Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-13 err` '`rrr� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 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 14 3 Kristi Hanson X 13 4 Chris Van Vliet X 12 5 John Vuksic X 17 Ray Lopez X 14 3 Karen Oppenheim X 17 Karel Lambell X 16 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of August 23, 2005. The motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 rllr�► `"0, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DR. ROBERT DADDIO, 72-948 Willow Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height of a single-family residence of 15'10'/2". LOCATION: 72-948 Willow Street ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 05-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION PROMENADE, 73-061 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior remodel of storefront. LOCATION: 73-199 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 05-107 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of two monument signs for Woodhaven Country Club. LOCATION: 41-555 Woodhaven Drive East ZONE: PR-4 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-34 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTUCCI BUILDERS, INC., 72-529 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 16'10" roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 45-644 Shadow Mountain ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARBARA ROMANO, 48-120 Ocotillo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request an exception to the wall ordinance with a 6' high block wall at 8' from the curb. LOCATION: 48-120 Ocotillo Drive ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 3 r ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the case to the meeting of October 11, 2005 at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Van Vliet, Lopez and Lambell absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 05-31 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SELIVESTR SAVAROVSKY, P.O. Box 5733, Santa Monica, CA 90409 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of plans for a single-family residence with lot coverage of 48.3%. LOCATION: 44-835 Santa Ynez Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Drell stated that this is a difficult site. It's a lot that was subdivided by the County. It's a long, skinny lot next to Maple Leaf Plumbing. It would take some creative architecture and land planning to make it work on this site. The proposed design has a second unit, which makes it even more difficult. The first issue is that it over coverage, and the second issue is that the architecture looks bad. The site plan doesn't work with the driveway only having 11' of back-up (code requires 24' minimum). You're not going to be able to get in and out of the driveway. The good news is that by virtue of the odd shape, this project could qualify for all sorts of variances because there are exceptional circumstances. We're recommending that this design either be denied or continued. The first solution would be that they go to zero side yard and push the whole building up against the office building. This would at least allow physical room for a side yard where you could actually get in and out of a garage. This is a case where we don't want the garage on the end because that's all that you would see. Having a side entry garage is the only architectural solution here but you can't do it unless you have a zero side yard on one side. Once you do that, you could have all sorts of nice architecture on the front. Typically, when we look at the coverage issue, we're still looking for a useable yard area and the amount of ground that's being used here for the house, although it's a minimum 20' (usually our coverage requirements mandate larger areas than the minimum) so the building has to be a bit smaller. They can apply for a second unit, but that's a separate process. It's likely that it would comply with the second unit G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES requirements. As it is now, I would recommend continuance if the applicant wants to come back or just a denial. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a really interesting lot. It's so odd that it would offer so many opportunities because of the variances that the applicant could probably get. A very standard approach doesn't work in this case, but if the applicant takes advantage of some of these opportunities, he could do something nice. Selivestr Savarovsky, applicant, was present and stated that he had hired one of our most respected architects named Charles Martin. According to him, he was with the Planning Department to have a footprint. Someone in the Planning Department approved this footprint so I assumed that I would have no problems with this one. I'm a small owner. I paid eighteen years taxes to the City. I've spent a tremendous amount of money and time. It's already been nine months and now I find out that I can't use this plan. I'm very disappointed. This is a completely trashy area. If you deny me or give me a hard time I will be very disappointed. This is a disgusting neighborhood with disgusting neighbors. It's completely trashy. On one side you have a commercial building that should never be allowed to function. Of course, I would like to follow whatever you would like to give me or allow me to do. I didn't see anything wrong with this original design. I understand that this is a very unusual lot. It's not my decision that it was subdivided this way. What I'm asking the commission is to work something out without changing the architecture. It's a single-family house with a guest unit. I'm from Los Angeles. I've built a few projects there with the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica. I never expected to come to this friendly town and have this kind of treatment. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't want the applicant to contribute to the problem in this area. If it's a disgusting neighborhood, you shouldn't be building there. Mr. Savarovsky stated that he needs a place to live. I'm not building for spec. I'm not a big developer who makes millions of dollars. Whatever I build there will be a tremendous benefit. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant was aware that the City has a preliminary review process first. The plans appear to be well advanced for a preliminary set of drawings. Mr. Drell stated that with a single-family home, we often get working drawings. In this case, the plans don't meet any of the minimum requirements. It exceeds the coverage requirement, which automatically sends it to ARC. Our goal is not to build down to the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES neighborhood. I don't think that's the goal in Santa Monica either or Los Angeles. Commissioner Gregory asked that if the applicant had asked an architect to design the building and get him through the process with the city, are there some responsibilities there? Mr. Drell commented that there are still the functional requirements of 20' to 24' of back up for a side entry garage. That's the basic laws of physics of how to get in and out of a garage. Mr. Smith stated that if the house was designed with the garage at the street, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Mr. Drell stated that this is a site that requires not just a cursory look by an architect. It requires a very careful study from beginning to end of how to make this work. That's inherent in the property and it was always inherent in the property when it was purchased. There are constraints and they weren't constraints that the City created. We wouldn't have allowed this subdivision to occur if it happened when we were incorporated. We're stuck with it as well. Sometimes there are hard problems that you need skilled people to solve. So far, this project falls short in so many ways. Commissioner Gregory commented that the architect, Charles Martin, is now present. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Martin is not currently working on this project. Mr. Martin stated that he had a war over this site plan with Mr. Drell. Mr. Savarovsky stated that Mr. Martin didn't design this house. If I have to change these plans, it will create a hardship for me. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant is correct in saying that if changes are required that it would create a hardship for him, however, these hardships were not brought on by the commission. This is just part of the process that goes on when you develop any piece of property. What is really important when you develop a piece of property is to understand the ramifications and you have several problems here where it just doesn't work. You can't physically drive a car down a driveway and get it into the garage. That is a problem. You're over the limit of how much square footage you can have for that lot. That will create a situation where you have to change it. That's a rule that was in effect when you bought the property. That was your responsibility to know. Architecture-wise, it doesn't tie into anything. It's not a commercial building. It's not really a residential building. It's just a building with some shapes that doesn't look like a house. Mr. Savarovsky stated that he's not an architect but is a civil engineer. I build 27-story hotels in Europe. I disagree with you about how it looks. It looks like a very functional building. I would like to build the Taj Mahal, but I don't have that kind of money. I'm building this house for G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 6 �r� 'warn ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES myself so I'll follow any suggestions that you give me. I'm just trying to find a solution. Mr. Drell commented that the applicant made an appointment to see him yesterday to try to work this out and then the appointment was cancelled. Commissioner Gregory stated that there are so many issues with this plan that there's no way that the commission could vote positively for it. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the commission is not here to design it. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant has the opportunity to make this a better project for himself. Mr. Savarovsky stated that he would agree to work with the Planning Department and make the needed changes. Mr. Drell stated that the project needs a very detailed, careful, thoughtful architectural study to figure out the development of this lot. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to meet with the Director of Community Development. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 7. CASE NO.: SA 05-101 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE JR., 46-120 Calhoun, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a second monument sign. LOCATION: 74-130 Country Club ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the proposed location for a monument sign is in front of Canyon Bank, east of Portola on the north side. The office building at the rear of the property is 300'-400' from the street. They're asking for a second monument sign. Code limits them to one monument sign. They would need an exception to the code. There's a building in front of the rear building so they feel the need for signage on Country Club. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 AGENDA Mr. Stendell commented that initially they asked the owner to speak to Canyon National Bank to redesign their monument sign so that it's a shared sign. I believe those talks have been initiated and have failed. Now the applicant is asking for a second monument sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Engle if the stone was going to carry all the way to the ground. Mr. Engle stated that it will go to the ground and won't float a few inches off the ground. Commissioner Hanson stated that if the commission approves this, there could be three monument signs in a row. Mr. Stendell stated that it looks like the location is in a retention basin. Mr. Engle stated that it's approximately 10' from the face of the curb. Commissioner Hanson reviewed the plan and commented that it would be in a retention basin. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the tan surface to the left of the triangular stone element should be a little bigger. It should come out about 9". Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to increasing tan surface to 9" at the left of the triangular element of the monument sign. Motion carried 4-1- 0-2 with Commissioner Hanson opposed and Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 8. CASE NO.: PP 04-36 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of architecture of warehouse/office/showroom building. Sierra Landscape LOCATION: 73-771 Dinah Shore; southwest corner of Dinah Shore and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN g ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 AGENDA Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 3-0-1-3 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLEN BIXEN, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for a facade enhancement of Matsuri Restaurant, Pete Carlson's Golf & Tennis, and Chinese Antiques. LOCATION: 73-741 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Vuksic commented that the working drawings are as ragged as the preliminary presentation. In a design presentation I can understand that because it's a creative process and it's acceptable. However, the working drawings are very difficult to read. The details are vague. This is a very important project. The details are important. Mr. Drell commented that this project has not been presented to the Retail Committee, which has to approve it since it's a multiple storefront project. It has to go to the City Council. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it's kind of "slapped up" in the working drawings, it's going to be "slapped up" in construction. I wish I had more time to review the package. I'm concerned because I see the same kind of looseness in the working drawings that I saw in the presentation drawings. I was hoping that I would see a tight set of working drawings that looked accurate, were easy to read and well detailed and I'm not seeing any of that. I'm not prepared at this time to offer support of the working drawings. I need more time to look at the drawings, but I was hoping for a tight set of plans. The design presentation was very loose and the working drawings are loose. I can't imagine that the construction would be something that would go smoothly and accurately, based on what I'm seeing. It honestly makes GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 9 `4 e ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES me concerned that I even supported the design approval. I need more time to look at the working drawings. Charles Martin, architect, was present and commented that when he did this he went around the three buildings and looked at every little corner and every little niche. I feel that it's all on the working drawings. You probably do need more time to look at the plans. The details are on the working drawings. I tried to make it accurate so that it could be built. I'll be on-site during the construction if there are any questions. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he does remodels too and if it's not clear on the drawings, I know the contractor is going to say that it's not clear and would want to get paid to change it. You'd be taking a risk. Mr. Martin commented that Commissioner Vuksic had said that he didn't have time to look at it and he really does need to look at it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he has a hard time understanding the plans, then I suspect that a general contractor would have a hard time understanding it too. It's going to take hours to review the plans and figure out what's going on here. I'm not prepared to approve this at this point. Mr. Drell stated that because this is part of the facade enhancement program, this project has to go to the City Council and also the Retail Committee since this is a multi-facade project. Mr. Martin stated that he hasn't spoken to Bryce White in the Redevelopment Agency or to Ruth Ann Moore in Business Support. Usually projects get preliminary approval, get their funding and then proceed to working drawings. Typically, working drawings aren't done until they get their bank loan. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to the meeting of September 27, 2005 to allow the commissioners time to review the details of the working drawings. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELDORADO ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Nancy Creek, 74-320 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior remodel in conjunction with the Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 74-320 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the location is on the frontage road next to McCormicks with a vacant lot to the east. There is a 100' wide building and they would like to go through the facade enhancement program to update the architecture and add a 350' square foot addition at the front of the building. The building is set back 7' further than the code would require and they would like to fill in the 7' gap. A material/sample board was presented to the commission for their review. The tile is not orange and is closer in color to the canterra stone. The east wail facing McCormicks needs improvement. Mr. Drell commented that his project is part of the facade enhancement program so the City will be contributing up to 50% and I'm not sure if they're asking for one facade or two. We're an investor in this project, therefore, we look at it differently. Mr. Smith stated that the landscape committee has the opinion that if they do the work at the front of the building, that they'll likely lose two of the three large ficus trees. The roots would have to be cut. Commissioner Lambell stated that when you drive down the street, it's the first thing you see of this building are those glorious trees. Commissioner Gregory asked how much of the roots will be pruned. Mr. Knight stated that they'll probably lose 40% of their roots. The building is encroaching on almost half of the root zone. They could use piers and beam footings. Commissioner Gregory commented that for each inch of caliper, you should go one foot away from the tree before you root prune and you should only do one side per year to avoid a tree from failing over. Mr. Knight stated that on root pruning, very typically talking about sidewalk adjustment where the tree has the ability to regain the root system that was lost and still has area for expansion. Even if you were able to use a post and beam footing, you'll still have a slab so you're not going to get any root redevelopment on that side of the tree. Mr. Drell stated that the tree would be losing 7' where it can currently grow underneath the existing footing. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could re-landscape the area. Commissioner Gregory commented that the ficus is an inappropriate tree for that small space. They've been there a long time and they're getting bigger and bigger and the problems will become more prevalent as time goes by. Mr. Knight stated that the tree is very big and nobody likes to see a tree of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES that stature disappear, but at this point you're beginning to encroach on its survivability, even for a ficus. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were special enough trees where we should make some effort to try to save them. Mr. Knight said, "no". Mr. Smith stated that the color scheme needs to be looked at because the roof tile is not as they've shown it on the sample board. Commissioner Gregory commented that they have a photograph of the building and the roof. Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks like they're removing the brick from the Highway 111 side, but they're not removing it from the back side. Consequently, we have two sides of the building that don't even resemble each other anymore. There's also an issue where there's one side that's completely blank. The applicant commented that the rear of building is not being touched at all. Commissioner Hanson stated that that's the side that everybody goes to because that's where they park and where you enter. The applicant stated that they park at both the front and the back, but the majority of the parking is at the rear of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that normally we expect the design to be around four sides of the building. In this case, the roofs already there and they're just filling in under a roof. Commissioner Hanson asked if they could at least take the brick off the back side and put canterra stone there so at least there are some elements of detail that repeat. The east elevation needs some type of detail, such as the addition of canterra stone. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the trees are going to be removed, a new landscape plan must be submitted for review. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the canterra stone would wrap around three sides of the pop-out where the addition is occurring. The applicant stated that it will wrap around all three sides. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the canterra stone needs to return to the windows at a logical stopping point. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to (1) allow the applicant to return with elevations that show the details wrapped around three sides of the building that are exposed to public view, and (2) submit a landscape plan showing the ficus trees removed. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. GRanningTonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of recreation center for 159-lot single family subdivision. Dolce LOCATION: Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 05-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, 3636 Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for (7) new office buildings. LOCATION: 73-510 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Frank Deroma, Ware Malcomb representative, was present. Commissioner Vuksic commented that while the elevations look really nice, I can't tell what's happening because the floor plans are completely flat and there aren't even any windows in the floor plans. None of the architectural articulation shows up on the floor plans. Right now what's represented on the floor plans is completely flat buildings. There is some concern about the corner towers where the glass looks like it's flush with the face of the towers. The big concern is that the floor plan and the roof plan don't affect all the layers that are shown on the elevations. I can't be sure of what I'm looking at. Mr. Deroma stated that they're proposing a tilt-up panel system so the front portion is layered on the same panel so it's 3/4" pop-out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that that concerns him because he sees shadow lines that make it look like it's popping out some distance and I G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES wasn't expecting you to say 3/4". Mr. Deroma stated that there's layering, so there's 1", 3/4". If you see a section through the panel, you would see the pop-outs. Commissioner Lambell asked if Mr. Deroma included a section for the packets. Mr. Deroma stated that a section was not provided. The shadows are representing the pop-outs. Commissioner Hanson stated that 1" is not a layer. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he sees 6" shadows on the elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that there was no glass represented on the floor plan. Mr. Deroma stated that that was missed on the plans. Commissioner Gregory asked if the glass would be on the inside. Mr. Deroma stated that the glass would be on the inside of the typical panel width. Commissioner Gregory asked about the thickness of the panel. Mr. Deroma stated that they're typically 8" thick. The glass would be inset about 4". Commissioner Vuksic asked about the turrets along the top edge of the long facade and wondered if they were notches in an 8" panel. Mr. Deroma stated that the whole section is one 28' section of tilt-up concrete. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to know if he would be looking up at the edge of an 8" panel. Mr. Deroma stated that it would return so when you're looking at the side, you don't see the edges. They'll return 4". Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant needs to provide sections in a couple of areas and also have the floor plan represent what's on the elevation, including location of the glass. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned at how small the layers are. Mr. Deroma argued that they're pretty significant. It goes from 1", then to zero, and then it goes 3/4" back. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he understood that what the commission is saying is that 1" and 3/4" isn't significant. Mr. Deroma stated that from the furthest point to the front panel is almost 3". Commissioner Hanson stated that 3" is not significant. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned that the layers are going to look like they were painted on. Andrew Sartucci, Ware Malcomb representative, was present and stated that basically there is a layering system where you have the main panel with a plant-on. Because it's all one tilt-up panel, it's easier to fabricate. It would stick out 1" and the it's recessed back from the main panel 1" so you do have those different layers where you can create a deeper shadow than just with a regular reveal. To get additional depth, we've added eyebrows over the windows which come out 3'. At the corners, there are panels that are pushed out further with a return of about a couple of feet. Commissioner Vuksic commented that that's the only place where he saw a change and it looks like it's a few inches. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\ AR050913.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Deroma stated that they're pushing the limits of a fabricated system. They have to form this so they're pulling layers in and out of the panel. That's why I use color to create shadow. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't create depth, it's just painted on. Mr. Deroma argued that color does create depth from a distance. Commissioner Hanson disagreed with Mr. Deroma. The problem is that when we look at this because there wasn't enough information on the plan, is that it looks interesting because there are a lot of things happening on it. The truth of the matter is that it's a very flat building with some miner little pop-outs an inch at a time with color. Essentially, we're getting a flat painted building that looks interesting but it's essentially flat. I think that that's where the difference is. We were excited about it, we thought it was something different from what we're getting. Mr. Deroma stated that what you're getting is a really sophisticated tilt-up building with a lot of intricate detail. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would like to see a couple of feet in the layers. If they frame the elements out, they could achieve this. Mr. Deroma stated that he thought that it was understood that they were using tilt-up construction. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are lots of tilt-up buildings with good architecture. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations showing (1) sections, (2) floor plan that represents the elevations, and (3) address layering concerns. Motion carried 5-0- 0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: C 05-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT OASIS SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 74-200 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an addition (gymnasium and offices) to a existing church. LOCATION: 74-200 Country Club Drive ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. GRanning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 15 'rrre ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: TT 30706 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT PARTNERS, L.P., 2 Crooked Stick Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture only for model homes for single-family residences for a 16-lot subdivision including roof elements at a maximum height of 21'. LOCATION: South of Gerald Ford and west of Portola Avenue; Portola Pointe ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell stated that there are six product types of homes that are being proposed. There are six material and color sample boards to review. This project was originally conditioned to conform to the basic R-1 standard setbacks with 15' roof heights and the applicant is asking for a modification to the roof heights. The applicant had commented that he thought that the houses would look much better with the pitch, as opposed to chopping off the roofs above 18'. From Staff's perspective, we would agree with him. The 21' high peak occurs pretty far in from the front and back of each model. Staff recommends approval of the 21' roof height. Mr. Drell stated that the three-car garage models are a little bit "over garaged" on the front elevations. It's a fairly narrow street elevation, which is dominated by a garage. Normally, when you have three-car garages you put them on a wider elevation where it's not two-thirds of the front. Commissioner Vuksic commented that some of the elevations show wing-wall details that help a lot by adding a little mass to the side of the garage doors. Commissioner Hanson commented that all the walls are 4". Jim Thompson, applicant, stated that they're 2" x 4" walls. Commissioner Hanson was concerned about the inset of the windows. Mr. Thompson stated that he could use a far more expensive 2" x 6" wall and inset the window. The alternative is to put a foam detail around the windows to create some elevation difference. Commissioner Vuksic stated that something that we sometimes recommend is having a 2" x 3" nailer, which would at least create a bit of a reveal. I would prefer that to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 16 `V0, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES adding foam around the windows. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Mr. Drell stated that adding foam doesn't make architectural sense. Mr. Thompson stated that there will be some variance in setbacks from lot to lot so that there will be 7' of side yard setbacks, which will add to the frontage of the house. It'll make the project look wider. Commissioner Hanson stated that the third bay on the garage could be moved over to the wall side, which would give him an extra couple of feet or 18". Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would also be better structurally. Mr. Drell suggested adding windows to the garage doors. Commissioner Hanson stated that she hates windows in garage doors. What do you look at? Mr. Drell stated that typically, you can't see inside the garage and the windows add light. Commissioner Lambell commented that she has a personal thing against 21' roof heights. You don't need 21'. It can be done in less and is done in less everywhere. Mr. Thompson stated that most homes in this area have 3:12 roofs, but we prefer 4:12 roofs. We feel that the street elevation looks a lot better. These house are in a PR zone where two-story houses are allowed. Mr. Drell commented that the problem is that the tract was specifically conditioned to be one story. This project will have to go back to the Planning Commission to modify that condition. Mr. Thompson stated that he had spoken with Mr. Drell previously and understood that if the peak of the roof didn't exceed 10%, then it could possibly be approved. They're all within the 10% tower element exception. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the fact that the roof height occurs in the middle of the house doesn't effect any of the neighbors. Commissioner Hanson commented that the trees will be taller than the houses. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) thickening wing walls, (2) use 2 x 3 nailers around windows, and (3) move three-car garage doors toward house to thicken exterior trim. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 17 `400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: C 05-04 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4" Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101-5226 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for four retail buildings at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-300, 34-380, 34-460, 34-580 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the elevations have been revised, based on the comments by the ARC commissioners at their last meeting. Parcel 17 is exposed on all four sides to the street. The north elevation faces the parking lot. The north and west elevations lack architectural detail. The east elevation of parcel 19 needs more detail. Overall, the architecture for the project has improved. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the asymmetry of the spaces much better. Mark Giles, architect, stated that he started over so that he could address the concerns of the commission. There is some flexibility because they don't know who all the tenants are yet. We've tried to break up the mass as much as we can. Mr. Drell asked why some of the roof elements stop so abruptly. Mr. Giles stated that he had to pick a point to stop the roof. Mr. Giles stated that he could continue the roof around or add a trellis to this area. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval subject to adding architecture to the NE and W elevations of parcel 17 and the east elevation of parcel 19. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. G:PlanningTonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 18 `%W **Of ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES 7. 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 initially when this project came to us we were told that we were going to get an exceptional project to replace the previous design. Unfortunately, I still don't think that the project is going to warrant the approval of an exception for the conditional use. We would also have to make a finding for the variance for the roll-up doors facing the street. This site requires a high quality project with a high-quality design to meet the standards of the zone. Commissioner Hanson stated that the issues are: (1) In order to have the roll-up doors on the street side they would have to receive a variance, and (2) the use was not specifically a permitted use in this zone. Mr. Bagato stated that when this project went to the Planning Commission we were told that it was going to be a great enhancement to the existing site. We gave them the opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit and to try and get it approved based on the overall enhancement to the area. Ernest Ramirez, applicant, was present and stated that based on the comment that was made by the representative for planning. This is the third time before the ARC. We're presenting something that we felt was a design that we could work with and, hopefully, that you could work with. Our first attempt was to remodel the existing structure, which fell short of any of the site planning or elevations. The second attempt was for a traditional Spanish-style building, but this seemed to fall short also on the articulation of the architecture. We've come back with a more contemporary project. The site plan is not going to change because it seemed to be satisfactory the first time around. We've reduced the size of the screen walls near the parking lot. We don't have a screen on the frontage for the roll-up doors because that's our only exit. We've eliminated all the other drive throughs. We thought G:PlanninglDonna Quaiverlwpdocs\AgminWR050913.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES we came back with a pretty presentable building for the type of use that we're presenting. When you say that we're still "falling short of the architecture" I thought that we did pretty good on this attempt. The windows are symmetrical. We've changed the function a little bit on the interior of our space to make that happen. We think we've got a good product here for that location. We did go to the Planning Commission about the use issue and the City Council to get their feel for what they would be looking for and their approval for the use before we closed on the property. After getting their "nod" and their " yes, we'll support it" we went forward and purchased the property decided to tear down the ugly-looking structure that's there now and put up something that's much more superior. The area is pretty bad and this will be much better than what's next door to us. Mr. Drell commented that all that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council was the ability to apply for the use. It wasn't support for the use. Mr. Ramirez stated that there's not a lot of articulation on the roll-up doors on the exit side, but they're roll-up doors. It's part of the function of the facility. Commissioner Hanson stated that it can be beautiful and functional. It can be architectural and functional. You can have both. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I think that if you want to have the doors on the street, why couldn't they be set back slightly so that you actually get some shadow lines. The two-foot eyebrow really isn't going to do much of anything. Mr. Ramirez commented that Commissioner Hanson was at the last meeting when their elevations had a structure that extended 12' out. We've removed it since. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was frustrated because somehow I just don't think that we're communicating. I'm not sure if this design would pass muster as an industrial building in an industrial zone and yet we're looking at it on Highway 111. The current Ware Malcolm submittal is a tilt-up office/industrial project and it's quite superior to the Jiffy Lube submittal. I just don't know what to say. Mr. Ramirez stated that Ware Malcolm has a lot more volume to work with. Mr. Drell stated that we've gotten drive-through restaurants that are probably 2,000- 3,000 square feet that incorporate a lot of architecture. In order to get drive-through restaurants approved, they don't just expect something that's "presentable". They expect something more than presentable. What you're hearing typically from this commission is rather moderate in comparison to what the Council has judged these sorts of projects as. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\HR050913.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that simple architecture is okay, but simple it tough to do. Simple has to be brilliantly done. It's actually easier to articulate a building than make it simple and beautiful. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant seems to be "swimming against the tide and you don't know how to swim". You're not the architect on the building, but if you were an architect you'd be more used to this kind of review process. Mr. Ramirez stated that he is an architect. Commissioner Gregory stated that he should be used to this kind of flack. Mr. Ramirez commented that he's built a hundred of these things and designed a hundred of these things. Commissioner Gregory stated that he hasn't designed one on the main drag of Palm Desert. Mr. Ramirez stated that he's done Jiffy Lubes in downtown Irvine. Commissioner Hanson stated that Irvine is totally different from Palm Desert. Commissioner Gregory stated that what everyone is trying to say is that for this type of use on the main drag in Palm Desert, you can't just do something that's good. It's got to be exceptional, especially for this type of use. Also, you're requesting doors that face the street, which is against the ordinance. You're bucking quite a tide here. What that means is that you've got a tough challenge on this job. I'm not sure if you understand. Mr. Ramirez stated that he's also one of the developers and financially sensible to the whole project. We're trying to take everything into account. Obviously, the first time around didn't work out. Commissioner Gregory stated that he hoped that it was clear to him and was hoping that it sinks in that we're not picking on you. It seems that way but this is going to be very challenging. Mr. Ramirez stated that he understood and that's why he went to the City Council and the Planning Commission first before we even attempted to close on the deal, because it was questionable based on the use. They don't want this type of use. Right off the bat we're approaching something that they don't want there in the first place. Commissioner Gregory asked if Mr. Ramirez wants to take the extra effort and expense in making this work or to not want to and then we might do you a favor by turning you down because then you can appeal our decision and attempt to move forward. We're not doing you a favor by constantly continuing your case. Right now I'm not sure if that's helping you. Mr. Drell commented that if the applicant has gone as far as he can with the architecture then the best thing would be to get a decision from the ARC and move down the line. Mr. Ramirez stated that he is prepared to move down the line. Mr. Drell commented that if a substantially different style of architecture is presented to the Planning Commission, then it may be referred back to the ARC for G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES comment. Mr. Ramirez commented that he didn't think that there wouldl be a drastic change as far as design. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to deny the request due to (1) the overall design is flat, lacking detail and massing, (2) roll-up doors front onto a public street, which is prohibited in the C-1 zone and the architectural design does not merit a variance, and (3) the proposed building design is not acceptable on Highway 111. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-32 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): RIDGE LUNDWOLL, 17 Woodside Court, San Anselmo, CA 94960 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a wall exception to allow a 6' high slump block wall 17' from the curb. LOCATION: 45-411 Sunrise Lane ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. 2. 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: Reconsideration of preliminary approval of revised elevations and landscape plan for restaurant, office/retail for Casuelas Cafe. (NOTE: In conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program). LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 22 *#Mo ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2.42 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050913.MIN 23