HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-22 irn► No,,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
August 22, 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 14 1
Kristi Hanson X 14 1
Chris Van Vliet X 13 2
John Vuksic X 15
Ray Lopez X 13 2
Karen Oppenheim X 15
Karel Lambell X 14 1
Also Present
Phil Drell, Director, Community Development
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner
Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist
Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Van Vliet requested that the minutes of the
July 25, 2006 meeting be continued to the meeting of September 12, 2006. Motion
carried 7-0.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
V. CASES:
A. Final Drawings
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
1. CASE NO: SA 06-108
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ED LANDER/SIGN-A-RAMA, GILL
DESERT PROPERTIES 41-945 Boardwalk Suite L, Palm Desert, CA
92260; BUSINESS PARK OF THE DESERT, 3535 Inland Empire Blvd.,
Ontario, CA
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new
sign program.
LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street
ZONE: OP
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hansen,
by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO: CUP 06-08
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM and BRIGITTE HOWARD,
77-682 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of
a detached 18-foot high accessory structure with a 25-foot rear yard
setback to be used for a pool, cabana and recreational vehicle garage.
LOCATION: 77-682 Robin Road
ZONE: RE 40,000
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion to grant approval, subject to moving the shorter garage door
12" closer to the taller garage door. Motion carried 7-0.
GAPlanningUmiine Judy\Word Files\ARC MinuteMR060822.min,DOC Page 2 Of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
3. CASE NO: PP 06-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WARE MALCOMB, (Andrew
Zertuche), 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA., 92618.
PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, (John Salmon or Gary Levinski), 3636
Birch Street, Suite 1260, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
construction of seven (7) industrial buildings totaling 143,942 square
feet, (9.6 acres).
LOCATION: 73-555 Leilani Way, South of Dinah Shore Dr., and
Gateway (APN 653-250-036)
ZONE: S-1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
to continue the matter per the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0.
4. CASE NO: SA 06-103
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMAGE NATIONAL INC., (David Cobb),
444 E. Amity Road, Boise, ID 83716
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of Bristol
Farms main identification sign and five (5) secondary signs, remodeling
existing monument signs and addition of two new monument signs.
LOCATION: 73-101 Country Club Drive
ZONE: PC-2
G:\Flanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 3 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Krista Colson, Student Intern presented a request for identification signs
for Bristol Farms and stated that the proposed monument signs were
straight forward and allowable under code, however there was an issue
with the wall signs which are a little over code. The main sign is allowed
plus two ancillary signs, which are the ones on the west end. After
reviewing Fine Wines and Spirits, that sign could be considered two
signs and be divided up, and the Bristol Cafe and Peet's Coffee could be
considered two separate businesses to give it some architectural
variance and emphasize the storefronts to make them look like separate
storefronts.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he had a problem with the
monument sign, that it seemed too big. Staff had recommended to the
applicant to reduce the two signs and then decide which ones they
wanted.
Joe Rosa, representative from Image National Inc., stated that there is
an existing large monument sign at the corner of Country Club and
Monterey that would be eliminated.
Commissioner Hanson stated that they currently have the Plaza De
Monterey at that location and Mr. Bagato stated that the new sign would
be relocated. Commissioner Hanson wondered how this could be
reviewed not knowing what the new sign would look like. Mr. Bagato
stated that the new sign would say Bristol Farms and Plaza De Monterey
and the big concrete sign would be removed.
Commissioner Hanson asked if the existing monument sign blocks the
back of the service station. Mr. Rosa indicated that it did and that the
new sign would take its place. The new sign will be 9 feet 6 inches x 16
feet and the existing one is 10 feet x 18 feet.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the base seemed too high at almost
4 feet. From a design perspective, the base is too high. Spencer Knight,
Landscape Manager indicated that landscaping would be placed in front
of the sign.
