Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-09 � '� , � ����-� CITY OF PALM DESERT `- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES MAY 9, 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 8 1 Kristi Hanson X 9 Chris Van Vliet X 8 1 John Vuksic X 9 Ray Lopez X 8 1 Karen Oppenheim X 9 Karel Lambel X 8 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development 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 25, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: C 05-04 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101-5226 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of revised elevations for two retail buildings (Parcels 15 and Parcel 17) at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-380, 34-460 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that Parcel 15 had been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission previously with no changes. The plans before the commission today reflect the original approval. However, Parcel 17 has changed dramatically and the plans are before the commission for their review. Mr. Drell stated that from a procedural point of view, while a 34' tower was in line with all the other towers in the area, we weren't taking those sort of buildings to the City Council, however, this is a 41' tower so this would probably have to be taken to the Council for their approval. Mr. Bagato stated that the maximum height is 35'. Mr. Drell stated that this tower would require a height exception. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the height of the tower was studied or was it really just done to make it as tall as possible. The architect was not present. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the tower element looks stretched. Commissioner Hanson suggested modifying the middle section of the building and dropping the arches slightly so that the tower could shrink a little bit. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he generally doesn't look at height, as long as it looks good it doesn't matter how high it is. In this case, it looks like it's been stretched to be as tall as possible without really G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060509.MIN 2 '�r�r �rr+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES looking at the proportions. Also, the tower is so articulated and detailed and the other part of the building is so plain. This bothers me. It's a nice looking building, but the designer needs to look at it again to carry the details on the tower to the rest of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the designer should not come back with a minimal attempt to add a little bit of detail to the rest of the building because you're going to risk turning this into a "grind", which will result in coming back to the commission a few times. Obviously, the designer knows what to do judging by the tower, but he needs to do what he knows needs to be done. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval of Parcel 15. Motion carried 7-0. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue Parcel 17 to allow the applicant to (1) lower the tower so that it does not exceed maximum height and, (2) some detailing be added to the rest of the building and designed in to make it tie into the detailing on the tower. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: C 05-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4'" Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101-5226 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for a new Bank of America building at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-420 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060509.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 06-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RHL DESIGN GROUP, MAGGIE McLAUGHLIN, 2401 E. Katella Avenue, #400, Anaheim, CA 92806 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Chevron. LOCATION: 72-801 Highway 111 ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is proposing an LED band on the canopy. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that details are not shown on the plans. Jim Forgy, representative for RHL Design Group, was present and stated that Chevron is doing a re-imaging campaign and signage is a big part of it. They're still going to use the Chevron logo but they want to use a different text. In addition to that, they are proposing an LED light at the top of the brow of the canopy and then on the shorter sides, the LED light will be located on the bottom of the brow. A photograph was shown to the commission. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was going to be exposed or covered by a canopy. Mr. Forgy stated that the light will be covered by a hood. It will look like a stripe. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his concern was that he didn't want to see the light source. Commissioner Vuksic asked how he was achieving the offset. Mr. Forgy stated that it would have a metal hood. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the method of coloring the canopy blue and wanted to know if it was going to be painted. Mr. Forgy stated that they're going to use new material and showed the commission a sample. Commissioner Gregory asked if the commission thought that the pearl white that's being proposed would be blinding in the desert sun. Mr. Forgy stated that the white would be on the ends of the canopy. Mr. Drell stated that the colors don't go with the existing building, which is all earth tones. I'm amazed that they're even wasting a nickel on this. The only people who are going to notice this change is us. Mr. Forgy stated that if a person is looking for a Chevron station, they tend to notice the blue color from a distance and they want to identify their G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060509.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES fuel by the canopy. The spandrels that go underneath the canopy and over the dispensers are going to be reduced in size so that it just goes over the dispensers. Mr. Drell stated that he likes them the way are now because they look balanced. Mr. Forgy stated that the columns will be refinished to match what they are now. They're trying to make it a little more streamlined. Commissioner Gregory stated that he thought it was great that they want to put up another canopy. My major concern is that the very reason that they want the blue is the reason I don't want it. When you have a nice floating canopy and if it's off-white it floats better and doesn't catch ones eye quite as much. I don't have a problem with a new canopy, I just have a problem with the blue color. I'm also concerned that the pearl white might be too white, in which case it's a blinding white. Commissioner Hanson suggested that instead of doing a blue canopy all the way across, do it to a point and then it stops and becomes something else so that if you're driving up Highway 111, you're going to see the Chevron blue but it doesn't have to run all the way across. This could be repeated on the other side. It might be a nice compromise. I understand your point about the blue, but this is a lot of blue. Mr. Forgy stated that the blue color works well with the LED light. If you use