert pallette. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's a beautiful project. However, iYs unfortunate that the roof is pushed back so far because it's such a massive building and now the roof looks really thin. It looks more like a mansard roof. Also, on the rear elevation there was more vertical mass there before. Mr. Withers stated that the previously approved submittal showed several different color schemes. Some of the towers are actually a darker rust color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the middle tower with the shed roof used to be more substantial. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Withers stated that he's had so many comments from the neighbors regarding pushing the roof down lower so they're trying to accommodate them. Commissioner Vuksic stated that with the lowered roof element, is the roof-mounted equipment going to be screened from a great distance? Mr. Withers stated that it will be screened. Commissioner Lopez commented that he's noticed many times that when golf course superintendents maintain common areas, the common areas suffer because the golf course is the number one driving factor. I've seen it happen many times. They pull their guys from the common areas and start addressing the golf course and the common areas suffer. Mr. Rodholm stated that they have separate crews for the golf course and the common areas. They're overseen by the golf course maintenance superintendent. Commissioner Lopez stated that he understands and has heard this before but just wanted to make a point for the record. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. 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 facade enhancement of existing building. LOCATION: 73-750 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Urbina stated that Mr. Drell met with Chris McFadden, applicant, and staff was not entirely pleased with the proposed enhancement to the building. Mr. Drell stated that part of the goal on EI Paseo is to create retail-looking space and the corner is shown with a fence around it. Mr. McFadden stated that he has an alternate plan for the corner, but he stated that it's not much better. There are 14 owners in this building and it's been difficult getting all of them to agree. Mr. Drell would like the corner to look like an inviting retail space. Conceptually, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN $ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES we have no problem with that, however, no owner wants to invest in another owner's space. The corner is currently operated as a laundro- mat and it will remain a laundro-mat forever. Mr. Drell stated that the tenants can change and the use could be different. The issue is that the City is paying for half of this work. If the City is going to be investing money in an improvement, then it should serve the long-term interest of the street. Commissioner Vuksic asked if all the owners are in agreement to split the cost of the whole project based on their square footage. Mr. McFadden stated that they are all in agreement. The cost far exceeds even the participation of the City. They've decided to enhance all sides of the building and to focus all the dollars on the corner will "bust" the project. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't have to be all about spending a whole bunch of money on the corner. Maybe there's a slightly different alternative. What's being shown is actually a barrier to the facade as opposed to making it an active facade. Mr. McFadden stated that this is actually what it's intended to do because this is the back door to a facility and we don't want people going into this tenant's back door. He exhausts air through the area at the corner. We need to come up with a temporary solution for this interim period between this owner and the next. Commissioner Hanson stated that the tile roof is going to be very visible from across the street and it doesn't apply to this style of architecture. Mr. McFadden stated that this is a cost item that we have to go back and look at. We can replace the tile roof with a standing seam roof. Mr. Drell stated that he's seen a lot of facade enhancements on EI Paseo that are half done. If they're not done right, they're a detriment to a real job. If an owner has just spent a lot of money on an enhancement, they may not spend anymore money for ten years. If you're not going to do it right, I'd rather you not do it at all and wait until someone is prepared to do it. If the City is putting money into it, we don't want to do it again in five years. By saying that they don't have enough money to do it, then maybe they should wait five years until the market justifies spending the money that they really need to spend to fix the building. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the site improvement. Mr. McFadden stated that they are significantly changing the feel of the street. When you're moving east on EI Paseo, this corner is not as G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R050524.MIN 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES significant. When you come from the west, it will be noticeable. What we're doing to the overall building warrants approval. Commissioner Gregory asked if they were possibly "gilding the lily". This doesn't appear to be a "band-aid" approach. This seems to be a fairly serious effort but maybe the City would like a perFect world. Mr. McFadden stated that they're enhancing the entire frontage including all the stair rails, the wood will come off and it will be re-plastered, sacking all the slump block on the whole building and modernizing the entire building. Commissioner Lambell stated that Mr. McFadden has made a "silk purse out of a sow's ear". It's a much better looking building. It's a mixed use building and if a pedestrian wants to walk across and see what's happening there, it certainly is more inviting. Mr. McFadden stated that he's actually trying to play down the corner because it's going to remain a back door for the foreseeable future. The owners are very restrictive as to what they're going to participate in for the benefit of an individual tenant. This project has been going on for a couple of years now and to get fourteen owners to agree has been a long process. We're adding covered parking in the rear parking lot and re- landscaping the building. Commissioner Gregory commented that maybe if the City thinks iYs