Commissioner Hansen recommended to Mr. Rosa to bring the plans
back showing the sign in context with the landscaping, and to indicate on
the site what will be going in front of the sign and what that would look
like.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 4 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22 2006
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to approve the main Bristol Farms sign, the Peet's Coffee and Tea sign
and the Bristol Cafe sign. Remainder of request was continued to allow
modifications per Commission discussion. Motion carried 7-0.
5. CASE NO: MISC 06-18
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HAROLD MCCORMICK, 25501 Crown
Valley, Mission Viejo, CA 92694
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
exterior remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with the City of
Palm Desert's Fagade Enhancement Program.
LOCATION: 73-320 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Drell asked if the building was one or two suites because the
architecture appears to be designed to look like one, but is actually two.
Mr. Ricciardi indicated that it was designed as one building and when
viewed from the outside, you can tell very easily that it's a two-tenant
building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that since there is a breezeway it
does make it different.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to
grant approval. Motion carried 6-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining.
6. CASE NO: MISC 05-41
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947
Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new
bank building with a drive through; Wells Fargo Bank.
LOCATION: 34-340 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center
ZONE: PC
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FileSWRC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 5 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0.
7. CASE NO: SA 06-107
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AKC SERVICES, INC., 31681 Riverside
Drive, #B, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
installation of two (2) sets of illuminated signage — "White Cap".
LOCATION: 73-600 Dinah Shore Drive
ZONE: S-1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
to continue the matter per the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0.
8. CASE NO: MISC 06-29
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RODNEY SHAVER, 73101 San
Gorgonio Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
corrugated metal fencing.
LOCATION: 73-101 San Gorgonio Way
ZONE: R-1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to
grant approval. Motion carried 7-0.
9. CASE NO: TT 33935 & TT 34391
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOLL BROTHERS, INC., 73-121 Fred
Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min,DOC Page 6 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
revised elevations of eight (8) single-family model types.
LOCATION: Kingston Court and Imperial Court located east and west of
Shepherd Lane.
ZONE: PR-5
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell
to continue the matter per the request of the applicant. Motion carried 7-0.
10. CASE NO: PP 00-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID SACCULLO, 74-923 Hwy 111,
Suite 114, Indian Wells, CA 92210
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans
for an office park consisting of three (3), two-story buildings.
LOCATION: 72-650 Fred Waring Drive
ZONE: OP
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion to grant approval, subject to approval of landscape plans by
the City's Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0.
11. CASE NO: PP 05-12
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC.,
15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
working drawings for Spanish Walk; Esparanza
LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (former Emerald Desert site)
ZONE: R-1 M
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC page 7 Of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Mr. Smith presented working drawings for Spanish Walk; Esparanza.
Staff could not verify the roof material to be used. Applicant submitted
four (4) options for review. Composition was one and the Commission
certainly did not want to see 90% composition.
Roy Capitan, representative from Robert Heidi Architects was present
and stated that all buildings would be concrete "S" tile.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell,
to approve the request with clarification from the architect that the roof material
would be concrete "S" the and subject to approval of landscape plans by the
City's Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic
absent.
12. CASE NO: SA 06-111
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINE CANVAS, 69-640
Sugarloaf, Mountain Center, CA 92681
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
awning with signage; Old World Pottery.
LOCATION: 73-130 El Paseo Suite F
ZONE: C-1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC MinuteMR060822.min.DOC Page 8 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
NOTE:
Mr. Smith presented two cases; El Pollo Loco and Desert Springs Marriott Spa
and Resort, which he requested to be added to the agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell,
to add the two items. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic
absent.
13. CASE NO: SA 06-71
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRAD PODOSIN, 901 Dover Drive,
Suite 235, Newport Beach, CA 92660
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
working drawings for El Pollo Loco.
LOCATION: 34-620 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Smith presented the working drawings for El Pollo Loco.
Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to grant approval, subject to 1) a line of site to assure screening
of roof mounted equipment; and 2) approval of landscape plans by the
City's Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner
Vuksic absent.
14. CASE NO: MISC 06-17
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT SPRINGS MARRIOTT SPA
AND RESORT, 74-855 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
working drawings for 8,000 square foot spa addition.
