Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-10 t MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION October 10, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 16 2 Kristi Hansen X 16 2 Chris Van Vliet X 16 2 John Vuksic X 18 Ray Lopez X 15 3 Karen Oppenheim X 18 Karel Lambell X 17 1 Also Present Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager 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: Mr. Urbina noted a correction to Case No. TT 33018. The number of tract homes approved for scupper replacement should be amended to read fourteen instead of four (4). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, approving the September 26, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. MINUTES *4W err ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 05-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HSA DESIGN GROUP, 42-575 Melanie Place Suite S, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction of a two-story 17,157 square foot commercial office building. LOCATION: 42-635 Melanie Place ZONE: S-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, by minute motion to approve, subject to review of landscaping plans by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioner Hansen absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 06-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RHONDA J. MCCUNE, 72-860 Arboleda Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall extension. LOCATION: 72-860 Arboleda Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendall stated that the Code Department brought the wall addition to the staff's attention. The applicant had requested an exception to go higher than the allowed six (6) feet since there was a children's play structure in the neighbor's yard. Staff felt that there were circumstances CJAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 2 of 21 t MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 that would justify an additional 18 inches with the addition of the wood lattice and felt that this was a good solution to the issue. Mr. Stendall indicated that all neighbors were noticed pursuant to code. The applicant, Ms. Rhonda McCune, stated that the wall extension was an attempt to get her privacy back. The neighbor, Ms. Monica Mcllroy, stated that she understood and indicated that she has the same issues with the neighbor's behind her, so she appreciates the need for privacy; however she didn't like the look of the lattice. She mentioned that she put in the wall 2 '/2 years ago and it is a very nice looking wall, but the lattice on their side has a cloth covering and it doesn't look nice. They would like to keep it consistent with the brick. Ms. McCune explained that she didn't just want cheap lattice, but wanted to have some sort of screening. The screening is see-through and allows the sun light through. She indicated that she planted three trees along the wall, and stated that even if she lined the entire area with trees she wouldn't get her privacy back. She stated that she would be happy to do something to the other side and asked for a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Drell asked the neighbor if it would be acceptable to her if their side looked the same as the applicant's side. The neighbor answered that she didn't like the lattice at all. She stated that they previously had a wood fence and asked the applicant to share the brick wall. She felt that everyone was happy with it. Commissioner Van Wet stated that in order to resolve the issue, would she consider removing the play structure since she no longer had the day care. She stated that since she had four small children she would not want to remove it. Ms. McCune commented that on the day the structure was being set-up, she asked the neighbors if they would consider moving it further back. They informed her that they could not move it since they had a pool and this was the only area where they could place it. G.Tlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 3 Of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the lattice appeared to be a good compromise. With a reasonable attractive looking screen, the neighbor has the play structure and the applicant has her privacy. The neighbor stated that the applicant should then match it on her side because the cloth is already starting to stain and over time it will only look worse. Commissioner Gregory stated that this was not a design matter and this Commission wasn't exactly skilled or trained in this type of resolution. The suggestions that were made make sense and he didn't know if the applicant wanted to spend more money to add more lattice to the other side. The alternative would be just to take the fabric off. The applicant stated that she made the fabric panels so they could be easily removed and replaced. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the panels be turned around to the applicant's side. Mr. Drell asked the neighbor would she rather look at the cloth or the lattice side and she answered that she would rather look at the lattice side. Ms. McCune stated that this play structure apparently meets the requirements for the setbacks but questioned the height of the second level platform. She asked if there was any way to get the structure down lower. Mr. Drell indicated that the structure probably couldn't be lowered without damaging other parts and stated that the design of the lattice was an attractive addition to the wall, as long as it's maintained. Given the choice, the neighbor has indicated that she would rather look at the lattice, so it's up to the applicant to either put lattice on both sides or turn it around. Commissioner Gregory asked who would pay for the changes. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant should pay since she is the one who was asking for the exception. Play structures have always been a gray area in terms that they are not permanently attached to the ground and do not need a building permit. It's always been unclear as to how they are regulated and the City has always hoped that neighbors work these things out. Commissioner Lambell felt that the applicant has done an excellent job with the screening. However if more privacy were desired, the applicant would have to bring the sunscreen/shade cloth to her side and not expect the neighbors to maintain it. G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 4 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 Commissioner Oppenheim asked the applicant if she would be willing to remove the screen. The applicant stated that she would like the opportunity to meet with the contractor to discuss her options and indicated that she would either turn it around or remove it all together. Commissioner Vuksic suggested to the neighbor to place one full tree right in front of the play structure to screen it. The neighbor stated that there was a tree there already that covered it completely. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it covered the structure only at certain angles, but if a tree were placed next to the structure it would block it entirely. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the lattice structure as built, subject to staff approving additional changes to privacy screening. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 06-137 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO. INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three (3) wall signs for Steve & Barry's University Sportswear. LOCATION: 72-800 Hwy 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato suggested that this item be continued to allow the staff to view the site where the sign may be seen. Mr. Drell stated that the other signs are fine, but the one that faces north is much higher than it needs to be. Commissioner Lambell asked if the signs were over on the square footage. Mr. Bagato indicated that the sign was not over on the front side, but questioned the length of the signs on the west and east. Mr. Jim Engle, the representative, stated that the north elevation is 193 feet long and the signs on the west and east side elevations are about 60 feet. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.minDOC Page 5 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2906 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval, subject to lowering the signage on the north side of building and submitting to staff for review. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 06-38 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GORDON PAINTING CO. INC., 13755 Stockton Avenue, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building color change for Circuit City. LOCATION: 72-369 Hwy 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Stendall stated that Circuit City is requesting approval to change the color of their building from the "old look" to a new color, which is loud. The representative brought a color chart for the Commission to review. Mr. Don Guber, the representative, stated that if the Commission didn't agree with the gold color, the applicant is willing to go with whatever color the Commission would approve as long as it compliments their sign. Their current sign has a red background and is on red tile. Commission reviewed the color selections provided. Mr. Drell suggested Paloma Tan, which is mustard color and is more muted. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the proposed color seems so foreign to the other colors on the building. Mr. Guber stated that this was the criteria for their new stores, but the manager of Circuit City indicated whatever the City approves would be fine as long as it's not red. Mr. Stendall stated that another concern was that the applicant mentioned that the whole center would be changing their colors. Mr. Guber stated that the shopping center is currently in the process of providing renderings for the whole center to be painted sometime next March or April. G-.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minu[es\AR061010.min.D0C Page 6 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 Mr. Stendall asked if they knew what the new colors would be for the shopping center and would Circuit City's new color be completely foreign once the center is painted. Mr. Guber stated there is no other part of the center that would be gold, but he had seen some colors in the preliminary photos and the gold color would compliment the new shopping center colors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he held the Paloma Tan color chip up to the photograph it looked appropriate. It looked like it gave it a nice accent and in the sun it would be more golden; but however striking something looks it's going to look much stronger on a big wall surface and the proposed color is much too bold. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to revision of color to Paloma Tan in lieu of proposed color. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 5. CASE NO: PP 06-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SERENITY OF PALM DESERT, LLC., P.O. Box 1135, Poway, CA 92074 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations for a six-lot subdivision. LOCATION: 45-900 Highway 74 ZONE: R-3, 18,000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 6. CASE NO: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 30-885 Date Palm Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of entry gate towers for a 159-lot single-family subdivision — Dolce. G.Tbining\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.D0C Page 7 of 21 MINUTES NNW VMOO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 LOCATION: 35-758 Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Hansen absent. 