an okay improvement, they might considering contributing less money to the project. Mr. Drell stated that this is up to the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the glass would remain the same. Mr. McFadden stated that they're replacing all the glass and the frames. They're thinking about using a light green glass, but the retail tenants would like clear glass so the entire building may change to clear glass. The awnings will be removed and a new sign program will be developed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that possibly the City could give them additional money for the corner so in the interim you could create a form there that would be interesting. Add it in such a way so that later it could become an entry. In the meantime, it's something a little more interesting to draw people in from across the street. Commissioner Hanson suggested making the corner a covered patio for seating. Mr. McFadden stated that he could do that but there's equipment in that area that needs to be screened. The laundro-mat tenant needs to leave his back door open to exhaust his space. Commissioner Hanson suggested that if the dry cleaner moves out then possibly the fencing could be removed and the column elements are there and they've potentially created a patio in this area. Commissioner Vuksic stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 10 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES that they're going to have to do some work to the top part of the elevations. There is concern about the mansard roof. Mr. McFadden agreed that they have roofing issues with this building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the building is so stream-lined and modern making it in contrast to the mansard form. He suggested possibly creating some sort of screen that would add more horizontal, contemporary lines rather than a mansard. Commissioner Hanson stated that the tile roof is such a contrast to the style of the building and it doesn't work. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he's gotten some ideas where he can make some changes. Mr. McFadden stated that he does. Commissioner Gregory stated that if he could get a positive endorsement from this commission, it might be easier to negotiate with the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Hanson made a recommendation to show an elevation of the corner without the fence for the future. Show that it might be a patio as part of a cafe or bistro to help sell it. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that iYs the last "bad" building on that whole street. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't think that it's so bad. There's signage shown on the upper parapet and typically we don't like that. There are also a lot of signs on the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they might have to consolidate their signage into a directory or a monument sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the front parapet could be built up. Mr. McFadden stated that it's already built up an extra foot from what's there now. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to study possible modifications including (1) roof material on the rear elevation that's more contemporary so that it fits in with the proposed architecture, (2) add trellis structure to corner, (3) consolidate directory of tenants into a monument sign, and (4) show an elevation of the corner without the fence. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESSI: PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for the Henderson Community Building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�P,R050524.MIN 1 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Entrada) ZONE: OP Mr. Urbina stated that this is another phase of the Redevelopment Agency's Paseo Entrada project. The Master Plan has been approved by the Agency board. There was a condition that future buildings have to come back to the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission for review. This building will be west of the Palm Desert Visitor's Center, which is under construction. There will be gardens added to the site. Commissioner Hanson asked about the height of the peak of the Visitor's Center. Laurie Aylaian, representative for the Redevelopment Agency, was present and stated that the peak is 36'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's a lot taller than she thought it was going to be from looking at the plans. The forms on the Henderson Community Building are really interesting. I would question whether or not it needs to be 35' in height and could be brought down 4'-5'. It looks like it has the ability to come down without affecting the architecture. My comments are more directed towards the garden, which I question the necessity and the financial expense that we have to go through to create gardens that I'm not even sure anybody is going to go to. I brought this up when we talked about the Eric Johnson Memorial Garden. All that money was spent for something that very few people even go to or even know that there's actually a fountain back there and a waterfall. It's a horrible use of space. We have this beautiful property and I don't understand why we would do something like this. It's an expense for the City forever and that space could be put to a much better use. Ms. Aylaian stated that Commissioner Hanson's comments hit home on every possible aspect of this project. The whole issue of the gardens with how much space they should use and who is going to use them has been debated. From a staff's standpoint, we wondered why we would spend close to $3 million dollars. Commissioner Hanson commented that we could use that money for the facade enhancement program instead of on a place where nobody is going to go. Ms. Aylaian stated that the City Council has struggled with this for a couple of years. No vote has ever been unanimous. It's always been 3-2. It's been a very tough issue for them. From the RDA standpoint, I'm chagrined at the amount of money that's being spent on landscaping, but what finally made sense and put it into perspective is that we were once looking at adding a boutique hotel, which would G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR050524.MIN 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES generate revenue. The Council decided that because this is really the last undeveloped space on the busy commercial corridor