LOCATION: 74-855 Country Club Drive
ZONE: P
GAPlanningVanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 9 of 21
MINUTES sw "01
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22. 2006
Mr. Smith presented the working drawings for the 8,000 square foot spa
addition. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be
acceptable.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson
to grant approval, subject to approval of landscape plans by the City's
Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic
absent.
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASE NO: C 06-07
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of a PetSmart Store.
LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue
ZONE: PC-3
Mr. Bagato presented changes to the new PetSmart Store as requested
by Commission.
Jose Alvarez, Project Manager for Nadel Architects, informed the
Commission that they introduced wood fascia and exposed rafters to the
gable element into the entire building, and they also added tile detailing
at the intersection of the reveals and updated the colors by kicking them
up a notch. They couldn't lower the mansard because the diaphragm
would have been affected and would not have been very cost effective.
Commissioner Gregory asked if the color changed in the new arches that
were added in the middle, because it looked the same as the
background color. Mr. Alvarez stated that this color was chosen
because it had been used on other parts of the structure.
Commissioner Gregory stated that the color in the new arches on all the
buildings should be a darker color or continue with the reddish color that
is shown in the other arches to provide some depth.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 10 of 21
MINUTES wrr
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Commissioner Hanson requested that the brow above the opening for
PetSmart not be something huge. Mr. Alvarez indicated that he would
add more detailing to the profiles.
Commissioner Vuksic discussed the returns on some of the higher roof
elements and stated that the walls need to go back 2/3 of the width of
the element.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the Commission didn't address the
other buildings. Mr. Alvarez stated that they would be the same; they
added the wood fascia, changed the trim on the gable, added tile,
changed the colors and boxed in the wing wall on the roof plan.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to
approve all three buildings with the following recommendations: 1) color in new
arches to be darker or continue with reddish color; 2) additional detail needed
for profile of entryway to PetSmart and 3) roof elements to go back 2/3 of the
width of the element. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO: C 06-08
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval an Office Depot.
LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue
ZONE: PC-3
See comments above under B1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to
approve all three buildings with the following recommendation: 1) color in new
arches to be darker or continue with reddish color; 2) additional detail needed
for profile of entryway to PetSmart and 3) roof element to go back 2/3 of the
width of the element. Motion carried 7-0.
G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 11 of 21
MINUTES �W
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
3. CASE NO: C 06-09
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of new construction of a multi-tenant use building (general retail
and convenience food).
LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue
ZONE: PC-3
See comments above under B1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to
approve all three buildings with the following recommendations: 1) color in new
arches to be darker or continue with reddish color; 2) additional detail needed
for profile of entryway to PetSmart and 3) roof element to go back 2/3 of the
width of the element. Motion carried 7-0.
4. CASE NOS: PP/CUP 06-09
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): URRUTIA ARCHITECTS, Attn:
Francisco J. Urrutia, 165 Luring Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary
approval of landscape plans for three (3) buildings, including two (2)
drive-thru restaurants.
LOCATION: 75-096 Gerald Ford
ZONE: PCD/FCOZ
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minu[es\AR060822.min,DOC Page 12 of 21
fir✓ ''✓
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion to grant approval, subject to approval of landscape plans by
the City's Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0.
5. CASE NO: MISC. 06-30
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CV FOODSERVICES, INC., 73-405 El
Paseo, Suite 33D, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of architectural review for new restaurant, La Spiga.
LOCATION: 72-557 Hwy 111
ZONE: OP
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
by minute motion, subject to approval of landscape plans by the city's
Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0.
6. CASE NO.: C 06-10
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH,
73-061 El Paseo, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of remodel of exterior storefront.
LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1
David Fletcher, representative of Churchill Management indicated that
their goal was to revamp the first block of El Paseo and possibly move
into the second block tying all the buildings together. This would be from
Daily Grill down to St. John's on the south side and the California Pizza
Kitchen building on the north side; it does not include the former
Pinnacle Bar and Grille.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 13 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Steve Lovell, architect stated that what they are proposing would be to
demolish the middle part of the south building because the floor is
elevated above the El Paseo sidewalk level and the ceiling height
doesn't work for retail. The existing second floor will be removed to
create a one-story unit.
