Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-14 . , � '�.r� �..-T--� CITY OF PALM DESERT �-� -- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 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 3 Kristi Hanson X 3 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Ray Lopez X 2 1 Karen Oppenheim X 3 Karel Lambell X 3 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: JANUARY 24, 2006 Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of January 24, 2006. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 . � '�r�►v ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 06-21 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS):JIM ENGLE, JR., IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Home Stone Mortgage. LOCATION: 74-130 Country Club Drive ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 05-149 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LA CASITA RESTAURANTS,411 E. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to amend sign program to allow previously installed business signage for La Casita Restaurant. LOCATION: 77-912 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 06-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):ALCARE CO., INC., 576 S. Williams Road, Palm Springs, CA 92264 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060214.MIN 2 . �rr' 'v�r�+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an Alumawood carport located 22' from the face of curb at a single- family residence. LOCATION: 74-873 Merle Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith commented that legal notices were sent out to the neighbors and asked if anyone in the audience was present to address the commission regarding the above proposal. None were present to speak on this issue. The applicant was present and commented that the carport is located at 20' from the curb. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHAD LUSE, 8145 Tamarisk Avenue, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a carport located 22'6" from the face of curb at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 77-090 New York Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the proposed carport looks nice and provides shaded cover. Mr. Smith commented that legal notices were sent out to the neighbors and asked if anyone in the audience was present to speak to the matter. No comments were made. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060214.MIN 3 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 AGENDA 5. CASE NO.: SA 06-31 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DENNIS STOUT, 504 E. Palmyra, Orange, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Wells Fargo Bank. LOCATION: 34-340 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Center ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed bank will be part of the Desert Gateway Center. The commission previously approved the elevations for Wells Fargo Bank. The applicant is proposing internally illuminated letters. The red background won't light up, but the letters will light up. They're proposing four signs. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the elevations don't look like the elevations are drawn to scale. Signs 1 & 3 show that they have letters that are 7.6" tall and the other sign shows letters that are almost 14" tall, but the elevations look like they're drawn the same size. Commissioner Vuksic commented that some of the drawings are dimensioned incorrectly. The first one is a 7" x 7" square so there's no way the letters are 7.6" tall. They're probably twice as big as shown on the drawings. Commissioner Gregory stated that they might have the numbers wrong, but the proportions still work. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested having letters that don't exceed 13.8" in height. The applicant agreed to this condition. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to confirmation by staff that the letters and proportions are correct with the letters being no more than 13.8" in height. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R060214.MIN 4 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 AGENDA 6. CASE NO.: SA 06-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC., GILLIAN CROSS, 1550 Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument sign and wall signs for Intertile. LOCATION: 74-824 42�d Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Stendell stated that he didn't see any problems with the monument sign or the smaller wall sign, however, the sign on the upper wall would look better if it were located on the far upper left corner of the building. Gillian Cross, representative for Best Signs, was present and stated that this would not be a problem. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to moving the wall sign to the far upper left corner of the building. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 7. CASE NO.: PP 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, Thomas W. Gilmer, 701 S. Parker, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for eleven office/industrial buildings. LOCATION: 73-800 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for final approval subject to approval of a landscape plan by the Landscape Manager. Building permits will not be issued until final G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060214.MIN 5 , , �' '�wr�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES approval of the landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 8. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE EVANS COMPANY, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for buildings 2A and 2B at The Village at University Park. LOCATION: 37-825 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for final approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations and color board for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are some items that need clarification, but the overall project looks great. He thanked Burt Tarayao, project architect, for providing the sections, which were useful. In section C, the glass in the customer lounge is shown flush to the exterior wall, but I don't think it is. Mr. Tarayao stated that the windows will be inset. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in section A in the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060214.MIN � . . �wr `�✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES customer lounge there's glass that's flush to the wall and asked the architect if he could bring the soffit out six more inches to get some reveal. Mr. Tarayao agreed to add a projection to add shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the south elevation has some wall space above the storefront glass that goes to the ground and it looks like it's flush with the glass. Mr. Tarayao stated that it's recessed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that section D doesn't show that recess. Commissioner Hanson suggested dropping the soffit. Commissioner Vuksic concurred and commented that it's important for the glass to line up. Don't leave a flat spot that would look like you intended to put glass there but the contractor forgot because that's what it looks like. Mr. Bagato showed the commission alternative exterior colors for their review. The drawing shows a steel color. The alternate is more of a warmer color in the brown range. Commissioner Lambell commented that she liked the warmer color better. Mr. Bagato asked the commission about the proposed signage. Jiffy Lube usually uses red lettering, but they're proposing a cherry cola color for the letters. Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic commented that the color looks very nice. Mr. Tarayao asked which color the commission would prefer. Commissioners Vuksic and Lambell commented that they like the warmer color. Mr. Smith stated that the architect has the ability to ask the commission to change the color when working drawings are submitted for final approval. Commissioner Hanson stated that it is a building that's related to automobiles, so the steel color might be appropriate. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval of architecture only, subject to changes discussed with the architect. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-13 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, 35- 850 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Comments on proposal of outdoor display of inerchandise. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060214.MIN � , . +r�,�+ `rrr✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES LOCATION: 35-850 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Smith stated that when the precise plan was approved a condition was added that stated that there would be no outdoor storage or merchandising. The City Council did approve three special events per year in the parking lot. The applicant would now like to do four areas around the building where they'll display merchandise. Starting at the south end adjacent to the Garden Center they want to do annual color and live plants. We don't see an issue with that as long as we preserve adequate pedestrian flow in this area. Along the front of the building there is a 12' wide loading zone, which is the full length of the building so we're giving them lots of room for pedestrian flow. They have 21' of sidewalk, so there's a lot of room for plant material. Just south of the main entrance to the building where they have an alcove that's 37" from the curb back to the building. There is a landscape planter in this area. They would like to put a hot dog cart here and also other merchandise that they sell in the store. The picnic tables would be available for the customers of the hot dog stand. It was suggested that this area be delineated with low fencing. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the type of inerchandise that would be displayed by the hot dog stand. Mr. Smith stated that they would like to put BBQ's in this area. Commissioner Hanson asked if they have space for that on the inside. Mr. Smith stated that their building is 153,000 square feet. The commissioners felt that displaying BBQ's outside would look tacky. Commissioner Hanson commented that she didn't feel that they need to display grills outside. The picnic tables and swing set are fine because they're usable. Commissioner Lambell stated that her concern with the Garden Center is something that she saw at another home improvement store on Monterey where they put temporary fencing around part of the parking lot and then put seasonal annuals in there with a cashier. Is that going to happen at Lowe's? Mr. Smith stated that this will not happen at Lowe's. In the lumbar yard area the applicant would like to have a few pallets of brick and block for customers to be able to pick up. Our idea is to put in a couple of wing walls sticking out approximately 42" and 6' in height so that we can contain the area where the building materials will be located. This would prevent the area from spreading. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it could be stacked high. Mr. Smith G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R060214.MIN g . . v�r "� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES stated that the fencing would be 6' high and that's the maximum height for the pallets. Mr. Smith stated that there's a driveway that goes east-west with a 30' landscape strip, which was just finished last week. They would like to put six storage sheds in this area for display. In talking with Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger, they don't have a problem with it as long as they amend the plan appropriately and re-design the landscaping and re-plant it. The commission agreed that the storage sheds don't belong outside because they have such a huge building that should be used to display their merchandise. Mr. Smith reminded the commission that this will be 450 feet from the street. The only people who are going to see it are the people who drive on their site to be their customers. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's going to look tacky and junky. Commissioner Hanson suggested that they add a wall in front of the storage sheds. Unless they make some effort to screen them from the parking lot view, they should put them inside. Action: The Architectural Review Commission commented as follows: (1) The commission questioned the need for outdoor barbeque display (2) Appropriate screening and containment is needed for the outdoor building material display area and outdoor storage shed display areas. 3. CASE NO.: PP 06-01, C/Z 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, 400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 268-unit condominium community and a 41,476 square foot neighborhood commercial center. The Vineyard LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra ZONE: PR-5 Ryan Ogulnick, applicant, was present to address the commission. New exhibits were distributed for the commission to review. Dennis Lee and Kim Daniel, project architects, were also present to answer questions. Mr. Lee was responsible for site planning and Ms. Daniel was working on the residential architecture. The third and fourth G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060214.MIN 9 . . �r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES architects who are not present worked on the commercial architecture. The project is mixed use with 268 condominiums and has 41,000 square feet of retail. On the residential, there are four building types ranging from two units to ten units. The spaces for the commercial range from 1,200 square feet to 8,000 square feet. Mr. Smith stated that there is a well site on the project which is owned by CVWD. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the applicant is just looking for direction on the commercial component. There isn't a lot to go by on the plans that have been presented. Mr. Ogulnick stated that he'd like feedback on the site plan. College Drive is the main entry for the residential portion. There's an ancillary entry on Frank Sinatra and there's a shared entry for both the residential and commercial on Cook Street. There's a second entry for the commercial on University Drive. Commissioner Hanson asked if the idea is by doing the commercial area, you'll create a place for your residents to eat. Mr. Ogulnick stated that it's an added amenity for the residential owners. There will be 450 residents so the commercial certainly can't survive with just the residents. When the college grows and the rest of the homes are built in this area, they will support the commercial aspect of the project. There will be two restaurant pads in the front of the commercial that are around 4,000 square feet each and then possibly a bank and a gym. The rest will be possibly dry cleaning, sandwich shops, etc... What would be most helpful is if the commission would look at the residential architecture and make comments. Commissioner Hanson stated that a lot of the photos that were put into the packets as examples show details of very high-end projects. I'm not seeing the translation into the proposed architecture. Mr. Ogulnick stated that it's really meant to isolate components, either eaves or rafter tails or garage doors or arches. It's not meant to represent the overall look. Commissioner Hanson strongly suggested that they isolate those individual components because I think it's very deceptive. I think you're going to get into trouble if you try and represent this as a photo of ideas of what you're doing, when it isn't. Be very careful with that. A photo of an architectural stone detail was shown to the applicant because it didn't wrap back into anything. The applicant was urged to fix this and wrap the stone around the element. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the arches on the residential elevations look very thin. It's almost like paper architecture where you're building a model and you add a little facade. There's no depth G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR060214.MIN 1� . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES to the arches. Commissioner Hanson stated that the issue is that when you have a situation with a door below, right now exactly above the door is where the arches align. In reality, it would come in and you always offset the arches and they never align exactly with an element below. Maybe you could make the arches bigger, but separate them into two so that everything isn't aligning so much. Mr. Lee stated that it would be difficult to make the arches bigger. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could use a flatter arch. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are a lot of options for things that you can do. It doesn't necessarily have to be an arch if you have issues with trying to figure out how to get the arches in. If they're wider there are ways to accomplish a very nice opening without having an arch. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he looks at the floor plans, I see a lot of 2 x 6 walls with glass on very visible faces of the building and I'm concerned about how flat it will look. You need to pick spots where you can make some really thick walls to get some nice shadow lines. Mr. Ogulnick asked how thick the sills should be. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on small windows you need to have a minimum of 6" back to the window and on a larger window, it needs to be anywhere from 12" to 24". Mr. Ogulnick asked Commissioner Vuksic for specific measurements for each size window and Commissioner Vuksic commented that it should be whatever looks right. Commissioner Hanson stated that the idea is to give it some depth because they have some large plaster surfaces and if you don't have the windows setback you're not going to get any shadow and they're going to come across very flat and that's what we're trying to prevent. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the same thing would apply to the garage doors. They're only inset 6" back from the face of the walls and those are big openings. Commissioner Hanson requested a full set of '/4 scale plans for herself and Commissioner Vuksic that they can mark up. Mr. Ogulnick stated that he can provide the most current set of plans for both the commissioners. Mr. Ogulnick asked for comments on the commercial portion of the project. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant why they chose to deviate from the architecture of the housing units. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted to know why the style of architecture between residential and commercial was so different. Mr. Ogulnick stated that they wanted it to look more like the university, which is more modern and contemporary. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to explain the wall system that they're proposing to use. Mr. Ogulnick stated that iYs an EFIS system and they're testing some different color schemes. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060214.MIN 11 , . �rr °�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that there are so many different colors and wondered if it was going to be painted and wondered how it was got to be accomplished. Mr. Lee stated that it will be stucco. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's going to be very difficult to get someone to do the work. I don't really like the candy-stripe elevation very much, but the idea with the browns is sort of interesting. We need to see the actual colors. The architecture is interesting. The idea behind the striping is fun, as long as it's not overdone because then it's going to lose its effectiveness and look crazy and also the colors matter. Having color copies isn't good enough. We really want to see the actual colors. Certain colors are going to wash out with the bright sunlight and you're going to lose the effectiveness. Form-wise, it's interesting but I'd like to see the revised floor plans to see how it all goes together. Mr. Ogulnick asked what the commission would like for their next meeting. Commissioner Hanson stated that they'll need floor plans, plot plans, roof plans and pictures that isolate details that show what's going to be used in the project. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he's looking at the mottled perspectives he sees some interesting forms and yet when I look at the elevations in the old submittal, they look completely different. The colors in the photographs look fabulous but you have to be careful that you're not overwhelmed with the colors. Commissioner Lambell commented that the details in the photographs weren't transferred to the elevations. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant has to isolate the details. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a more complete package including changes discussed at the meeting and (1) roof plans, (2) floor plans, and (3) isolate details and present pictures that actually represent the architectural elements being used in the project. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 06-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KIMBERLY S. DOZIER, 74-255 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060214.MIN 12 . , �rr✓ '`� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 4' high wood fence in the front yard 7' from the curb at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-255 Goleta Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this matter is before the commission for two issues. The applicant is requesting approval of a wood fence in a front yard and also because it would be located 7' from the curb. 7' from the curb would be on the property line, which is unusual but this is one of the few streets within the City where the right of way is only 7' from the curb, therefore, it's not an issue. What the commission is being asked to approve is the 4' high wood fence in a front yard of a single-family home. Kimberly Dozier, applicant, was present and stated that there was an existing fence in front of her home when she purchased it last summer. She trimmed the landscaping back to get rid of the dead branches and to get rid of the garbage that was under it. The plants will grow back and additional plants will be added after the fence is installed. Eventually, the fence will be screened with landscaping. The fence will match the style of the house. I was trying to make my front yard more useable. Approximately half of my property is in the front of my house. I wanted a safe area for dogs and children to play. Commissioner Hanson asked staff why we consider wood to be not an acceptable material. Would it be because it's a maintenance problem? Mr. Smith said that typically that's the main reason why wood is not an approved fencing material. Commissioner Hanson stated that everything is a maintenance problem if you don't take care of it. Mr. Smith stated that the ordinance provides that you can request an exception through the ARC process. Ms. Dozier commented that she didn't go blindly into this. I did do extensive research on the City's Building & Safety website, which I later learned was not the proper department. I extensively looked through the permit and fee schedules and found no reference to fences. I also had looked at other newly built fences in my neighborhood and nearby streets that are of wood. I don't know if these are people who did not get a permit or if they had been granted an exception. I chose wood partly because it was affordable and I was able to do it myself. I did not have the money to hire a contractor to put in a block wall. I'm a very G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060214.MIN 13 . . �r `'rrrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES proud homeowner and I will maintain the fence in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Hanson asked if the fence was going to be painted or left natural. Ms. Dozier stated that it's cedar and I would like to leave it natural. Much of it will eventually be screened by landscaping. I can add a product to maintain the wood fence. I don't want it to look worn and faded either and I don't intend to let it fall apart. Commissioner Hanson commented that a wood fence doesn't offend me. I realize that it's a maintenance issue. It appears that the applicant has done a very nice job in building it and it looks professionally done. I don't have a problem with it. Commissioner Vuksic asked what direction the fence faces. Ms. Dozier stated that it's facing north. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if the part of the fence that people see is the north elevation, it will be the side that gets the least amount of sun exposure. Commissioner Lambell stated that water stains wood fencing. It will get sprinkler marks on it. Ms. Dozier stated that her sprinklers point away from the fence. Commissioner Lambell stated that the wood fence doesn't offend her. It's wood and goes atl the way across. It's not trying to be something different. Commissioner Gregory commented that the driveway gate looks just like the fence so it all matches and creates an entry to the home. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was worried about the proposal because there are a lot of really bad-looking fences around. I will vote to approve it but I hope that we're not setting a precedent. Commissioner Gregory stated that we'll likely face future residents wanting to put up wood fences and may show this one as precedent. Is there something of a unique quality to this particular fence which makes it something that would be appropriate? The items that make this particular fence appropriate are the following: the fence it matches the house, the applicant is planning to plant in front of it so as little of the fence would be seen, it's well shaded, it's facing north, it's low, the sprinklers don't hit it and the wood will be treated with a preservative. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to sealing wood with an appropriate preservative. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R060214.MIN 14 . . �,r wirir� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTH BEACH RESTAURANT AND NIGHT CLUB, 72-191 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of extension of exterior wall from 6' to 14' in height using a sound barrier system. LOCATION: 72-191 Highway 111 ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is to extend the existing wall around the west end of the property from 6' in height to 14' in height with a glass block sound barrier system, which they're hoping would mitigate some of the noise problems that have been occurring. The commission's consideration is the aesthetic value of the wall. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's an inappropriate use for the entrance to the City from Rancho Mirage. The proposed wall would be "in your face" and is only going to make this corner look worse than it looks right now. I appreciate the fact that they have a sound issue, but this is not the appropriate way to solve it. It looks horrible. Mr. Smith commented that the applicant was not present. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was any water in the area of the patio. Commissioner Hanson stated that they have a pond in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there isn't much noise from the pond and they're trying to overcome more than just a little subtle sound. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the glass block wall would probably glow and sparkle. Commissioner Gregory stated that he appreciates the effort by the applicant because iYs a sincere way to try to mitigate the problem, but it really looks tacky. If they could use some type of foliage it might give them more of a sense of privacy and then use some type of massive water feature inside to cover the sound. Mr. Smith stated that the sound problem is the noise coming from the patio and traveling to the residential neighborhood in Rancho Mirage several hundred feet to the west. The goal was to create a sound barrier. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR060214.MIN i s , . �r '��rwr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson recommended that the applicant hire an acoustical engineer who could give them appropriate ways to handle this issue, as opposed to them trying to figure it out themselves. The commission suggested that the applicant turn the music down. Martin Alvarez, Management Analyst for the City of Palm Desert, was present at the end of the meeting to address the commission regarding the above proposal. Mr. Alvarez commented that this is an issue that's affecting residents across the street. South Beach has become a hot spot and is open until 2:00 a.m. The patio is packed and as the ambient noise drops in the evenings when traffic dies down, the noise from the patio funnels across Highway 111 and down Park View. The applicant has approached the City with this solution. Commissioner Hanson asked how they came up with this solution. Mr. Alvarez stated that someone recommended it to them. An acoustical engineer has looked at their interior sound issue, which originally was their main problem. Their bass was traveling down the streets. They've made some adjustments so now it's crowd noise from the patio. It gets crowded and they have to keep it open for smokers. We have temporarily shut the patio down until they can find some type of mitigation to solve this. The product is a sound-absorbing material. It's non-reflective. It's been used throughout California and in Las Vegas for sound mitigation purposes. It looks like glass block. This is something that the City is trying to resolve without having to go to the courts. The commission was asked for suggestions if this idea doesn't work for this site. Commissioner Hanson stated that the bottom line is that it's the first thing you see as you come into Palm Desert. It's gaudy and it doesn't belong there. You're taking a situation that doesn't look good to begin with and making it worse. Mr. Smith asked if we have anything from an acoustical engineer saying that this will solve the problem? Mr. Alvarez stated that they don't have anything from an acoustical engineer. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are lots of options available to � people for acoustical problems that can be much more beautiful looking than this. This is just something that they heard about and they thought they would try it. If they want to do it, they need to find some way to do it that's aesthetically pleasing as well. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there's no guarantee that it would work. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that they're right up against the mountains so you're going to get a lot of reverberated noise that the proposed wall isn't going to solve. Mr. Alvarez stated that they also have the storm channel near Park View that carries sound. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060214.MIN 16 , . �� "wr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell asked if the glass block material would go all the way around the wall. Mr. Alvarez stated that it's only proposed to be installed at the corner and about 40' stepping down on each side. Commissioner Lambell stated that it's going to look even worse because it's going to leave some of the low plastered wall without the block on top of it. Mr. Alvarez stated that this is a self-supporting structure, which would be right behind the plaster wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they hired an acoustical engineer who knew what they were doing, they would be much better served. They'll have more of a guarantee that it might actually work. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the City was going to help get an engineer. Mr. Alvarez stated that we're not creating this situation so obviously�ve're not responsible for it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if the City wants them to succeed we could help them solve the problem. Otherwise, they could close their doors and go someplace else. Commissioner Vuksic asked how much space is in the patio area. Mr. Alvarez stated that the patio is huge and they have a pond within 5' of the wall and then it drops down about 10'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's already a really tall wall from the inside. Now I really wonder how much difference that would make if they added the glass block. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that the noise hits that mountain and bounces right back. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that that's something that a sound engineer could tell us. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for denial because it was felt that the wall modification would be inappropriate at the entrance to the City. It was suggested that the applicant hire an acoustical engineer to develop a sound mitigation plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�AR060214.MIN 1