that they wanted to preserve some open space and that if they made good and smart use of other potential commercial sites that we have (i.e. hotel sites at Desert Willow). The Agency also owns a number of other sites around the City and if decisions are more economically based, then they would have the luxury of retaining more open space here and having gardens, which they thought was important. Commissioner Hanson stated that if you want to create open space, then why don't you create a space that people will actually go to in order to use that space. A multi-purpose building that the average person who lives in this city will never use or visitors who come to get their maps and some information and leave are not the people who are going to use that space. Why not create some small commercial project where people would actually go to and see what space is there and then they'll actually go back to it, rather than this garden that wanders around and nobody is going to go there because it's on Highway 111? Ms. Aylaian stated that at this point, nobody has a clue that there's a garden there unless you eat at Cuistot, in which case most people think that it's Cuistot's garden. We realize that nobody will go there. Mr. Drell had been advocating for years to put in a book store and restaurants or something that would draw locals to this area. Right now there isn't anything there for locals. The multi-use building witl house the Chamber of Commerce and will have public meeting rooms, much as the Portola Community Center is used. Commissioner Hanson asked if they should create a space within that garden that actually functions within the garden so iYs a usable space. Ms. Aya�ian stated that the Council has been intimately involved in the placement of the buildings. Originally the Visitor's Center was going to be in a location that would be more visible to visitors, but the Council was concerned that it would be highly visible from Highway 111 and there wouldn't be as much of an open landscaped buffer that they were trying to create. Therefore, the Visitor's Center was moved back away from Highway 111. There will be a canyon that goes through the site going out to the corner. As you're driving you'll first have the experience of sand dunes, except that people associate them with blowing sand so we're calling them "repetitive earth forms" that will be 10'-12' tall and then the canyon will be 10' wide so that motorists along in the eastbound direction you'll have glimpses into the gardens, buildings and up into this canyon. Commissioner Hanson stated that people driving 55 mph aren't going to be looking at the garden. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 13 � �� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell stated that she felt that the whole project was for visitor's and not those that live here. Being a part of conventions and meetings, staying at a hotel, and for about an hour and a half they let us out of the hotel and they ask where they want to go. Some people chose to go to Cuistot for lunch and they could walk through this garden and see the desert in a half and hour because they wouldn't have a half a day to go to the Living Desert. This is not for those that live here, but it's for those who are visiting here. People who are coming to visit are going to get a glimpse of what our valley is like without having to go too far. It's a good looking project if we look at it from a visitor's standpoint. Ms. Ayalian stated that they've tried to marry the gardens with the Visitor's Center so that you can see a close up view from each of the windows. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that this is a very busy highway and it's very noisy. There's no internal garden where there's nice quiet screening from the road noise. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's easier for restaurants or businesses to survive if they have some visibility and suggested changing the site plan that would allow visibility and also create a buffer between Highway 111 and the gardens. Ms. Ayalian stated that this would certainly be the commercially astute thing to do but the decision of the Council has been that they want to have some relief from the commercial corridor. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would hard to imagine listening to song birds next to Highway 111. Ms. Ayalian stated that she's really been amazed at what she's seen. The first time that I ever walked this site the only things I found were a couple of crack vials. Eight months ago I was out there walking and I noticed that by virtue of the landscaping, we've changed the ecosystem there. There are roadrunners, birds and critters that we didn't have there before. Because we now have some water and some vegetation there, it is a wonderful experience to have animals there. We're hopeful that we'll have more of that when we plant material specifically for song birds and other types of things. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if this was going to be an educational garden as well as a relief from the commercial corridor. Ms. Ayalian stated that it will be an educational garden. The Visitor's Center will have a theater where they'll show films about the area attractions, the history of Palm Desert, etc... We hope to get school kids to come over on field trips to visit the gardens as well as the Visitor's Center. Mr. Urbina asked if the commissioners were satisfied with the proposed height for the circular element on the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that proportion-wise, it seems high. It doesn't seem like it needs to be that high and have a good effect. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Visitor's Center has a great element on it, but it came out much G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 14 "�rw ''� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES more prominent than I thought it would. The Henderson building has such a large monolithic element that it's going to be a lot more "in our face". Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the architect look at it and possibly lower it. Commissioner Hanson stated that it appears that he has room to lower it slightly. Commissioner Gregory asked the commission if there are other elements of the design that might peak someone's interest. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt that the proportions are okay. It could be a little lower, but I think that it's okay the way it is. Some of the way the parapets are angled means that you're going to see the tops of them. Where that concerns me is where they're very thin. Some areas are only a wall thickness and it'll look like a stage front. The same artfulness that's in the rest of the building needs to be carried through and addressed on the top of the parapets. Commissioner Hanson asked to see a rendering showing both the Visitor's Center and the Henderson Community Building next to each other to show how they will look together. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to (1) having the architect revisit the commission showing the curved element proportionately lower before submitting working drawings and (2) submit rendering showing both the Visitor's Center and the Henderson Community Building. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed. 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 revised restaurant, office/retail elevations and landscaping for Casuelas Cafe. LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Steve Dubin, project manager, was present and stated that he brought revised elevations with him and posted them on the board for the commission to review. The project consists of the Casuelas Cafe, which will be a new restaurant, a remodel of an existing restaurant and an L-shaped office building. At the last meeting, they received comments from the commission regarding the general look and feel of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 15 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES the buildings, color and design. In trying to respond to the comments, which we agree with in terms of the lack of undulation on the front elevation, we made an effort to try to improve the issues that were raised and also we were being sensitive to our clients needs as far as not reducing the square footage. We tried to create deeper pockets for shadow and to create areas for landscaping. They have added 30" for larger palm trees. Commissioner Gregory asked what the planter depths actually are. Mr. Dubin stated that they're a total of 30" deep. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't think that they could get a palm tree in a 30" planter. Mr. Dubin stated that the landscape architect they're working with thought that palm trees would fit in this area. The entry doors were set back to get 11" of set back. The landscape plan shows that they've increased the large planter areas in three different places. They've tried to give better dimension to the front of the building so it's not as flat and created more landscape areas. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was hoping that they would've done more. At the last meeting, it was suggested that they pull the building forward in some places so that you didn't have a planter and then be able to correspondingly bring it back more so that you might be even. If you want to plant the site to really plant it right they need to have landscaping that will really buffer the tall facade. You're pushing the outside of the envelope every bit, as much as possible. The elevation is nice, but it's pretty tall. Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting, the commission wanted to know if the elevations matched the rendering. Do we have the elevations that are depicted in the rendering? Mr. Dubin stated that they didn't change the rendering from the last meeting. He just brought it back as a reference. Commissioner Gregory commented that he couldn't understand what the problem is in doing what everyone else does, which is to create articulation and give up a little square footage so maybe you don't get every single square foot. There's nothing special about your client. You are changing an existing site which has very limited usable, leaseable square footage into a site which is maxed out to the hilt. Make it less tight. Who's holding a gun to someone's head saying you need to get every single square inch that you can get because it's so valuable? How much square footage would you give up if you were to articulate it in a manner that we keep asking of you? Commissioner Vuksic stated that you wouldn't lose that much square footage if you did what Commissioner Gregory was suggesting. You could push some pieces in and also push some pieces out. Commissioner Gregory stated that 30" is not enough room to plant anything substantial. If you put a palm tree in this area, it's going to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 16 ��rr+r `'�� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 24, 2005 MINUTES start lifting paving and it just doesn't work. He suggested that the applicant return with his landscape architect. The amount of room that is being provided for landscaping is inadequate, especially with buildings being that tall and so close to the street. There's also some concern about this turning into a "grind" experience where if you keep coming back and we just keep grinding and grinding and this becomes a bad experience for everybody. Mr. Dubin stated that his client is out of town and couldn't attend the meeting. This is a direction that he took on their behalf. Obviously, I have to go back and review this with them, get their input and work on it further. We've put a lot of time and effort into this and we'd like to see it not have to change dramatically. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't think that the commission was talking about dramatic change. Commissioner Hanson stated that they should give them the offsets that are shown on the rendering. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they might have to give up a little bit of square footage to provide the offsets that are represented on the rendering. Mr. Dubin asked what other builders along Highway 111 have been asked to do with their landscaping. When we drive down the street on either side of this building, you don't see anything. Commissioner Gregory stated that most of it is ancient stuff that needs a wrecking ball. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that a lot of what's existing has is low and isn't 29' high. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations showing articulation consistent with that shown on the rendered plan and creating at least 5'-6' planters for landscaping. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:17p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050524.MIN 1