Mr. Fletcher indicated that for the moment, the Polo section floor plan is
fixed and the shell is still in design. Polo would be coming before the
Commission with their own design plans, which will be similar to this
plan. They have changed the proportions of the building and changed
the opening configurations by lowering it based on a 30-foot height
restriction.
Mr. Lovell stated that at this time, the applicant has decided that they
were not developing landscaping plans until they got more tenant
information, because they want to work with each tenant's landscaper.
They have a master plan in the making, but until they know where the
tenants will be going, where the openings will be and what their
architecture looks like, they would be holding back from the landscaping
plans.
Commissioner Hansen stated that the rear of the building was a dismal
looking area and would be the point most people would experience if
they drove to the back for parking. She asked if they would be creating
something to make that area more appealing.
Mr. Lovell stated that the new construction proposed to the rear of Daily
Grill would include some kind of a center section and making
considerable improvements by adding wood shutters and using some
shading techniques. Their intention was not to glorify the back, that it
would still be used as a service entrance.
Commissioner Hanson stated that it didn't need to be glorified, however
it could look nicer than it currently does. One nice thing in the back of
the building was the grand entrance going upstairs. This at least
provides something for people to look at. Mr. Lovell stated that
enhancements would be made along the side streets, but with minimal
amount of changes.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min DOC Page 14 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22 2006
Commissioner Hanson pointed out a wall on the plans and stated that
certainly something could be done to make it more interesting than just
being a blank wall completely visible from all the buildings across the
way, with no landscaping provided.
Mr. Lovell indicated that there would be some landscaping; however Mr.
Knight, stated that there may not be landscaping because there wouldn't
be enough room.
Mr. Knight pointed out to the Commission that the plant elements that
are shown on the elevation were imperative to the design; but from a
success standpoint they are problematic. He didn't think there would be
enough room on the ground floor to maintain adequate pedestrian
movement and have planters. There are some inherent problems on El
Paseo, which the City has been trying to resolve. One of the significant
problems is that there isn't enough walk space. Mr. Lovell stated that if
the City wanted wider walkways and more planting you would have to
take space from the street. It would also work if six (6) parking spaces
were eliminated in front of the Polo Building.
Commissioner Gregory stated that if the landscape wouldn't be a part of
the solution, then more detail would be expected on the architecture.
Mr. Drell stated that the Polo Building already has detail around the
arches and the fact that there would be a vine or not probably wouldn't
make all that difference. Mr. Lovell stated that there are very minimal
distances between the tenants, and so it's currently storefront, awning
and signage and they don't see a lot of room for putting in-ground
landscaping there. They were trying to do it with signature pieces at the
Polo Building and across the street at the Gucci Building.
Mr. Knight asked if they would be relocating the palm trees. Mr. Fletcher
indicated that all the palm trees are aligned with neutral peirs and they
would be maintaining those. Mr. Knight indicated that he was not
opposed to the landscaping, and stated that it's not that it can't be done;
it would just need to be reviewed carefully.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations definitely needed some
work if the tenants wouldn't be making any changes to the rear. On
some of the architecture elements of the roof plan, the roof slopes need
to match the slopes shown on the completed plan so they don't look
"mansard like". If they got steeper they would look bad.
G:\Flanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 15 of 21
MINUTES 14W 4W
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Commissioner Vuksic stated his concern that while reviewing some of
the elements on the south building, which had some sort of deco
element with fluted columns going up, they appeared not to go very far
onto the roof. Any forms being created needed to go back far enough so
that it looks substantial and not like a false front. Mr. Lovell stated that it
goes back about 20 feet, but Commissioner Vuksic indicated that the
forms only go back about 4 feet and it just makes it to the main surface
of the building. He saw other forms around the entire building that
appear not to go back very far. When the applicant studies the blank
sides of the building, he needs to keep in mind that any forms created
need to carry back far enough to be of quality.
