Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-14 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 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 11 4 Kristi Hanson X 13 2 Chris Van Vliet X 15 John Vuksic X 15 Ray Lopez X 12 3 Karel Lambell X 10 5 Nancy DeLuna X 5 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 10, 2007 & July 24, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the July 10, 2007 meeting minutes with changes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the July 24, 2007 meeting minutes with changes. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Gregory and Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME & TAMIRA DIOP, 72- 450 Manzanita Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of block wall. LOCATION: 72-450 Manzanita Drive ZONE: PR 5 Mr. Stendell presented this continued item along with new photos of the pool equipment that was against the existing fence. He recommended approving a five (5) foot high block wall placed in the same location as the existing fence and 12 feet from the curb. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant was considering any type of landscaping along the wall. The Commission stated that there wasn't enough room and it would end up being a future dead plant. Commissioner Gregory asked about the materials that would be used for the wall. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant was interested in tan precision block with two (2) to three (3) courses of split face waving through the entire wall. He felt that this would meet the City's decorative ordinance. The Commission discussed the location of the pool equipment, landscaping, sidewalk and stucco on the wall. They asked Staff to review the proposed accents to the wall. A motion was made for a five (5) foot high decorative wall, five (5) feet off the curb located in the same location as the existing fence. The applicant, Mrs. Tamira Diop, stated that she wanted the wall six (6) feet in height for safety reasons. Commissioner Gregory explained that the City has certain provisions regarding height of walls and setbacks. According to the ordinance, the setback for a GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070814.min.DOC Page 2 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL Re'VIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 five (5) foot wall would be 15 feet, but with this wall it would only be five (5) feet. Commissioner Lambell asked what the minimum height requirement was for a pool. Mr. Stendell answered that it was five (5) feet. Commissioner Gregory stated to the applicant that the County Health Department requires a five (5) foot wall for a protected swimming pool. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that she could appeal the ARC decision and take it to City Council if she was unhappy with the outcome. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval of a five (5) foot high decorative block wall in the same location as existing fence, with decorative treatment to be reviewed by staff. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 07-113 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGN, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new sign program; Waring Medical & Professional Plaza. LOCATION: 72-650 Fred Waring ZONE: OP SP Mr. Stendell presented the sign program and said that he felt that this program spreads well over the rest of the building. Commissioner DeLuna asked if they would now have two (2) buildings with three (3) signs each instead of two (2) buildings with four (4) signs each for a total of (6) six; rather than a total of eight (8). Mr. Stendell stated that that was not correct. The applicant was still proposing four (4) signs on each building. Commissioner Hanson thought the building could accommodate four (4) signs on each if you moved the bottom most sign over the adjacent arch. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 3 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION ,MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to moving the bottom most sign over the adjacent arch. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commission Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 07-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EUGENE AND BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-875 Park View Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6-foot block wall with 12 foot setback. LOCATION: 72-875 Park View Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendell presented this request for a six (6) foot high block wall with a 12-foot setback. The wall would be located on a fairly busy street. Commissioner Gregory stated that this property has a relatively large lot with frontage on a busy street and the applicant was proposing a six (6) foot wall and would like to have it closer to the curb or right of way. Ms. Beverly Vorwaller, applicant, stated that the address for this property was Parkview Drive, but the property actually fronts San Juan. On the Parkview side they would like to keep the wall in line with their neighbor's property to the east, and as the wall comes around the corner they would like it to meet on San Juan. She also stated that since it would be a meandering wall they would like it to be six (6) feet high for privacy. The Commission discussed the height exception. They asked if the applicant was requesting a five (5) or six (6) foot high wall. Ms. Vorwaller stated that they were requesting a variance for six (6) feet. Mr. Stendell stated that the variance would be for a six (6) foot high wall along Parkview Drive since that was the busier street. It would then step down to five (5) feet on San Juan. Commissioner Lambell asked how far the setback would have to be for a six (6) foot wall. Mr. Stendell stated that it was 20 feet and the applicant was requesting 12 feet. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 4 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic stated that there should be a little leeway for architectural merit where a wall is going in and out, but on Parkview he only saw a wall that was straight and the applicant was asking for an eight (8) foot setback exception. The applicant stated that she was under the impression that they already had a counter exception to leave the wall in the same place. Mr. Stendell stated that she had asked for an exception along Parkview and no approvals have been given up to this point. Ms. Vorwaller stated that along Parkview they wanted to keep the wall at the same height as their neighbors, which was over five (5) feet high. She felt that it would look odd if their wall stopped short. Commissioner Van Wet asked the applicant if she would consider meandering the Parkview side like the San Juan frontage. She indicated that they preferred not to because they were attempting to put a pool in the corner and meandering the wall would change the dimensions of the pool. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked the fact that she was aligning her wall with the neighbor's wall, but if her wall were a different height it would make sense not to align. He felt that she had enough room for flexibility and didn't think the pool would be running the whole length of the property. If she wanted this setback exception, she would need to propose something that would have some architectural merit to warrant making an exception. Ms. Vorwaller asked if they wanted to see meandering on the Parkview side starting closer to the San Juan edge or start at the corner of the property. Commissioner Hanson stated that there could be a straight section and then start meandering. If the pool is an issue, maybe straighten a portion to be in line with the house and then meander in. Commissioner Gregory stated that they had so much room that they could do something nice so they could get the variance. He pointed out that the handwriting on the plans referring to an average setback of 15-foot setback wasn't really drawn that way; the average would be about 13 feet. The wall on the corner should probably be around 15 feet and conform to the ordinance to be safer. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 5 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this wall would be five (5) or six (6) feet high. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the area for the pool was pretty big and it looked like they had 60 feet to work with and didn't think they needed a wall at a 12-foot setback to put a pool in. He informed her that when she brings the redesign in for review, the Commission would be reviewing that area. If they wanted it that close, the Commission may say it should be a five (5) foot wall. Commissioner Gregory thought that it might be important for the applicant to argue that along Parkview when you are looking at the radio transmission tower across the street and all the traffic it may be a hardship case where a six (6) foot wall might be merited. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue MISC 07-24 to allow applicant to submit redesign. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 07-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARTER & BURGESS, DION FOURFOURIS, 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 800, Santa Ana, CA 92707 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of tenant improvements; Fresh and Easy Palm Desert. LOCATION: 72-885 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 SP Mr. Stendell presented photos for tenant improvements and stated that there was a concern with how the grocery store would be screening the delivery trucks. The applicant has indicated that he could displace some of the existing landscape that is up against the building to create a few extra parking spaces. He would then add some additional landscaping to make the back end of the building more attractive. The applicant has proposed a basic screen wall with landscaping on the El Paseo side. Staff has given them some options of what to do there since that would create a conflict between wall footings and roots. The applicant has also proposed a wrought iron freestanding fence that could accommodate a vine. Landscaping staff has indicated that they would like to see the most amount of landscaping they could get there. Staff was open for GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 6 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION ten✓ MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 discussion if the Commission felt that a vined wrought iron fence would be a better solution than a block wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the additional parking spaces. Mr. Stendell stated that there would be four (4) new parking spaces and pointed them out on the plans. Commissioner Lambell asked what material would be used for the wall. Mr. Stendell stated that it would either be a CMU screened wall or a freestanding fence that could accommodate a vine. Staff also recommended a standard wrought iron detail. The Commission discussed the view of the wall from the backside as you were driving down El Paseo. Mr. Stendell indicated that the applicant had also requested a color change. The sky blue colors would be removed and replaced with a green color. They were also proposing a CMU screen wall for the shopping carts on the front elevation. Commissioner Hanson stated that she didn't know how important the wall would be and felt that area should be densely landscaped. Commissioner Vuksic asked that the trees be monitored for growth and replaced if they were to die. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to a densely landscaped planter and no wall. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO: SA 07-123 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO. INC. JIM ENGLE, JR. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument sign; Cook Street Marketplace. LOCATION: 41-150 Cook Street ZONE: GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 7 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION •MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, granted approval by minute motion, subject to working with staff to bring lettering down. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. 6. CASE NO: SA 07-129 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE ROSA/CERTIFIED SIGN, P.O. Box 45, Sun City, CA 92586 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signage; Best Buy & Cost Plus. LOCATION: 44-419 — 44-495 Town Center ZONE: PC (3) SP Mr. Swartz presented a request to replace two (2) monument signs. One would be located at Town Center Way and the other at Highway 111; both with the same height and width. The new monument signs could include four (4) tenants, Best Buy, Cost Plus and two future tenants. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she liked the new sign, but was concerned with the number of tenants. She asked if there was an ordinance concerning the number. Mr. Swartz stated that there was an ordinance stating only three (3), but there were other signs in the city that have four (4) on them. Commissioner Gregory stated that signs that are done well could be helpful when trying to locate stores, however when you start including more tenants it is harder. He felt that architecturally the sides needed to be fattened and look stronger. Commissioner DeLuna stated that there are a lot of tenants in that center and that she was concerned if they allowed an exception to add four (4) signs, what would stop someone from requesting six (6) signs. Commissioner Gregory stated that they couldn't, and it would have to come back for review by this Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the signed looked like any monument sign; very generic. It was all sign; very thin with nothing else but a cap on top. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 8 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL R IEW COMMISSION *4 ✓ MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Mr. Josh Piatt, representative, asked if the Commission wanted him to shorten the width of the faces to give it more meat on each side of the sign to make it thicker. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it needed to be done with some style to it. The basic style of the sign was fine, it just needed to be created with more meat and a little less sign space. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission would like to see any change in details as far as the finish on the cabinet. Commissioner Van Wet stated that they could downsize because it was too big and massive. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they use other materials to create contrast if the base was stone. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that the center had some color to it and asked if they could get different elements in the sign with the use of color to match the center. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she liked the way the 111 Town Center" was written because it was easier to read than the old where it had One Eleven in script. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was in the turf area. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, stated that the entire center had a Landscape Architect develop a plan to change the landscape and take out a lot of lawn and complete it in phases, and she didn't know when the signs would fall into that. Commissioner Gregory recommended that this not be planted in a sea of lawn even if it was planned to change later, they could change it now so that it doesn't have spray. Ms. Hollinger stated that they could contact the center manager and ask if that area would be a part of the renovation that could be done sooner rather than later. Commissioner Gregory stated that, if for some reason they don't wish to do that, then maybe we could request a border like pebble or DG around the sign. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case No. SA 07-129 subject to: 1) thickening the depth of the sign; 2) reducing size of sign; 3) increasing architectural style; 4) adding color to match shopping center; 5) using additional contrasting materials to create interest; and, 6) review of landscape plans by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 9 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 7. CASE NO: MISC 07-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): B.I.D. LLC, P.O. Box 630, La Quinta, CA 92247 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 16-foot height exception on a residence. LOCATION: 73-307 Tamarisk Street ZONE: R-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. 8. CASE NO: MISC 06-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAM SPINELLO, 27 Las Plaza, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of proposed revision to store remodel; Palms to Pines Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-955 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to remove Case No. MISC 06-39 from the agenda per applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Res\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 10 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 9. CASE NO: MISC 07-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON, 72-185 Painters Path, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single-family home within the Mountains of Big Horn. LOCATION: 112 Suuwat Way ZONE: PCD Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. 10. CASE NO: MISC 07-31/SA 07-132 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILOU JEWELRY, 73-375 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new jewelry display enclosure with stucco walls and glass doors; Milou Jewelry. LOCATION: 73-130 El Paseo, Suite M ZONE: C1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval by minute motion subject to both the awning and the addition being approved as integral parts of the fagade as a whole, and both ends of the awning being boxed off at the fascia. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 11 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION •MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 NOTE: Mr. Stendell presented Case PP 07-30, which he requested be added to the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to add this item. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. 11. CASE NO: PP 07-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 12-foot sound wall for Spanish Walk. LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (former Emerald Desert site) ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Stendell informed the Commission that the proposal for a 12- foot high wall would be located in the back end section of Taylor Woodrow against the railway. Their plan called for an eight to twelve foot sound barrier and their acoustical study came back and only required an eight (8) foot high wall. Now Taylor Woodrow is stating that for the benefit of their buyers they would rather have more sound mitigation and go to twelve feet. Since Council and Planning Commission had been presented with an eight (8) foot wall, this would require a wall exception. Our Landscape Specialist will review the landscape plan, but unfortunately Edison won't allow heavy planting in their easement adjacent to the wall. Staff felt that the wall would be a benefit to the people who would be right next to the railway. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the material would be. Mr. Todd Schobert, representative, stated that it was a Proto II slump stone wall with pilasters and, according to the landscape plan, it would be densely vined with cat's claw. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for the length of the wall. Mr. Stendell stated that it would be about 800 to 900 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that it be broken up at some G1P1anning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 12 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 point with pilasters and recommended that Staff work with the applicant to determine the spacing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval of a 12-foot high decorative sound wall, subject to: 1) adding pilasters; 2) column spacing to be determined by staff; and, 3) landscaping to densely cover the wall. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RENATA TYLER, LONGS DRUGS, 141 North Civic Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of business signage and a new 15, 785 square foot Longs Drug Store. LOCATION: 74-517 Highway 111 — Palm Desert Lodge ZONE: C-1/SP Mr. Stendell presented preliminary plans for approval of a Long's Drug Store and signage. He stated that he did a sign calculation, which looked fine on all three (3) elevations except for the front elevation. On the front elevation the sign was 29 square feet over the allowable square footage. He stated that the design itself looked wonderful and his recommendation would be to approve the signage in conformance with the City's allowable square footage. Mr. Stendell stated that there was a monument sign as well and wanted to ask for the Commission's opinion to see if they thought it was in the flavor of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were two (2) monument signs. Mr. Stendell stated there was one (1) sign on Deep Canyon and one (1) sign on Shadow Hills. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the elements that she liked was how the glass goes up and over the one roof area. She asked if the intent for the glass would be to remain clear and, if so, have they considered lighting? Mr. Vuksic stated that the intent GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 13 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION -MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 would be for the glass to be clear and said that they haven't gotten into the lighting for the inside as of yet, but it would be done in a way that would be easy on the eyes and not glaring. Commissioner DeLuna shared information she received regarding greening municipal buildings and using natural lighting. Commissioner Hanson stated that she also liked the square openings. She mentioned her concerns about all the advertisements that stores tend to have in the front of their stores and suggested that one of the square openings be used for that instead of placing the signage on the doors. Mr. Vuksic stated that he didn't think that would work because that would be the location for the carts. Commissioner Lambell felt that it would take away from the overall design of the openings if one would be cluttered with advertisement. Commissioner Hanson stated that instead of allowing all that stuff on the doors, they needed to find another location for them. The representative stated that they were not looking at "junking up the building". The Commission discussed the color board for the buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the sign that faces Deep Canyon would be seen from the hotel. Mr. Stendell stated there were a few rooms that face Deep Canyon, but this signage would be as far north on the building as possible. The hotel has a large cabinet sign with a yellow face, so there is already illumination on that site and he stated that he felt that it wouldn't be any worse. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant preliminary approval subject to: 1) signage conforming to City's allowable square footage code; 2) adequately addressing the lighting to cut down on glare coming out of upper windows; and, 3) review of landscape by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. &Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\HR070814.min.DOC Page 14 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION -MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 2. CASE NO: MISC 07-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY HOUSTON, 13444 Bali Way, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of new architectural plans for Phase 7 through Phase 9 of Shadow Ridge Vacation Club. LOCATION: 74000 Shadow Ridge Road ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner DeLuna stated that after reviewing the plans and tapes, she didn't think that changing the exterior architectural style of the building because of internal request to Marriott was enough reason to do so. She also felt that the building appeared grid like with very little style element to it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was less opposed to changing the architecture as long as the elements were carried through. He indicated that it would benefit the applicant if they added some thickness creating a base to the building. There were some pretty large flat walls, especially on the east elevation, where they weren't taking advantage of adding a layer just by thickening the bottom floor. Looking at the elevation, the column elements were very spindly and appeared even worse on the plans. The depth of them was only half of the width, so there was some really extremely thin elements in an architectural style that was calling for mass. Commissioner Hanson stated that looking on the west elevation that there was one element that they really made a nice concerted effort to break up, and this one element has a lot of interest to it, but that was it. She suggested that they work on that element and work out from there. Commissioner Gregory stated that some of the horizontal elements starting and stopping first appeared whimsical in a way. A lot of the elements would work, but they needed further refinement. Some of the windows on the east elevation looked very blank and uninteresting. On the west elevation it appeared that they tried even harder to make it look more interesting, but went a little too far. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 15 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the east elevation appeared flat when he looked at it on the plan view and he liked the west elevation better. Picking up some more of the veneer elements on the middle section, bringing in a variation of materials and not relying just on color, would help. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if there was a general feeling about the vertical aspect of the roofline. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was better, but it's all in how it translates together. Commissioner Lambell agreed with the comments made regarding the elevations being flat and stated that when driving by the existing building in the evening there was a wonderful sense of depth of lighting; both with the landscape lighting and the lighting from inside the units. That is only achieved because of the depths and the ins and outs. Mr. Gary Houston, Architect, stated that for this addition they have incorporated a full story base in order to settle the building down and provide less verticality. In response to recommendations made at the last meeting, they have eliminated some of the wood trellis in areas that didn't necessarily need them and incorporated a more hard structure and other various decorative details. Commissioner Hanson stated that she appreciated how difficult it was when they were selling units that need to be the same, but felt that the problem could be easily solved in the style they were using just by changing the shape of a window; basically the same size of window or addition of some other element around it. The problem with this style is that you have to work harder to make it not look like an office building. On the east elevation they need to thicken up some walls, add some texture and things to break up the apartment style windows. She stated that if they could look at the part that is right above the west elevation and start working it out, up and in, that idea of an element along with the layering sort of horizontal asymmetrical setup makes this a much more successful look. Commissioner Gregory stated that there was a stone veneer element just in the center of the building and felt that for such a large building it would be easy to have this element used elsewhere in the building, so that it's not isolated just in the very center. Mr. Houston stated that this was the dominant center to the building; a GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 16 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 main entrance. However he said that they would take a look at what could be done. Commissioner Gregory felt that it would help with the comment made earlier about giving a heavier footing to the building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue Case No. MISC 07-26 subject to: 1) adding thickness creating a base to the building; 2) adding more mass to columns; and, 3) increasing variation of materials. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent 3. CASE NO: PP 07-05 & CUP 07-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, ARCHITECT, 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval a new 18,116 square foot private K-6 school and 16,338 square foot office building; The Jewish Federation & Jewish Social Services. LOCATION: 36-333 Portola ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell informed the Commission that several years ago approval was given for a plan that encompassed two (2) five (5) acre parcels. They have scaled back the development to include one (1) five (5) acre parcel, and the revised plans have been submitted. Ms. Schrader gave the staff report and passed around the materials board. Staff has recommended that a little more decorative presentation might assist this building in having a more welcoming feel and a little less of an industrial look. Mr. Robert Ricciardi, Architect, described the architecture and landscaping plans for the Commission. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they would access the roof. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they had a mechanical room in the administrative building and indicated where the openings would be. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070814.min.DOC Page 17 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION -MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic discussed the thin walls on the roof plan and recommended creating continuous rooflines with openings for roof service at the parapet because it needed to return so that it looked like a three dimensional mass. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was enough room for all the equipment below the parapets. Mr. Ricciardi stated that one parapet was 18 feet and the other was 20. Commissioner Vuksic asked for the perimeter of parapet height. Mr. Ricciardi stated it was about five (5) feet. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant did a good job on the massing of the buildings and creating some nice shadow. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the buildings on the south elevation didn't have a lot of interest to them and looked almost like a railroad car. She asked for a little more breaking up and more relief like the north elevation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could take them back for some relief. Commissioner DeLuna said she felt the same about the west elevation. Commissioner Vuksic and Mr. Ricciardi discussed the parapets along the perimeter on the east elevation that changed in color but not in height. Commissioner Lambell stated that what they were looking for was a change of plane, color, texture and relief so it would have a friendly inviting feel. Mr. Ricciardi felt that this project showed changes of plane and color. Commissioner DeLuna stated that this building was in a residential area and was different from the corridor along Highway 111. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that he kept the scale down and it would be consistent with the new modernists homes being built in that area with straight roofs. Commissioner Hanson suggested decreasing the height of the lowest parapet by six (6) inches and a change in color. Commissioner Lambell asked if there would be signage on the building. Mr. Ricciardi indicated there would be signage, but it would be located further back and the address would appear on the front of the building for the Fire Department. Commissioner Lambell asked if there would be other materials besides stucco and plaster. Mr. Ricciardi indicated there would be cantera stone and the columns would be plaster or poured concrete that may possibly be sandblasted. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 18 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *so, .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case No. PP 07-05 & CUP 07-06 subject to: 1) creating continuous rooflines with openings for roof service at the parapet; 2) lowering the windows toward the floor plane to break up the south and west elevations; 3) decreasing height of the lowest parapets by six (6) inches; 4) a change in colors as recorded at the meeting on the color renderings; and, 5) review of landscape by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: N/A APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN BERNARDINO, Palm Desert Campus, 37-500 Cook Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of marquee monument signage for California State University San Bernardino. LOCATION: 37-500 Cook Street ZONE: Mr. Stendell informed the Commission that this project was being presented for some constructive criticism. He stated that the proposal didn't have a lot of design to it. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the University wanted to submit the plans to ARC for review and discussion and stated that marquee signs are not permitted by our code, but technically the City doesn't have jurisdiction because it was on State property. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the material was stone. The representative answered that it would be plaster. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the University would be matching the existing building in plaster. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070814.min.DOC Page 19 of 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION .MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2007 Commissioner Hanson stated that it was a traditionally styled sign and should be more contemporary to match the architecture of the building. Mr. Stendell stated that landscaping should be in context with the building, which is important with monument signs. Action: No action taken. Commission recommended: 1) a contemporary style to match the architecture of building; 2) using similar materials and elements; and, 3) landscaping to be in context with the style of the building. D. Information Item: At Staff's request, several Commissioners gave input on a proposed new building for the Coachella Valley Water District located at Hovley Lane and Beacon Hill. Action: No action taken. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. 4YAN*TERNDELLL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Piles\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070814.min.DOC Page 20 of 20