7. CASE NO: SA 06-135 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALI PASTA INC., 78-450 Avenue 41, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised business signage for Cali Pasta. LOCATION: 73-575 El Paseo, Suite 2310 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell stated that the sign was lowered and centered. It will also be brushed bronze and halo lit. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hansen and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-37 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID HIDALGO ARCHITECT, INC. 316 S. 1" Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of fagade renovation to existing office building. LOCATION: 73-020 El Paseo Drive ZONE: C-1 G-\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Fles\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min,DOC Page 8 of 21 MINUTES 'err *400, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 Mr. Drell indicated that he was disappointed with the exterior colors. One thing that we are trying to do with the redesign is to create a distinctive storefront design and this is duplicating the same two colors. Commissioner Gregory suggested that this be approved subject to a re-study of the colors to get more of a variety to better highlight the storefronts. Mr. Smith indicated that the working drawings would be coming back to the Commission and the colors could be submitted prior to the working drawings. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval, subject to applicant working with staff on new exterior colors. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioner Vuksic and Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Hansen absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 06-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for World Savings Bank. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. John Sheehan, Studio E Architects indicated that two new colors were being proposed for the metal siding for their building. One was a medium bronze color, not dissimilar from the Coffee Bean on El Paseo, and the other would be more Terracotta clay red. It would be split-based block in lieu of the smooth based block. In an effort to adjust the proportions of the building they would be moving the sun canopy down to be at the head of the door. It was up at 10, and in alignment with the break between the metal siding and the storefront system. It was shifted down about 18 inches. G:Tlenning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 9 of 21 MINUTES �r r.✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the proportions on the upper heights were changed. Mr. Sheehan indicated they only lowered the sun canopy. What was indicated on the drawings by the dash line represents what the building envelope could be. On the one side up to 30 feet was allowed, so the client had requested that we demonstrate what the height could be and demonstrate that we are well beneath it. The client was very interested in screening the roof top equipment. In fact, that was one of their requirements to the architects that they did not want to see the equipment under any circumstances. It was very important to the client that the parapet height relative to the ceiling and to the rooftop accommodates the equipment. They felt that this height gets them where they should go. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was proportionally revised on the building from the last meeting. Mr. Sheehan indicated that the differential between the storefront system and the metal sidings remained the same and all they did was adjust the horizontal canopy relative to those two. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that at the last meeting a 23-foot high building was presented, which is still 23 feet. The only difference is that the canopy structure came down so the upper level increased. Mr. Sheehan indicated that the proportion of glass to siding is identical, now all you see is a little glass above the horizontal canopy. Commissioner Vuksic felt that the architects missed the point. The Commission was concerned about the proportion of the upper part, but what was created was the illusion that it was even larger. Mr. Sheehan stated that is why he included the photographs. He understood what the issue was, but as he attempted to explain at the last meeting, the intention on their part was to make what appeared to be a heavy top float above the glass under story. In their estimation, that proportion is satisfactory. At this point, the client is not interested in lowering the overall building; 23 feet is where they need to be. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this had nothing to do with the height of the building; it was the proportion of the building. Mr. Sheehan indicated that they could increase the amount of glass to reduce the amount of metal siding that would adjust those ratios. If they increased the glass, they would also create additional issues relative to the introduction of sun in the building. He felt that from the client's standpoint they were G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010—in.DOC Page 10 Of 21 MINUTES *AW '000, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 already pushing the envelope on the amount and height of glass. It is now 10 feet to the top of the third story and indicated that they shouldn't go to 12 or 14 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he appreciated their concerns about the sun and indicated that by raising the canopy to increase the lower section and decrease the upper section they wouldn't know the difference with the sun coming in a half hour earlier. However you would see the difference in the proportions of the building. Mr. Sheehan asked if they adjusted the amount of glass to wall, would it stand a greater chance of being approved at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the proportions were such that the upper portion was significantly thinner than the lower portion, they would have a building that looked