Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-13 � � � � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. il. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 Kristi Hanson X 3 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Ray Lopez X 3 Karen Oppenheim X 2 1 Karel Lambell X 2 1 Also Present Steve Smith, Acting Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Acting Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 23, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the January 23, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ` , ARCHITECTURAL tw�/IEW COMMISSION •� MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: C 06-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• EL PASEO COLLECTION NORTH, 73-061 EI Paseo, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of remodel of exterior storefront and improvements to rear elevations. LOCATION: 73-080 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 2. CA_SE_Np: MISC. 07-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)� SHAWNA RISNES, 73-180 Catalina, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new carport 20 feet from the curb. LOCATION: 73-180 Catalina ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that this item was continued from the last meeting because the applicant was not present and the Commission had some concerns with the construction detaifs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they had some concerns with the thin wood members and how they would be connected. With how thin the members were the wood would warp pretty quickly and would need repair in a few years. He asked the architect if he had considered that. G1PlanningUanineJudy�Word FifesWRC Minutes12007WR070213.rttin.DOC Page 2 of 25 , ' ' ' ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Rick Packebush, Architect stated that he had referred to the City's handout regarding a stand-alone trellis for size and used the connections that were suggestion in the brochure. Mr. Bagato asked if this was a Building and Safety handout and the architect indicated that it was given to him prior to the meeting with span requirements and construction detail. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were going to be Simpson type connectors with the post to beam connectors all exposed. The Architect responded more than likely since it was stated as such in the handout. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the handout was a UBC Type 5 non-rated handout for roof structures and those sizes were fine for those spans, however the architect was talking about an open trellis, so there would be an aesthetic consideration. He stated to the architect that he needed some larger members and to consider the connectors instead of having a bunch of Simpson connectors all over the place. Mr. Bagato mentioned that at the last meeting the Commission had suggested landscaping on the trellis. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would help, but they can't rely on that; it has to stand on it's own and look good. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the Commission found the design to be acceptable then they could consider allowing it and the landscape issue would not necessarily be a requirement on this particular design. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the 4 X 4s that are meant to brace the 2 X 8s will warp and the 2 X 8s will look like construction material and not a finished trellis material. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the span is 18 feet, which is a pretty big span for a 2 X 8. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they needed to size them based on aesthetics not the minimum listed on the chart. The architect stated that he went smaller so that it would not be so overpowering. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the architect take a look at the connections on other wood trellis' to see how they are connected, the size of the members and the proportions to use it as a starting point. G1PlanningUanine Judy�Word FilestARC Minutes\20071AR070213.rrun.DOC Page 3 of 25 ' ' ' ARCHITECTURAL�:VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioner Gregory asked if the setback was in line with code. Mr. Bagato stated that there was an exception to allow the carport to be 20 feet from the curb as approved by the Commission for aesthetic reasons. It is allowed per Code, but it is an exception from the standard. Mr. Sam Flores, neighbor presented a petition with several signatures opposing the carport. He stated his concerns regarding the upkeep of the carport and the issues that they have had with the applicant's tenants. Commissioner Gregory stated that Code Compliance would handle those issues. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this Commission deals with the aesthetics of the structure itself. Ms. Shawna Risnes, applicant stated that she reviewed at least four carports similar to this one within a three-block radius. She based the aesthetics of this carport on comparable carports in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hanson stated that because the architecture of the garage was so imposing and at an odd angle, she thought the trellis would be a nice addition. There are several carports on Haystack Road that look nice and add a degree of interest to the front of the homes. If the applicant landscapes the trellis properly with bougainvillea or some type of vine, it would add a sense of softening to the front of the residence. Ms. Risnes stated that the trellis goes with the cottage style of the house and fits within the same type of architecture. She is trying to better the neighborhood and add value to the property. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the trellis were designed to be a part of the house itself and the joints were hidden, it would be an asset. Mrs. Flores stated her concerns regarding the landscaping and how it wasn't being maintained, now there will be additional landscape that will not be maintained. Commissioner Gregory stated that this Commission was charged with reviewing the proposed structure and stated that it would be the applicant's decision whether or not to spruce up the landscaping. GIPIann�ngWanineJudylWord FilesWRC Minutes12007V1R070213.rtdn.DOC Page 4 of 25 ' � ' ARCHITECTURAL��/IEW COMMISSION �` MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Bagato stated that this Commission was here to look at the merits of the structure and to approve the setback 20 feet from the curb if it adds value architecturally to the house. That is their only task. The decision can be appealed to the City Council within 15 days and the neighbors can bring their petition and other concerns to the City Council. Mr. Flores stated that he has looked at other carports that have been well kept, but this carport is going to sag sooner or later and the applicant will never maintain it. Commissioner Gregory again stated that this Commission is only looking at this for the architectural design. City Council handles any appeals or concerns with respect to our decision. We are looking at the design only and will respond to that. Mrs. Flores asked if they could review the design. Mr. Bagato stated that they could review the plans anytime since it is public record, however these plans will be changing as indicated by the Commission today. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. He asked the architect if he understood the concerns expressed. Mr. Packebush stated that he understood. Commissioner Hanson gave the architect a sketch that he could utilize. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to continue Case No. MISC. 07-02. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. G:1PlanningUanine Judy\VVord FilesWRC Minutes12007WR070213.mn.DOC Page 5 of 25 � � � ARCHITECTURAL�t;VIEW COMMISSION `'r"'' MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 3. CASE NO: SA 07-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• SIGNTECH ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING, 4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego, CA 92102 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of business signage; Sprint LOCATION: 73-680 Highway 111 ZONE: C1-SP Mr. Bagato stated that there was an existing business at this location that had a Nextel and one other communication sign. The applicant is asking for two Sprint signs with a raceway because the office behind the wall would create issues with the electrical. Mr. Bagato informed the applicant that the Ordinance allows for one sign for frontage to keep buildings from being cluttered with signage. There is also a logo detail on the door, which is allowed per Code under a separate section. Mr. Peter Klein, Permit Agent stated that the construction is such that they cannot mount the letters individually on the wall so they would have to use the raceway. The two Sprint signs are a one for one replacement with the Sprint/Nextel merger. They are requesting two signs because there were two signs there before. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Nextel sign was a little bigger and looked like a backboard and asked if they could do it like that to hide the raceway. Mr. Klein stated that it was a routed-out push- through on a piece of inetal painted yellow. Commissioner Hanson stated then you wouldn't even notice there was a raceway back there. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you would notice it because it's south facing and you would see a shadow. Shadowing of the letters is fine, but when the raceway creates a shadow then it looks like a raceway. Mr. Bagato stated that initially it was a thinner raceway and informed the applicant to make the raceway architecturally blend in with the building to create a better design. Commissioner Hanson informed the applicant that they were allowed only one sign, either right or left. Commissioner Vuksic suggested the left side to take the attention away from the air conditioning unit. G:1PlannmgUanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�20071AR0�0213.min.DOC Page 6 of 25 � � � ARCHITECTURAL°'�eVIEW COMMISSION "�"` MINUTES — FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commission discussed the issues with the raceway. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could add a little mass to it and have the raceway flare out a bit so that it doesn't look like a box and curve it a little so that it wouldn't be two parallel raceway lines. Mr. Klein presented a sketch of what was suggested. Commissioner Vuksic stated that could work if it had a more gradual curve and suggested flaring it to make it look like it's a part of the sign. Commissioner Gregory suggested that Commissioner Vuksic assist the applicant with the design sketch. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case No. SA 07-08 subject to: 1) making raceway more interesting pursuant to sketch, and 2) removal of one sign. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 03-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• HOWARD HAIT, 44-650 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of an alternate material for the north elevation of a new 6,192 square foot two-story office building. LOCATION: 44-630 Monterey Avenue, Hearing Healthcare Services ZONE: O.P. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. G:\PlannmgWanlne JudylWord fdes4iRC Minutes120071AR070213.min.DOC Page 7 of 25 � � � ARCHITECTURAL�rNIEW COMMISSION �+`` MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 5. CASE NO.: SA 07-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• LARRY KRAMER. 1909 EI Camino Real, Redwood City, CA 94061. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of monument signage and landscaping for the Morgan Stanley Building, LOCATION: Highway 74 & Highway 111 ZONE: PC (3) SP Mr. Stendell indicated that he received plans for monuments signs for this location, but not the landscaping plans. He stated that it might be appropriate to deal with this all together. The applicant would be revising the landscaping on the corner and putting in some new monuments signs. The signs would be on a curved wall with stone veneer. If the Commission would like to see this in context with landscaping, we could continue this for that discussion. If not, the locations are identified on the plans. There were some retention issues with this building so we allowed them to put a wall in and now they are trying to match those curved walls. Commissioner Hanson asked if they needed two signs at the entrance and stated that it always feels tight if there was someone pulling out as you were pulling in. So anything that you do that's going to visually shrink that space is going to be a problem. She recommended placing a sign on the left side since that is the direction people would be coming from. Mr. Larry Kramer, representative stated that it was unfortunate, but they already have a portion of the monument up and the way the traffic flows it is facing the opposite direction; with the center divider no one traveling east can turn in. This would primarily be an identification sign for the center. With the renovation of the center we decided that we didn't want a reader board sign. We wanted to do something that would give some symmetry to the back entrance like one on each side. The sign up there now looks nice and it sits back about 10 feet and wouldn't cramp down the style of the entryway. However people driving east on EI Paseo will not see the writing or what the designation is for because of the curve of the sign. We just wanted to match it up with the other one to give it balance. G:\PlannmgWanlne Judy\Word FileSWRC Minute512007WR070213.min.DOC Page 8 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION ``'r""` MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Stendell thought that the only monument sign currently there was the one on the corner and stated that the other two had not been permitted. Mr. Kramer indicated that one of the two monument signs at the entrance was already there. Mr. Stendell stated that they did a landscape plan for the one building, but he didn't know that it included the other two signs. Mr. Bagato stated that they presented those plans at the counter as just walls and Staff was under the impression that there wouldn't be a sign there. Commissioner Hanson asked about the number of signs they could have. Mr. Stendell stated that Code calls for one per frontage, but they have in the past approved additional signs that had architectural merit. These walls came about on this project because the corner building had some retaining issues so they creatively made these meandering walls, which will tie into the entry signs. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how high the walls were. Mr. Kramer indicated that it was a little over 4 feet at the high end, tapering off to about 3 feet and about 18 inches wide. Mr. Bagato stated that this should be continued since they hadn't submitted a landscape plan and Public Works would probably have some concerns with line of sight issues with the corner monument on Highway 74 and EI Paseo. He suggested taking some photographs of what is there already, review the landscape plans and then look at it one more time. He also suggested that the applicant talk with Public Works to see if that corner could be approved. That may eliminate that one extra sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign on the site plan appears to be nicely done and settled even though it is a large sign. The two signs that you would see heading west seem to be about 240 feet apart. Mr. Kramer stated that the other ones are on EI Paseo. The sign on the corner is up on a hill, raised about 3 to 4 feet and is about 30 feet from the curb line, so it's really not going to affect the line of sight. Mr. Bagato stated that it would affect line of sight because you would have a 4-foot high wall on top of a grade and Public Works will have concerns about that. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager indicated that the Director of Public Works had commented on the sign on Highway 74 and EI Paseo and required it to be lowered. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�200T,4R070213.min.DOC Page 9 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case No. SA 07-24 subject to submitting landscape plans in context with signage. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 6. CASE NO: Pp 05-02/TT 34179/CZ 05-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• SUMMIT PROPERTIES, 2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for the clubhouse at Falling Waters. LOCATION: 73-600 35th Avenue ZONE: S1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 7. CASE NO: MISC 07-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI• MCG ARCHITECTURE, WALLACE WONG, 1055 E. Colorado Blvd. #400, Pasadena, CA 94061 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of repainting exterior of buildings at Desert Crossing Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-351 Painters Path ZONE: P.C. 3 Mr. Walface Wong, Architect stated that the colors represented on the drawings were not correct and presented drawings with the corrected colors. He stated that they wanted to update the center to be more in line with what other shopping centers have done. Most of the tenants are opening other stores within the region and they wanted to maintain their market base here by having an updated look on their buildings. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 10 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioner Hanson stated that she loved the shopping center with the color they have now and she was concerned with the new colors because they were very pastel. Mr. Wong stated that the other centers in the area are slowly going towards the natural brown color tones and such. Commissioner Hanson stated that the colors presented were very pastel looking as opposed to the warm desert colors. Commissioner Gregory stated that he heard that commercial centers have seven-year cycles because people get tired of the same color. So part of commercial retailing is having something different so that it feels trendy and new. Commissioner Hanson stated that she loved the colors and didn't mind that they wanted to change, but she questioned the colors that were presented. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how it would blend with the fiberglass roof structure. Mr. Wong indicated that the bluish fiberglass domes would not be changing. Mr. Stendell stated that the colors presented were for the storefronts only and not the backs of the buildings and was concerned about the back and didn't know if the Commission would want it painted all the way around. Mr. Wong stated that the back of the long building would not be changing and would remain white. Commissioner Van Vliet couldn't imagine painting just part of the building and not the entire center. Commissioner Lambell stated that the backsides of the buildings needed attention and not just the storefronts. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Wong if he understood that the entire center would be repainted and not just specific portions. Mr. Wong stated that each of the pad buildings would be repainted with the exception of Islands and Target. Commissioner Lambell asked about the number of awnings and their colors. Mr. Wong indicated that there would be three awnings and they would be a brownish color. Commissioner Hanson felt that the combination of paint colors and the colors of the awnings would be wild. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed due to the darkness of the awnings and the pastel colors on the buildings. Commissioner Hanson stated that the colors should be more towards the warm side as opposed to the cool side; more desert colors like sage green and a warmer orange. She stated that all the colors presented would fade because the sun is so intense here and would wash out every color you put on the buildings. You would have to put on a couple of shades darker than what you actually want. CQmmissioner Gregory agreed with Commissioner Hanson's suggestion to go with an earthy version of the colors G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes12007WR070213.min.DOC Page 11 of 25 r ARCHITECTURAL F�/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 presented. He mentioned other centers that had used different colors and had to be repainted and he didn't want the applicant to go down that same path. Mr. Shelton Weeks, Regional Director of Property Management, stated that most of the large anchors within Desert Crossing were the first foray into the valley and just within the last th�ee plus years have built duplicate stores here in the valley. He presented photos of a number. of other stores that tend to be more attractive to the shoppers and asked if these were the colors that the Commission was looking for. The Commission indicated that those were the colors. Mr. Weeks also expressed that from a maintenance point of view the back of the center didn't need to be painted, but he understands the Commissions concerns since there is more of a focus on the back now. He also wanted to clarify that Target would not be repainted. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case No. MISC 07-03 subject to: 1) warmer desert colors; and, 2) attention to back of buildings. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 8. CASE NO: SA 06-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• ALL SIGNS AMERICA, 15481 Redhill Avenue, Suite B, Tustin, CA 92780 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three (3) LED illuminated signs with channel letters; Bedrosians Tile and Marble. LOCATION: 73-550 Dinah Shore ZONE: Mr. Stendell presented plans for three 36" LED illuminated signs and was concerned with the letter size. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesUlRC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 12 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL�"VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES — — FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioner Hanson referred to the working drawings and stated that the front of the building looked significantly better than the current drawing. She pointed out that the sign was originally approved to be on the awning and asked why they put the sign up on the wall. She also asked about the absence of the blue tile inserts that added interest to the front of the building. Mr. Greg Elmassian, Director of Operations stated that they couldn't determine if the sign was to be mounted on the metal railing because you can't quite build a channel set letter sign bolted to the bottom of the railing and have it stand-up in the wind since the sign would be made out of aluminum. Then they pushed it straight back against the building itself and couldn't see it from the parking lot because of how the metal railing sticks out. It's an issue with visibility. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the reasons why this building was approved was because of the way the signage was presented and this is a difference between night and day. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that iYs not just the signage, it also the building. Mr. Stendell asked what happened to the depressions on the face of the building. Mr. Elmassian stated that they were still there and that the tile inserts hadn't been completed yet because they were still installing the showroom. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the building had a stucco face and was it a blown-on stucco finish. Mr. Elmassian answered that it was stucco but wasn't sure if it was blown-on. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was their intention to come back and place the tile inserts after the stucco. Mr. Elmassian stated that the blue tile inserts hadn't been installed yet and it appeared that they wouldn't be there with the same frequency. Commissioner Lambell stated that the building wasn't to the point where the Commission approved it, because we had originally approved something else. These were two different things. So until the building looks more like what the Commission had approved, iYs difficult for us to understand why you are deviating from the sign. Mr. Elmassian stated that the only difference he could see between the working drawings and the current drawing was the blue tile inserts and asked what drawings he should be working from. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he needed to work with what was approved; the working drawings. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVlRC Minutes�20071AR070213.min.DOC Page 13 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION """'''� MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Commissioner Lambell urged the applicant to go back and get the building back to what had been approved and then see where the sign fits the best. Right now this sign isn't expensive looking and not what you want to portray as Bedrosian Tile. Mr. Elmassian stated that he had banners up on the building that would soon expire and asked about placing a sign on the freeway side. The rear of the building is complete and it doesn't have any of the other detail, other than the tile inserts. Commissioner Hanson stated they hadn't taken into consideration that those tiles were there and placed some of their signage. That would be the case on all three sides because those tiles are supposed to be everywhere. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they liked the signs the way they had been approved and just because the signs were aluminum didn't mean that it couldn't be done. Commissioner Gregory asked if their was a disconnect between the designer and the owners with what had been approved. Mr. Stendell stated that Staff happened to see the signage along with the architecture when it went through, but the preliminary approval didn't include the signage. The fact that we saw it in that location had a lot to do with that front elevation. Mr. Elmassian stated that the Commission made it clear that they liked the signage on the awning and he would figure out how to do it. He then asked for a little guidance about the other sides of the building. Commissioner Hanson suggested that he take into consideration what the Commission reviewed on the working drawings. She suggested incorporating the signage in a way that makes sense, not just sticking signage up on the most convenient spot of the building. Mr. Elmassian stated that on one side of the building the signage interFered with the roof structure and the other side they wanted to bring the sign as close to the street as possible because there will be a building immediately west, which means any sign on the west side of the building cfosest to the street will be worthless. Commissioner Hanson said to take the architecture into consideration with the signage. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 14 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Bagato stated that they didn't want to see letters going across the blue tile. Mr. Elmassian stated that would be a problem because the blue tiles are spaced very close together, closer than the length of any reasonable sign that anyone could see. Mr. Bagato stated that was the reason why we wanted the signage on the design from the beginning so we know how the building works with the signage. Commissioner Gregory stated that since they are working with All Signs America have them figure that out. Mr. Allen Gale, Representative for All Signs America stated that this was the first time he saw the working drawings, but would review it. He knew what some of the questions were and has been working with Mr. Stendell. Mr. Elmassian informed the Commission that they were a 50-year- old company, with 32 branches nationwide and our sign color is red. He stated that the drawings show the sign as white and wanted to know if this would be another stumbling block. We do not have a corporate logo and this would be the closest thing to our logo, which is a blocked faced sign. Mr. Stendell stated that we do recognize federally trademark colors, other than that it is up to the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Hanson asked for a couple of other options for review; not for all of the signs but maybe the front sign. Mr. Elmassian said that the front sign would be the most important trade marking of their company. Commissioner Gregory suggested that he come up with some ideas for review and then we'll do everything we can to make it work. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue Case SA 06-21 subject to: 1) submitting plans consistent with preliminary plans; and 2) providing detailed color samples for signage. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 15 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. 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; Edmund's & Stark's Auto Service Station. LOCATION: 73-731 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Commissioner Vuksic indicated that the building looked really good, however he had some concerns with the thickness of some of the elements because of the way they were rendered. The applicant had some deep shadows that look like thick walls in the plan although he could tell they were not. He wondered if they had some room to beef it up. He referred to the wall facing the street with several punched windows and stated that the offset befinreen that wall and the wall in front of it was only 6 inches. He asked what the setback was and could they add more to offset it. Mr. Merko Stark, owner stated that at one time he did consider the deepness of those windows because it reminded him of a sniper's nest. That was his only complaint and suggested to Mr. Shenasi to make the windows thinner. Commissioner Hanson suggested eliminating one window on each end since that element pops out away from the building. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the doors with the same red shape as on the side. The doors had a shadow line, but iYs really just a thin wall and asked if they could recess those. The doors have a bigger opening and it would be more important to get some thickness there. Mr. Stark stated that he could recess the doors. Mr. Stendell asked about the colors that were submitted. Mr. Hamid Shenasi stated that they were color options. ` Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the office air conditioning units and roof access would be located. Mr. Shenasi indicated the A/C units would be on the roof above the offices with an internal GlPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FileslARC Minute5�20071AR070213.min.DOC Page 16 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 roof access. Mr. Stendell asked him to show the access on the plans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they wanted to make sure that all these things were happening in the high parapet so there wouldn't be any ladders going over. Commissioner Lopez referred to the lights that were represented on the landscape plan and not the working drawings. They appeared to be floodlights and mounted on the corners of the building. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant would be subject to the City's parking lot lighting ordinance and if they had some kind of arched floodlight they would not conform to the City standards. Mr. Shenasi presented pictures of the scones that he would be using, which had a contemporary flavor. Commissioner Van Vliet reminded the applicant to check with Waste Management to make sure that the trash enclosure would work because they would never be able to get a truck in there. Commissioner Hanson mentioned that she like the coloring on the north elevation. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that they needed to submit a landscape plan prior to getting a building permit. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval subject to submitting a color board and landscaping plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 07-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• BOB $ MARILYN FORD, 73-550 Alessandro Drive Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 2,486 square foot two-story office building. LOCATION: 73-141 Fred Waring ZONE: OP G:\PlanningUanine JudylWord FilesWRC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 17 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL I�""VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Bagato presented a parcel surrounded by two existing projects. The applicant needed a small office building and parking spaces so they developed a design where you drive under the building. The tower element is over 25 feet so they will be going to Council for that approval. The site plan will change a little due to set back issues. They will push the building out two feet closer to comply with the set backs in the rear, lose one parking space, have more landscaping in the front and the air conditioning equipment and screen walls will go on the other side. Commissioner Lambell asked what the parapet height was. Mr. Bagato answered that the overall height of the parapet was 25 feet and lowers toward the back of the property. With it being 25 feet high it had to be 60 feet away from a single family. That is why the building had to come up a little closer. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the roof on the tower element was a hip. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be a turret. Mr. Bagato stated that they would also be changing one of the rear walls. The wall would have to come up a little and have fewer windows since it is residential in the back. It would be 5 feet above the finished board with thinner windows. Commission discussed the location of the signage. It was suggested that they use a monument sign. Commissioner Lopez indicated that there were palm trees on the drawings but not on the landscape plan. He thought they accented the building. The Commission discussed the different types of palm trees. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes12007WR070213.min.DOC Page 18 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 3. CASE NO: PP 07-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• UNIVERSITY OFFICE PARK, LLC, GREG SHANNON, 74-596 Peppertree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 25,000 square foot one-story building. LOCATION: 75072, 75-060, 75-108, 75-120 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD FCOZ Mr. Bagato stated that the agenda referred to this as one building but it will actually be four separate buildings located within the development that is on the north side of Gerald Ford and east of Cook Street. It will be on the back end of the project with access from a private driveway and will not be on any gated streets. It will be four separate parcels designed to look like one building with strong contemporary architecture. He indicated that he did not have any concerns with the site plan. Some landscaping comments were made and that information was given to the landscape architect. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant preliminary approval. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Vuksic and Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Oppenheim absent. 