Mr. Lovell had a three dimensional study of the south building that he
presented to Commissioner Vuksic for his review of the center piece and
stated how it goes back quite substantially. They try to go back at least
1/2 or 2/3 of the width of the storefront.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the comments he was making was in
reaction to what he could see from the roof plan. All he was looking for
was that the quality was carried through and as long as that is the intent,
the applicant wouldn't have any problems.
Commissioner Hanson stated that it was amazing how much you could
see beyond the roofs when you are coming down Highway 74 or coming
up El Paseo; and recommended taking some photos so the applicant
could get an idea of how much is visible.
Mr. Lovell asked Commissioner Hanson to clarify her concerns about the
back and what enhancements they could make. Commissioner Hanson
stated that it should be something that shopper's don't have to feel like
they are walking up to a blank wall. Mr. Lovell stated that what is
currently proposed is a big improvement compared to what is there now,
where it's open and you see the service area. Commissioner Hanson
didn't agree and stated that something should be added that catches the
shopper's interest.
Commissioner Hanson discussed the valet parking that is currently
available on the Daily Grill side and recommended making an element of
the blank wall by putting a trellis over it so people could wait in the shade
for their cars. She then asked them to envision valet parking behind the
Polo building where it would be easier and safer for people to get in and
out, instead of the front; which would be a nightmare with the traffic.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 16 of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Commissioner Vuksic agreed with Mr. Lovell's comment regarding what
is currently proposed for the back and how it compares to what is there
now. However, the Commission has denied requests that look better
than what is currently at a specific location just because the Commission
knows once it's approved it's probably going to be that way for a long
time; and the Commission would rather wait than approve something
that is substandard.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to
grant a continuance in order for applicant to provide improvements to both rear
elevations. Motion carried 7-0.
7. CASE NO.: C 06-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH, 73-
061 El Paseo, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary
approval of remodel of exterior storefront.
LOCATION: 73-061 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to
grant a continuance to allow applicant to provide improvements to rear
elevations. Motion carried 7-0.
C. Miscellaneous Items
1. CASE NO: PP 03-10
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC.,
6503 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof access
ladders.
LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street
ZONE: OP
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822 min.DOC Page 17 Of 21
MINUTES �r
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Mr. Smith presented revised plans regarding the roof ladders that are still
visible from Cook and Hovley.
Clint Brown, Superintendent of Business Park of the Desert, stated that
they have to maintain access coming out of the common area electrical
room. He didn't know if the real issue was aesthetics or whether it was
the view from the road. They basically have one option, which would be
to move the one set of ladders to the interior of the building on the Cook
and Hovley side where the parapet pops out.
Commissioner Gregory asked where the Commission had left off on this
issue. Commissioner Lambell answered that the Commission had asked
the applicant to come up in the middle and create a "man-door" to go
onto the other parts of the roof.
Mr. Brown stated that there was a problem with the Commission's
recommendations and mentioned that the electrical code states that "a
disconnect has to be maintained by a common area". The common area
in these floor plans is the electrical room, so creating another common
area at this juncture wouldn't happen because the buildings are
essentially complete.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that when the Commission was reviewing
this a couple of weeks ago, they were trying to figure out where the roof
was in relation to the top of the parapet. It appeared as though the
applicant could punch a hole through the parapet to have a connection
from one roof area to another because they looked like a continuous roof
diaphragm.
Mr. Brown indicated that the plane of the roof is the same; however
you'd be basically looking into a big hole into the HVAC unit. He
proposed cutting the railings down about six (6) inches so they wouldn't
be protruding on top of the parapet, and then match them to the color of
the rock.
Commissioner Vuksic asked that when someone goes up the first
ladder, and gains access to the main roof area, was it a continuous roof
diaphragm to the well where the equipment is. Mr. Brown stated that it
was.