good and given it's kind of cutting edge style, it would stand a better chance of being approved. The proportions of the building now are glaringly top heavy. The client succeeded in making the sign surface as large as possible, which was something they wanted. Commissioner Gregory wondered if raising the canopy and keeping the glass height the same would create the illusion of less mass on top, and asked if that would create the same effect without having to change the actual configuration of the building. Mr. Sheehan stated that it would be conceivable but they would have to possibly study that in model to understand how that might adversely affect the building. Mr. Drell suggested a bigger element and a second tier, maybe not as deep that is suspended by the cable. Mr. Sheehan stated that what has to be appreciated about the sun canopy is that it is actually doing the work in the same way the brim of your hat would do. Mr. Drell stated that is why he suggested putting another element midway, another horizontal fin suspended by that same cable. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proportions needed to be improved so it didn't appear so top-heavy. Mr. Smith asked if there was another building that was similar in proportion to this building. Mr. Sheehan indicated that he drove along El Paseo to view the buildings and stated that there were commercial facades that have very tall upper stories but none with concentrated glass on the bottom. Unfortunately their building doesn't present itself very well in elevation and appeared very billboard like and very flat. What one has to appreciate as buildings go up they also as a consequent of prospective shorten and their lot lines G-\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 1 1 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 vanish. My opinion is that it won't appear so flat and dramatic. The model would have shown that. Commissioner Gregory asked if the model would be of sufficient assistance and might be worth waiting for a new model if they wouldn't be making additional changes. Mr. Sheehan stated that they knew going in to this project that this would not be a slam-dunk since it was an aggressive and contemporary style building. He indicated that he has been encouraging the client to consider the possibility of doing a rendering and show the building in context. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was not because of the aggressive design of the building, it just looked too top-heavy. Mr. Sheehan stated that it looked top-heavy as a consequent of the misfortunate representation in elevation. Commissioner Gregory stated that what also might hurt was that most of the angles of the photographs were taken somewhat from above, which enhances the mass even more. Mr. Sheehan asked what the Commission would allow him to take back to his client as some evidence of progress. Mr. Drell stated that a very accurate and skilled rendering was needed and asked the Commission for any feedback on the colors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he preferred the putty color; the bronze color. Mr. Drell stated that in the shade the bronze color looked black. Mr. Sheehan indicated that the color is seen in context and it is worth noting that World Savings is now Wachovia and their whole scheme is blue. So where there is red there will also be blue, however they have not yet been directed to change the signage. Commissioner Gregory recommended a continuance. Mr. Smith suggested making the motion to continue as the Commission still has concerns relative to the apparent top-heaviness to the project and would urge reconstruction of the model or submittal of a well-done rendering. Commissioner Lambell stated that it was imperative that the model be rebuilt since the renderings have shown a flat roof and haven't executed what the model would show. Mr. Drell stated that what the model wouldn't do is put it physically on the site in the context of the slope and other buildings. G TIanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 12 of 21 MINUTES **Awe NW10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 Commissioner Gregory asked how long before it would be approved if this was called up to Council. Mr. Drell stated that as soon as this was approved at ARC, within approximately three weeks it would be going to a Planning Commission meeting as a precise plan. If they could get the building portrayed accurately and properly and have great exhibits, the Council more often than not would not call it up for review. Commissioner Lambell asked if the colors needed to be reviewed. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if the sign color would be changing it would be a huge difference and they might not want the red. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was hard to imagine the blue on the side of the building. Commissioner Lambell asked the architect to get some direction on what the sign would ultimately look like and then the Commission could decide. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned that the blue would disappear against a dark background. Commissioner Vuksic felt a more slightly cooler approach would work better with the architecture, and would have a better chance of approval if they kept the colors somewhat warmer. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue to allow the architect to submit a rendering. Motion carried 6-0-0- 1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 3. CASE NO: PP 06-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ADAMS-BERARDO, P.O. Box 12253, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of three (3) unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 74-455 Driftwood ZONE: R-3 Mr. Stendell stated that there was a couple of concerns relative to recesses on the windows and garage doors and asked the applicant for samples of what would be going into the tile recesses. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if these were apartments. Mr. Stendell indicated that they were apartments and would be held to apartment standards not condo standards. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 13 of 21 MINUTES '*we r00' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the apartments had garage doors with 2 X 4 walls and that the front doors and windows on Unit B were also 2 x 4 and he didn't see any thickness to those walls and asked the applicant to take the opportunity to make that appear more substantial. He stated that the elevation facing the street in Unit B needed to look like the front of the building. He noted that the site appeared tight and wondered if that was the reason. Mr. Rodolfo Lizarde, Representative stated that it was built sideways. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the trim details. He stated that when he reviewed the floor plan all he could see was a flat wall, but when he looked at the elevation he saw some nice arches with pile insets. Based on the floor plan what appeared to be insets really weren't insets, it was just a wall with a trim piece and tile. He asked if a deeper recess could be achieved so that it looked like the elevation. Mr. Lizarde stated that if the set back was right on the wall, he could do an architectural projection. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could do the foam projection because it's a design element but it still needed to be recessed, otherwise it would look like tile glued on the side of the garage wall with a foam detail around it. It appears like it could be done as an architectural projection so they could actually encroach toward the front in order to do that. Commissioner Vuksic discussed other trim details around the building. He suggested that a smaller nailer be used on the windows to let the plaster roll into them, that they provide a footing under the wainscot so a gap would not be visible and that the foundations need to be brought out so that the wainscot comes down to the concrete. Commissioner Vuksic questioned the walls and gates in front of the doors and asked what they would look like. Mr. Lizarde answered that it would be a private entryway with iron gates. Commissioner Vuksic suggested doing something better with the elevation of the front doors. If you look at what is there currently, it needs some work. Everything else is just thickening up walls and creating thicker recesses. He asked if preliminary approval could be granted. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Woi-dFiles\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 14 01 21 MINUTES *or tow ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 Mr. Drell stated that in terms of a design detail, they could show staff the changes and staff would be able to guide them with producing working drawings. Basically we want something that has some sort of entry character. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission could grant preliminary approval subject to the comments that were made prior to working drawings coming back. Staff at that time would review the revisions made to the entry. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue to allow applicant to submit modifications as discussed by Commission. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 06-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAM SPINELLO, 27 La Plaza, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of store remodel for Palms to Pines Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-855 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue to allow architect to be present. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 06-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TED GROULX, P.O. Box 14083, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of fagade improvements. LOCATION: 73-750 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 15 of 21 MINUTES NW Nwf ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue to allow applicant to submit modifications as discussed by the Commission. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. C. Miscellaneous Items 1. CASE NO: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 6503 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of roof mounted equipment on two (2) two-story buildings. LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Smith presented photographs that were taken from the roof and around this project. The original approval had roof mounted equipment in two rows of equipment along the center of the building; a total of 22 units. Those units are there now but they are no longer neatly arranged in a row down the middle. Some of the units got higher than was originally shown. The applicant has come back with a proposed screening that would be four (4) feet above the height of the parapets. We are looking for other suggestions to adequately or satisfactorily screen this equipment. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Clint Brown, the Superintendent of Business Park of the Desert was in attendance as was Patrick Pratt, the neighbor to the east. Commissioner Vuksic verified with Mr. Brown that it was actually four (4) feet above the parapet. Mr. Brown stated that it was four (4) feet above the parapet. Due to the fact that we were under the constraints of a 25- foot tall building these A/C units physically do not work where they are located with the ducting, so they had to spread them out. Mr. Brown said they would screen the units individually or with one large perimeter system. G.\P1mning\Jamneludy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min DOC Page 16 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 112006 Mr. Brown demonstrated what had initially been approved and the screen wall going across two rolls with the units exceeding the height of 25 feet. Mr. Drell indicated that they had a straight elevation that did not show any mechanical equipment or screens. Mr. Brown stated that on the original approved plan it did show the equipment on a section. Commissioner Vuksic asked that when the Commission approved the design drawings did the screen show. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission originally approved a 30-foot high building then it went down later to 25 feet. The working drawings went through but without the clouding on a later version. Mr. Brown indicated that the clouding is essentially when lengthening the side of the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the structure of the roof was and if they were open webbed tresses. Mr. Brown indicated that they were not. On the second floor they have 18 to 30-inch solid web tresses, which we can't move and then a panelized roof system above that. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they had the ability to run ducts laterally. Mr. Brown stated that any ducts that are done now are 22-24 inch ducts and running perpendicular against the steel puts it right at ceiling height, so they wouldn't be able to stack ducts. Part of the problem is the beam work. The units had to be moved out so they could heat and cool the second floor suites. The first floor suites essentially stayed the same so they could go straight down into the first floor. Commissioner Vuksic asked how much space there was between the bottom cord of the truss to the dropped ceiling. Mr. Brown stated that it was almost flush. On the front they had about a '/2 inch to one (1) inch, just enough to get the T-bar underneath. Commissioner Vuksic asked how high the ceilings were. Mr. Brown stated that they were nine (9) foot ceilings in the front and eight (8) foot four (4) inch ceilings on the backside of the ridge. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the units were all package units serving the second floor. Mr. Brown demonstrated on the drawing the units that would be serving the second floor. Commissioner Van Wet asked if they were all the same height. Mr. Brown stated that the maximum height on all the units would be 3 feet 9 inches with one at 54 inches. Commissioner Van Wet stated that this looked like something that wasn't designed properly and now the Commission was stuck with applying a band-aid deal to it. He felt that the units wouldn't be moved and now they would have to figure out a nice architectural screen for it. He stated that he didn't see any details on the screen. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.D0C Page 17 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 Mr. Brown stated that they are proposing a sheet metal screen wall, four (4) feet above the existing parapet. Mr. Drell asked what it did on the top. Mr. Brown stated that at the fourteen-foot sections the wall would just be running straight across and returning. They provided two-foot pop outs all the way around to add some symmetry to the building and provide some depth. Mr. Drell asked what the edge detail was. Mr. Brown stated that it was going to be corrugated metal with a two-inch trim piece on top. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the ducting was on the roof. Mr. Brown indicated that it was below the roof but demonstrated on the drawing the area where they had to provide ducting over a 22-inch steel beam in order to run it through the hallway and get it over the beam. Commission reviewed the drawings for the ducting located on the roof. Mr. Brown explained the different ducts and their locations. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they had studied this before they started the work, they would have found where they could have broken down larger ducts into smaller ducts. Mr. Brown indicated they could have, but they had to take in other aspects of the building. For example the sprinklers, they couldn't eliminate sprinklers to accommodate ductwork. Sprinklers take priority and they had other mechanicals running through there as well. They felt that this was very well thought out and strategically planned where the mechanicals would work in conjunction with each other to give the allowable space. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the reason he was asking so many questions was because he went out to view the site and saw that the units were way up over the parapet. What concerned him was that the units were very close to the edge and a four (4) foot screen is going to be massive that close to the edge. Mr. Brown stated that if they scaled back they would probably be 24-25 feet back of the parapet. Mr. Bob Riccardi, Architect stated that what he recommended was to have a thin, simple panel against the metal studs. Mr. Brown stated that this would run the entire length of the roof, not boxed into sections. Commissioner Lambell asked if it would be corrugated metal. Mr. Riccardi indicated that it would be metal, but a real tight thin joint and when you look at it, it would look like one piece with lines. Commissioner Lambell asked if it would be painted or powder coated and what color. Mr. Brown stated that it would be flat steel and would mimic the parapet because they did have the smooth plaster. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 18 of 21 MINUTES 1*W ` 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, . 