4. CASE NO; pp 05-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• WESTERN NATIONAL REALTY ADVISORS, 8 Executive Circle, Irvine, CA 92867 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 103 multifamily residences. LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra ZONE: PCD G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word FileslARC Minutes\2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 19 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL I�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Mr. Bagato stated that back in 2005 Taylor Woodrow had a large residential project approved on the north side of Frank Sinatra. At that time we reviewed a preliminary plan for 103 apartment units which received conceptual approval. The applicant for the apartment building is here today to submit some architectural plans in order to move forward with preliminary approval. The project has already been approved through the Planning Commission and City Council and is coming back now for architectural review. Mr. Taylor Gray, Representative, stated that Western National Realty Advisors (WNRA) purchased the property from the landowner as part of the Spanish Walk master plan. Giving a brief history of WNRA, he stated that the company was founded in 1964; they manage 27,000 units and are the second largest apartment owner and manager in Orange County. They are now beginning to expand into the desert, this being their first project. He directed his design team, which was the original design team, to make it as compatible and as much like Spanish Walk as possible. He was given elevations and a site plan that was adjusted in the approval process. From the original site plan they moved things around quite a bit to see if they could make it work better. He then presented color boards, site plans and elevations that were developed from the original approval. Mr. Stendell stated that the apartment pad was laid out in the preliminary approval, however the number of apartments in the site plan was determined by the day care center and this conforms to what was approved. Mr. Gray indicated that they were approved for 103 units and it is in the same building look, shape and feel, but with the creation of the day care they lost units and had to move things around. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it was hard to review it without a site plan. Mr. Stendell agreed and stated that previously we saw it on an 11 X 17 conceptual basis along with Taylor Woodrow's understanding that we would get more information. Mr. Gray asked for a little guidance from the Commission. He knows that he needs to come back for a formal approval and before spending money on additional drawings he wanted to make sure he wasn't going down the wrong road. Commissioner Gregory asked G:1PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2007U1R070213.min.DOC Page 20 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �°VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 if he was looking for a formal decision. Mr. Gray indicated that he wasn't. Mr. Stendell indicated that Mr. Gray wanted reassurance that the Commission was buying into his idea since WNRA bought the project from the original developers. � Mr. Gray stated that the unit count remains the same, the big green open space has been reserved as a day care center site and the affordable housing agreement was being reviewed. The key circulation elements remained the same, but there were some issues with Fire. He met with the Fire Department and the plan was approved for circulation purposes. Mr. Stendell stated the City is collecting development impact fees on day care centers. Mr. Gray indicated that if it doesn't move forward within a number of years it would revert back to the landowner who sold the parcel to WNRA. They left the property line for the day care center about 5 feet behind the curb and would be putting in landscaping, a sidewalk and a wall. The Commission reviewed the three color boards. Mr. Gray indicated that the colors are in keeping with what was originally submitted. They were trying to go with two different color schemes for the buildings with the roof materials switching between the buildings and the clubhouse roof being slightly different. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the roof tile was two-piece tile or was it S-tile and if it had any boost to it. Mr. Gray indicated that he did not know. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if you use a concrete tile that is made to look like two-piece tile and add some boost to it with some mortar it would look a lot richer. Mr. Gray said that he took pictures of what they were doing at Taylor Woodrow and his architect will duplicate that. Mr. Gray commented that WNRAs landscape architect has also been instructed to take Taylor Woodrow's landscape drawings for the medium and the area between the back and the railroad tracks and duplicate that as well. Mr. Stendell reminded the applicant that the landscape would not be included in this motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant preliminary approval subject to review of landscape plan by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word FileslARC Minutes�2007WR070213.mfn.DOC Page 21 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION ""'"" MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 5. CASE NO: PP 06-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• PATRICK YANG, 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, CA 91776 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a four story hotel, 88-unit hotel with restaurant and related amenities; Candlewood Hotel. LOCATION: 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant was requesting a 4-story hotel just east of Cook Street on Gerald Ford. This is in an area where we have allowed height exceptions up to 45 feet for tower elements. The top of their parapet is 44 feet and it's 50 feet 6 inches to the highest tower. Looking at the site plan you are entering with the length of the lower portion and transitioning into the higher portion. This does reflect the new landscape plan. Mr. John Wang, co-owner of the land introduced himself and his team. He stated that they would be developing and managing the hotel. They wanted to be a part of Palm Desert and have taken pride in this