Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-25 1 , � � �•� CITY OF PALM DESERT ��- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES APRIL 25, 2006 **************************************************************************************************** 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 1 Kristi Hanson X 8 Chris Van Vliet X 7 1 John Vuksic X 8 Ray Lopez X 7 1 Karen Oppenheim X 8 Karel Lambel X 7 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 11, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of April 11, 2006. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 06-71 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRAD PODOSIN, 901 Dover Drive, Suite 235, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for EI Pollo Loco. LOCATION: 34-620 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: C1 Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have a problem with the signage. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the signage meets the calculations for a building of this size. It seems like they're proposing a lot of signage for a small building. Mr. Smith stated that the signage is about 30 square feet and they're entitled to 60+ square feet so they're well within the code requirements. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the signs are spaced pretty well. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 06-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUCIANA LOPRESTO, 76-539 Clifton Forge Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high wall 10' from the curb. LOCATION: 76-539 Clifton Forge Street ZONE: R1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant would like a 6' high wall 10' from the curb, but the code requires that a 6' high wall be located 20' from the curb. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN 2 , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing a 6' high wall on the property line, leaving 4' for landscaping in front of the wall. Luciana Lopresto, applicant, was present and stated that she has a big backyard with no shade, which is a reason why she wants the wall in the front. Neighborhood dogs come into the front yard so I'm always picking up after them. Mr. Smith asked why it needs to be 6' high. Ms. Lopresto stated that it would be a privacy wall. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it could be 4' in height. Ms. Lopresto stated that she's a single mom and she wants privacy and doesn't want solicitors coming to her house. It would also be for safety. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he hates to see so many 6' high walls near the street. Ms. Lopresto stated that there are other homes in her neighborhood with 6' high walls. Mr. Urbina stated that the neighbors immediately adjacent to the applicant's house do not have block walls and if you add a wall right on the property line, it may be very noticeable. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he understands the privacy issue, but neighborhoods look better when they're more open. Ms. Lopresto stated that if she goes back 20' then the wall would be in the area of a large tree. Mr. Smith stated that a 42" high wall could be 7' from the curb, but in this case it would be 10' from curb because that's where the property line is located. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the next step. Mr. Smith stated that it could be 5' in height and 15' from the curb. Commissioner Hanson asked why she couldn't go 20' from curb and 6' in height and go around the tree. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem the commission is having is trying to have some type of a wall that looks good. We've had a lot of problems in the past so we're very careful about these types of requests. Commissioner Hanson's suggestion about having the wall articulated to go around the tree would be a way to get some movement in the wall so it's not just a straight line. Also, does the wall have to be 6' tall or even 5' tall? It would be less of a neighborhood issue if it were 5' tall and pulled back from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's actually higher than that if you were standing on the sidewalk because the ground slopes up toward the house. It would provide a lot of privacy. Commissioner Gregory commented that the wall wouldn't conflict with the tree if it were 15' from the curb. It would still be important to add some articulation to the wall and not just have a straight wall. Commissioner Vuksic suggested G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 3 � ` �� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES adding desert landscaping to the front of the wall. The wali would be able to be approved by staff if it were 5' tall and 15' from the curb. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to deny the request and suggested that the applicant consider a 5' high wall 15' from the curb. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: VAR 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAXWELL FREDERIC WUTHRICH, P.O. Box 7223, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of reduction in side yard setback to match existing as-built condition. LOCATION: 45-644 Verba Santa Drive ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is proposing a room addition, which happens to encroach into the side yard setback. They would like to match the as-built condition. The property owner on one side has indicated some concern about the 8' setback. The actual variance consideration will take place at the Planning Commission in a noticed public hearing. This is before the Architectural Review Commission today for an architectural consideration and does not pertain to the setbacks. Mr. Urbina stated that even though the zoning is R1-20,000 the lot is a little bit less than 11,000 square feet. This is a home that was constructed in 1953 with the county and has existing 8' side yard setbacks. Currently, the house does not have a garage. The applicant is proposing to add a garage. The neighbor, Samuel Achlufi, is present and he indicated that he has some concerns about the addition at 8' setback because it will affect his views and he thinks that he may feel more boxed in. However, he indicated that he wouldn't be opposed to a 12' setback instead of the required 15' setback. He feels that 8' is too close. Mr. Achlufi has 12' on his side of the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that Mr. Achlufi has a substantially larger lot. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN 4 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked the neighbor how the addition would block his views. Mr. Achlufi stated that if he's coming out of his garage or if he's doing laundry and looks out his window, the extension will take away the mountain views that he has. Mr. William Hanousek, Sr., homeowner of 45-644 Verba Santa, was present and stated that there is an existing wall that's 8' from the property line. The neighbor's house has a window that's 8'4" from the corner and is 15" wide and 4' tall, which has frosted louvered glass. When the louvers are closed, the glass is frosted 100%. I've never seen that window open. There's also a doorway going into the garage. If you were in the garage, there's only one light source, which is from the frosted louvered window. Commissioner Gregory stated that this commission looks at design only. What we're looking at is if the design is acceptable and if the house conforms to the ordinance. If there's an issue between neighbors, that should really be taken up at the Planning Commission where the variance will be considered. Is the design such that an effort has been made to step back the house substantially or enough to somewhat mitigate the loss of view concerns of the neighbor? There's also a grade change. It's an unusual situation. Commissioner Hanson commented that there's an approximate 3' grade difference and if the property owner put a 6' high wall on the property line, the visual from the lower side would miss the house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when looking at the drawings, the house is nicely massed with the high elements in the middle of the house with 8' plate lines on one side and 9' plate lines on the other with a sloped roof. The house could be almost twice that tall at the 15' setback, which seems like it would be as imposing as the proposed plan and no one could say anything about it. A reasonable effort has been made to keep the house low on the edges and it's massed very well. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that the plans are very nicely done and it would be a great improvement to the community. Maxwell Wuthrich, AIA, was present to answer questions from the commission. The commission agreed that the architectural design was well done. Mr. Smith stated that there will be a public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting, which currently has not been G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 5 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES scheduled. The neighbors will receive a notice in the mail. The notices are sent out ten days before the meeting. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of the architectural design. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 06-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE Jr. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 JOSEPHINE D'AMICO MIGLIORE TRUST, 386 Avenida Andura, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage for Serenata Mexican Bar & Grill. LOCATION: 73-325 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the exterior wall color needed to be approved as well as the signage. The commission had asked for a color that would be different from the buildings next door. A color sample was shown to the commission. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was disappointed with the revised signage proposal. The previous sign was beautifully done and really made the whole building. We had talked about the fact that this location really needs a sign that would be something other than a sign and it's just a sign. Jim Engle, representative for Imperial Sign Company was present and stated that they needed a sign. The challenge that they have with this elevation is that it doesn't lend itself to signage because the wall is narrow on both sides of the building. We're trying to do a nice sign with Hispanic flavor using reverse channel letters. The "Cantina" sign on the left side will be non-illuminated. I think we've done a good job in balancing the sign work and the colors are within reason. The reverse channel letters on "Serenata" are very nice. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060425.MIN 6 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Engle if they really needed the word "Cantina". There's a lot of wording proposed for the building. Mr. Engle thought that having wording on both sides of the building would make it look more balanced. If you have signage on one end and not the other, it looks unbalanced. Commissioner Gregory suggested putting "Serenata Mexican Bar & Grill" on the left side and remove "Cantina" and just have the numbers on the right side. The sign should be reduced in size so that there's 18" on either side and also on the bottom of the sign. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of the business signage, subject to (1) remove the word "Cantina", (2) move the words "Serenata Mexican Bar & Grill" to the left side of the building in the former "Cantina" location, and (3) leave an 18" border on either side and bottom of the signage. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Hanson opposed. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 06-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: JIM FRY, AIA, 3808 Riverside Drive, Suite 508, Toluca Lake, Burbank, CA 91505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a singe-family residence with a 21' high roof height. LOCATION: 1009 Mountain Springs Road; The Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining. 6. CASE NO.: PP 05-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, 3636 Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060425.MIN � ' � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for (7) new office buildings. LOCATION: 73-510 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0 7. CASE NO.: SA 06-75 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL HENIGSMAN, TNT ELECTRIC SIGN, INC., 3080 East 29th Street, Long Beach, CA 90806 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of two internally-illuminated monument signs for Palms to Pines. LOCATION: 72-811 to 72-885 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is for one monument sign on Highway 111 and another monument sign on EI Paseo. The sign on Highway 111 is a little higher at 8'. The code allows for 6' maximum height to the top of the actual signage. We don't hold the architecture against the height restriction. In this case the signage is 7'4" to the top of the sign. The sign on EI Paseo complies at 6' in height. Bill Henigsman, representative for TNT Electric Sign, was present and stated that he's intending to use the same colors on the signage that have been used on the buildings. Commissioner Hanson commented that the proposed monument sign for Highway 111 is too large. It's "in your face" and you can't even see the palm trees along the street. Every single one of the signs on those buildings is completely visible from Highway 111. Why do you need such a big sign on Highway 111? It's obnoxious. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN g , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if there would be any hope of approval if the sign were made smaller or is it that the essential design will never work? Commissioner Hanson stated that the point is that monument signs are appropriate when you're in a development or in an area where you have other buildings blocking other businesses so that you can call attention to the fact that they're there. If you can see them from the street, what's the point in having a monument sign? All of those buildings have huge wall signs. I fail to understand why it's necessary. Mr. Smith commented that the intent of the ordinance was for a center identification sign, but now they want to identify the major tenants, which are typically limited to three tenant names. Mr. Drell stated that it's the minor tenants who need the signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're the ones who never get it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the sign needs more design to it. Mr. Henigsman stated that they were trying to use the same materials and colors of the buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were going to put three coats of stucco on the signs. Mr. Henigsman stated that they will use three coats of stucco. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that not everybody knows where they're going so additional signage is needed. It's a tourist community so if you can make it any easier for people driving down Highway 111 than so be it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it just adds more clutter. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign is lacking a tremendous amount in design. It looks very cluttered the way the tenants are on the sign. The sign is way too big and is out of scale. It needs to be just large enough and it has to be nicely designed with a maximum of three tenant signs. They're proposing five tenant names. It needs to be scaled down and re-designed to be more pleasing and limited to three tenant names. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show (1) monument sign scaled down in height and overall size and redesigned to be more pleasing, and (2) maximum of three tenant signs. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsb4gmin�P,R060425.MIN 9 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for the Henderson Community Building. LOCATION: 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Entrada) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: C 06-03 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): BRAD PODOSIN, 901 Dover Drive, Suite 235, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of elevations for EI Pollo Loco. LOCATION: 34-620 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: C1 Mr. Bagato stated that the site is within the Gateway Center. Landscaping will provide additional screening of the building and it's also located below grade. The design matches the general design of the center, but one of the doors is off-center underneath the archway. Commissioner Hanson stated the she felt that it wasn't quite enough architecture. The tower element with the arch needs to have some sort of a roof element on it. Also, the arches along the north elevation could use a roof over it to add more detail. It was lacking in architecture. Paul Deppy, AIA, was present to answer questions from the commission. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN 1� '�rrr `„�r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked if the 19' parapet was higher than the roof- mounted equipment. Mr. Deppy stated that the equipment will be screened and the parapet is higher than the equipment. There is a 6' well for the equipment. The roof access will be located inside the building. Ms. Hollinger stated that the applicant didn't follow the guidelines for the center in regards to their landscaping. They still have work to do to revise their landscape plan. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) returning the parapet two- thirds of the distance of the width of the front element, (2) add pitched roof to the east elevation tower, (3) add roof element to the north elevation above columns, and (4) subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 06-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CUMMING LLC., 27201 Puerta Real, Suite 370, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior remodel of the spa building at the Marriott Desert Springs. LOCATION: 74-855 Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-4 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 06-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SERENITY OF PALM DESERT, LLC., P.O. Box 1135, Poway, CA 92074 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of elevations for a six-lot subdivision. LOCATION: Highway 74 frontage road G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 1 I � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES ZONE: R-3 18,000 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing six lots to create six single-family detached homes as a planned development with a common driveway. The homes will be two-stories with two-car garages. Technically, they meet the off-street parking requirements, but in this case there's no room for guest parking in front of the homes so the applicant is proposing four guest parking spaces at the rear and in between the homes but they're only 9'2" wide. Staff is concerned that vehicles could damage the sides of the garages. Also, the fronts of the homes are at the opposite ends of the garages and the applicant is proposing a curvilinear sidewalk along the sides of the site. Each home will have a private courtyard. Lots 2 & 5 should have gates added so that guests can access the front door without having to walk all the way around the home. This is assuming that nobody has parked there. Commissioner Hanson asked how the City feels about creating parallel parking, such as the parking at the Cuistot restaurant or suggested having the guest parking on the street. Nobody is going to park between the houses because they're going to damage the buildings. On all the units, the second floor pops out away from the bottom floor by 6". Kurk McKinley, AIA, was present and stated that that only happens on Plan 1 and it's set back on Plan 2. Commissioner Hanson stated that this creates a 5' setback between buildings because of the projections. Mr. McKinley stated that they can actually have a 4' setback as long as there are no openings on those elevations. This is a one-lot subdivision so there are no property lines between the units. Commissioner Hanson commented that the renderings looked great except that they're not accurate. The renderings show lots of very deep shadows on all the windows and they sit in 4" or 6" walls. Mr. McKinley stated that they're going to set the windows in a 2 x 6 wall with a 2 x 2 nailer. Commissioner Hanson stated that the rendering makes it look like the windows are recessed 12". Mr. McKinley stated that his staff took "artistic liberty". The recesses are actually 4". The accented arch window has more of a recess. Commissioner Hanson stated that they need to add some kind of architectural treatment on the blank walls on the east elevations on Lots 1 and 6. Mr. McKinley suggested putting free-standing arbors with vines in those areas. Commissioner Hanson wanted more of an architectural treatment, as opposed to a landscaping treatment. It was suggested that the wall on the front of the units be 4' in height with a 1' iron piece on top so that they can add splash pools to the yards. Commissioner Vuksic stated G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES that the cantilevered elements need to be more than 6". The shadows shouldn't be larger than what they would be. I'm okay with the 2 x 2 nailers, if that's what they really do on some of the windows but the elements where there are offsets need to be more substantial. In cases where they're 6", they need to be at least 12" to make it start to look like the way it's represented on the renderings. Mr. Drell commented that the buildings are a little bit too big for the site. Commissioner Gregory stated that he personally isn't ready to give an approval on this project. The fact that Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson had to go through such an elaborate list of items to allow for it to be approved today shows that there really needs to be information indicated on the plans. I think it should be continued. There are a lot of things that need to happen. The good news is that you're getting a favorable response, but there's so much that the commission would like to see that it would be important for us to see it first before we give you preliminary approval. I'd like to see how the removal of the guest parking will change the landscaped areas to make it more attractive. The focal point where a person drives into the project is going to change. From a site planning perspective, the articulation of architectural planes at 4", 5" and 6" is so minimal. The colored drawings, while very nicely done, are misleading. We're being fooled and we need to see what it will actually look like. Right now it looks like there's a lot more depth than there actually is. Mr. McKinley stated that he can add more depth in certain areas, such as along the walkway, from 6" to 12". Commissioner Hanson stated that she didn't feel like their list was that bad. If we ask them to come back for a reiteration of this but still gave them okay for the design development aspect to allow them to keep moving. Mr. McKinley stated that he doesn't have a problem doing all the things that the commission listed. The problem is going to be getting a variance for putting required on-site parking on the street. That's a wild card. Mr. Drell stated that they shouldn't worry