006 Mr. Patrick Pratt, neighbor stated that when he attended the Planning Commission meetings on several occasions in 2003, this project was reviewed and many issues were addressed. One of the issues was to mitigate the height of this building. He stated that he lived in the house closest to the project and his view was in that direction. This two-story building has pretty much destroyed his view of the mountains. The Planning Commission approved the lowering of the building pad, and tried to reduce some of the mass of the second story element. When looking at the building elevation, there is no mechanical popping up above the top of the building and the height of the building in the municipal code is 25 feet. They couldn't design it right so decided they needed another four (4) feet of a parapet wall running around the building, and that puts the building at 29 feet. That puts it close to the 30 feet they had originally requested. His only plea would be to make them build the building the way it was shown, the way it was approved. They are creative architects; have them come up with a way to do that. From 2003 until they started building in 2005 they had plenty of time to design a system that would work with the way the project was built. In March or April when I first saw the mechanical equipment being put out, I noticed that this wasn't the way it was supposed to be. I approached staff and made them aware that this was going to be be a problem. I don't think the solution would be to put another three (3) to four (4) feet around the top of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what was approved was a 25-foot building without any kind of screening. The units were somehow going to be below that 25-foot height. Mr. Drell stated that in the preliminary elevations that were approved by the Planning Commission there was nothing showing above the parapet. Mr. Brown presented a copy of the approved drawings in the Building Department that had site stamp approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that to change something from what was approved in design and just hope we didn't catch it in the working drawings was not a good practice. Mr. Drell stated that especially if it's something that is a hot button issue like height and screening mechanical equipment. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Pratt if he thought it would be a significant improvement to his line of sight if the units where in two rows and screened, as opposed to the wider area that now is being discussed. Mr. Pratt stated that it may help a little, but didn't know if that would be the answer. The original idea was that they would all be in a G-\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 19 of 21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10 2006 row in the middle and down in a recessed well area. Mr. Drell stated that they are actually higher in the middle because there was a little slope to the roof. Commissioner Lambell stated that if they moved the units they would still show above the parapet. Mr. Drell stated that the line of sight tends to diminish their exposure. Mr. Brown stated that the views are not protected in California. Mr. Drell stated that they are in violation of the height ordinance, since it was in fact a height exception above 25 feet. There are two requirements, the equipment is supposed to be screened and the building was approved at 25 feet. It is the applicant's obligation under our building permit ordinance to submit plans consistent with their entitlement. The fact that our plan checkers didn't pick up deviations from the entitlement does not change the entitlement. Unfortunately staff mistakes don't amend actions by the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Lambell asked what they had to do to get it down to 25 feet. Mr. Drell stated that the parapets have been reduced to almost nothing. They look to be about 18 inches. The equipment would have to go somewhere other than the roof. Commissioner Van Wet stated that it might help if they could shift them to the center and asked for a mock-up to see how visible they are. Commissioner Lambell stated that she was having a hard time coming up with a solution, again for a problem that is not their problem. Rather than be defensive of what you have built, she asked them to be more proactive and try to come up with some solutions. Mr. Brown stated that they are trying to come up with solutions by screening the units. Commissioner Lambell stated that it was incumbent to the owner and architect, to come up with a solution that remains at 25 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that an option would be to deny and let it move up to City Council. Commissioner Gregory stated that was a good option since this was a bigger problem than just trying to hide it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they would have more of a fighting chance if they did something that we thought was at least aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Drell stated that there is no other way to screen that G:\Planning\Janine Judy\WordFiles\ARCMinutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 20 of21 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10. 2006 equipment other than moving them off the roof or putting up a screen. The two solutions would be either the monolithic screen or individual screens. Mr. Pratt stated that when this building was going through its final working drawings they had a choice. They could have re-designed it where it worked by placing it on the ground. He felt that this was harming him as the owner of a house next to this building and would have to live with for as long as he owned the house. The Commission discussed the applicant doing the mock-up so the Commission could assess the view impact given the line of sight of the proposed screen. Mr. Drell stated that the Council has the authority to approve height exception in the City. Mr. Smith stated that it was the staff's responsibility to give Council the best options as to the solutions. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue to allow applicant to provide a screening mock-up and allow a representative from the Commission to site check. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hansen absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioner Hansen and Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. S SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR061010.min.DOC Page 21 Of 21