project. Mr. Michael Song, Architect, stated that they started this project more than a year ago with Mr. Phil Drell. When we first presented the idea for a hotel at that site, Mr. Drell indicated that they didn't want to see the normal guest room type of hotel. So we chose the product called Candlewood Hotel, which is part of Holiday Inn. This new product line is wider in the front and shorter in the back and gives you more of a home feeling with a studio type look. Their elevation design for the proto type was very different from the desert scheme and was more like a country hotel design. We changed the exterior design and worked with the CC&R requirements and the details. After the CC&R review, we mixed that design scheme with the overa�l site. Mr: Song indicated that the tallest building in that complex was 45 feet and was at the entrance. Mr. Stendell stated that it was the Kaiser Building and it sits further back with a green tower element to screen their mechanical equipment. Mr. Song stated that their tallest tower was 50 feet and the building parapet was 44 feet. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FileslARC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 22 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 Even though it was a 4-story building, from floor to floor it was 9 feet. The overall height is actually not that high and compared to a commercial building it's probably about 2 to 3 stories high. Commissioner Hanson stated that she liked the flavor of the hotel, but the only thing that looked a little odd was the restaurant. Because the hotel was so tall it made the restaurant look very small. She urged Mr. Song to change some of the features so that it wasn't so tall and narrow. She liked the building and stated that they did a great job articulating it with all the ins and outs on it. She thought that the proportions of the restaurant and the vertical elements re-accentuate the fact that it is a tiny version of the hotel. She suggested making it not so identical to the hotel. Commissioner Lambell asked where the air conditioning units would be located. Mr. Song answered that they would be flat units on the exterior underneath the windows and painted the same color as the window molding. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the tower elements where they have bands projecting out under the windows. Mr. Song stated that some of the rooms would have a split system because they were not able to put in a window unit. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were any specifications for those units. The Commission reviewed the plans for the air conditioning units and the split system. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they had enough parapet height to screen the condensing units on the split system. The Commission reviewed the parapets heights. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would be 42 inches with a 6-inch pad. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would work. Mr. Song indicated that some of the units would be closer to the middle of the building. Commissioner Vuksic remarked that they showed good depth in all the 3-dimensional drawings and even the bands on the tower elements were popped out. He stated that the Commission would be looking at the final drawings to make sure that it is carried through and doesn't get flat during the engineering process. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if everything was stucco finish and were they relying entirely on paint to give the different colors. He was concerned with the paint because a lot of the colors listed on the color board were going to fade out and blend together. He asked if the stucco was all the same textures; for instance, was the wainscot at the bottom going to be the same texture as it vertically G:IPlanningWanine Judy\Word RIes1ARC Minutes12007WR070213.min.DOC Page 23 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL �IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 goes up the walls. Mr. Song stated that there would be different textures, some rougher than others and the larger areas would be smoother. Commissioner Hanson urged the applicant to go with warmer, darker desert colors especially if they would be relying on the colors to get the variations on the buildings. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were other materials that they would be using besides plaster to provide other contrasting elements on the vertical and horizontal lines. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they did that in a smooth finish it would look like another material, particularly if it was a dark smooth finish that would give it a trellis look as opposed to a plaster look. Commissioner Vuksic stated they needed to look at a different type of roofing material for the restaurant; it looks like it has a token roof. The pitch is so steep that it looks "cheesy" and they would need to shallow that and make it larger and more elegant looking like the other ones. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant preliminary approval of the architecture of the hotel subject to: 1) submitting color board with darker, warmer desert colors; 2) clarification of roofing material; 3) review of landscape plan by Landscape Manager; and 4) restaurant to return with revisions and re-submittal of architecture. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of slope "rehab"; Desert Gateway. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey ZONE: PC-3 Action: No action was taken. Discussion purposes only. G:1Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files�.4RC Minutes�2007WR070213.min.DOC Page 24 of 25 ARCHITECTURAL�VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Oppenheim absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. c�,_.-""'_—.. TONY BAGAT ACTING PLANNING MANAGER G:1PlanningWarnne Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes12007�AR070213.min.DOC Page 25 of 25