Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-14 , CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. It. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 18 2 Kristi Hanson X 18 2 Chris Van Vliet X 18 2 John Vuksic X 20 Ray Lopez X 17 3 Karen Oppenheim X 20 Karel Lambell X 19 1 Also Present Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 24, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet noted changes to the minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the October 24, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 7-0. r ARCHITECTURAL RE IEW COMMISSION *400 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 Mr. Stendell noted a correction to the minutes of October 10, 2006 for Case No. PP 06-12. Minutes should read "granted preliminary approval subject to Commission's review of entryway details prior to working drawings returning." Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the October 10, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-41 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM GOMEZ, 74-716 Gary Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a carport 20 feet from curb. LOCATION: 74-716 Gary Avenue ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Stendell presented photos of the applicant's property and the proposed site of the carport. The carport would be textured stucco and the colors would match the existing house. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the proposed structure didn't match the architecture of the house and questioned the open- webbed framing. Commissioner Hanson stated that it appeared to have a lot of wood framing around the windows. Commissioner Lambell stated that there was a lot of horizontals and suggested a flat design. Commissioner Hanson after reviewing the photos stated that it wasn't that dissimilar from the house. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't like the exposed truss look and didn't know how that tied in. Commissioner Lambell stated again that there were a lot of horizontals with the fascia, the window frames, a little GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 2 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RI MEW COMMISSION 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 pitch and the fascia on the other house. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant wanted the pitch, but wanted to leave his options open. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would look like an add-on because it wouldn't bear that much resemblance to the house. The Commission felt that it would. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that if you looked at the house from the right side, you would see that mild pitched roof.. They could emulate that, but from the frontage it would look like an add-on with the exposed beams. He asked if this applicant were allowed to go with a flat roof, commensurate with the front elevation of the house, would that be ok. Commissioner Van Wet stated that it would look worse. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was possible to come up with anything with respect to a carport structure that might look like it belongs there. Commissioner Vuksic suggested repeating the sort of detailing that is on the house; a pitched roof that has a gabled end on it that matches the gabling on the house. He stated that the carport needed to be detailed well if it was going to have all this open structure. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue to allow the applicant to either match the detailing on the house to the ends of the roofs or provide more detailed drawings. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 06-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STEVER RAPP, 45-876 Abronia Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a six (6) foot high precision block wall 12 feet in back of curb. LOCATION: 45-876 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Mr. Stendell stated that this wall is being requested to provide privacy and security. The initial request was a six (6) foot high wall GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 3 of 23 Wme ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 10 feet from the curb. The house has a lot of windows and located on the corner, so the applicant is trying to gain some privacy from people coming down Fairway and Abronia. He is using a modern architectural block look with desert landscaping. Mr. Stendell stated that he informed the applicant that if exceptions have been approved, the best case has been five (5) feet high and 12 feet from the curb. Commissioner Van Wet asked what the ordinance was for block walls. Mr. Stendell stated that it was five (5) feet high, 15 feet from curb, and six (6) feet high, 20 feet from curb. Commissioner Vuksic asked how much higher the house was from the curb. Mr. Stendell stated that if you are turning down off of Fairway on to Abronia you are heading north and heading slightly down, but it is pretty flat. Commissioner Van Wet asked Mr. Rapp, the applicant if the wall would have a deep rake joint on the block. The applicant responded that it would have scoring and would be 16 by eight (8) block, so it would read eight (8) by eight (8) deep. Mr. Rapp stated that the main reason he was requesting a wall at six (6) feet is for privacy and security because they have had a few attempted break-ins. Commissioner Hanson stated that her concern was with the neighbor's driveway and if they had to back out, they wouldn't be able to see around the wall. She asked the applicant if he could step that in about four (4) feet to create more of a visual. Mr. Rapp responded that he and his neighbor reviewed the distance of 10 to 12 feet where they would be backing out and the neighbor indicated that distance would be fine. He stated that eventually there would be a pool back there in that corner and they were attempting to keep a square corner. Commissioner Van Vliet made a motion to approve the wall at five (5) feet high with a 12-foot offset. Commissioner Hanson seconded the motion. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any further discussion. Further discussion ensued and Commissioner Van Vliet withdrew his motion. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Ward FilesWRC MinutesWR061114.min.DOC Page 4 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RLEW COMMISSION "MINUTES November 14, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic asked why the wall couldn't be 15 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would take three (3) feet out of the applicant's backyard and assumed that he was trying to get more space. Commissioner Hanson noted that there was a large Mesquite tree near the wall and stated that she liked the notch in the wall by the tree. Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Specialist asked how far the Mesquite tree would be from the wall. The applicant responded that it would be about four (4) to five (5) feet. Ms. Hollinger stated to the applicant that he would be trenching through tree roots. Commission discussed concerns with the Mesquite tree. Commissioner Gregory stated that since the notch was something that is appreciated by the group, he suggested making the notch just a touch more substantial and pull it back a bit. Mr. Drell suggested using wrought iron or a different material that wouldn't need continuous footing. Commissioner Hanson asked how far the wall should be from the tree. Mr. Drell felt it that it should be around 10 to 12 feet, which would be ridiculous. So the better solution would be to use a fence design in that area that wouldn't require continuous footing. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant has the option to pull the wall back a bit to avoid annihilation of the roots or put in steel fencing with no footing impact on the two short legs of the wall. Mr. Stendall asked the applicant if he would be willing to go back 15 feet to get the six-foot wall approved. The applicant stated that he had a concern with the lot size and a problem with the setback. At that setback it wouldn't be part of the house and he would be losing square footage. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if five (5) feet would be acceptable. The applicant stated that at five (5) feet you could clearly see over the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the setback would be if they approved the wall at six (6) feet. Commissioner Vuksic felt that since it is a relatively short wall and not taking up his whole side GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 5 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE EW COMMISSION *00e 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 yard, 15 feet from the curb for a six-foot wall would be fine. Mr. Drell stated that the wall would not completely enclose the applicant's entire yard and that it would be nice material with nice landscaping. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the block wall subject to: 1) either a wall at five (5) feet high and 12 feet from curb or six (6) feet high and 15 feet from curb; and, 2) substitute the two shortest legs with steel iron rails with the remaining 13 feet being block. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: MISC 06-43 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT NEXTEL, 210 Commerce #100, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility on the rooftop of the Palm Desert Marriot main building. LOCATION: 74-855 Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-4 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO: C 06-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH, 73-061 El Paseo, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of awnings and fagade design for Polo Ralph Lauren retail store. LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo Suite 3 & 4 ZONE: C-1 GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 6 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL R&EW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO: PP 05-08/CUP 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELGADO/RODRIQUEZ, 73-703 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of final working drawings for Casuelas Cafe. LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case PP 05-08/CUP 05-03. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO: SA 06-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAURA HILLIER, WPIIDC, INC., 1000 Lakes Drive, Suite 405, West Covina, CA 91790. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signage for Sam's Club Gas Station LOCATION: 34-220 Monterey ZONE: PC Mr. Urbina stated that this would be a monument sign located on Dinah Shore drive. The height of the sign varies from 11 feet six (6) inches to eight (8) feet three (3). Ms. Kerrylynn Schnakenburg, Representative for WPIIDC, stated that the materials being incorporated into the sign were meant to articulate the same style as the other buildings. Commission discussed concerns with the existing landscape treatment. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if they should just be looking at the sign and not the landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 7 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 monument signs do require addressing landscaping treatments. Commissioner Lambell stated that they could condition the approval of the sign with additional landscaping. Commissioner Lambell stated that she had an issue with the three (3) confusing signs and asked if they could cut them down. Steve Frank, Architect stated that according to California State Weights and Measures there are certain guidelines that they have to follow and we have to list the three (3) tiered pricing for members and non-members shopping at these stores. Commissioner Gregory asked if the sign was feasible as far as providing information for someone driving through the intersection. Ms. Schnakenburg stated that with the slope of that area that concern was taken into consideration with the design of the sign. She indicated that people would be able to see the sign. Commissioner Gregory had an issue with the location of the sign. The sign looks like one more boulder in one of the least successful landscapes he has seen and it was very unattractive. Ms. Schnakenburg stated that the other issue they were dealing with at that location was a 30-foot Southern California Edison utility easement that runs along Dinah Shore. Mr. Frank indicated that they couldn't encroach into that easement, which means you couldn't come any closer. He stated that people that need gas would see the sign as it would be an eye catcher. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the signage was approved could the Commission require that landscaping be completed in the vicinity of the sign. Mr. Drell stated that the requirement for monument signs includes landscaping, and the Commission could require enhanced landscaping eight (8) to 10 feet around the monument sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the Commission could approve the sign and the landscaping be worked out by Staff. Commissioner Lambell stated to Mr. Frank and Ms. Schankenburg to work in tandem with the landscape architect to submit a revised landscape plan for that corner. . Mr. Frank stated that it would be the responsibility of the licensed architect who did the landscape architecture plan to amend what was already approved and provide additional plant materials to the satisfaction of the Staff. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 8 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 Commissioner Lambell stated to the representatives that it becomes incumbent upon them to work with the licensed landscape architect and inform him that in order to get the sign approved he would have to beef up that corner. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the sign could be approved contingent upon proper landscaping being approved by Staff. Mr. Drell stated that this would provide the motivation for the original project developer to refocus on the landscape. The Commission suggested continuing this item. Mr. Frank stated that Walmart/Sam's Club would like to have the station built in about 10 weeks and they cannot pump gas without a price sign out there according to state law. We would like to craft something that would say that the sign would be approved upon the satisfaction of staff accepting amendments for improvements of the landscape material. Ms. Schankenburg asked if this is what was approved on the original landscape plans. Mr. Drell stated that a lot that was planted has been eaten. Within days of the installation, probably a third of the plant material was gone. Ms. Schankenburg asked if the original material would be re-introduced to support the sign, would that be the solution. Mr. Drell stated that it would be eaten again and pointed out that the original landscape plan did not anticipate a monument sign. The plan would have been different if it were to have a monument sign. The concept of the sign could be approved so it could be fabricated. In the meantime, it could not be installed until a landscaping plan is approved. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, granted approval of the signage design with the condition that a construction permit cannot be pulled until a new landscaping plan is submitted and approved by staff. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO: SA 06-137 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO. INC., 48- 120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of one (1) wall sign for Steve & Barry's Sportswear. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Ward FilesWRC MinutesVAR061114.min.DOC Page 9 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 'MINUTES LOCATION: 72-800 Hwy 111 ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO: SA 06-167 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CODA GALLERY, 73-151 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of two (2) new awnings with backlit signage facing El Paseo and install one (1) new awning facing parking lot in rear without signage. LOCATION: 73-151 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO: SA 06-168 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRIAN PROCK, 3150 e. La Palma #A, Anaheim, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of master building signage; University Commerce Center. LOCATION: 75-400, 75-410, 75-430, 75-450 Gerald Ford ZONE: PC (2) FCOZ Mr. Bagato asked the applicant if there was a potential for signage above each roll up door. Mr. Prock stated that one person would lease three (3) to four (4) units and rear signage would be allotted to one (1) square foot of signage area per lineal foot of pedestrian GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.m1n.D0C Page 10 of 23 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIrEW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 MINUTES entry building frontage. Some lessees won't have the ability to put signs in the rear. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: C 06-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT HOSPITALITY, LLC, P.O. Box 2186, Monroe, LA 71207 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of design review for building exterior for Hilton Homewood Hotel LOCATION: 36-999 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ Mr. Bagato stated that the hotel site project had originally been approved and has been through Planning Commission and City Council. At this time, it is being submitted for architecture review. Mr. Drell pointed out that on the prospectus the raised element that has a break with material, looked odd. Commissioner Hanson stated that the plans needed to be bold to make a statement. She suggested detail above the windows and to create some awning details. Mr. Drell stated that the caps were not working. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is in a sensitive location because right across the street you have some fairly nice architecture so you are up against something that is more demanding because of the site location. Mr. Jim Browning, Architect stated that those buildings are quite a bit taller than 44 feet. Mr. Drell asked if they were talking about the college buildings and reminded the Commission that the architecture for that commercial site across the street was pretty dynamite on the south side. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Ward FilesWRC MinutesWRM I14.min.DOC Page 11 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE EW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if needed some warmth provided by additional detailing such as the type of window treatments or some covering. Mr. Browning referred to the elevation and stated that a lot of the windows are punched back eight (8) to 10 inches back creating quite a bit of recess. He indicated that they couldn't see the floor plan that they were locked into with the repetition of a hotel, so they had to arrange it the best they could to get some interest. Commissioner Hanson stated that there were a lot of things that could be done and felt that it wasn't as exciting as it could be. The challenge is taking something that is very orderly and simple in plan and translating it into not just deep recesses on the windows all the way up, but a transition from higher to lower. Commissioner Lambell stated that the Commission likes texture and there is a lot of texture with your stone but other than that the only other thing that changes is the paint color. There is an awful lot of flat one dimensionals, with the exception of the color change. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Browning if they could they make the architecture bolder so that there would be more of a statement. Mr. Browning stated that request was so open- ended. Mr. Drell stated that this building is part of another project and we couldn't evaluate it unless we see it in the context of the other buildings that would be around it. He mentioned to Mr. Browning to start looking at some of the architecture style of the other buildings, which are a little more dynamic than this one. Commissioner Hanson stated there needed to be elements that were dynamic, to make it a living thing. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that whether it is bolder, warmer or has elements that have more character, we are not saying what to do we are just saying it has to be more interesting. Mr. Drell informed Mr. Browning that if it needs more height variations this Commission would support that. He then asked how high the building was. Mr. Browning stated that 44 feet was the height limit, but there were elements that ranged from 36 to 44 feet; there were some parapet walls that were approaching 10 feet tall above the roof on this building. Mr. Drell asked if that was to screen the equipment. Mr. Browning stated that the equipment was not on the roof. Mr. Drell asked why they had 10 feet parapets. Mr. Browning responded to give it some interest. The Commission stated that there was no interest. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes%R061114.min.DOC Page 12 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that everything was linear; when you are doing something that tall it doesn't give you any difference and asked them to drop them down. Mr. Browning stated that the building was right at the end of the boulevard that comes from the lower part of the development, so when you look up the road you would see the entrance to the hotel. He indicated that they were trying to make a statement with the signage, stone, and the porte-cochere. Mr. Drell stated that those things are not making a statement. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the porte-cochere was especially disappointing and needed to be more dynamic. Mr. Drell stated that if you have the opportunity to create greater vertical differences then do it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how they handled the HVAC. Mr. Browning indicated that they were all internal. All of the rooms would be cooled individually with A/C units and the grills would be on the returns, so none of the grills face the street. You would see them at a certain angle, but they would not be on the face of any wall since they are located on the side walls. All the public space units are internal and all the condensing units are in the courtyard area so you wouldn't see those from the street either. There are two units on the roof that supply fresh air and screened by the parapet walls. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if this item could be continued and have it come back to see if they could work with staff for direction and step it up a notch. Commissioner Lambell asked Mr. Browning if the Commission gave enough guidance and direction. Mr. Browning stated that he was totally confused. Mr. Browning said this was the sixth generation of this design to try and refine it down so that it would blend in with the development. Commissioner Hanson indicated that she reviewed those drawings and stated that they were completely different. Mr. Browning informed her that they were not different. Ray Evans, Architect stated that they have attempted to integrate the color and design as much as they could in the entire project; for the office, retail and hotel project. They have integrated certain materials into each of the buildings and stated that the buildings were not as dynamic as other buildings in the city, but they have intentionally toned down the dynamics of the buildings to a certain degree so that it would show up as a comfortable version on the hill with continuity. He stated that if what the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 13 of 23 . �r "err►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 Commission was asking the hotel to do were to change the design dramatically, it would not fit on this site. Commissioner Hanson stated that she is not asking that they change it dramatically, but she has been by those buildings on a regular basis and there are very dynamic elements that are going on those buildings and felt that those elements were not visible on this building. She stated that they needed interesting elements with more ups and downs. There are elements that you could add to this building that would make it interesting, and right now it is very average. Mr. Drell stated that it has to be the most visible building in the project. Mr. Browning stated that it was a very large building and it was very hard to make a large building, as low and flat as this building is, really dynamic. This building is by far the largest building in the development and we intentionally tired to get this horizontal look so that we could make this building look more compact than it really is. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Commission recently reviewed some buildings, which was another potential time-share that was much longer and they did elements that reinforced the horizontal aspect. So it is possible to do that, it just depends on how creative you want to be. Commissioner Gregory asked if having the opportunity to work with more height would be possible. Commissioner Hanson said absolutely. Mr. Browning indicated that originally this would have been a four (4) story building if it would have been allowed and it would have taken a lot less foot-print on the site. Mr. Drell stated that one suggestion was to create more horizontals, and right now there are virtually no good continuous horizontals. The main vertical changes were the little cap things that don't work, but they could work with something else that would unify the building. Mr. Browning stated that the caps where not small. Mr. Drell stated that in scale to the other masses they were puny. Mr. Drell referred them to the conceptual design and suggested to start off with showing the building in context to the project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to continue Case C 06-12 to allow the applicant to show the building in the context of the surrounding buildings; with attention to the porte-cochere, bump-outs, roof elements, height of parapet walls, and GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 14 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 overall detail and submit for staff review. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent and Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 2. CASE NO: C 06-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RJ VENTURES, LLC., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of construction for a new bank building; Citibank. LOCATION: 34-140 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that originally this was a restaurant pad that didn't work out, so they were coming in with a bank and a drive- around. Mr. Drell asked if there was a site plan and stated that Staff was promised a real site plan with landscaping. Mr. Bagato stated that it had not been received. Commissioner Gregory stated that with something that was relatively simple like this project, he looks for details that make it work and referred to an arched area. He asked if these arches would be painted a darker color with a little the and reveals. He asked if the columns and arches would be at a 90-degree angle. Jose Alvarez, Project Manager, responded that was correct with an adjunct above. Commissioner Gregory asked if the edges were rounded and if there was any detail. Mr. Alvarez stated that it would be square edge consistent with the other architecture. Commissioner Gregory asked what kind of plaster they would be using. Mr. Alvarez stated that it would be a dash finish that would match the existing plaster. Commissioner Hanson discussed the niches on the north end and stated that they should use decorative the in the detail, wrought iron or a great light fixture in the prominent ones. Mr. Bagato stated that the Bank of America used blue and red the and Del Taco used orange and red to match their colors and both came out nice. Mr. Drell stated that this was another example where this was unanticipated with the drive-around and we would probably need an alternate landscape plan for the slope below it. We would require a GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.m1n.DOC Page 15 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 'r.rr MINUTES November 14, 2006 detailed site plan so we could see the dimensions. Commissioner Hanson stated that with the slope it might make sense that there was a stepped planter going down a little ways to mitigate the slope. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there were several small niches in the building and asked how deep they were. Mr. Alvarez stated they were the medallions and were recessed about six (6) to eight (8) inches. The larger ones under the gabled roofs are about one (1) foot. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that there was a lot of plaster surfaces above the storefront glass on the east and south elevation and asked if the plaster was above the glass and relatively flush to the storefront. Mr. Alvarez stated that it was, especially the main building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they should be out a few inches beyond the storefront glass; otherwise it would have a very flat appearance. Mr. Alvarez that it would be setback a couple of inches. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they needed more variance. It was being represented with a considerable shadow below the arches and at the glass, so they need to create the depth in order to do that. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the maximum would be about four (4) inches to create that recess effect. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be ok on the south elevation, but on the east elevation it is large enough and needed to be deeper than four (4) inches. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the parapet element where they have the Citibank sign on the north elevation was flush with the darker colored elements on either side of it and stated that it needed to pop-out because right now it's just a change of color. He asked how high the parapet was relative to the mechanical equipment. Mr. Alvarez stated it should be right around 17 feet, which would be about four (4) feet from the lowest parapet that is 21 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated the section looked nice, but if the sheeting was four (4) feet below the parapet and you add a slope to that roof and a platform, you would be above that parapet. He asked Mr. Alvarez for his assurance for the record that the tops of the mechanical equipment would not exceed the tops of the lowest parapets. Mr. Alvarez stated that would be a condition they could address. Commissioner Lopez asked where the roof access would be. Mr. Alvarez stated that it would be internal. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the roof access leads to the area where the mechanical equipment is located. Mr. Alvarez stated that it would lead to the roof through a roof hatch. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 16 of 23 �r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had concerns with the cornice and felt that it could look really good or marginal depending on how it was detailed. He asked how they could create a way to make them look good. Mr. Drell stated that he was disappointed to learn that all the buildings that have been approved had sharp corners. He stated that these buildings were supposed to be a Santa Barbara style and asked why the architect hadn't been giving them rounded radius corners. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could make a couple of the pop-out elements smooth and the rest textured. Commission Vuksic stated that all the wainscots around the building needed to be out further than the main walls of the building. Right now they were represented as though they were simple two (2) by four (4) bands that would be plastered over. Those need to be actual wainscots that come down to the ground. Mr. Alvarez asked if they should pop the base out about four (4) inches. Commissioner Gregory stated that the architectural design was nice; however, in terms of getting an approval, they would need to pick up a lot of the things that were discussed and have a site plan indicating the landscape design so we could see it more macro type instead of as a tiny corner of the complex. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to continue with comments made and to allow the applicant to provide a site plan with a landscaping plan. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: PP 06-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HAMID SHENASI, P.O. Box 907, Idyllwild, CA 92549 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of construction of a 7,540 square foot light industrial/auto repair building. LOCATION: 73-731 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC MinutesWR061114.min.DOC Page 17 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 'MINUTES November 14, 2006 Mr. Urbina stated that there were issues with the dead-end street and they would like an emergency access. They are planning a sliding wrought iron gate for security reasons. The drawings show two (2) auto repair shops. In the cross section it shows some swamp coolers that are sticking up above the parapet wall. It was mentioned to the architectural designer that the parapet wall should be at least as high as the highest piece of equipment taking into account that the units sit up on a small pedestal and the slope of the roof. He stated that Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, wanted some revisions to the landscaping plan. Mr. Urbina asked Mr. Shenasi if the carport structure was metal or canvas. Mr. Shenasi indicated that he preferred that it be canvas, similar to the car dealerships. Mr. Drell stated that it did not go with the style of building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it depended on the color of the fabric whether it would go with the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the employee parking. Mr. Shenasi stated that they would be parking inside. Mr. Urbina stated that the building height indicated on the cross section drawings was 25 feet with a 30-foot height limit and asked if the Commission wanted to see a little more variation in the roof height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was a zero lot line and asked if anything else was planned for the other side. Mr. Urbina stated that they had not received anything at this time. Commission discussed potential architectural designs for the wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a general concern he had was that he saw a lot of doors and windows out at the wall that weren't recessed and a trim detail that goes around everything in an attempt to dress up those demonstrations. Another thing he saw was that it looks like the building doesn't know what style it wanted to be. There was a traditional looking cornice and arches and a more contemporary form facing the street and on the backside as well. This was mixing styles, which is difficult to do well and it would probably be easier to decide on a style. Commissioner Hanson stated that they could easily fix that by changing that cornice detail to a more contemporary style. The curved roof thing GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 18 of 23 r�r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 is nice but you need to recess those windows in and maybe have an overhang on that curbed element in the front, it should come away from the wall. Commissioner Vuksic suggested having more of a breakdown of massing, lose the cornices, recess the doors and windows and have a little more overhang on the vaulted metal roofs. Commissioner Lopez stated that he saw wall lights on the buildings that weren't shown on the plans, and they looked like floodlights and not ornamental. He asked the applicant to make the lighting consistent with the style of the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked where the roof access was located. Mr. Shensai stated that the roof access was from the side of the building and accessible by ladders. Commissioner Vuksic stated to the applicant that an internal roof access was needed to take you up to the main roof level. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue with comments made regarding: 1) providing internal roof access; 2) revising architectural elements such as cornices; 3) expanding metal seam roof overhang in front and deeper recessing of windows; 4) lighting consistent with building style; 5) mechanical equipment below parapet walls; and, 6) revising landscaping plan. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO: HPD/PP 06-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GRAYSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO., 79-405 Highway 111 #9-414, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of single-family residence in hillside zone. LOCATION: Indian Cove ZONE: Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 19 of 23 'rwrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 NOTE: Mr. Stendell presented Case MISC 06-44, which he requested to be added to the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to add this item. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO: MISC 06-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROSENBLATT, 200 Wiketmal Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for a home within the Mountains at Bighorn. LOCATION: 200 Wiketmal Place ZONE: PCD Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: PP 04-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD OLMEDO, 18111 Von Karman, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92612. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof mounted equipment for Bedrosian Tile. LOCATION: 73-550 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Stendell stated that the preliminary drawings showed that all roof mounted equipment would be behind a parapet, which received a height exception. However between the preliminary approval and the final approval, the final plans were approved with five (5) swamp coolers on the roof that no one was aware of. They are extremely visible and the applicant has submitted a solution. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 20 of 23 `ark ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2006 Commissioner Hanson stated that for future reference, she thought Staff needed to direct the architect to clearly show on the plans that no roof mounted equipment would be located in certain areas. Mr. Stendall presented the mechanical plans that were approved and stated that someone at staff level looked at this plan and didn't happen to catch the five (5) squares that were tucked in there. This was technically approved at the ARC level, however we went through in detail that all the units would be up behind that height exception parapet. Mr. Drell stated that it is the applicant's obligation to submit the correct plans. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they should have known they would have swamp coolers up there and incorporate them into the design. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it would be all right if it had a screen all the way around it so it would like a piece of the building. Right now they look like big metal boxes. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the material has to fit with the building as well and be continuous to wrap the entire thing. Mr. Ziad AI-Mawsawi, Project Manager, when this was approved they were actually behind the parapets and were hidden. The owner of the building hired a new mechanical engineer who came in and put swamp coolers into the storage unit. When we spoke with the planning department we had first initialized this one whole perimeter to hide all four (4) units. Planning had suggested a smaller less intrusive unit could cover each one. The units are six (6) feet from the bottom of the deck and 33 feet from the lowest parapet height and 35 feet from the highest one. Worse case scenario would be one (1) foot six (6) inches to three (3) feet above the building and our variance was 35 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested a nice screen that would fit in with the building and not a cheap mechanical screen. A continuous screen that is similar to the details of other parts of the building. He suggested that they submit a material sample. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. AI-Mawsawi to show the swamp coolers on the roof plan and where the continuous screen would be located. Commissioner Hanson stated that their goal would be to make it look like it was there from the beginning. Approach it as if it was always supposed to be there. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 21 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 MINUTES Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue to allow applicant to screen the swamp coolers using similar details of building and submit for staff review. Motion carried 7-0. N_ Mr. Bagato presented Case PP 03-10, which he requested to be added to the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to add this item. Motion carried 7-0. 2. 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 mounted equipment on a two-story building. LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Stendell stated that he spoke with Mr. Patrick Pratt, who wanted to convey to the Commission that the latest attempt to cover the units, while he's still not happy, was ok with him. They moved the two worst units closer to the center and moved the parapet wall back and that in his opinion would be as good as it would get. Mr. Clint Brown, the Superintendent of Business Park of the Desert, presented photos taken from Mr. Pratt's backyard, Cook and Hovley. For all the mockups, they tried to squeeze in as much as possible, moved a couple of units and squeezed down the wall in Mr. Pratt's view. The units are approximately eight (8) feet closer to Cook Street on that side of the building than on the approved set of plans. They moved a couple of units over a bit, just enough to get that wall in there, probably a couple of feet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the presentation was confusing and complicated. Mr. Brown stated that everything was per plan with the exception of Cook Street. Commissioner Lambell stated GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC MinutesWR061114.min.DOC Page 22 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION November 14, 2006 'MINUTES that the Commission needed to do a site check because the presentation was too vague and the visibility of this equipment is not acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue Case PP 03-10 to allow Commission to site check equipment screening. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items Clarification was made to Case No. PP 06-12, ADAMS-BERARDO regarding the action made by the Commission. Preliminary approval was granted subject to Commission's review of entryway details prior to working drawings returning. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY AGA ASSOCIATE PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\AR061114.min.DOC Page 23 of 23