G Tianning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min.DOC Page 18 Of 21
MINUTES r.r
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22. 2006
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parapet above the roof diaphragm
appeared to be several feet and asked how tall it was. Mr. Brown
indicated that from the top of the parapet area it was 22 feet.
Mr. Brown stated that to create roof sheeting it would have to come up
about four (4) feet and they would have to touch the roof. By complying
with the Commission's suggestions there would be a minimum of 30
inches without a ladder. When you cross the parapet, you must have a
ladder for anything over 30 inches. The roof sheeting on the inside of
this large parapet slopes about four (4) feet up that wall.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that what would have to be done is to cut a
hole in the parapet.
Commissioner Gregory stated that was one solution. Another solution
that was mentioned earlier was relocating the ladders so they could not
be viewed from the public streets. If you take the first option, it would be
expensive and could be problematic and costly down the road, in
regards to leakage.
Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant to move a ladder to the
proposed location so the Commission can review it to see how visible it
is. Mr. Brown stated that ladders would be placed to the interior of the
project for Buildings A, B, C, G, H, I and J.
Commissioner Lopez indicated his concern with approving this based on
a verbal statement that it would be corrected, unless the Commission
can review the outside. Mr. Brown stated that if they moved the ladders
to the interior, the ladders would be seen from the inside of the project,
not the outside.
Commissioner Lambell stated that the applicant should submit a site
plan of the entire project indicating where the ladders are currently and
where they will be relocated.
Commissioner Gregory stated that the location of the ladders should
have been indicated on the drawings, and this type of problem could
have been avoided.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that on most plans that are reviewed by
the Commission, ladders are shown with their exact location; but in this
particular case they weren't shown.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060822.min,DOC Page 19 Of 21
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22. 2006
Commissioner Vuksic stated that if a decision were to be made today, he
wouldn't approve moving the ladders based on the photographs made
available to them, because he didn't know what vantage point these
were taken from.
Mr. Brown then suggested obtaining clarification if it would be legal to
stand the ladders up or lay them down. The Commission suggested that
he check with the Building Department at this time and return to the
meeting with that information.
Commission discussed other business and returned to this matter a few
minutes later.
Mr. Brown stated that they would be relocating the ladders to the interior
of the project where they would not be seen from either Cook or Hovley.
Commissioner Van Wet stated that he would approve the relocation of
the ladders if the Commission was given a guarantee that the ladders
would not seen from Cook or Hovley; in either direction.
Commissioner Gregory stated that even if the ladders were relocated to
the interior, they would probably still be a little visible. Mr. Brown stated
that there might be some point of visibility, however it would not be as
pronounced.
Commissioner Gregory made a motion to approve, subject to the
applicant relocating the ladders from the frontage along Cook and
Hovley towards the interior of the project to the greatest extent possible.
Commissioner Lambell seconded.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that since the Commission didn't know how
visible the ladders would be, he could not support the motion.
Commissioner Hanson suggested going out to the site to inspect where
the ladders will be relocated.
Mr. Brown asked the Commission that if he put mock ladders to the
interior, would one of the Commissioner's come out to the site to check
the visibility and then make their decision.
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Pile\ARC MinuteMR060822.min.DOC Page 20 of 21
R
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2006
Mr. Drell stated that this request would go to the next Council meeting
and if the Commission approved the ladders, after inspecting the
visibility, then the item would be pulled from the agenda.
Mr. Brown stated that they could not be held up on their finals. They
have ten (10) buildings and the center building is only about 60 percent
complete. He suggested holding the last building hostage, but release
nine (9) buildings in the meantime.
Mr. Drell indicated that the Commission could request a cash bond.
Commissioner Gregory indicated he would like to amend his motion. If it
is the general consensus that this would be approved, could we have a
representative from the Commission to go and inspect the site.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Lambell,
to grant approval, subject to applicant relocating the ladders away from the
frontage to the greatest extent possible and allow a representative from the
Commission to site check for visibility from public streets. Motion carried 7-0.
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. The
meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
EVE SMIT
PLANNING MANAGER
GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\AR060822min DOC Page 21 of 21