white, you're not going to see the LED lighting. Commissioner Hanson stated that he could still use the LED lighting, but maybe at some point the blue changes to something else that matches the building. Commissioner Gregory commented that the problem is that the color blue is so alien to the existing building. Commissioner Lambell asked how the canopy ties into the existing mini market structure that's there, color-wise. Mr. Forgy stated that he doesn't see it blending into it right now. Commissioner Lambell agreed with Commissioner Hanson's idea of leaving a portion of the canopy blue and then the rest of it being some sort of a color that ties into the existing building and the rest of the buildings that are within eye-shot of this canopy. This blue is coming from nowhere. The monument sign is not a problem, but the big blue stripe that goes all the way around thaYs going to glow-in-the-dark is coming from absolutely no building that's within a hundred miles of it. Is it possible that just part of the Chevron sign be blue and the canopy becomes another color? Mr. Forgy stated that he'll have to speak to the Chevron representatives. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R060509.MIN 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Forgy commented that studies have been done on the color blue which prove that within six seconds, customers have to make their decision to turn into the driveway. Because of that, they want to use blue for identification purposes so they can quickly visualize that and then go in the right driveway to get to a pump. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission is saying that they're willing to give him the blue, but maybe just not all blue. My point is that if you have the blue in the proper location where people are driving by on the street, they're going to see it. They're going to know what it is and make the decision to turn into the driveway or not. However, having the whole canopy blue is not going to influence their decision in four seconds versus six seconds. Mr. Forgy stated that he could bring this idea back to the Chevron representatives and see if they'll approve it. Commissioner Hanson suggested trying to tie the existing building in a little bit more. The pearl white is too white. It's going to be blinding white. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the east and west elevations of the canopy would have an LED light as well. Mr. Forgy stated that it will have an LED light at the bottom of the canopy. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commission Lambell for approval with (1) revision to canopy being made to reduce the amount of blue on the north and south elevations to match the blue on the east and west elevations with the blue increasing only to envelope the Chevron signage, (2) use a warmer white or an earthy color in keeping with the colors of the existing gas station building. The above conditions to be approved by staff. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 06-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STEVE GORDON, 73-385 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of elevations for an exterior remodel and clarification of colors/materials in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-730 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060509.MIN 6 � �'` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � ' MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Bagato displayed the revised plans for the commission to review. Mr. Stendell stated that there was some confusion as to what was actually previously approved. Mr. Drell stated that certain issues were discussed, but when the motion was made it was unclear which issues of discussion would be incorporated in the motion. Mr. Stendell stated that three things had been discussed. The possibility of eliminating the recessed signage areas, returning the parapets all the way around, and creating guidelines for the tenants for exterior tenant improvements. These conditions were never incorporated into the original motion. The applicant has indicated that he's wrapped the parapets all the way around. The exterior colors were left up to the designer to choose. Mr. Steve Gordon, applicant, was present and stated that he was fine with whatever colors were picked, however, creating guidelines for his tenants was not an option. I like the detail above the awning and don't want to change it. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to extending parapet on the west side 35'. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. 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 revised elevations for 198 condominium units. The Campus LOCATION: Intersection of College Drive and University Park Drive ZONE: PR Mr. Drell stated that he reviewed the revised elevations and commented that he's been looking at these sort of projects that are existing and they all look dismal from the perimeter. On one-story buildings, we really didn't worry so much about the rear yards since all you saw was the roof. Now we're seeing taller buildings. On any buildings that face a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060509.MIN � �`� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION , , � • MAY 9, 2006 MINUTES public street, any details that are on the front should be repeated on the back. Commissioner Hanson concurred and commented that all these projects keep coming in with 2 x 4 walls, which we can't figure out how they get approved. We keep asking the applicants to inset their windows so they're coming in with 2 x 2's so basically they'll have no insulation around the windows. Mr. Drell stated that this should be part of Pat Conlon's energy ordinance. Commissioner Hanson commented that she didn't feel that anything should be built without a 2 x 6 wall. Revised elevations were distributed by the architect for the commission to review. The rear elevations had been revised, as the commission had requested. Stone was added to the rear of the Tuscan elevation. The Italian elevation had color blocking detail added to the rear elevation. The Spanish-style building had shutters, pot shelves and wrought iron railing details added. The commission made a strong suggestion that the applicant use 2 x 6 walls with inset windows. Mr. Drell stated that the easiest way to justify it would be part of the City's new energy initiative which will be an enhanced Title 24 requirements. We're trying to go 10°/o-15% above the Title 24 requirements for new construction. On the list from Pat Conlon, I don't remember him mentioning 2 x 6 walls. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the new initiative has not been approved so the applicant is in compliance. Mr. Drell stated that in terms of this body, the aesthetics are what should be considered. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of (1) revised rear elevations that the applicant presented, (2) the new color palette, and (3) rafter tails to be increased to 4 x 6 minimum. A strong suggestion was made by the commission that the applicant consider using 2 x 6 walls with inset windows. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:19 p.m. TONY BAGATO for STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060509.MIN g