about that. The real problem would be convincing people that you're going to squeeze cars into a 9' physical space between the buildings. Normally you would have a 9' parking space, but it's next to another 9' parking space and you share some space in between. Given the fact that the project is pretty short on significant landscaped area, it's tough either way. The other solution would be to make the buildings a little bit smaller. If you can get the guest parking areas to 11', then that problem will probably go away. The buildings are a little tight. Commissioner Hanson suggested making Lots 2 & 3 and Lots 4 & 5 as zero lot line and join the buildings. Mr. McKinley stated that this would present an insurance issue. Mr. Drell stated that maybe they don't have to actually join them, but put them 3/4" apart. The applicant stated that he didn't want to do that because it's a great benefit for the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR060425.MIN 13 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES buyer to have a detached home. Mr. Drell stated that the problem is that they're a little bit squeezed on the site. Commissioner Hanson stated that if she was given an extra 3' in her yard, as opposed to 3' between the buildings, I think that's a negative. Mr. Drell stated that the only benefit is that you have windows that would allow natural light. Mr. McKinley stated that they're bathroom windows and stair well windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that if you want to keep the guest parking on-site, then that's the way to do it. Or you can fight for street parking, which may not be a big argument because there's nothing else fighting for that space on the street. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) front walls to be 4' in height with 1' of wrought iron or decorative block for a maximum of 5' in height, (2) use 2 x 6 walls with 2 x 2 nailers, (3) add architectural element to east elevation on Lot 1 and Lot 6, and (4) applicant shall return with a solution to guest parking and suggested moving the guest parking to the street, as opposed to between the buildings. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLEN BIXEN, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92211 CHARLIE MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a facade enhancement of Matsuri Restaurant, Pete Carlson's Golf& Tennis, and Chinese Antiques. LOCATION: 73-741 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Charlie Martin, architect, was present and stated that he had problems with the roof structure on his last design, therefore, he had revised elevations to present to the commission. It was suggested by the engineer to saw-cut away from the building one foot in front of the existing structure and then building up vertically. We really simplified the structure and stayed right in line with the existing building. What I did in terms with dealing with the color we would actually paint the building so that the commission could look at it. Blues and greens are Pete Carlson's favorite colors. The Japanese restaurant will have red G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 14 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES accents and the building on the north elevation will have signage on the windows and added copper awnings and details. There are three owners of these buildings. I chose to use five shades of gray and that would be the base that would go around everything, but at different levels. The windows would all be re-done with possibly a black finish. The risers on top of the Pete Carlson store are copper and also on the awnings that come out over the Chinese Antique store on the north elevation. Most of the roof heights are 16'. Everything around that area is around 14'. The equipment is hidden on the roof. Commissioner Gregory asked about the material being used over Pete Carlson's. Mr. Martin stated that it's corrugated metal which is curved and rolls over the top until iYs cut off by a vertical line of the wall so there's air and light through the top. The weather will soften the metal to a gray color. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned about the use of corrugated metal. I like it in certain places, but my concern with the improvement to the center is fun in a funky way, but I'm wondering if we need to draw the line somewhere because of Palm Desert's general quest for "slickness" and use some other type of material than corrugated steel. Maybe some other type of steel can be used. Mr. Martin asked if he was worried about color or the word "corrugated". Commissioner Gregory stated that corrugated metal frightens him immensely. I like corrugated metal, but was wondering if a more enhanced-type of material could be used. For example, a standing-seam roof or something that's more finished looking so the building has a more finished quality. Mr. Martin stated that his client is concerned about the cost of the renovation. The corrugation is a structural element that helps it to span to its next support. Standing seam won't work. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned that it won't look "finished". Mr. Drell commented that the issue of the galvanized steel, the bike shop on San Pablo has used galvanized steel and it takes a long time to patina and it looks like it's unfinished for a long, long time. Commissioner Gregory stated that the bike shop doesn't bother him because the galvanized element is very small. Mr. Martin suggested painting the steel. Mr. Drell stated that there are more fundamental issues with this project that need to be addressed before we get down to the fine points of the finish on certain elements. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's concerned about the depth of the facade. How will it look three dimensionally? Also, there's a building next to it (Los Casuelas) which has a lot going on and it's very different architecture. It's hard to imagine these two buildings side by side. The proposed renovation is very creative. I could see this more easily in place where it wasn't surrounded by other buildings, especially G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R060425.MIN 1$ • � �. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES buildings with strong architectural identities like what's going to be happening on the right side of this. With that said, I would have a real tough time approving this. I think it needs to be developed three dimensionally. I would be concerned that the way that the plans are drawn, there's a lot of room for interpretation which is scary on a remodel because I can see the change orders coming in and you could end up with a real disaster. Mr. Drell asked what he thought of the forms. Mr. Martin commented that he included drawings that show that the facade has depth. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned about the roof because it doesn't have a lot of depth. Mr. Martin asked him which roof he wanted to talk about. Mr. Martin stated that the large roof over Pete Carlson's has a top piece that would go back over the roof 8' and there's a 4' wide piece that rolls up on top of it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like a building. It's way wider than it is deep. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the Matsuri remodel in its simplicity. IYs interesting. The red square details are interesting and fun. The Chinese Antique remodel is okay, but I'm not as keen on the Pete Carlson section of the building. It's "in your face" and it reminds me of ship port holes. It doesn't say anything about Pete Carlson's golf. Not that it has to, but it's such a departure. I just wonder what it is and why it's like that. The front doesn't relate to the back so I have a lot of trouble with that section. The other end of the building where the mountain scene is located isn't great. I'd rather see you do something rather plain on that wall and plant it heavily with bamboo or do something really great with some big long bamboo sticks that could be architecturally done. I would down play the middle part. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the architect look at what's been approved next door. Mr. Martin stated that he was here first and this is an older building. Mr. Drell suggested that we find out the status of the Los Casuelas building and figure out if they're actually going to build it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Martin if he were to design this building from scratch and you weren't trying to work with an existing structure and you could take it down to the ground, would you design it this way? Mr. Martin stated that he probably wouldn't, but he has to deal with three owners that are all wanting something. If you took this down, you could have three architects and then you'd be looking at three different buildings. I can certainly change the Pete Carlson section and make it more like the other two tenants. I need to deal with sun issues on the south elevation because there's a lot of activity out there so I do need overhangs. Commissioner Hanson commented that she's not offended by the corrugated metal roof element. It's the other G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN 1� ' ,� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES things that are with it. It seems like everything is fighting itself on the Pete Carlson section where I think there's much more continuity on the other sections. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations that show the project in 3-D and revising the Pete Carlson section of the building. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: TPM 34437/CUP 06-03 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS): GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK, LLC., 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M, Palm Desert, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a mixed-use project including 99,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space with two drive-thrus and eight two-story office buildings totaling 80,000 square feet. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: SI Commissioner Hanson commented that she thought that the project looked great. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're proposing a lot of signage on the north side. I think that a little more needs to happen. It needs some articulation because right now it has almost none. If you're going to have that many signs on it, it deserves something. On the buildings themselves, I thought they were great. My only concern was on the parapets. You have some parapets that I know you're going to see the ends of, especially on the one-story buildings where you might have a facade element that's 20' or 30' wide on the front and it returns just a couple of feet past the next shorter parapet and iYs going to look like a little thing is stuck on there. You need to run the parapets back so that those things look like forms. They should be a minimum of two-thirds of the width of the element so if it's 20' wide, it needs to go back 14'. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant submitted a sign program. They're asking for four monument signs on Gerald Ford Drive. The length of the project is only 600'. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant why they need three monument signs at the entry. The applicant stated that they were trying to distinguish the difference between the office space G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060425.MIN 1� . • wr�r' '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES in the back and the retail space in the front. We wanted to have some options on the spacing of the signs on the site and then maybe cut back on the signs that they felt weren't needed. The commission felt that one monument sign would be sufficient for a project of this size. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval subject to (1) limited to one monument sign, (2) return with articulation on parking structure, and (3) approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 06-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 HAROLD McCORMICK, 25-501 Crown Valley, Mission Viejo, CA 92694 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of exterior remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-320 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Hanson had a question about the roof element in the middle that looks like it's floating. It's floating about 5' from the glass line. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it's not that far off of the upper roof overhang and it's only about 8". Commissioner Hanson stated that that overhang goes all the way back to 5' so the middle part sticks down below it. The applicant was not present to explain the elevation. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that it looks like it's hovering out there. Also, the parapets need to be returned two-thirds of the width of the element so it looks like a mass. The other parapets that have the stepped detail need to be thicker (at least 12" but would prefer 18"). A drawing was produced by the commission that illustrates a solution to the floating element issue. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for preliminary approval subject to (1) modifying the top middle element that appears to be floating by recessing the element, per sketch drawn by the Architectural Review Commission, and (2) return parapet two-thirds of the width of the element. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060425.MIN i 8 " � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: PP 06-05/TT 34626 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): W.L. HOMES, LLC., dba JOHN LAING HOMES, 255 E. Rincon Street, Suite 100, Corona, CA 92879 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 198 condominium units. LOCATION: Intersection of College Drive and University Park Drive ZONE: PR Commissioner Hanson questioned that applicant and wanted to know why they have stairs at the entrance of all the units going up to the front doors. The applicant stated that they have a raised entry and then it drops down into the great room. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's probably a wasted effort, but you can do it either way. People don't like stairs if you don't need them. Some of the exterior colors need to be changed. When you do arched doors and then have a straight door within them, I always find that that's sort of a cheesy look. I'd rather see you bring the door up and make the door taller or bring the arch down so you can't see the top of the door. On Elevation A, the arches change at the doorway and it doesn't look right. A discussion was held between the commission and the architect and pages of the packet were marked up for the architect to make changes. The packet will be kept on file. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the fascias were made of wood and he wasn't clear how the wood interacts with the plaster underneath them. The architect stated that the wood goes underneath the eave. Elevation B shows wood and foam and wondered if they had done that before. The applicant stated that they had. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have very little recess on a lot of the windows, but I think it's okay because of the style and what you've done in other spots and the way you've treated those. Use a 2x 3 nailer to get a little bit of recess. There is concern on the rear elevation of Plan 2570. It looks like you got tired there. The architect stated that they have enhanced those elevations as well as the side elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are pop-outs on the second floor with no relationship to what's happening below at the garage and they really hit the openings below in very odd spots. What kind of roof tiles are going to be used? The roof tile shows a mixed color tile. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmiM,4R060425.MIN 19 , � • � ,�; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez asked about the location of the air conditioning units. The applicant stated that they're on the ground. Commissioner Lopez commented that every project shows beautiful pictures and you go by million dollar homes and they have trash cans sitting outside because nobody has made an effort to create a space for them. Most of the time, they end up in the garage. He suggested that their landscape architect provide screening for the trash cans or have strong CC & R's. It would be a mistake to have the trash can storage in the garages because of the heat in the summertime. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to the meeting of May 9, 2006 if the applicant has submitted revised elevations which include the following: (1) Clarify exterior color options to be removed, (2) Plan 1628-A: Study detail above garage door., (3) Plan 1628-C: Re-study shutter colors., (4) Plan 2107-A: Study doorway arch detail, (5) Plan 2107-B: Study doorway arch width, (6) Plan 2107-B-Right: Re-study trim detail under left window, (7) Plan 2570-A: Study detail over garage door, (8) Plan 2570-A-Right: Study scalloping over sliding glass door, (9) Plan 2570- A-Rear: Study removal of trim around small windows, (10) Plan 2570-B & C: Study trim detail on rear elevation, (11) Plan 2570-C-Front: Study offset door, (12) Three-plex-A-Left: Study blank wall section and building offset at left end, (13) Use 2" x 3" nailers on windows, (14) Plan 2570-Rear: Study pop-outs for relationship to garage. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060425.MIN 2